CM6 is still possible

[august]

Thanks for your post.

My interpretation and understanding of meritocracy is "the provision of equal opportunities in the environment for development, growth and progress to all participants, regardless of their background, creed and color; the allowance for outcomes based on individual capability and performance in the system".

The key idea in this is "equal opportunity". The opposing idealogy is "equal outcome" which refers to "the push for similar, if not identical, results for all participants regardless of their background, creed and color".

Both "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome" are mutually exclusive because their bases are totally inverse of each other.

Over the years, the message that has been communicated (repeatedly drilled) to the people is that meritocracy is the way forward and that everyone should be given access to the same opportunities while their performance and capabilities will determine their rewards.

The cooling measures negate the principles of "equal opportunity" by adjusting the playing field based on the traits of the individual participant. No longer is the individual participant given the right to perform based on his resources and abilities (in the property market). Instead, he is penalised for having exceeded an invisible threshold which is determined by the state.

My view is that are two ways of carrying out market equalisation. The first approach is top-down by slowing down those leading the pack. This appears to be the motivation behind the implementation of the cooling measures. The second approach is bottom-up by granting/increasing advantages to those who are trailing so that they have a better chance of catching up.

Between the two, the latter requires more time to take effect because it is also dependent on the willingness and industriousness of those who are trailing to utilise the advantages effectively. However it is fairer across the board than the former because it does not directly penalise the leading participants.

Last but not least, consistency is important when it comes to policies. This is because this affects the view that the world has of our country. For years, the world has seen Singapore as a transparent and politically consistent country that allows for equal opportunities atop an objective platform. The latest cooling measures have turned that view upside-down and expose us to the risk of being bundled into the same heap as the rest of our neighbours.

If our stand now is that social welfare takes precedence over meritocracy, it is important that the message be clearly spelt out so that there is no ambiguity. This will go the distance and reduce uncertainties in the property market instead of casting shadows that vary according to the time of day. The reduction of uncertainties will help to set a clearer direction for all who intend to buy/sell for investment or own-stay.

Having said all these, I would like to clarify that there is a third group in the considerations - the physically and mentally handicapped who lack the essentials necessary to compete in this environment. This group should be taken care of by the state and they should not be subject to the ideals of meritocracy.

Should you manage to finish reading the WOT (wall-of-text) above, a big thank you for your time and patience.

i think you have chosen to apply the concept of meritocracy and "equal opportunity" in the manner that suits your argument.

But meritocracy is not the issue here. The basis of ABSD is one of taxation. Do u tax the rich more than the poor, both the same, or the rich less and the poor more? That's the issue.

[kane]

can still buy, just don't expect to sell in 4 years and have the developer absorb that 3% for you.

[amk]

But meritocracy is not the issue here. The basis of ABSD is one of taxation. Do u tax the rich more than the poor, both the same, or the rich less and the poor more? That's the issue.

Taxing the rich more to help the poor is the result AFTER u practice meritocracy. Because meritocracy allows any one with capability to get rich faster, and richer. After that the state takes over the role for redistribution for the society.
In this case the gov attempts to stop the one with capability to get richer.
If the gov had wanted to tax the rich more, it could simply have increased the pty tax, or income tax for higher brackets.
ABSD is more like a deterrent, not a tax

[august]

Taxing the rich more to help the poor is the result AFTER u practice meritocracy. Because meritocracy allows any one with capability to get rich faster, and richer. After that the state takes over the role for redistribution for the society.
In this case the gov attempts to stop the one with capability to get richer.
If the gov had wanted to tax the rich more, it could simply have increased the pty tax, or income tax for higher brackets.
ABSD is more like a deterrent, not a tax

higher income bracket attracts more tax. Has this deterred anyone from trying to reach a higher income bracket? same principle applies for ABSD.

personally i am not for CM6, but i can understand its necessity. Those of us who are investors and in the first place hold mulitple properties shld be financially nimble enough to stomach such financial risks.

[Eastboy]

Taxing the rich more to help the poor...

This reminds me of a story I've read recently:
----

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[teddybear]

Where got same?
For income tax, if I earn more I am willing to pay more tax.
For ABSD, even before I make any money (I could have lost lots of money), and expect me to pay 10% tax upfront?
Furthermore, if I have ability to buy, why should I pay ABSD for buying more properties just because some people can't and CPCB for govt to help them make properties cheaper for them to buy?

