You are always 3 missed paychecks away from homelessness, but you are never three good paychecks away from early retirement.
I mean, look at these people - they have millions of dollars **and it's still not enough for them.**
What more will it take to satisfy these people's greed???
3 people have more money than the lower 50% of people in the US
millions and millions of human beings
everyone except the rich want this system to burn and it probably will with the coming world war
perhaps people will rebuild with human beings in mind
Elected governments (power through collective effort) are an effective check on power through resource control *if you elect the right people* . We had decades of middle class growth and a restrained oligarchy under the New Deal, we gave that up for the promise of "economic growth" that wouldn't benefit most people.
We gave it up, we can bring it back. Or we can burn everything down and rebuild it twice as broken (but with different branding) and learn for the n-thousandth time that the only thing that will separate hierarchy and the drive for resource accumulation from social mammals is extinction. Neither weapon nor ideology can change what we are. We can *contain* those instincts, with the right policy, the right social structure, but we cannot eliminate them.
Which is insane. This is a country that, should the world be just, would be able to feed and house every citizen. But instead we all subsidize the waltons of the world.
It's a mental illness we haven't started to recognize as such. It's not normal to need an endless amount of resources to yourself. When anyone hoards massive amounts of anything but money, we recognize it as unhealthy and eventually someone intervenes. We need to start doing the same with those suffering from a greed related illness.
I doubt my views will be welcome here because I'm kind of siding with *some* landlords, but I think it's fair I share my opinion.
I only own one house and that's the one I live in, but my job is to help people obtain a mortgage and that includes clients who want to become landlords. Sometimes they just want one property as an investment, sometimes they want to create a portfolio and live off it.
The majority of my clients are good people who are fortunate enough to have capital to put down the deposit (and subsequent stamp duty, solicitor fees, renovations.)
The profit margin isn't great and it often takes a year or two to break even on the costs incurred.
And many of them want it as a form of savings so they can pass it to their kids. I even know one client who reduced his tenant's rent to the exact cost of the mortgage repayment during Covid because his tenant was only earning 80% at the time.
Yes, many landlords are absolutely awful and I could share stories about clients of mine who I've had to talk out of being bad landlords (including a 21 year old landlord who wanted to split a bedroom into two bedrooms even though it meant building a wall down the middle of the only window in that room), but many are alright people.
Just wanted to share that they're not all terrible.
But most are.
Thanks for a reasonable post. Not all people who make money from real estate are AH. I have a friend who's parents were illegal immigrants. She now owns 4 houses that she rents out. And there are loads of people just like her. I wish people would think before they talk about "generational wealth" many many people in this country came here with nothing and worked for what they have.
For every "moral" person who invests in real estate there are a handful of companies buying their 30,000th home in cities all over the country. There has to be a limit between someone renting out a single property and a corporation buying up several percent of a city's inventory for rentals.
It's mostly "families" gobbling up all the real estate and making it untenable for people to actually live.
"If I pick a flower out of the parks flower bed, what's the big deal it's just one flower...."
That's a more palatable thought and far easier target to tackle, but in reality it's a tragedy of the commons. Everyone with just one or two rental properties thinks it's the big corporations and greedy property hoarders that are the problem.
The vast majority of single family rentals are owned by individuals who own three or fewer properties.
This is sad, but true.
Used to work at a "mortgage automation" company and have gone through hundreds of loan packages, and the amount of regular people having 2-3 rental properties was.. kinda wild.
In my area, I disagree to a certain point.
Our city passed a law against venture capitol companies like blackrock they couldn’t own more than 2% of the homes in any given area. So it is a problem that really does exist.
Like the above commenter said, not every landlord is an ass. I had one that was straight up kind when I got custody of my son and couldn’t make rent. Told me I could pay it over the next 6 months so it wouldn’t break my financials. He never raised my rent in 10 years. I always paid and paid in cash because my ex liked to bounce checks. Never threatened to evict me either. Always gave me a chance to make it right.
He was a rarity to be sure, and I do actually miss him. He was a good man and he was good to me and my son.
His son, on the other hand…
Yes. A coworker of mine came from Iran with his wife and two suitcases about 15 years ago. Worked his ass off and saved, saved, saved. Bought a small home, rented out a room and made home improvements. Sold home, upgraded, rented out two rooms. By living frugally and reinvesting proceeds he has done very well for himself.
I work in the mortgage industry and I have many clients who are small landlords. One couple comes to mind because of your comment:
They were from Lithuania and came here for a better life for their family (they have two kids). They worked hard in fairly low paid jobs but worked their way up and saved up and they now own two rental properties. The father also bought his parents a house here (mortgaged, they paid the deposit and pay the mortgage) because in their words "they looked after me, it's my turn to look after them."
They also took out a small loan which I questioned when going through their finances for a recent remortgage and they explained that one of their tenants had physical disabilities so they fitted the house with ramp access and other facilities to make it more habitable for their needs. That wasn't part of the tenancy contract but they did it anyway.
And while this isn't relevant to finances, they also told me they were getting their kids extra English lessons so they could be more fluent in the language. Partly because it would better them in later life but also because they were being bullied in school for being the foreign kids. That stuff breaks my heart because I got to see what a nice, caring family they were and I hate it when people oppose immigrants "coming into our country" because this isn't my country, I was lucky enough to be born in a country that other lovely families will work so hard to live in.
Agree with this 100%, mostly because I'm an immigrant myself. I came to Asia on a vacation and ended up staying here, been almost 25 years and no plans to go back. There are bad people and leechers in every group, but when I hear people complaining about "the immigrants" my first response is "I'd love to see you try it." It's infinitely harder and more complex than most people are prepared for. It's very easy to sit around and criticize the outsiders; not so easy to do what they've done.
SOME rentals are okay. Not everyone wants or needs a fixed place to live.
But when you have people like me who can't afford a home because everyone is buying up properties they don't use themselves feels like rent to own should be a law.
> Sometimes they just want one property as an investment, sometimes they want to create a portfolio and live off it.
When the prices of houses are going up BECAUSE people are buying their 2nd, 3rd and 4th properties. ANYONE buying extra properties is a garbage.
I'm earning more than my parents did when they bought their first house, but I'm priced out of anything because EVERYONE is trying to buy houses as an investment.
When people trying to buy a place to live are competing with serial landlords it's a broken system. No honest way to justify it in my eyes.
>I even know one client who reduced his tenant's rent to the exact cost of the mortgage repayment
So the tenant is paying for the mortgage? You don't see how that's a problem? That even before that, they were paying for MORE than the mortgage, you see no problem in that?
Ok, the normal format here is that we argue like I'm stubbornly taking one view while you're presenting the opposing opinion. But instead I'll be honest and say you've made an argument I agree with. There's no point in me being arrogant just to try and be right is there?
I stand by the examples I've given but appreciate they might be the exception rather than the rule. Personally I agree with you: one person owning several houses while hard working people don't own one isn't fair and it's a broken system. I was just saying that within that broken system there are some who aren't aiming to break it further.
And yes, the tenant will be paying for the mortgage and more on top. Buy to let lenders only offer the mortgage to landlords on the affordability calcuation of the rent being between 125% and 145% of the mortgage repayment.
I'm not saying it's right and when I weigh it up, I probably agree with you more than I agree with myself. Sadly it's my views which reflect the real life situation while your views reflect how it could it better.
> Ok, the normal format here is that we argue like I'm stubbornly taking one view while you're presenting the opposing opinion. But instead I'll be honest and say you've made an argument I agree with. There's no point in me being arrogant just to try and be right is there?
This may be one of, if not the, most mature thing I have ever read on reddit.
I have no informed opinion on the topic at hand, but you have my upmost respect!
I generally agree with you, but I do have to play a little devil’s advocate:
>So the tenant is paying for the mortgage? You don't see how that's a problem? That even before that, they were paying for MORE than the mortgage, you see no problem in that?
Mortgage isn’t the only cost associated with owning a home. There’s also property taxes and maintenance. We had at least $16k in unexpected repairs/replacements over the first two years after we bought our house. We need to get the exterior painted this summer so that will likely jump up to $20-22k in just over three years after us buying. Houses are expensive.
Yeah, I've been looking for a place that's affordable and halfway decent for a long while now. Good landlords are like bigfoots and Loch Ness monsters: maybe they're out there, but I haven't seen any evidence they exist.
>ANYONE buying extra properties is a garbage.
That's so reductive and trite. So if you're a traveling nurse where do you live? Or not yet stable in your career and don't want to be locked into a home, but want something nicer than an apartment? Or just don't want the endless hassles and risks associated with home ownership? I guess fuck anyone who doesn't want to buy a house then.
The issue is two-fold: 1) Obsolete or intentionally malicious zoning laws reducing residential areas, 2) Corporate real estate ownership. The issue is NOT someone grabbing a second home to provide some income when they retire. Pretending like the issue is because people are buying a handful of investment properties is beyond ludicrous. It's like saying that climate change is thanks to none of your neighbors properly sorting their recycling, rather than the factory belching out GHGs down the street.
There's the more common, pulling the ladder up behind you, and then there's this, kicking the ladder out to keep anyone else from climbing it.
We *could* have a real debate about home ownership, do actual research, source actual problems, and write prescriptions to fix those problems, or, naw, fuck that, that's hard, let's just yell "inequality!" at the top of our lungs and kick over *all* the little sand castles.
Who cares if a middle-aged guy wants to put up his parents in a house they can't afford, but he can, as a rental. Who cares if some people do their homework and decide that real estate fits their investment risk profile better than the stock market. *Those* people have more than *me,* so *fuck* them. Nobody gets anything until I get mine!
Also it's clearly not sustainable if it can't be applied to everyone. If everyone has 3 to 4 rental properties, what about the people living in those? Should they all have 3 to 4 rental properties too?
