because the value of the property goes up more if it isn’t rented. it’s used as an asset to borrow against.
renting a property is work and risk. not renting it… is no work and no risk.
the issue is you are thinking like a poor person. not a rich person. rich people don’t need more income… they need assets which they can borrow against. often they borrow against one building… to buy another, now they have two buildings they can borrow against… and as long as the value keeps going up they win.
just like stock. rich people don’t sell their stock. they borrow against it. and it’s tax-free that way. poor people sell their stock to make money.
it’s also why rich people want the interest rates to be near zero. because it makes borrowing dirt cheap.
because the value of the property goes up more if it isn’t rented. it’s used as an asset to borrow against.
renting a property is work and risk. not renting it… is no work and no risk.
the issue is you are thinking like a poor person. not a rich person. rich people don’t need more income… they need assets which they can borrow against. often they borrow against one building… to buy another, now they have two buildings they can borrow against… and as long as the value keeps going up they win.
just like stock. rich people don’t sell their stock. they borrow against it. and it’s tax-free that way. poor people sell their stock to make money.
it’s also why rich people want the interest rates to be near zero. because it makes borrowing dirt cheap.
Can you cite statistics that show vacant properties increase in value more quickly? Im incredulous.
Renting a property is work and risk, but in exchange you receive rent income.
If you have a portfolio of properties, you’re not about to leave that free money on the table.
The issue here is that youre thinking like an idiot.