Is this fair?

110 Rental Properties
= 925k/year gross

Property Manager does 100% of the work for 10%
= 92.5k/year

I pocket the rest while doing nothing but providing capital.

You're lying, but for people in that situation it's fair.

Owner takes on 100% of the risk. If the market crashes, you're in a mountain of debt, but the manager is still making a comfy 90k a year.

faggots like you are why we need a land value tax

georgism is the best way to run a nation

Yes because the property manager agreed to work for 92.5k/year

You have shit for brains. I hope you get murdered by a communist

Your post is a fabrication, though it's absolutely fair to do this because the manager agreed to do the stated work for a determined salary.

I do want to get in that position eventually though. I bought my house a few years ago and just closed on a second now that the first is completely rented out.

Most taxes distort economic decisions and suppress beneficial economic activity.[9] LVT is payable regardless of how well or poorly land is actually used. Because the supply of land is essentially fixed, land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on landlord expenses, preventing landlords from passing LVT to tenants.[10]
The direct beneficiaries of incremental improvements to the area surrounding a site are the land's occupants. Such improvements shift tenants' demand curve to the right. Landlords benefit from price competition among tenants; the only direct effect of LVT in this case is to reduce the amount of socially generated benefit that is privately captured (as an increase in the land price).
LVT is said to be justified for economic reasons because it does not deter production, distort markets or otherwise create deadweight loss. Land value tax can even have negative deadweight loss (social benefits), particularly when land use improves.[11] Nobel Prize-winner William Vickrey believed that "removing almost all business taxes, including property taxes on improvements, excepting only taxes reflecting the marginal social cost of public services rendered to specific activities, and replacing them with taxes on site values, would substantially improve the economic efficiency of the jurisdiction."[12] A positive relationship of LVT and market efficiency is predicted by economic theory and has been observed in practice.[13]

we need a LVT to eternally btfo of slum lords

Somewhere along the line, either you earned enough to buy the properties or someone decided to entrust you with them. If you're not smart enough to handle it you'll lose it within a generation.

Where is the injustice in letting productive individuals leave property to their kids when statistically most wealth is squandered within 2 generations?

110 units of real estate tax.
110 units to maintain
110 people not guaranteed to pay rent during eviction
110 units requiring clerical staff and maintenace men.
110 units never at full capacity
110 units subject to economic fluxuation and inflation
110 units requiring insurance

Its fair.

Landlord here, yes it's fair because OP is on the hook for payments if something happens (insurance, damage to properties, lack of tenants, decline in the market, etc).

Only communist slime don't understand the basics of investing.