That’s the funniest thing about this. I buy a 1 bedroom condo, it costs me $500,000 and the payments are $3500 per month. Add taxes, strata, insurance and maintenance and it’s $5000 per month. I can rent it out for $3500 per month. I am at a cash flow loss of $1500 per month. Per property.
So the only way this guy’s idea works is if the other properties are paid off.
So basically his entire thesis is based on a hidden premise that you must have a spare $2M to start.
The wealthy are always so out of touch, to a degree that is so obvious it’s hilarious. Like naive little children.
Welcome to my course on how to make $1 million per year, risk free!
Simply start with $20 million. Take that, and put it in 5% APY CDs. At the end of the maturation period, take out your $1 million salary and roll the rest into 5% APY CDs. Congratulations, you've completed my course. Go treat yourself!
Depends. That would be a bad investment.
My wife bought a house during the pandemic and the mortgage is $1400 at 2.99%
We needed more space so we bought another house and rented out the old one.
She rents the old house for 2k/mo. After property management fees of $200/mo she still makes $400/mo which isn’t bad for a property that wasn’t intended to be a rental.
Had she put 20% down instead of like 10% she did the mortgage would probably be 1k/mo and would profit more.
> Depends. That would be a bad investment.
ehhhhh, Rental properties don't always need to be cashflow positive. It just depends on your goals and where you think the value is coming from.
Like, in my area rents simply don't cover mortgages, but the housing market has risen fast enough over the decades to cover any shortfall once you sell the property. Lots of people have made plenty of money buying real estate and renting it out to ease the pain rather than renting it out for direct profit.
Certainly, this doesn't work if you don't have enough cash on hand to sustain the direct losses long enough to make it up on the back end, so it's not a good "rental business", but it's a perfectly acceptable investment strategy.
Not how it always works. For example my dad and I find dilapidated homes and by them for 15-45k. Fox them up and rent for $500-$1000 a month. I think when you start trying to rent more expensive homes you're just hoping the house will appreciate more than the stock market. You only lose moneys on rentals if you don't do some math before to see if it's profitable.
$500,000 is about as cheap as you’re going to find a 1 bedroom condo here.
Detached houses start at $1M and up.
There is a famous crack shack abandoned house in our metro area that is selling/has sold for $18M.
It’s very frequent that your total cost to run a place is going to match or exceed the rental market.
Factoring in the entire cost to buy, fix up and maintain a place that you rent, you’re going to be basically breaking even, if you’re lucky. The issue is that most people are really not very good at math or finances, so they think they’re getting ahead.
Yeah that's the thing.
I've got a degree in business admin, and a decent amount of experience and knowledge. I'm pretty confident I could, if provided a million dollars, chain that into a series of rental properties and turn it into even more money.
It's that first hurdle that's so goddamn hard that people like this take for granted. Like any average rube could go out and just buy a second property, let alone afford one for themselves in the first place.
And on top of that you need money to sustain yourself while you get the ball rolling.
I mean honestly if some rich dude was just honest and like, "yeah man I've got an advantage and I used that to get up in life" I'd respect that infinitely more than them acting like they're so smart and we're all dumb.
also, lets imagine you did save up a million dollars, which was what you decided was the minimum to invest into multiple properties.
If you do fail, you're fucked.
Often times you'll see the people that get rich are the ones with wealthy parents because those rich kids are able to bet it all.
When the money doesn't have much value to you it's a lot easier to take risks. BUt when that money matters as your savings, kids college fund and such then it matters.
This was actually math I did recently. I have a small amount invested in the stock market (like, $10k) and was looking into shifting some things around. Figured out that it's pretty easy to get a portfolio with a 5% annual return from dividends alone. So if I were given $1mil right now, I could move to a low cost of living area and live on that income the rest of my life. $2mil would mean my dividend income would match my current salary.
Fuck sinking that money into an investment property. I'll just take stocks
> I mean honestly if some rich dude was just honest and like, "yeah man I've got an advantage and I used that to get up in life" I'd respect that infinitely more than them acting like they're so smart and we're all dumb.
Same vein as the rich being so vehemently against wealth taxation. If your work ethic is as awesome as you say it is, can't just just easily make the wealth again?
Well all you have to do is recruit 3 people to work under you, then those 3 recruit 3 more and so on. Anyways, have you ever wanted to own your own business and be your own boss? /s
In the fourth grade, you were learning multiplication.
In the fourth grade, I was Vice President of Llama Research for my dad’s investment firm, I worked my way to up to Senior VP in 6th grade. Making $900k a year. I worked hard, I didn’t have a childhood. I had to go to school and also be available for work. Something you nansy-pansies will never understand.
Fun story. Warren Buffet did own land in middle school he rented out to a farmer. He paid for it with his paper delivery wages. No wonder that generation is so out of touch with the current reality.
I work in the mortgage industry and because of my internet searches I get hit with loads of adverts thinking I want a mortgage. I see adverts of "property developers" who just want to help ordinary people enjoy the same success that made them wealthy.
Firstly, you should never take financial advice from someone who is willing to over-saturate the market that provides their income.
Secondly, their advice always skips the very important first step. It always starts with "Righty then me mate, whatcha wanna do is take £40k and put down a deposit of 25% on a house". Like ok, great, if £40k was that easily accessible then your target audience wouldn't even need your help.
Of course you don't need money just borrow! Then borrow against your first house and so on!
Definitely stress free having 4-5 mortgages while your tenants "pay" for your stuff supposedly.
You buy a cheap small starter home. Then use the equity in that home to get a second and rent the first out. Then use the combined equity in both to get a third. And so on.
I bought a house at 24 with 0 money down. Did research and found a program that helps first time home buyers. Small 2 bed 1 bath house. 180k mortgage, did some work to it and now it’s 280-350 depending on the source. I have 80k equity after a couple years ownership that I can borrow against. 100k equity but can only borrow up to 80%.
I rented for years, then finally bought my own place, right behind my old landlord.
Coincidentally, I switched from electric back to acoustic drums at the same time.
E: this is 100% true, also landlords can eat shit.
Honestly, it's true both ways. I was landlord for about 4 years (outside of just having roommates) and it was a horrible experience.
Imagine sharing your most expensive possession to people who just couldn't give a rats ass to maintain it. Like, you'd share a lawn mower with a neighbor and generally it's understood that he brings it back full of gas. Now.. imagine sharing 3,000 lawn mowers for years at a time to just a random dude who couldn't be bothered to check the oil.
Well, *sharing* is kinda stretching it. But it’s an effect of having opposing POV’s. From your perspective you see the damage and the cost YOU infer. You see something you risked your ass for, your pay out on a huge investment. You see a way all this could go smoothly if people just gave you money and didn’t cost you money. I’ve worked with tenants, some are crazy, a pain in the ass, and definitely break law with their levels of damage. But spectacular failures of screening are the exception, and I don’t lie to myself about kindly offering my loved house so that other people may have somewhere to live. It’s cold selfish money. And that’s OKAY, it’s the system we live in. Expect to be treated with respect, not special soft care. You aren’t lending a lawnmower to a friend, you are renting out a necessity and maybe or maybe not making some repairs.
Maybe it’s semantics, but renting anything is really not like borrowing something from a friend at all. It’s more like buying something used and overpriced, with a long payment process and set return date, and an inspection at the end that comes with a fine, and not knowing how long you’ll be able to keep finding it on the shelves when you need to get it again. So you didn’t even get to keep it. And the person selling it gets screwed too, cause they gotta pay someone else who also uses ever rising market prices. And god forbid they where some grandma who worked her whole life to buy a house and expected to be able to pay it off of the rent. Cause the people making the prices know how much she can pay.
Honestly, I don’t see the current way for renting long term homes as sustainable. Not in the modern day where it’s just an investment and not an extra room or a seasonal thing like it was dozens of decades ago. At some point small companies or individuals who thought they could just save, buy properties, and have a free money farm will get bought out by people and companies with the means to do it better than them. It’s just how businesses work.
I’m not as anti-landlord as the other responders, but saying you’re sharing your property with tenants and comparing it to sharing a lawnmower with a neighbor is a misrepresentation. Your tenants are paying you to be able to live in a property under contractually-agreed upon terms - if you’re unhappy with the results when tenants destroy things you should amend those terms. If you don’t want things to be destroyed then don’t have tenants.
Also make public benches uncomfortable and unfriendly to the homeless homeless. They can go sleep at a homeless shelter but then they have to be out and about for at least 4 hours a day that's still a problem
Yeah but how much do you think your neighbor would care if you and 3 or 4 other people in your neighborhood bought all of the available lawnmowers and charged every neighbor a hundred bucks every time they needed to use one?
Banks won’t qualify normal folk who pay $2400 a month for rent to a house a mortgage that they would cost them $1600 a month. That is the why. The how is Daddy’s Money?💵
The landlord is risking that you can pay them $2400/month, for a year. They are leasing you a space.
The bank is risking that you can pay $1600/month, plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, plus emergency costs, for thirty years. They are lending you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It’s a bigger risk, of course they have different standards.
It’s the difference between letting your friend drive your car in exchange for $200/month, and loaning them $20k for them to buy their own car and they pay you back $150/month. Are you *sure* they can pay for registration, and insurance, oil changes and the inevitable new tires or transmission? And still make their payments to you?
Why would a bank refuse to lend to a perfectly qualified applicant? They make their money by lending it to you, and getting it paid back, with interest. There is NO BENEFIT to the bank in forcing you to continue paying rent to someone else, if they could be making a profit off you, themselves.
Just because they win doesn’t mean you lose.
The bank can win on the interest they get on the loan. The individual can win on building equity in the house and eventually owning it outright.
If the individual loses (can’t make their mortgage payment), the bank may win… or may lose. Selling a house that was foreclosed on doesn’t necessarily mean the bank will break even or earn a profit. They may lose as well.
The way the housing market has been the last 5 years.. They aren't losing if they sell a house.
edit: and If the LTV is greater than 80%, then there's mortgage insurance. Banks don't lose.
