Owning one home and buying another with intent to liquidate the first one is not "investing" since the asset is still illiquid and you still only own the one you live in when it's all said and done. Appreciation and whatnot are all secondary to the function of being a residence.
Purchasing stuff you won't personally use with intent to use said stuff to make income is, whether it's a house or something else.
Whether you arrange the sentences to make it look like that happens at 1 or 2 doesn't matter.
You’re not a mom and pop landlord if you’re just buying a second home to move into with intent to sell your current one.
That's my point. The person I'm replying to is being obtuse and sarcastically arguing that the investor criteria requires owning 3+ as an attempt to use absurdity to force people to admit that 2+ makes you an "investor" thereby classifying the people who are simply swapping homes like you stated as "investors".
me: "no, that would mean people who own one home to live in and one home to rent out are not investors. Owning one and investing in a second makes you an investor."
You: "you are sarcastically and obtusely arguing that being an investor requires owning 3+ homes!"
No, I'm not arguing that.
> "thereby classifying the people who are simply swapping homes like you stated as "investors""
Nobody was talking about people who own two homes while moving houses. But if we were then the choice is (people who own a second house to rent are not classed as investors just in case they get confused with people moving house) which is wrong permanently and silly, vs (people who own two homes while selling their old home are classed as investors for a while) which is wrong temporarily but not too unreasonable, then I will pick the latter.
“I own one home, and am buying a house”
“That makes you an investor”
“No that’s whack. When I buy a third - buying while owning two - then I will be an investor”
You have an off-by-one error.