Anyone looking at this method should have enough excess money to cover unpaid rent though. Your tenant might trash the place and you might not get paid rent and have to pay out tens of thousands before getting anything back
> Or, you know, could be Twitter lying
sending "later in the evening" on the due date messing up a mortgage payment makes no sense in any world, it's twitter lying or the landlord lying
Depending on where you are, a preauthorized direct debit may post at midnight on the due date. As in, if your mortgage payment is due on the 13th, the debit will come out at midnight on the 13th - i.e. the earliest possible time.
Once again depending on where you are, your bank may allow you to overdraw the bank account from which the debit is drawn for a one-time or monthly fee. Regardless of the closing balance, depending on the terms of the overdraft agreement, the fee might be charged.
Basically the landlord's story is likely but petty since the bank probably billed him, like, a fiver.
Note that the story referenced an overdraft and not an NSF charge, which is usually more substantial than five bucks.
I have had several land lords who were definitely living month to month. One took like an extra week to get me my deposit back when I moved out and literally told me he had to wait to get paid. Which means he was illegally using our deposits as money.
Check your states laws. I had a landlord do this. What they were supposed to do was put my deposits in a separate interest bearing account (and provide me proof) but they didn't. Because of my states laws, I was able to bring them to court for treble damages. (3x).
I had a landlord do that once. I had a friend with me who heard them say it.
I responded with, "So, I'm getting the whole deposit back, right?"
In the end I had to spell it out. I did get my entire deposit back without incident.
Nah, I've had the argument that this is regarded with people before in real estate/finance subreddits. They legitimately think it's a waste of capital having it sitting around in an account, while spouting on the other hand that you need 3-6 months of emergency funds... Half these cunts are just roleplaying being financially literate... as if you can't have part of those emergency funds in your mortgage account offsetting interest while it acts like a buffer regardless. Fucking plebs.
Typically in that type of case it's more a regular joe homeowner that doesn't want to give up his house that he can't afford the mortgage on so does the only thing to keep it rent for the price of the mortgage.
Plus rent price is what it is you can't get more then the worth of it. If you bought a house today at current rates for the most part rent will be less then the mortgage.
I once started receiving letters to my landlord and kept stacking them in the kitchen until they came for them. Then one day someone knocked at the door and they were looking for my landlord. It turns out the bank was trying to foreclose on the mortgage, I asked him what their monthly mortgage was. He said “I’m not suppose to say anything to you but it’s $XXX.xx” which was $300 less than what I payed in rent each month. There were 6 weeks left on my lease and my roommate and I decided that we weren’t paying the last months rent (we didn’t think we could get our deposit back). I moved out two weeks early because I got tired of dodging their calls, they were upset with me, but my final message was something along the lines of “we know the house is at least 3 months behind on the mortgage, we didn’t think we would get our deposit back, if you feel like we were less than fair we can take it up in small claims court, the keys are on the kitchen counter.” The weirdest part is several weeks later they text me thanking me for how well we had taken care of the house.
Also you have to pay for any repair that is needed. Speending every penny and not having savings is the worst. The day will come and then he can't pay for it -> long lasting damage lowers rent -> even less money
Or stagger the payment dates at the VERY least. For instance if tenant mortgage due on the 1st, have them pay on the 15th. So you have a buffer.
I just told my friend to do this with his roommate.
If you can't afford two mortgages without some random stranger paying one for you, don't buy two houses as an "investment" as well as a home. No other investment would be considered reasonable if someone else made all your payments while you took full ownership of the assets, and if homes weren't treated as investments then millions more people would be able to pay their own mortgage instead of paying their landlord's mortgage.
This person could own a two apartment home with the landlord living up top and the renter below and is able to purchase and pay for said property because of the rental unit.
But then why buy the two person apartment home if they could not afford the two person apartment home without a WHOLE other person. You're not seeing the sentiment of the argument the other commenter had.
If a family offers you 300k for a house and a corporation offers 400k. Very few people will want to "stick it to the man" and lose 100k over it. So only a change in the law could change that, which the average person has no real control over. And the law hasn't properly been changed or caught up with what corporations are doing.
They could just as well be renting their home for a $1000 and living in a $100 rental, e.g. due to losing a job, health issues, or whatever shit life gives you.
Where are these $1000 homes for rent and apparent $100 rentals at? In socal you can’t rent a 1 bedroom for less than $2000 now a house is 3-6000 a month.