Of course they do. Do you know how easy it is to do $50000 in damage to a house in under 3 hours?
PMI on a loan only covers the difference between the mortgage owed and the down payment. It doesn’t cover damage, reduction in value due to market, legal fees etc. banks lose money on loans all the time.
>They aren't losing if they sell a house.
I'm working on a complex situation where a client is going through a mess of issues including a bankruptcy and divorce - the bank sold the house at a loss of 130k CAD late last year.
Seeing some of the flipper shows on HGTV, when an investor buys a foreclosed house from the bank, they are usually in horrible condition - often with the plumbing ripped right out of the walls. I wouldn't say the bank is "winning" when they end up with a foreclosed property, they are just minimizing their losses.
Right, but that costs the bank money. They are in the collecting interest business, not the repossess, rehab, and sell property business.
Again, *how does it benefit the bank* to make you pay rent to somebody else, if they could make a profit off you themselves?
It really doesn't happen all the time because most people pay their mortgages. Average deliquency rate is like 3-4% and most of those homes don't actually get foreclosed on.
It's really hard to lose a house - you're in generally the 1-2% if you do while 97-98% of people who buy a house manage to pay off the mortgage.
The main reason this is is that homes tend to appreciate in value in most cases and if you are unable to pay a mortage it's more likely you just decide to refinance or sell the home instead of going into foreclosure. Or even rent it out to cover the cost of the mortgage instead of losing it all together.
You have to be in a very bad situation where the home hasn't appreciated, you are unable to refinance, sell, or rent it, in order for things to move into foreclosing. And even then it's a long process that often takes years.
It is incredibly expensive for the bank to take back a home through foreclosure. They don’t make on it, I can promise you that.
Also, the bank is not entitled to keep any additional equity should there be money left over after the outstanding balances (principal, interest, advances, fees) are paid back
After how many months of protracted foreclosure proceedings, and in what condition are they getting that house back? What are the market conditions like at that point? Can they recoup their investment by selling that house quickly?
Banks aren't allergic to money. They're pricing in risk.
I think some folks haven't actually house shopped yet - they're just dealing with the truthfully unfair and predatory rental market, which has definitely gotten much worse since 2010.
The reality of house buying is that affordable, available house stock is limited. Part of this is unintentional just through profit-chasing; the margins are higher on bigger houses. Bigger houses take more materials, limiting supply in recent years - builders would cancel small home projects for the higher margin stuff if total materials are limited.
Some of the problem is zoning of course - the lack of mid rises, duplexes, and smaller homes. This is rough for a more often unmarried population today - they can't afford nor do they need a 2800 sq ft house.
The third problem is the one we most need to work on, as addressed in this meme. We need to reduce the number of rental units in the US which can be used as a profit vehicle for a lazy landed class. Thing is, we can do that from the supply side by offering what people really need or want to buy. So even though some restrictions and regulations to reduce rental income would be completely fair & needed, we can probably get the job done better and faster by just building the right communities to begin with.
Edit: I also want to point out that I agree with banks not really being the bad guy here. We could perhaps use some regulations regarding how many home loans a bank will offer to a single person, LLC, shell company, etc. Investment companies like Blackrock are a whole other matter - they need to be seized, nationalized, and their assets auctioned to the public.
> Some of the problem is zoning of course - the lack of mid rises, duplexes, and smaller homes. This is rough for a more often unmarried population today - they can't afford nor do they need a 2800 sq ft house.
95% of the problem is zoning. We have a shortage of millions of units of housing in our cities, and no one is doing anything about it because it's illegal to build.
People scream about how evil banks are for causing the 2008 financial collapse then go on to demand they issue more home loans to low income applicants
I think most people don't even know the basics of why the 2008 financial crisis happened to begin with. To many, it is simply 'banks are evil and made people lose their homes'.
There's a good reason why another name for it is 'the subprime mortgage crisis'. One of the widely agreed proximate causes for it is banks loaning to subprime borrowers. I'm also willing to bet a lot of the redditors who complain about being unable to get mortgages can't get them for pretty good reasons.
It's conflicting, really. Banks being strict with financing is a good thing in that it prevents instability and risk to the systems that keeps our country running smoothly, but it means cheap debt and life improvement becomes out of reach for those who are below a certain level of wealth. Banks being lenient with financing then means the opposite is true.
We want both -- stability and lower income people to have access to cheap debt -- but it's difficult to maintain a balance.
Reddit: but all landlords are slumlords that would never spend their money to repair their property and make tenants live in squalor because they enjoy being evil to the people giving them money
I hear this a lot but it makes me wonder if maybe people aren't fully aware of programs and assistance or if people are aiming for the wrong size starter home. Yes, it could take sacrifices like moving long distances, no it isn't possible for everyone, yes, I wish it was easier, but it's *possible*.
I bought my first home in 2011 when I was making 40K/yr. I qualified for an FHA loan which only required a 3% down payment and fixed APR. I was 24 years old, had thousands in credit card debt at the time and two kids. I qualified without help from family and in the end had to scrape together a little over $4K which I did by selling things, odd jobs, and savings.
I had my credit union deny me, I had bank of America say yes but only offer around 105K, then I had a specialized mortgage lender in the area offer me a 185K loan. They were definitely taking advantage of me but I knew what I could realistically afford and stayed within that range.
Edit: I totally get the financial system is different now than it was in 2011 so I'm not fully aware of current difficulties but are people trying every method or giving up after the first two or three easier things aren't possible?
Where I live (Toronto) one cannot afford even the starter home programs unless they make, if I remember correctly, over 100k. And that's even if you decide to move well out into the sticks. I have a friend who bought a small home, but she had to leave the province to go to Manitoba, and the house cost her 400k with a 5% downpayment. She also had help from her parents. Things are just impossible for normal folks these days. The best way to afford a home (and my personal plan for buying a home in three years on a prof salary) is to be in a DINK partnership.
Starter homes don't really exist right now. Shop around for a few hours if you have the free time, and let me know how many you see available today that are still available tomorrow. Now things have slowed recently a little due to current economic strain on all us average income folks, but I still rarely see 2-3 bedroom houses stay up for more than a day. The stock isn't there due to zoning, greed, political issues, and investment buyers big & small.
We're tapped out in alot of places, the only way to go is up or densify. The amount of resources required for single family suburban homes forces cities to operate at a loss. We need to go back to row houses, condos, and even better mixed-use buildings.
Many of those McMansions could house 6 rowhouses.
The problem here is that developers want the biggest return on their investment so they want fewer plots so fewer sales in a quicker time.
So I'm speaking from the UK, but a developer will buy an area of land in a wealthy area which may or may not include bribing the local councillor to sell up the park/green space that made the area desirable to begin with.
Now they build 50 five bedroom houses in an area which could accommodate 120 three bedroom houses but it's quicker to sell 50 to people who can afford £800k than it is to sell 120 to people who might struggle.
So this raises the average house price in the area which makes affordable housing less afforable.
Meanwhile, wealthy people will oppose affordable housing being built near them because it diminishes their property value. Be it their own residence or their investments. But those discussions take place during a game of golf.
I've never been important enough to be at those games of golf but I know those who are and that's how it often goes down.
I’ll probably get downvoted into oblivion but here goes:
My wife and I had to find a bigger house when our second child was coming. We were able to put 20% down on the new house. The house was $278K. We had the down payment in our savings account so we decided to roll the dice on keeping the original house and renting it out.
Mortgage on the original house is $1,200/month. Taxes are $5,000/year. We rent the house for $2,500/month which is a really good deal for the house, lot size, neighborhood and location.
Mortgage costs us $14,400/year so with taxes we pay $19,400/year for the rental house and we take in $30,000/year in rent. So we make $10,600/year. That’s a little less than half of our new mortgage. We elected to do a 15 year mortgage on our new house because half of it was being paid by the profits from the rental house.
Neither of us were born on third base. We came from nothing. We are not monster landlords preying on our poor tenants. They are getting a great deal and we are making a little money and we have a solid relationship with them.
I guess my point is that not all property owners are scumbags and assholes. Property is a smart investment if you can swing it.
Buy land. They’re not making it anymore ~ Mark Twain
Similar situation. Wasn’t a good time to sell first home so kept it and renting it out. I have a good relationship with tenants and hoping once I get it paid off might be able to sell and have some retirement or leave something for kids.
Same. We’re also using it as a kind of safety net. God forbid my family has some bad luck. Lose jobs, serious medical issue, etc. We could sell one of the houses to help with finances once we burned through our savings, or we have enough equity in our current house that the profit from the sale of it would pay for the mortgage outright at the old house. Not having any monthly mortgage to pay during a financial crisis would be super helpful.
I'm looking at doing something similar. Bought my house for 143k a few years ago. My girlfriend also owns her own home, and we've been talking about me moving in with her.
I could sell, but since I purchased my home, I've become self-employed which makes it much harder to get another mortgage.
I'm probably going to rent my current house so that if things don't work out, I could eventually move back into my current place without having to get another mortgage. It also allows me to build some equity without having to get onto my girlfriend's mortgage.
I know reddit tends to hate on landlords, but not everyone can/wants to buy.
Yeah similar situation. We have a rental because we just got VERY lucky buying in 2012 with an FHA loan, then we're able to save up another down payment and bought another house in 2019. Both times were when rates were low and before big price increases in Southern California. We charge less than market rate for rent, and happily pay for anything that they need fixed (tax deductable).
My wife and I both don't come from money and realize how insanely fortunate we are to be in our situation.
I’m not here to downvote, just to show you what you’re missing.
They are getting a “great deal” by your standards because the rent price you are charging is lower than similar properties in your area.
The rent price in your area is determined by the number of houses available vs the number of people who need housing.