Investors is willing to shoulder any risk, but not when the rules say you are category A (e.g. Foreigners) you must pay 10% more tax! You are category B (eg PRs) you must pay more tax after buying more than 1 property! Worst still, you may be in Category A but you are citizens of a specific few country (eg USA) you can be exempted from this same tax!!!

higher income bracket attracts more tax. Has this deterred anyone from trying to reach a higher income bracket? same principle applies for ABSD.

personally i am not for CM6, but i can understand its necessity. Those of us who are investors and in the first place hold mulitple properties shld be financially nimble enough to stomach such financial risks.

[mcmlxxvi]

...
Between the two, the latter requires more time to take effect because it is also dependent on the willingness and industriousness of those who are trailing to utilise the advantages effectively. However it is fairer across the Last but not least, consistency is important when it comes to policies. This is because this affects the view that the world has of our country. For years, the world has seen Singapore as a transparent and politically consistent country that allows for equal opportunities atop an objective platform. The latest cooling measures have turned that view upside-down and expose us to the risk of being bundled into the same heap as the rest of our neighbours.
...

Yes i did finish reading every word, and my first thoughts were the I word - Inconsistent (not Idiots!!) right before you also mentioned it in your prose.

[samsara]

I have described meritocracy as I have construed it and my argument is based on that interpretation, not the other way around as you have suggested.

My personal take on ABSD and general taxation is that they arise from different needs/intentions and therefore the natures of the two are not the same. ABSD serves primarily to equalise (and flatten) the market while the primary aim of general taxation is income generation for the state. Although there are overlaps, the motivation for each is dissimilar.

In line with this point of argument, the nature of ABSD violates meritocracy as I understand it while that of general taxation does not.

i think you have chosen to apply the concept of meritocracy and "equal opportunity" in the manner that suits your argument.

But meritocracy is not the issue here. The basis of ABSD is one of taxation. Do u tax the rich more than the poor, both the same, or the rich less and the poor more? That's the issue.

[samsara]

Please do not get me wrong. While I am highlighting the inappropriateness of the CMs (particularly CM5) due to the counter-meritocratic nature (per my understanding), I am sure those who are affected by it would have adjusted (or are adjusting) their strategies to mitigate its effects. The irony of the situation is that these measures may eventually hurt those that they were meant to placate (first-time buyers rushing in to fill the void in the market created by the exodus of the more experienced investors).

higher income bracket attracts more tax. Has this deterred anyone from trying to reach a higher income bracket? same principle applies for ABSD.

personally i am not for CM6, but i can understand its necessity. Those of us who are investors and in the first place hold mulitple properties shld be financially nimble enough to stomach such financial risks.

[samsara]

This is a very well-written piece of writing and it does an excellent job in highlighting the flaws of socialism and communism which in effect are idealogies based on "equal outcomes". Communism is very attractive in its ideals - everyone receives equally. However as reality has demonstrated, it can only work well in an ant's nest.

The main issue with socialism and communism (as what Eastboy's article has clearly shown) lies in human nature - envy and sloth:

Why should I work hard if my neighbour gets the same reward without working as hard?

This reminds me of a story I've read recently:
----

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[blackjack21trader]

I am amazed at the great stuffs brothers here are churning out. either you guys should be in positions of leadership or otherwise it will be a total waste of your insightful minds.

your most handsome brother here have gained another level by reading this thread

Thank You.

[august]

I have described meritocracy as I have construed it and my argument is based on that interpretation, not the other way around as you have suggested.

My personal take on ABSD and general taxation is that they arise from different needs/intentions and therefore the natures of the two are not the same. ABSD serves primarily to equalise (and flatten) the market while the primary aim of general taxation is income generation for the state. Although there are overlaps, the motivation for each is dissimilar.