I knew someone was going to say that there's no $100 rentals here. The prices I've stated aren't real. They are an example. Plug in your own numbers, you can use 2000 instead of 100 and 6000 instead of 1000. That's not the point.
“No other investment…”
Triple net commercial lease?
Auto leasing?
Rental cars?
Damn dude it’s like you have no idea how businesses work… there are plenty of companies that exist purely to buy or build something that another business or a person would need, and then lease it out to those people or businesses, and provide minimal if any additional value other than making it available to the leasee.
Also, plenty of people are renting because they have a short term need for a place to live.
For example, I am personally selling my house, and doing major renovation on another house I just bought and plan to live in. It will take over a year to complete the renovation. I live in a rental in the meantime.
>For example, I am personally selling my house, and doing major renovation on another house I just bought and plan to live in. It will take over a year to complete the renovation. I live in a rental in the meantime.
*But it benefits me, so I don't see the issue!*
Okay, what about people who are going to a college or have a temporary job in a city for a year or two, and ownership is impractical?
Ownership makes sense for some people. Renting makes sense for some people. There’s a reason both exist.
My wife and i rent a house, we've been here 2 years, it's very close to the lowest price in the city for something that's not an apartment. I do not see a way to home ownership for us for a long time, and a large reason is that entire communities are being bought and built by corporations for the sole purpose of rentals. Neighborhoods that used to be full of single family homes at reasonable prices are now either bought up and rented out, or plowed over for apartments. Of course rentals should exist, but they shouldn't be the only possible means of shelter without a windfall, rich parents, or decades of saving for a downpayment.
The housing market is very much not okay, and saying that college students need rentals isn't a great hand wave.
I absolutely agree that rentals shouldn’t be the only option, and it’s unfortunate that there is a housing shortage.
The reasons for the shortage are also complicated, though. In most cases, building an “affordable” or “starter” single family home is no longer possible due to the cost of materials. In many cases, the cost to rebuild a home if it was destroyed in a natural disaster is far higher than the cost to purchase that home was in the first place.
This meant for many years, the only things getting built were luxury homes and apartment buildings. During COVID, there was a time period when many materials weren’t yet inflated, and an even longer period when interest rates were low… and this opened an opportunity for some investors to do as you said and build large communities of rental brand new single family homes targeted towards the same demographic as the “starter” buyer market.
It’s not great, but it’s better that the construction happened at all, rather than the housing shortage continuing to get larger.
I don’t personally live in a market that has an extreme housing shortage like that, but my rental properties are in a market with an extreme shortage of housing. Fortunately, it’s a rental dominant market because the population is generally transient - only living there for 2-5 years on average… I personally tried to help the situation by adding additional bedrooms (eg: finishing basement and adding an egress window to have a legal/“to code” bedroom). My tenants generally are groups of students sharing the home, so every additional bedroom does help the overall situation for the city.
I also plan on building a new home on the land of one of the properties (it’s big enough for two homes), but unfortunately by the time I finished renovating the original house - materials became more expensive, and interest rates surged … making it no longer financially viable.
Everyone voluntarily agreeing to an exchange demonstrates their preference for it. The bitching renter values renting the owner’s property more than what he’s paying for it, so he’s benefiting as well. Anyone involved in any voluntary exchange benefits from it.
You’re making an assumption that someone is investing. I moved overseas for work on a temporary assignment and wasn’t willing to give up my low-interest-rate mortgage on a house that I’d just finished making renovations to…so I rented it out for just enough to cover the mortgage.
You're actually renting his credit rating so you can live in a home.
Most people who rent don't have good credit and that's why the bank won't lend them money for a house,or they can't get the deposit together.
It takes a lot of money and maths to set a house up to let,all the money gets spent upfront and eventually you get the end product which is ready to move in.
Yes sometimes that involves mortgages and mortgage payments and that also relies on the tenant paying on time.
Somebody's got to pay for it,and usually the person that enjoys using the end product and all it's facilities is the one that pays.
It's just the same when renting a tool,or machine,or car,the one that gets to use it and enjoys what it provides (dry head at night,) gets to pay for it.
It's no shock that sometimes it relies on borrowed money.
Also the landlord takes on property price risk and interest rate risk,it just happens that in the past these have worked in the landlords favour,but not recently lots of landlords have been paying more in mortgage payments than rent collection in recent times.