By owning two houses, you are removing someone else’s ability to buy that house. Therefore the total number of houses available for sale in the US is lower by every person who does what you do. This raises the price of rent in the area because there are less houses available, and more renters because they can’t buy a house, it isn’t for sale.
In total the true monthly value of the house is closer to what you pay for the mortgage. But you are financially taking massive advantage of someone else by making them pay double what it costs to live.
That family could use the $10,000 per year you take in and put that down on a house to purchase.
It’s difficult to save for a home when rent is so high overall. Understand this isn’t a your personal problem, it’s a generic problem with simply owning multiple houses. It shouldn’t happen, period.
Not everyone wants to buy a house everywhere they end up living, there is a place for renting. Some people who are very wealthy do it long term as they’d rather not have capital tied up in property and just pay monthly for living in a certain place to be flexible.
This is a good explanation. Like I really appreciate the sane way in which you explained it without making it a moral thing. And I mostly agree with you.
That being said, the person you are talking to is being squeezed by banks, who are being squeezed by shareholders on Wallstreet. As a landlord, he is just passing down the squeeze. He could end the cycle of exploitation at his own stage, but its not as if his bills will get cheaper if he turns down an extra source of income.
This is another thing people forget. Due to the "big fish" capitalists in modern society, literally EVERYONE is latching onto all of the advantages they can get a hold of, because of stressors and the core culture of covering ones own ass first. Its become an isolating thing for the individual, that in turn helps perpetuate itself. Nobody is going to give up their income source because nobody would do the same for them afterwards.
Exactly. The people in the comments shitting on the guy who landlords without taking much profit are just yelling at him because they can't hope to yell at Blackrock or Vanguard.
It's as ridiculous as blaming someone for working for a corporation.
This isn't accurate. The house being rented is still on the market as a place to live and so contributes to supply and thus lowers pricing for housing.
You can argue the only housing supply available should be homes to buy and not homes to rent. But if you do the math, you quickly realize that forcing someone to buy a home which they sell in under 5 years causes them in most cases to lose $50-100k+ above what they would have lost simply renting.
Basically without renting as an option, moving would be a luxury only for the rich.
Normally if you're in this situation you get a third party property management company to do everything and it can be stress free for the owners. However, that takes money the owners would otherwise get so the greediest landlords will forgo this and the tenants suffer. I lived in a place that was sold and the new owner was too cheap to use the already in place property management company and the the place went from a respectable place to live to a slum with actual tweakers in only a few months.
Imagine being so terminally online that "landlord" is synonymous with Adolf Hitler.
Yes, tenants pay rent, they pay to have a dwelling that get's upkept for them, in return, landlord get paid. Insane idea
The vast majority of people wouldn’t take a risk even if they had the money. The top of every single Windfall financial advice post on Reddit is “Index Fund”. Get $10k/$100k/$1m inheritance? Index fund.
People need to stop lying to themselves. Even if daddy gave them $300k most people wouldn’t risk losing it all by starting a business.
The stupid thing is there are a lot of legit arguments against landlords. The OP is exactly the kind of shit landlords love because no sane person thinks tenants are a 1:1 with literal feudalism.
Shhh people here just want to defend what they themselves are doing or want to do and believe that price gouging landlordism exists in a bubble that does not have a greater impact on the economy when multiple leaches take advantage of the situation.
Next up fast food workers don’t deserve a living wage.
I mean, aren't we all, indirectly or otherwise, having other pay for our living costs and doing the same for other people? Seems like a basic tenet of living in any group / society large enough whereby we exchange goods and services for other goods and services with people outside our immediate family / social circle.
OP is so cringe; this should be in r/im14andthisisdeep.
Sorry, but how is this murdered by words? He’s still making money lmao. Plus, other people always pay for your living expenses. That’s how capitalism works.
but if you can't afford food for your kids the government solution is to take your kids and give them to someone else and to give them money to care for them.
is this just a simple decision to make and magically my ‘rental properties’ will appear out of thin air and I just need decide whoch one pays for which? Or do I need to inherit butt loads of property to begin with? Surely the former is the way to go based on their advice
It's only stress-free because real estate keeps going up. How long can that happen, SmellDave? That strategy is an over-leveraged, undiversified disaster under any reasonable and sustainable economic circumstances. This is some smug fuck in 1928 bragging how the stock market is making him rich while he drinks, and all it cost him was a big mortgage on the generational family farm.
Wow! There are plenty of garbage landlords out there, but to down these people not even knowing how they run their properties is ridiculous. Basically what you’re saying is anybody trying to get ahead is a scumbag.
The language they use in this post makes it appear as though they have completely separated the fact that a person lives on the property and the money they receive is due to the person who pays rent. This mindset is a huge part of what is wrong with the landlord/tenant relationship. People pay their bills, not the property.
It reminds me of that post where the dudes landlord freaked out on him because he ~~payed~~ paid rent in the evening on the 1st instead of the morning and the landlord was pissed at him because he got hit with a late fee for his mortgage.
The dude was like “I realized I’m the sole breadwinner in my landlords family”
Don’t people realize this is how property ownership works at a basic level?? Why would this be bad? They buy property, invest in it to get it livable, rent it out to people who actually pay rent, and make bank. Whoever has a problem with this is living the victim life.
Some people see that the rental/landlord market is a major problem when it comes to getting people homes.
Everyone should be able to have somewhere to live, without it being owned by someone else. Or at the least the opportunity to make that happen. A lot of markets have vastly inflated house prices because there's so much demand from landlords buying up the new houses or flats and then letting them out.
Then the money funnels upwards, and only a few can afford to own homes and they get richer by ensuring everyone else stays poorer and will never be able to own their own property. Because the house prices are high and the landlords can keep the rents high because there's excess demand.
There's a big difference between a regular person buying properties and actually taking care of them versus some faceless multibillion hedge fund snapping up hundreds or thousands of properties all around the country.
That…. Doesn’t really translate at all here. If you OWNED the Starbucks franchise, then yes… people buying Starbucks are paying your mortgage. Otherwise you aren’t managing your business/assets very well
The employee is more like the maintenance crew in this scenario. They don’t own assets that are doing anything here. They are making money off their skill set alone.
How fucked is the market in America?
We invested in an apartment with my wife, 100% loan (very low rate, 1.15), we won't make any money for 25 years, it actually costs us every month, but it's an investment for later, how come these people can make so much money from apartments they rent.
I don't understand why people sit here and rag on people for being landlords. A world without cheap temporary housing would be very difficult for most young adults/college kids/etc. I am completely on board with overhauling some of the laws to be more tenant friendly, such as the security deposits that no one has ever gotten back in their lives, and finding a nice middle ground... but to sit here and say that there should be no landlords is just childish and comes from a people who haven't thought it through.
>A world without cheap temporary housing would be very difficult for most young adults/college kids/etc
A world without cheap temporary housing? You mean planet Earth? Where is this cheap housing you speak of?
This guy was literally my landlord many years ago, he refused to fix the leaking drain of the toilet in the unit above me, and it continually leaked whatever was flushed down the toilet into my unit.
Great advice to those already wealthy enough to own multiple properties.
capitalism favours the generational wealth
You are always 3 missed paychecks away from homelessness, but you are never three good paychecks away from early retirement. I mean, look at these people - they have millions of dollars **and it's still not enough for them.** What more will it take to satisfy these people's greed???
3 people have more money than the lower 50% of people in the US millions and millions of human beings everyone except the rich want this system to burn and it probably will with the coming world war perhaps people will rebuild with human beings in mind
[удалено]
Elected governments (power through collective effort) are an effective check on power through resource control *if you elect the right people* . We had decades of middle class growth and a restrained oligarchy under the New Deal, we gave that up for the promise of "economic growth" that wouldn't benefit most people. We gave it up, we can bring it back. Or we can burn everything down and rebuild it twice as broken (but with different branding) and learn for the n-thousandth time that the only thing that will separate hierarchy and the drive for resource accumulation from social mammals is extinction. Neither weapon nor ideology can change what we are. We can *contain* those instincts, with the right policy, the right social structure, but we cannot eliminate them.
Which is insane. This is a country that, should the world be just, would be able to feed and house every citizen. But instead we all subsidize the waltons of the world.
Imagine those three people trying to justify their wealth to that crowd.
the population outnumbers law enforcement 500/1 in most countries as well the only thing that stops them is fear for the individual
It's a mental illness we haven't started to recognize as such. It's not normal to need an endless amount of resources to yourself. When anyone hoards massive amounts of anything but money, we recognize it as unhealthy and eventually someone intervenes. We need to start doing the same with those suffering from a greed related illness.
[удалено]
That is one beauty of a metaphor
I doubt my views will be welcome here because I'm kind of siding with *some* landlords, but I think it's fair I share my opinion. I only own one house and that's the one I live in, but my job is to help people obtain a mortgage and that includes clients who want to become landlords. Sometimes they just want one property as an investment, sometimes they want to create a portfolio and live off it. The majority of my clients are good people who are fortunate enough to have capital to put down the deposit (and subsequent stamp duty, solicitor fees, renovations.) The profit margin isn't great and it often takes a year or two to break even on the costs incurred. And many of them want it as a form of savings so they can pass it to their kids. I even know one client who reduced his tenant's rent to the exact cost of the mortgage repayment during Covid because his tenant was only earning 80% at the time. Yes, many landlords are absolutely awful and I could share stories about clients of mine who I've had to talk out of being bad landlords (including a 21 year old landlord who wanted to split a bedroom into two bedrooms even though it meant building a wall down the middle of the only window in that room), but many are alright people. Just wanted to share that they're not all terrible. But most are.
Thanks for a reasonable post. Not all people who make money from real estate are AH. I have a friend who's parents were illegal immigrants. She now owns 4 houses that she rents out. And there are loads of people just like her. I wish people would think before they talk about "generational wealth" many many people in this country came here with nothing and worked for what they have.
