Well my tenant is one person who beat the system! Never has to work, period.
What the parent is saying though is that your tenant is only the middle man transferring wealth from the society to you; you are the one who ends up with the money in this scenario.
The tenant ends up with a roof overhead.
He's the hand sanitizer guy. Taking land off the market then "solving" the supply issue.
You're confusing real estate with dwellings. Renting land is an issue for farmers. Adam Smith had a lot more sympathy for sharecroppers than for apartment dwellers. Even the most basic apartment represents tens of thousands of dollars in investment. No one is going to make that investment without hope of charging "rent". Modern standards don't allow for hovels to be built of local materials on vacant land in a few weeks, as was possible in Smith's time.
And I transfer my wealth to everyone else I pay money to! Welcome to economics.
Please don't feed flamewars regardless of who started it or how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. We've had to ask you this before.
Sure, but your comment about the tenant beating the system can sound quite hypocritical when it's also you who found a way to receive other taxpayers' money. There could be many ways to do the same thing, and we should acknowledge we built a system that ultimately benefits the capitalist class.
I'm not criticizing you being a landlord here, just pointing out you're both using the system to your benefit and not only your tenant.
I rent to whoever pays and my tenant has a section 8 voucher and passed all the checks. They aren’t a bad tenant, but I rent to people who can pay - the government pays me because the tenant selected my unit and applied.