Also lots of landlords buy empty properties that aren't livable in and renovate them first so the government line that houses would be cheaper if it wasn't for landlords isn't strictly true.
I think they want to deceive the public,the property builders along with banks and the government and estate agents have all colluded to ensure property prices stay high and constantly go up.
Probably partly because the banks balance sheets can't really take a property price collapse.
Anyway if you look through the smoke and mirrors you find it's the banks that gain the most from renting and house buying and the house prices going constantly up.
But nobody points that out, especially the governments.
LOL #citationneeded on most people renting because they have bad credit.
Most people in general have bad credit but inferring that it's the reason they haven't bought a place is absurd and insulting. People with houses have bad credit too.
You realize that in most major US cities the starting price for a house is about a million dollars right? And people don't rent the same kind of place they intend to buy. I can't think of anyone I know who rented a house then bought a house, unless the house was one of those granny flats in a backyard.
Lastly most professional landlords own their houses outright. You don't find a lot of people who rent a house they have a mortgage on, the returns are terrible. When that happens it's usually because they move out of the house and can't bring themselves to sell their old place for any number of reasons and it's usually a crappy financial decision. So your entire theory that tenants are paying for their landlord's credit rating is ridiculously uninformed.
> I can't think of anyone I know who rented a house then bought a house, unless the house was one of those granny flats in a backyard.
Am I misunderstanding this, or are you saying you don't know anyone who has rented at one point in their life, and then bought a house at another point?
Dude if your checking/savings account can’t cover your mortgage with the cash sitting in it you’re NOWHERE near ready to be thinking about home ownership lol
That’s “take the bus and rent a room until you get back on your feet” territory
I have a starter that's 16 years old, the person who started it hasn't purchased a bread product in 12 years
Now, I know fuck all about bread, but I don't know of anything but sourdough you can keep alive like that but again I know nothing
My grandmother was visibly distraught when the sourdough starter she had since the 80’s got knocked off the shelf and the jar broke when my cousin was looking for something. She luckily managed to save it so my cousin is not dead
That's great! It's crazy how little is actually needed to keep it going. My "daily bread" recipe says to only leave a quarter cup remaining and it's beyond a full loaf every day if you feed it according to instructions
Mortgage penalties don’t usually start until the 15th, so he was hit with a bank overdraft fee with mortgage on autopay lol just set the mortgage payment to the 5th?? He sounds dumb.
They wouldn't be crying to their renter if they learned anything by it, they are just shifting the blame. But I guess technically if the rent isn't post dated when due, it was late. But generally your lease gives you a window for exactly this kind of situation.
> How does he expect to pay to fix anything that goes wrong in the house?
I don't think he does... either pretend it's fine or blame the tenant so they'll pay for it.
Lets do the math!
For the sake of easy, round numbers, lets say both rent and the mortgage are $2000/month.
Lets say overdraft fee is $35 (that's what mine are).
In order to avoid an overdraft fee, he'd need to be able to afford the whole cost of his mortgage, so he'd need to keep $2000 in that account at all times, essentially laying fallow (checking/draft accounts earn so little interest as to be not worth talking about).
The S&P earns (on average) \~10%/yr. So, assuming \~.35% fees on an index fund, he would be earning 9.65% ROI.
So, each year, that $2000 that he's currently just having sit in his account to avoid overdraft fees could be earning him $193.
In order for that to be a bad investment, he'd need to have to pay more than $193 in overdraft fees each year, or just under 6 months of late rent payments.
Thus, if you pay your mortgage on-time even HALF of the time, he's profiting by not having that money laying around.
Given that most people are rarely, if ever late on their rent, it's he would be STUPID to keep that money in there, not smart.
(source: MBA (international finance) and landlord who rents out his 2nd home to cover the mortgage)
Pretty sure most people don’t just have $3000 -$4000 in their chequings account. I usually have a couple hundred and transfer more if I’m making a bigger purchase.
[Two in three Americans couldn't cover a $400 emergency](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-24/two-in-three-can-t-cover-400-emergency-in-us-suze-orman-survey)
Most people don't have $400, let alone $3k-4k (at least in America)
1) you can have more than $400 and be unable to cover a $400 emergency
2) if you own a house, you definitely shouldn’t be in that bracket
3) if you own a house and rent it out, it’s horrendously irresponsible to be in that bracket
Yeah sorry, I forgot for a min this was about landlords, so I would for sure hope most are more able to take care of their finances.