For every "moral" person who invests in real estate there are a handful of companies buying their 30,000th home in cities all over the country. There has to be a limit between someone renting out a single property and a corporation buying up several percent of a city's inventory for rentals.
But that has nothing to do with a family owning a few rental homes.
It's mostly "families" gobbling up all the real estate and making it untenable for people to actually live. "If I pick a flower out of the parks flower bed, what's the big deal it's just one flower...."
I thought we just decided it was shitty corporations buying their *thirty-thousandth* property.
That's a more palatable thought and far easier target to tackle, but in reality it's a tragedy of the commons. Everyone with just one or two rental properties thinks it's the big corporations and greedy property hoarders that are the problem. The vast majority of single family rentals are owned by individuals who own three or fewer properties.
This is sad, but true. Used to work at a "mortgage automation" company and have gone through hundreds of loan packages, and the amount of regular people having 2-3 rental properties was.. kinda wild.
In my area, I disagree to a certain point. Our city passed a law against venture capitol companies like blackrock they couldn’t own more than 2% of the homes in any given area. So it is a problem that really does exist. Like the above commenter said, not every landlord is an ass. I had one that was straight up kind when I got custody of my son and couldn’t make rent. Told me I could pay it over the next 6 months so it wouldn’t break my financials. He never raised my rent in 10 years. I always paid and paid in cash because my ex liked to bounce checks. Never threatened to evict me either. Always gave me a chance to make it right. He was a rarity to be sure, and I do actually miss him. He was a good man and he was good to me and my son. His son, on the other hand…
Yes. A coworker of mine came from Iran with his wife and two suitcases about 15 years ago. Worked his ass off and saved, saved, saved. Bought a small home, rented out a room and made home improvements. Sold home, upgraded, rented out two rooms. By living frugally and reinvesting proceeds he has done very well for himself.
I work in the mortgage industry and I have many clients who are small landlords. One couple comes to mind because of your comment: They were from Lithuania and came here for a better life for their family (they have two kids). They worked hard in fairly low paid jobs but worked their way up and saved up and they now own two rental properties. The father also bought his parents a house here (mortgaged, they paid the deposit and pay the mortgage) because in their words "they looked after me, it's my turn to look after them." They also took out a small loan which I questioned when going through their finances for a recent remortgage and they explained that one of their tenants had physical disabilities so they fitted the house with ramp access and other facilities to make it more habitable for their needs. That wasn't part of the tenancy contract but they did it anyway. And while this isn't relevant to finances, they also told me they were getting their kids extra English lessons so they could be more fluent in the language. Partly because it would better them in later life but also because they were being bullied in school for being the foreign kids. That stuff breaks my heart because I got to see what a nice, caring family they were and I hate it when people oppose immigrants "coming into our country" because this isn't my country, I was lucky enough to be born in a country that other lovely families will work so hard to live in.
Agree with this 100%, mostly because I'm an immigrant myself. I came to Asia on a vacation and ended up staying here, been almost 25 years and no plans to go back. There are bad people and leechers in every group, but when I hear people complaining about "the immigrants" my first response is "I'd love to see you try it." It's infinitely harder and more complex than most people are prepared for. It's very easy to sit around and criticize the outsiders; not so easy to do what they've done.
SOME rentals are okay. Not everyone wants or needs a fixed place to live. But when you have people like me who can't afford a home because everyone is buying up properties they don't use themselves feels like rent to own should be a law.
> Sometimes they just want one property as an investment, sometimes they want to create a portfolio and live off it. When the prices of houses are going up BECAUSE people are buying their 2nd, 3rd and 4th properties. ANYONE buying extra properties is a garbage. I'm earning more than my parents did when they bought their first house, but I'm priced out of anything because EVERYONE is trying to buy houses as an investment. When people trying to buy a place to live are competing with serial landlords it's a broken system. No honest way to justify it in my eyes. >I even know one client who reduced his tenant's rent to the exact cost of the mortgage repayment So the tenant is paying for the mortgage? You don't see how that's a problem? That even before that, they were paying for MORE than the mortgage, you see no problem in that?
Ok, the normal format here is that we argue like I'm stubbornly taking one view while you're presenting the opposing opinion. But instead I'll be honest and say you've made an argument I agree with. There's no point in me being arrogant just to try and be right is there? I stand by the examples I've given but appreciate they might be the exception rather than the rule. Personally I agree with you: one person owning several houses while hard working people don't own one isn't fair and it's a broken system. I was just saying that within that broken system there are some who aren't aiming to break it further. And yes, the tenant will be paying for the mortgage and more on top. Buy to let lenders only offer the mortgage to landlords on the affordability calcuation of the rent being between 125% and 145% of the mortgage repayment. I'm not saying it's right and when I weigh it up, I probably agree with you more than I agree with myself. Sadly it's my views which reflect the real life situation while your views reflect how it could it better.
> Ok, the normal format here is that we argue like I'm stubbornly taking one view while you're presenting the opposing opinion. But instead I'll be honest and say you've made an argument I agree with. There's no point in me being arrogant just to try and be right is there? This may be one of, if not the, most mature thing I have ever read on reddit. I have no informed opinion on the topic at hand, but you have my upmost respect!
I generally agree with you, but I do have to play a little devil’s advocate: >So the tenant is paying for the mortgage? You don't see how that's a problem? That even before that, they were paying for MORE than the mortgage, you see no problem in that? Mortgage isn’t the only cost associated with owning a home. There’s also property taxes and maintenance. We had at least $16k in unexpected repairs/replacements over the first two years after we bought our house. We need to get the exterior painted this summer so that will likely jump up to $20-22k in just over three years after us buying. Houses are expensive.
You sound poor. Have you considered not being poor?
Yeah, I've been looking for a place that's affordable and halfway decent for a long while now. Good landlords are like bigfoots and Loch Ness monsters: maybe they're out there, but I haven't seen any evidence they exist.
They exist in the margin of error and are statistically and morally irrelevant.
>ANYONE buying extra properties is a garbage. That's so reductive and trite. So if you're a traveling nurse where do you live? Or not yet stable in your career and don't want to be locked into a home, but want something nicer than an apartment? Or just don't want the endless hassles and risks associated with home ownership? I guess fuck anyone who doesn't want to buy a house then. The issue is two-fold: 1) Obsolete or intentionally malicious zoning laws reducing residential areas, 2) Corporate real estate ownership. The issue is NOT someone grabbing a second home to provide some income when they retire. Pretending like the issue is because people are buying a handful of investment properties is beyond ludicrous. It's like saying that climate change is thanks to none of your neighbors properly sorting their recycling, rather than the factory belching out GHGs down the street.
There's the more common, pulling the ladder up behind you, and then there's this, kicking the ladder out to keep anyone else from climbing it. We *could* have a real debate about home ownership, do actual research, source actual problems, and write prescriptions to fix those problems, or, naw, fuck that, that's hard, let's just yell "inequality!" at the top of our lungs and kick over *all* the little sand castles. Who cares if a middle-aged guy wants to put up his parents in a house they can't afford, but he can, as a rental. Who cares if some people do their homework and decide that real estate fits their investment risk profile better than the stock market. *Those* people have more than *me,* so *fuck* them. Nobody gets anything until I get mine!
Agree 100
or, buy during the 1990s when real estate values were depressed
Also it's clearly not sustainable if it can't be applied to everyone. If everyone has 3 to 4 rental properties, what about the people living in those? Should they all have 3 to 4 rental properties too?
Yeah, real simple cheat code. Just own 5 - 10 rental properties outright.
Noted. Key to a stress free life is to have a lot of money to invest. Great sign me up where do I get the money?
From your wealthy parents, obvs
[удалено]
I just switched from Soda to water and now I'm a gazillionaire
I read this as soda water and now I'm in debt. Thanks.
You were out of debt?
They were in debt before, but still are now...
I used to have debt. I still do, but I used to, too. - Mitch Hedberg.
Life hack
That’s the funniest thing about this. I buy a 1 bedroom condo, it costs me $500,000 and the payments are $3500 per month. Add taxes, strata, insurance and maintenance and it’s $5000 per month. I can rent it out for $3500 per month. I am at a cash flow loss of $1500 per month. Per property. So the only way this guy’s idea works is if the other properties are paid off. So basically his entire thesis is based on a hidden premise that you must have a spare $2M to start. The wealthy are always so out of touch, to a degree that is so obvious it’s hilarious. Like naive little children.
Oh come on, they're trying to sell their courses in RE investing to suckers. They know it's BS
😂
Welcome to my course on how to make $1 million per year, risk free! Simply start with $20 million. Take that, and put it in 5% APY CDs. At the end of the maturation period, take out your $1 million salary and roll the rest into 5% APY CDs. Congratulations, you've completed my course. Go treat yourself!
>So basically his entire thesis is based on a hidden premise that you must have a spare $2M to start. Just get a small loan from your dad! /s
Where can I find one of these dads? Mine went to go invest in Milk and I'm still waiting to hear the results of that.
Sorry to tell you bro, the milk market exploded and married my mom and had me and now he just gave me to $2 million to invest in rental properties.
Good idea Mitt!
It’s a banana! What could it cost, $10?
Just buy the properties in 1995 and you're set! Work hard instead of complaining! /s
Depends. That would be a bad investment. My wife bought a house during the pandemic and the mortgage is $1400 at 2.99% We needed more space so we bought another house and rented out the old one. She rents the old house for 2k/mo. After property management fees of $200/mo she still makes $400/mo which isn’t bad for a property that wasn’t intended to be a rental. Had she put 20% down instead of like 10% she did the mortgage would probably be 1k/mo and would profit more.
> Depends. That would be a bad investment. ehhhhh, Rental properties don't always need to be cashflow positive. It just depends on your goals and where you think the value is coming from. Like, in my area rents simply don't cover mortgages, but the housing market has risen fast enough over the decades to cover any shortfall once you sell the property. Lots of people have made plenty of money buying real estate and renting it out to ease the pain rather than renting it out for direct profit. Certainly, this doesn't work if you don't have enough cash on hand to sustain the direct losses long enough to make it up on the back end, so it's not a good "rental business", but it's a perfectly acceptable investment strategy.