In line with this point of argument, the nature of ABSD violates meritocracy as I understand it while that of general taxation does not.

meritocracy in the ordinary and accepted meaning of the concept applies to the accordment of responsibilities and appointments based on individual merit.

does having more $$ than others makes one a more meritorius individual? of cos not. When an individual acquires factors of production (land, property etc, and not appointments or positions), meritocracy also does not come into play at all, bcos as long as u can pay it is yours. When u go buy a car or a bag of potatoes, do u have to proof any individual merit before u are allowed to buy? of cos not. Another e.g. bigger capacity cars have to pay higher COE, are you going to it is also an assault on meritocracy?

so the distinction in my mind is quite clear. bringing in meritocracy is not logical and obfuscates the issue.

[august]

This is a very well-written piece of writing and it does an excellent job in highlighting the flaws of socialism and communism which in effect are idealogies based on "equal outcomes". Communism is very attractive in its ideals - everyone receives equally. However as reality has demonstrated, it can only work well in an ant's nest.

The main issue with socialism and communism (as what Eastboy's article has clearly shown) lies in human nature - envy and sloth:

Why should I work hard if my neighbour gets the same reward without working as hard?

the article is mischevious and are the kind of exaggerated misinformation that comes out from the political right. Obama's plans are nothing near communism or socialism. Communism and socialism means the nationalisation of all facotrs of production. Is this the case at all? Of cos not. The Republicans or political right in the US traditonally serve the interests of corporates and the rich. This group have powerful lobbies and well-funded think tanks. And they will kpkb in the face of any policy changes that are not beneficial to their backers.

[kane]

This forum has socio-political analyst as well. Interesting points.

[avo7007]

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

Lol. The whole test is based on a false premise. Obama = Socialism? This assertion has been debunked over and over again.

[Petersim]

Well said Eastboy,
This scenario also exactly has the same application to a family nucleus' financial support / provision in excess to their offsprings, rendering them incompetent to face the real rat race world out there

This reminds me of a story I've read recently:
----

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[howgozit]

Hi Samsara,

IMHO August's correctly defines the concept of meritocracy. A quick check on the dictionary would also support his description.

Whether the cooling measures are fair or not will depend on who you are asking, but in my view it is not an attack on meritocracy.

meritocracy in the ordinary and accepted meaning of the concept applies to the accordment of responsibilities and appointments based on individual merit.

does having more $$ than others makes one a more meritorius individual? of cos not. When an individual acquires factors of production (land, property etc, and not appointments or positions), meritocracy also does not come into play at all, bcos as long as u can pay it is yours. When u go buy a car or a bag of potatoes, do u have to proof any individual merit before u are allowed to buy? of cos not. Another e.g. bigger capacity cars have to pay higher COE, are you going to it is also an assault on meritocracy?

so the distinction in my mind is quite clear. bringing in meritocracy is not logical and obfuscates the issue.

[howgozit]

Just for discussion,

I generally agree with what you have written.

However, the distinct divergence of our views lie in wealth being an indication of ability. The idea of meritocracy precisely separates wealth from being an advantage for advancement.

Cheers!

Thanks for your reply.

I agree that there are differences in our interpretation of meritocracy and that these are probably the roots of our differences in opinions.

For discussion purposes, do you agree with the following premises?

i. Those who possess wealth but do not have the ability will quickly lose it.

ii. Those with ability will be able to surmount difficulties faced when trying to grow their wealth.

If so, in time there should be convergence of the two i.e. the ones with ability will also become the ones who are wealthy (provided of course that they are interested in wealth in the first place). This is the primary consequence of a capitalist system.

Perhaps I am just being pedantic but my grouse with the policy-makers is not that they have implemented the cooling measures but that the nature of these measures is not in keeping with the messages that they had been putting forth (meritocracy, pro-investment, etc).

Income tax has always been part and parcel of living and working in Singapore. Any one who earns an income, be he wealthy or not, is well aware of the existence of the tiered structure of this form of taxation. The rules are laid out before him and he begins the journey of wealth creation with the understanding that high income earners will be taxed more than the rest.

Though we have our differences in opinions, I really appreciate the effort that you have made in keeping this discussion amicable.

[samsara]

Hi Bros Howgozit and August,

Thanks for replying.

I appreciate the time and effort put in by that those who have been involved in the brief debate. I believe the points that I have put forward quite clearly illustrate my personal interpretation of meritocracy and I am sorry if it does not align with yours.