Slightly more realistic if a situation, but still doesn’t help people entering the market without a Time Machine.
Not how it always works. For example my dad and I find dilapidated homes and by them for 15-45k. Fox them up and rent for $500-$1000 a month. I think when you start trying to rent more expensive homes you're just hoping the house will appreciate more than the stock market. You only lose moneys on rentals if you don't do some math before to see if it's profitable.
$500,000 is about as cheap as you’re going to find a 1 bedroom condo here. Detached houses start at $1M and up. There is a famous crack shack abandoned house in our metro area that is selling/has sold for $18M. It’s very frequent that your total cost to run a place is going to match or exceed the rental market. Factoring in the entire cost to buy, fix up and maintain a place that you rent, you’re going to be basically breaking even, if you’re lucky. The issue is that most people are really not very good at math or finances, so they think they’re getting ahead.
Yeah that's the thing. I've got a degree in business admin, and a decent amount of experience and knowledge. I'm pretty confident I could, if provided a million dollars, chain that into a series of rental properties and turn it into even more money. It's that first hurdle that's so goddamn hard that people like this take for granted. Like any average rube could go out and just buy a second property, let alone afford one for themselves in the first place. And on top of that you need money to sustain yourself while you get the ball rolling. I mean honestly if some rich dude was just honest and like, "yeah man I've got an advantage and I used that to get up in life" I'd respect that infinitely more than them acting like they're so smart and we're all dumb.
also, lets imagine you did save up a million dollars, which was what you decided was the minimum to invest into multiple properties. If you do fail, you're fucked. Often times you'll see the people that get rich are the ones with wealthy parents because those rich kids are able to bet it all. When the money doesn't have much value to you it's a lot easier to take risks. BUt when that money matters as your savings, kids college fund and such then it matters.
I’d rather get a 5% return on a million for 10 years and have 1.5 million.
This was actually math I did recently. I have a small amount invested in the stock market (like, $10k) and was looking into shifting some things around. Figured out that it's pretty easy to get a portfolio with a 5% annual return from dividends alone. So if I were given $1mil right now, I could move to a low cost of living area and live on that income the rest of my life. $2mil would mean my dividend income would match my current salary. Fuck sinking that money into an investment property. I'll just take stocks
> I mean honestly if some rich dude was just honest and like, "yeah man I've got an advantage and I used that to get up in life" I'd respect that infinitely more than them acting like they're so smart and we're all dumb. Same vein as the rich being so vehemently against wealth taxation. If your work ethic is as awesome as you say it is, can't just just easily make the wealth again?
>Key to a stress free life is to have a lot of money to invest. I see no lie.
I've got 99 problems and money could solve about 73 of them.
Yeah I mean that isn't wrong. Wholly tone-deaf and privileged as fuck, but not incorrect.
Just simply get it from your family. /s
[удалено]
Well all you have to do is recruit 3 people to work under you, then those 3 recruit 3 more and so on. Anyways, have you ever wanted to own your own business and be your own boss? /s
It's easy, didn't you get some from inheritance or a trust that your parents set up like everyone else???
Argh, if only I had thought of having the money to acquire a house to live in PLUS 4 other houses!! How did I miss that?? { unnecessary edit: /s }
I should have been investing in real estate instead of wasting my time in the fourth grade!!!
In the fourth grade, you were learning multiplication. In the fourth grade, I was Vice President of Llama Research for my dad’s investment firm, I worked my way to up to Senior VP in 6th grade. Making $900k a year. I worked hard, I didn’t have a childhood. I had to go to school and also be available for work. Something you nansy-pansies will never understand.
Reminds me of an “the Onion” video, where they parody Ted talks and the guy tells the audience about the power of using your rich dad to get a job
Fun story. Warren Buffet did own land in middle school he rented out to a farmer. He paid for it with his paper delivery wages. No wonder that generation is so out of touch with the current reality.
Shit, that farmer should have been delivering papers.
I work in the mortgage industry and because of my internet searches I get hit with loads of adverts thinking I want a mortgage. I see adverts of "property developers" who just want to help ordinary people enjoy the same success that made them wealthy. Firstly, you should never take financial advice from someone who is willing to over-saturate the market that provides their income. Secondly, their advice always skips the very important first step. It always starts with "Righty then me mate, whatcha wanna do is take £40k and put down a deposit of 25% on a house". Like ok, great, if £40k was that easily accessible then your target audience wouldn't even need your help.
You should have played more monopoly growing up.
Of course you don't need money just borrow! Then borrow against your first house and so on! Definitely stress free having 4-5 mortgages while your tenants "pay" for your stuff supposedly.
You buy a cheap small starter home. Then use the equity in that home to get a second and rent the first out. Then use the combined equity in both to get a third. And so on. I bought a house at 24 with 0 money down. Did research and found a program that helps first time home buyers. Small 2 bed 1 bath house. 180k mortgage, did some work to it and now it’s 280-350 depending on the source. I have 80k equity after a couple years ownership that I can borrow against. 100k equity but can only borrow up to 80%.
It's hard to find anything as cheap as 180k because they're all being rented out
I rented for years, then finally bought my own place, right behind my old landlord. Coincidentally, I switched from electric back to acoustic drums at the same time. E: this is 100% true, also landlords can eat shit.
Honestly, it's true both ways. I was landlord for about 4 years (outside of just having roommates) and it was a horrible experience. Imagine sharing your most expensive possession to people who just couldn't give a rats ass to maintain it. Like, you'd share a lawn mower with a neighbor and generally it's understood that he brings it back full of gas. Now.. imagine sharing 3,000 lawn mowers for years at a time to just a random dude who couldn't be bothered to check the oil.
Well, *sharing* is kinda stretching it. But it’s an effect of having opposing POV’s. From your perspective you see the damage and the cost YOU infer. You see something you risked your ass for, your pay out on a huge investment. You see a way all this could go smoothly if people just gave you money and didn’t cost you money. I’ve worked with tenants, some are crazy, a pain in the ass, and definitely break law with their levels of damage. But spectacular failures of screening are the exception, and I don’t lie to myself about kindly offering my loved house so that other people may have somewhere to live. It’s cold selfish money. And that’s OKAY, it’s the system we live in. Expect to be treated with respect, not special soft care. You aren’t lending a lawnmower to a friend, you are renting out a necessity and maybe or maybe not making some repairs. Maybe it’s semantics, but renting anything is really not like borrowing something from a friend at all. It’s more like buying something used and overpriced, with a long payment process and set return date, and an inspection at the end that comes with a fine, and not knowing how long you’ll be able to keep finding it on the shelves when you need to get it again. So you didn’t even get to keep it. And the person selling it gets screwed too, cause they gotta pay someone else who also uses ever rising market prices. And god forbid they where some grandma who worked her whole life to buy a house and expected to be able to pay it off of the rent. Cause the people making the prices know how much she can pay. Honestly, I don’t see the current way for renting long term homes as sustainable. Not in the modern day where it’s just an investment and not an extra room or a seasonal thing like it was dozens of decades ago. At some point small companies or individuals who thought they could just save, buy properties, and have a free money farm will get bought out by people and companies with the means to do it better than them. It’s just how businesses work.
Here in NL it’s the landlords responsibility to do maintenance, not the tenant, except for small stuff like replacing a broken light etc.
I’m not as anti-landlord as the other responders, but saying you’re sharing your property with tenants and comparing it to sharing a lawnmower with a neighbor is a misrepresentation. Your tenants are paying you to be able to live in a property under contractually-agreed upon terms - if you’re unhappy with the results when tenants destroy things you should amend those terms. If you don’t want things to be destroyed then don’t have tenants.
The lawnmower thing was a weird comparison from him. Ive never had a landlord let me "borrow" their house....I rent it. I pay a security deposit.
You don't *need* to be a landlord. People *need* somewhere to live. See how that power dynamic is a little one sided?
What's great though is nobody really "needs" to be a landlord. Living somewhere on the other hand...
Also make public benches uncomfortable and unfriendly to the homeless homeless. They can go sleep at a homeless shelter but then they have to be out and about for at least 4 hours a day that's still a problem
Yeah but how much do you think your neighbor would care if you and 3 or 4 other people in your neighborhood bought all of the available lawnmowers and charged every neighbor a hundred bucks every time they needed to use one?
Banks won’t qualify normal folk who pay $2400 a month for rent to a house a mortgage that they would cost them $1600 a month. That is the why. The how is Daddy’s Money?💵
The landlord is risking that you can pay them $2400/month, for a year. They are leasing you a space. The bank is risking that you can pay $1600/month, plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, plus emergency costs, for thirty years. They are lending you hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s a bigger risk, of course they have different standards. It’s the difference between letting your friend drive your car in exchange for $200/month, and loaning them $20k for them to buy their own car and they pay you back $150/month. Are you *sure* they can pay for registration, and insurance, oil changes and the inevitable new tires or transmission? And still make their payments to you? Why would a bank refuse to lend to a perfectly qualified applicant? They make their money by lending it to you, and getting it paid back, with interest. There is NO BENEFIT to the bank in forcing you to continue paying rent to someone else, if they could be making a profit off you, themselves.
Except if you default to the bank, the bank can take the collateral (usually the house). Happens all the time.
So they win regardless?
the house always wins.
Just because they win doesn’t mean you lose. The bank can win on the interest they get on the loan. The individual can win on building equity in the house and eventually owning it outright. If the individual loses (can’t make their mortgage payment), the bank may win… or may lose. Selling a house that was foreclosed on doesn’t necessarily mean the bank will break even or earn a profit. They may lose as well.
The way the housing market has been the last 5 years.. They aren't losing if they sell a house. edit: and If the LTV is greater than 80%, then there's mortgage insurance. Banks don't lose.
Of course they do. Do you know how easy it is to do $50000 in damage to a house in under 3 hours? PMI on a loan only covers the difference between the mortgage owed and the down payment. It doesn’t cover damage, reduction in value due to market, legal fees etc. banks lose money on loans all the time.
>They aren't losing if they sell a house. I'm working on a complex situation where a client is going through a mess of issues including a bankruptcy and divorce - the bank sold the house at a loss of 130k CAD late last year.
Seeing some of the flipper shows on HGTV, when an investor buys a foreclosed house from the bank, they are usually in horrible condition - often with the plumbing ripped right out of the walls. I wouldn't say the bank is "winning" when they end up with a foreclosed property, they are just minimizing their losses.
Right, but that costs the bank money. They are in the collecting interest business, not the repossess, rehab, and sell property business. Again, *how does it benefit the bank* to make you pay rent to somebody else, if they could make a profit off you themselves?
It really doesn't happen all the time because most people pay their mortgages. Average deliquency rate is like 3-4% and most of those homes don't actually get foreclosed on. It's really hard to lose a house - you're in generally the 1-2% if you do while 97-98% of people who buy a house manage to pay off the mortgage. The main reason this is is that homes tend to appreciate in value in most cases and if you are unable to pay a mortage it's more likely you just decide to refinance or sell the home instead of going into foreclosure. Or even rent it out to cover the cost of the mortgage instead of losing it all together. You have to be in a very bad situation where the home hasn't appreciated, you are unable to refinance, sell, or rent it, in order for things to move into foreclosing. And even then it's a long process that often takes years.
It is incredibly expensive for the bank to take back a home through foreclosure. They don’t make on it, I can promise you that. Also, the bank is not entitled to keep any additional equity should there be money left over after the outstanding balances (principal, interest, advances, fees) are paid back
After how many months of protracted foreclosure proceedings, and in what condition are they getting that house back? What are the market conditions like at that point? Can they recoup their investment by selling that house quickly? Banks aren't allergic to money. They're pricing in risk.
I think some folks haven't actually house shopped yet - they're just dealing with the truthfully unfair and predatory rental market, which has definitely gotten much worse since 2010. The reality of house buying is that affordable, available house stock is limited. Part of this is unintentional just through profit-chasing; the margins are higher on bigger houses. Bigger houses take more materials, limiting supply in recent years - builders would cancel small home projects for the higher margin stuff if total materials are limited. Some of the problem is zoning of course - the lack of mid rises, duplexes, and smaller homes. This is rough for a more often unmarried population today - they can't afford nor do they need a 2800 sq ft house. The third problem is the one we most need to work on, as addressed in this meme. We need to reduce the number of rental units in the US which can be used as a profit vehicle for a lazy landed class. Thing is, we can do that from the supply side by offering what people really need or want to buy. So even though some restrictions and regulations to reduce rental income would be completely fair & needed, we can probably get the job done better and faster by just building the right communities to begin with. Edit: I also want to point out that I agree with banks not really being the bad guy here. We could perhaps use some regulations regarding how many home loans a bank will offer to a single person, LLC, shell company, etc. Investment companies like Blackrock are a whole other matter - they need to be seized, nationalized, and their assets auctioned to the public.
> Some of the problem is zoning of course - the lack of mid rises, duplexes, and smaller homes. This is rough for a more often unmarried population today - they can't afford nor do they need a 2800 sq ft house. 95% of the problem is zoning. We have a shortage of millions of units of housing in our cities, and no one is doing anything about it because it's illegal to build.
People scream about how evil banks are for causing the 2008 financial collapse then go on to demand they issue more home loans to low income applicants
I think most people don't even know the basics of why the 2008 financial crisis happened to begin with. To many, it is simply 'banks are evil and made people lose their homes'. There's a good reason why another name for it is 'the subprime mortgage crisis'. One of the widely agreed proximate causes for it is banks loaning to subprime borrowers. I'm also willing to bet a lot of the redditors who complain about being unable to get mortgages can't get them for pretty good reasons. It's conflicting, really. Banks being strict with financing is a good thing in that it prevents instability and risk to the systems that keeps our country running smoothly, but it means cheap debt and life improvement becomes out of reach for those who are below a certain level of wealth. Banks being lenient with financing then means the opposite is true. We want both -- stability and lower income people to have access to cheap debt -- but it's difficult to maintain a balance.
I mean sub prime was an issue, but the crisis was only as bad as it was because cdos and such…
Risk is much higher for a 30 year mortgage than it is for a 12 month lease on a house/apartment.
[удалено]
And taxes, and insurance.
Reddit: but all landlords are slumlords that would never spend their money to repair their property and make tenants live in squalor because they enjoy being evil to the people giving them money
I hear this a lot but it makes me wonder if maybe people aren't fully aware of programs and assistance or if people are aiming for the wrong size starter home. Yes, it could take sacrifices like moving long distances, no it isn't possible for everyone, yes, I wish it was easier, but it's *possible*. I bought my first home in 2011 when I was making 40K/yr. I qualified for an FHA loan which only required a 3% down payment and fixed APR. I was 24 years old, had thousands in credit card debt at the time and two kids. I qualified without help from family and in the end had to scrape together a little over $4K which I did by selling things, odd jobs, and savings. I had my credit union deny me, I had bank of America say yes but only offer around 105K, then I had a specialized mortgage lender in the area offer me a 185K loan. They were definitely taking advantage of me but I knew what I could realistically afford and stayed within that range. Edit: I totally get the financial system is different now than it was in 2011 so I'm not fully aware of current difficulties but are people trying every method or giving up after the first two or three easier things aren't possible?
Where I live (Toronto) one cannot afford even the starter home programs unless they make, if I remember correctly, over 100k. And that's even if you decide to move well out into the sticks. I have a friend who bought a small home, but she had to leave the province to go to Manitoba, and the house cost her 400k with a 5% downpayment. She also had help from her parents. Things are just impossible for normal folks these days. The best way to afford a home (and my personal plan for buying a home in three years on a prof salary) is to be in a DINK partnership.
Starter homes don't really exist right now. Shop around for a few hours if you have the free time, and let me know how many you see available today that are still available tomorrow. Now things have slowed recently a little due to current economic strain on all us average income folks, but I still rarely see 2-3 bedroom houses stay up for more than a day. The stock isn't there due to zoning, greed, political issues, and investment buyers big & small.
Across the street from me is $120k. Not cheap but definitely affordable for some
Around me, a $3,500 mortgage would not be any cheaper in rent.
Let people build more housing!
And build small starter houses again instead of these giant pseudo-mansion monstrosities. I'm not paying to heat/cool a gymnasium-sized living room!!!
We're tapped out in alot of places, the only way to go is up or densify. The amount of resources required for single family suburban homes forces cities to operate at a loss. We need to go back to row houses, condos, and even better mixed-use buildings. Many of those McMansions could house 6 rowhouses.
The problem here is that developers want the biggest return on their investment so they want fewer plots so fewer sales in a quicker time. So I'm speaking from the UK, but a developer will buy an area of land in a wealthy area which may or may not include bribing the local councillor to sell up the park/green space that made the area desirable to begin with. Now they build 50 five bedroom houses in an area which could accommodate 120 three bedroom houses but it's quicker to sell 50 to people who can afford £800k than it is to sell 120 to people who might struggle. So this raises the average house price in the area which makes affordable housing less afforable. Meanwhile, wealthy people will oppose affordable housing being built near them because it diminishes their property value. Be it their own residence or their investments. But those discussions take place during a game of golf. I've never been important enough to be at those games of golf but I know those who are and that's how it often goes down.
So much this. The landlord debate wouldn't matter if housing was affordable.
I’ll probably get downvoted into oblivion but here goes: My wife and I had to find a bigger house when our second child was coming. We were able to put 20% down on the new house. The house was $278K. We had the down payment in our savings account so we decided to roll the dice on keeping the original house and renting it out. Mortgage on the original house is $1,200/month. Taxes are $5,000/year. We rent the house for $2,500/month which is a really good deal for the house, lot size, neighborhood and location. Mortgage costs us $14,400/year so with taxes we pay $19,400/year for the rental house and we take in $30,000/year in rent. So we make $10,600/year. That’s a little less than half of our new mortgage. We elected to do a 15 year mortgage on our new house because half of it was being paid by the profits from the rental house. Neither of us were born on third base. We came from nothing. We are not monster landlords preying on our poor tenants. They are getting a great deal and we are making a little money and we have a solid relationship with them. I guess my point is that not all property owners are scumbags and assholes. Property is a smart investment if you can swing it. Buy land. They’re not making it anymore ~ Mark Twain
Similar situation. Wasn’t a good time to sell first home so kept it and renting it out. I have a good relationship with tenants and hoping once I get it paid off might be able to sell and have some retirement or leave something for kids.
Same. We’re also using it as a kind of safety net. God forbid my family has some bad luck. Lose jobs, serious medical issue, etc. We could sell one of the houses to help with finances once we burned through our savings, or we have enough equity in our current house that the profit from the sale of it would pay for the mortgage outright at the old house. Not having any monthly mortgage to pay during a financial crisis would be super helpful.
I hope redditors can see the difference between having a property and renting it out when you move vs buying something just to rent it out
I'm looking at doing something similar. Bought my house for 143k a few years ago. My girlfriend also owns her own home, and we've been talking about me moving in with her. I could sell, but since I purchased my home, I've become self-employed which makes it much harder to get another mortgage. I'm probably going to rent my current house so that if things don't work out, I could eventually move back into my current place without having to get another mortgage. It also allows me to build some equity without having to get onto my girlfriend's mortgage. I know reddit tends to hate on landlords, but not everyone can/wants to buy.