The idealogy of meritocracy has evolved greatly over the years and it may not be viable to depend on just a dictionary for its exact definition and breadth of scope. If you do a quick check on the various dictionaries available online, you will find various meanings offered. The majority define it as what you and bro August have cited. There is however a handful whose definitions are closer to my interpretations.

Nevertheless, as it would be pointless to launch a debate over which dictionaries are legitimate and which are not, I believe we can leave the discussion as it is and just keep our minds open to possibilities from both ends.

Ultimately, what is important for Singapore as a nation is that the system of governance and policy-making is based on a robust and sound platform with principles grounded in a clearly defined set of idealogies and beliefs. I am not dogmatic about meritocracy, it is only a set of idealogies, no more.

Thanks and wishing you all a good day ahead.

Hi Samsara,

IMHO August's correctly defines the concept of meritocracy. A quick check on the dictionary would also support his description.

Whether the cooling measures are fair or not will depend on who you are asking, but in my view it is not an attack on meritocracy.

[samsara]

Thanks and cheers!

Just for discussion,

I generally agree with what you have written.

However, the distinct divergence of our views lie in wealth being an indication of ability. The idea of meritocracy precisely separates wealth from being an advantage for advancement.

Cheers!

[mcmlxxvi]

This is a very well-written piece of writing and it does an excellent job in highlighting the flaws of socialism and communism which in effect are idealogies based on "equal outcomes". Communism is very attractive in its ideals - everyone receives equally. However as reality has demonstrated, it can only work well in an ant's nest.

The main issue with socialism and communism (as what Eastboy's article has clearly shown) lies in human nature - envy and sloth:

Why should I work hard if my neighbour gets the same reward without working as hard?

Thanks bros Samsara and Eastboy for the insightful prose.

May i ask one question?

For landlords who are sitting around doing nothing really collecting rent and living off it, are they considered leeches of society then? (note well in this case, that they have worked hard to get where they are owning multiple properties)

From the productivity sense, i am inclined to say yes.

But from the fact that they have once actively contributed to the society while working, and now still pay income and property tax to contribute to Nation building, i would say that they are not.

What say you? Leech or not?

[teddybear]

Cannot say like that mah, why call Leech? The landlords are also doing own business, providing properties out for rental. Without them, those foreigners & PRs got to live in HDB void deck or under the tents right?

That is why I say CM5 about imposing additional taxes on people who buy 3rd properties for Citizens are totally wrong!!! Those people buying 3rd properties if they can afford and they then provide rental housing, why stop them?
That whoever mastermind that CM is interfering in free market!

Then why don't they impose additional taxes on companies buying more retail, commercial, industrial properties? If they buy more they are monopolising and causing rentals to jack up and inflation to shoot up right? All those REITs, they are the chief culprit of over-heating inflation for jacking rentals due to their monopolising power when they act together! These people & companies are producing very bad effects on lifes of average Singaporeans compared to foreigners buying 1st property & citizens buying 3rd property!!! Why don't govt act on them???

Thanks bros Samsara and Eastboy for the insightful prose.

May i ask one question?

For landlords who are sitting around doing nothing really collecting rent and living off it, are they considered leeches of society then? (note well in this case, that they have worked hard to get where they are owning multiple properties)

From the productivity sense, i am inclined to say yes.

But from the fact that they have once actively contributed to the society while working, and now still pay income and property tax to contribute to Nation building, i would say that they are not.

What say you? Leech or not?

[samsara]

Hi Bro 1976,

I would not call them leeches of society. The reason why tenants are paying them rental is because these landlords provide a facility/utility which the former is able to use for their own purposes be it lodging, business operations, etc. In many cases, the landlord also functions as the party providing maintenance of the facility/utility. Thus there is still value creation by landlords.

Thanks bros Samsara and Eastboy for the insightful prose.

May i ask one question?

For landlords who are sitting around doing nothing really collecting rent and living off it, are they considered leeches of society then? (note well in this case, that they have worked hard to get where they are owning multiple properties)

From the productivity sense, i am inclined to say yes.

But from the fact that they have once actively contributed to the society while working, and now still pay income and property tax to contribute to Nation building, i would say that they are not.

What say you? Leech or not?

[mcmlxxvi]

Cannot say like that mah, why call Leech? The landlords are also doing own business, providing properties out for rental. Without them, those foreigners & PRs got to live in HDB void deck or under the tents right?

That is why I say CM5 about imposing additional taxes on people who buy 3rd properties for Citizens are totally wrong!!! Those people buying 3rd properties if they can afford and they then provide rental housing, why stop them?
That whoever mastermind that CM is interfering in free market!

Then why don't they impose additional taxes on companies buying more retail, commercial, industrial properties? If they buy more they are monopolising and causing rentals to jack up and inflation to shoot up right? All those REITs, they are the chief culprit of over-heating inflation for jacking rentals due to their monopolising power when they act together! These people & companies are producing very bad effects on lifes of average Singaporeans compared to foreigners buying 1st property & citizens buying 3rd property!!! Why don't govt act on them???

Hmmm FEO came up when i read that... But....but... They own and control and constantly push out so many new projects and up the psf of each area they 'touch', shouldnt the gahmen go after them?

[mcmlxxvi]

Hi Bro 1976,

I would not call them leeches of society. The reason why tenants are paying them rental is because these landlords provide a facility/utility which the former is able to use for their own purposes be it lodging, business operations, etc. In many cases, the landlord also functions as the party providing maintenance of the facility/utility. Thus there is still value creation by landlords.

Ok i can rest happy now... Coz i m one of them muahahaha :P

I was once a tenant too, until i realised why not use the money to pay for own house...

[teddybear]

Ha ha ha! First thing came to my mind when it comes to their policies: Introduce Tax lor! (That seems to be the only thing they know how to do).
Then FEO jack up the price again and pass them to consumers!

Isn't it the same with transport? Transport companies blundered. So penalize them money! Then transport companies request to raise fare price in name of improving efficiency and waiting time and reliability blah blah blah. All costs passed back to consumers and the average singaporeans!

Hmmm FEO came up when i read that... But....but... They own and control and constantly push out so many new projects and up the psf of each area they 'touch', shouldnt the gahmen go after them?

[chiaberry]

If landlords collecting rent are leeches, then minority shareholders collecting dividends from the shares that they invested in are also leeches? hehe welcome to the leech club, leech bros and sis.

[august]

Hi Bros Howgozit and August,

Thanks for replying.

I appreciate the time and effort put in by that those who have been involved in the brief debate. I believe the points that I have put forward quite clearly illustrate my personal interpretation of meritocracy and I am sorry if it does not align with yours.

The idealogy of meritocracy has evolved greatly over the years and it may not be viable to depend on just a dictionary for its exact definition and breadth of scope. If you do a quick check on the various dictionaries available online, you will find various meanings offered. The majority define it as what you and bro August have cited. There is however a handful whose definitions are closer to my interpretations.

Nevertheless, as it would be pointless to launch a debate over which dictionaries are legitimate and which are not, I believe we can leave the discussion as it is and just keep our minds open to possibilities from both ends.

Ultimately, what is important for Singapore as a nation is that the system of governance and policy-making is based on a robust and sound platform with principles grounded in a clearly defined set of idealogies and beliefs. I am not dogmatic about meritocracy, it is only a set of idealogies, no more.

Thanks and wishing you all a good day ahead.

PUB also has its own interpretation of flooding too, it is called 'ponding'. LOL
But i believe any intelligent and clear thinking person can tell the difference between truth and spin.

we are here to share our diverse views, sometimes a tat robust for other's liking. I too am guilty of this at times. But saying sorry when none is warranted or called for does cheapen the word sometimes.

[Rosy]

If landlords collecting rent are leeches, then minority shareholders collecting dividends from the shares that they invested in are also leeches? hehe welcome to the leech club, leech bros and sis.

Investors=leech?

How to become a landlord? firstly u need to buy a property. what are the costs and overheads involved? no value add? Imagine nobody rent out their property? where expats going to stay?

What happens when rental drop and landlord need to top up significant amount of $ to the bank? Can I also say landlords are the slaves to the bank when that happen?

[mcmlxxvi]

If landlords collecting rent are leeches, then minority shareholders collecting dividends from the shares that they invested in are also leeches? hehe welcome to the leech club, leech bros and sis.

True... Then all passive income earners are leech leecherer leecherest lol