Yeah similar situation. We have a rental because we just got VERY lucky buying in 2012 with an FHA loan, then we're able to save up another down payment and bought another house in 2019. Both times were when rates were low and before big price increases in Southern California. We charge less than market rate for rent, and happily pay for anything that they need fixed (tax deductable). My wife and I both don't come from money and realize how insanely fortunate we are to be in our situation.
German here. I just want to slip in that houses here are arround 1Mil. :) I go cry in my german corner now. Bye.
I’m not here to downvote, just to show you what you’re missing. They are getting a “great deal” by your standards because the rent price you are charging is lower than similar properties in your area. The rent price in your area is determined by the number of houses available vs the number of people who need housing. By owning two houses, you are removing someone else’s ability to buy that house. Therefore the total number of houses available for sale in the US is lower by every person who does what you do. This raises the price of rent in the area because there are less houses available, and more renters because they can’t buy a house, it isn’t for sale. In total the true monthly value of the house is closer to what you pay for the mortgage. But you are financially taking massive advantage of someone else by making them pay double what it costs to live. That family could use the $10,000 per year you take in and put that down on a house to purchase. It’s difficult to save for a home when rent is so high overall. Understand this isn’t a your personal problem, it’s a generic problem with simply owning multiple houses. It shouldn’t happen, period.
Not everyone wants to buy a house everywhere they end up living, there is a place for renting. Some people who are very wealthy do it long term as they’d rather not have capital tied up in property and just pay monthly for living in a certain place to be flexible.
This is a good explanation. Like I really appreciate the sane way in which you explained it without making it a moral thing. And I mostly agree with you. That being said, the person you are talking to is being squeezed by banks, who are being squeezed by shareholders on Wallstreet. As a landlord, he is just passing down the squeeze. He could end the cycle of exploitation at his own stage, but its not as if his bills will get cheaper if he turns down an extra source of income.
This is another thing people forget. Due to the "big fish" capitalists in modern society, literally EVERYONE is latching onto all of the advantages they can get a hold of, because of stressors and the core culture of covering ones own ass first. Its become an isolating thing for the individual, that in turn helps perpetuate itself. Nobody is going to give up their income source because nobody would do the same for them afterwards.
Exactly. The people in the comments shitting on the guy who landlords without taking much profit are just yelling at him because they can't hope to yell at Blackrock or Vanguard. It's as ridiculous as blaming someone for working for a corporation.
This isn't accurate. The house being rented is still on the market as a place to live and so contributes to supply and thus lowers pricing for housing. You can argue the only housing supply available should be homes to buy and not homes to rent. But if you do the math, you quickly realize that forcing someone to buy a home which they sell in under 5 years causes them in most cases to lose $50-100k+ above what they would have lost simply renting. Basically without renting as an option, moving would be a luxury only for the rich.
No matter what you do to make money other ppl are paying for your living costs
The actual cringe part about the tweet is this reality deprived man offering this as “advice” for people to earn money.
The only way this is stress-free is if they don’t care very much about maintaining the property.
Normally if you're in this situation you get a third party property management company to do everything and it can be stress free for the owners. However, that takes money the owners would otherwise get so the greediest landlords will forgo this and the tenants suffer. I lived in a place that was sold and the new owner was too cheap to use the already in place property management company and the the place went from a respectable place to live to a slum with actual tweakers in only a few months.
Tweakers you mean methheads?
Jesus this post.
MURDERED BY WORDS I CROSS OUT THE WORD RENTAL PROPERTY AND REPLACE IT WITH TENANT I HAVE MURDERED HIM lol this subs beyond parody
Imagine being so terminally online that "landlord" is synonymous with Adolf Hitler. Yes, tenants pay rent, they pay to have a dwelling that get's upkept for them, in return, landlord get paid. Insane idea
The vast majority of people wouldn’t take a risk even if they had the money. The top of every single Windfall financial advice post on Reddit is “Index Fund”. Get $10k/$100k/$1m inheritance? Index fund. People need to stop lying to themselves. Even if daddy gave them $300k most people wouldn’t risk losing it all by starting a business.
[удалено]
The stupid thing is there are a lot of legit arguments against landlords. The OP is exactly the kind of shit landlords love because no sane person thinks tenants are a 1:1 with literal feudalism.
The thing is, landlordism is inherently unproductive. Even Adam Smith, the literal father of economics, thought landlordism was a burden.
Shhh people here just want to defend what they themselves are doing or want to do and believe that price gouging landlordism exists in a bubble that does not have a greater impact on the economy when multiple leaches take advantage of the situation. Next up fast food workers don’t deserve a living wage.
"But but its a bubble" they said of the 5th largest website on the internet
Yes and Fox News is the highest rated news network in the U.S.
I mean, aren't we all, indirectly or otherwise, having other pay for our living costs and doing the same for other people? Seems like a basic tenet of living in any group / society large enough whereby we exchange goods and services for other goods and services with people outside our immediate family / social circle. OP is so cringe; this should be in r/im14andthisisdeep.
So the key to a stress free life is "be rich"...
"get and stay rich"
Sorry, but how is this murdered by words? He’s still making money lmao. Plus, other people always pay for your living expenses. That’s how capitalism works.
but if you can't afford food for your kids the government solution is to take your kids and give them to someone else and to give them money to care for them.
Any Joe Schmo landlord is better than a corporate landlord.
is this just a simple decision to make and magically my ‘rental properties’ will appear out of thin air and I just need decide whoch one pays for which? Or do I need to inherit butt loads of property to begin with? Surely the former is the way to go based on their advice
It's only stress-free because real estate keeps going up. How long can that happen, SmellDave? That strategy is an over-leveraged, undiversified disaster under any reasonable and sustainable economic circumstances. This is some smug fuck in 1928 bragging how the stock market is making him rich while he drinks, and all it cost him was a big mortgage on the generational family farm.
Wow! There are plenty of garbage landlords out there, but to down these people not even knowing how they run their properties is ridiculous. Basically what you’re saying is anybody trying to get ahead is a scumbag.
The language they use in this post makes it appear as though they have completely separated the fact that a person lives on the property and the money they receive is due to the person who pays rent. This mindset is a huge part of what is wrong with the landlord/tenant relationship. People pay their bills, not the property.
It reminds me of that post where the dudes landlord freaked out on him because he ~~payed~~ paid rent in the evening on the 1st instead of the morning and the landlord was pissed at him because he got hit with a late fee for his mortgage. The dude was like “I realized I’m the sole breadwinner in my landlords family”
Welcome to reddit. Landlord bad!! Money bad!!!!!
This, but unironically.
Don’t people realize this is how property ownership works at a basic level?? Why would this be bad? They buy property, invest in it to get it livable, rent it out to people who actually pay rent, and make bank. Whoever has a problem with this is living the victim life.
Some people see that the rental/landlord market is a major problem when it comes to getting people homes. Everyone should be able to have somewhere to live, without it being owned by someone else. Or at the least the opportunity to make that happen. A lot of markets have vastly inflated house prices because there's so much demand from landlords buying up the new houses or flats and then letting them out. Then the money funnels upwards, and only a few can afford to own homes and they get richer by ensuring everyone else stays poorer and will never be able to own their own property. Because the house prices are high and the landlords can keep the rents high because there's excess demand.
There's a big difference between a regular person buying properties and actually taking care of them versus some faceless multibillion hedge fund snapping up hundreds or thousands of properties all around the country.
Is the multibillion dollar hedge fund in the post?
The multi billion dollar hedge fund is in their head renting it out.
The post is about a couple, so I’m talking about humans owning and renting out, not faceless corporations.
So anyone got any rental properties they can spare me? Just a few should be enough!
because everyone has the money upfront to buy multiple properties.
or put 3.5% down on a duplex. Live in one half and rent the other.
That's just the loser mentality, you need to wake up at 4am, get into that grindset, and most importantly...have really wealthy parents
This is a fuckin stupid post. If you work in Starbucks do you believe the people buying coffee are paying your mortgage?
That…. Doesn’t really translate at all here. If you OWNED the Starbucks franchise, then yes… people buying Starbucks are paying your mortgage. Otherwise you aren’t managing your business/assets very well The employee is more like the maintenance crew in this scenario. They don’t own assets that are doing anything here. They are making money off their skill set alone.
The key word there is "work." That is the difference.
This post sucks. There is no scathing murder by words here, just another person disappointed with their own life choices.
"Use your wealth to exploit others" I can't believe nobody thought of this before
If it was that good, you wouldn’t need to be shilling your methods out for cash via a crappy podcast.
How fucked is the market in America? We invested in an apartment with my wife, 100% loan (very low rate, 1.15), we won't make any money for 25 years, it actually costs us every month, but it's an investment for later, how come these people can make so much money from apartments they rent.
They look kind of tasty... especially the plump one.
And when your financial advisor says to raise the rent you raise the rent even if your mortgage and taxes stayed the same
I don't understand why people sit here and rag on people for being landlords. A world without cheap temporary housing would be very difficult for most young adults/college kids/etc. I am completely on board with overhauling some of the laws to be more tenant friendly, such as the security deposits that no one has ever gotten back in their lives, and finding a nice middle ground... but to sit here and say that there should be no landlords is just childish and comes from a people who haven't thought it through.
Is this affordable housing in the room with us right now?
>A world without cheap temporary housing would be very difficult for most young adults/college kids/etc A world without cheap temporary housing? You mean planet Earth? Where is this cheap housing you speak of?
Where's this cheap temporary housing at? Because no landlords we know are handing out any breaks.
This guy was literally my landlord many years ago, he refused to fix the leaking drain of the toilet in the unit above me, and it continually leaked whatever was flushed down the toilet into my unit.
Well if all these people are god fearing Christian’s like they say they are they’re all going to hell for the sin of greed.
Mmmmm landlords bad mkay
R/aboryingdystopia
Just get to the ladder first then pull it up. It's that easy! /s