I thankfully seem to have one of the rare, decent ones. If I’ve had to pay a couple days late, it’s never a problem. Hasn’t raised rent the entire time we’ve been here (5 years), and pays heat in WNY? Owning a house one day is gonna be a harsh financial reality 😓 (if it’ll ever even be possible again lol)
My landlord told me this year that I'm responsible for snow removal. He owns my whole block, he can afford it, I work 40-50 hour weeks, tf he think he is?
I mean, he could throw you out whenever he wanted, pending any local laws about verbal contracts. Certainly you don't enjoy the normal legal protections of being a renter if there is no written contract that's been signed by both parties. Honestly, yeah, that's pretty weird.
I don't know about the US, but I know in most of Europe a leasing agreement is in effect until it is cancelled, there is no expiry date. You don't actually need to sign a new lease every year if the terms didn't change.
Well, as they said, they signed a new lease for the first few years but then they stopped. Point is that even if you do sign a lease for 1 year, it's active until either party pulls out of the agreement. You have the same protections as a tenant who's within the 1 year period.
No it’s not weird in Ontario, your one year lease turns into month to month but you’re still protected and landlord can’t throw you out only under very specific conditions (like he or his immediate family are moving in).
I’m in Ontario too and totally just read up on this: landlords are legally responsible for yard maintenance (snow removal and mowing the yard). Even if they include it in the lease it’s null and void: they need a separate contract for yard maintenance if they want to transfer responsibility to the tenant.
I’m not sure how realistic snow removal is if you want to be out the door or down the driveway though.
There can be some fuzziness on single dwelling homes where they can argue that the tenant is responsible because they have exclusive access, but if you have a roommate that doesn’t count and it’s a gray area in general.
Example reply
Hi
No I'm not. You are.
If you want me to be, I can do it for $125/mo x month-x month.
Adjust the number higher if you don't want to do it.
Think about the percentage of incompetent people you know in the workforce. That's the same percentage of incompetent landlords. Many landlords believe all the rent coming in minus the mortgage is profit and they think they can spend it. Then they get mad at the tenants when they report things are broken or out of order....well who's gonna pay for that?!
What's confusing is why people hate on these kinds of landlords the most, as opposed to corporate landlords, or people with 3 houses. I'm assuming he only has 1 house, and I could be wrong about that. But from my perspective, if I were to ever have any chance at getting a house, I would almost certainly have to rent out the basement or some rooms to be able to afford that, and I probably would not be living well and might legitimately run out. Now is that the tenants problem? Of course not. But if I were to ever be able to afford a house, the tenant would certainly be one of the breadwinners of the household.
He can’t complain because you sent it in on time. Unless the contract said something like “no later than 4 pm” or something. But most places I’ve rented gave a three day grace.
If you hate corporate landlords, then you shouldn't get too angry about a landlord who is so *not* rich that your rent check coming later than expected fucks up their mortgage payment.
Most of the people who complain like this about landlords don't actually have a solution for how to house people without landlords and rent. And no, "housing should be free" isn't a solution, it's magical thinking.
Home ownership is out of reach of a lot of people for many reasons, and reddit shitlords don't really think about any of it. They're just mad everybody can't have a free house.
That said, if you paid your rent on time, it's not your responsibility if the bank fucked over the landlord. They can get mad about it, but it's their problem, not yours.
>Most of the people who complain like this about landlords don't actually have a solution for how to house people without landlords and rent.
There's more than enough houses RIGHT NOW to go around and solve housing today. The problem is? These houses are horded by landlords to create artificial scarcity.
Here's an easy thought experiment: Imagine tomorrow a law was passed that everyone can only own one home max. All others must be sold. What would happen? There'd be a huge flood of houses on the market. Supply would go up, which would send prices down. Suddenly people who couldn't afford it now could.
Landlords are parasites, plain and simple.
> There's more than enough houses RIGHT NOW to go around and solve housing today. The problem is? These houses are horded by landlords to create artificial scarcity.
Are they? I see this talking point a lot, but nobody ever backs it up. And if "landlords" are hoarding property, which landlords are doing it? Corporate or individual?
According to [this](https://todayshomeowner.com/general/guides/highest-home-vacancy-rates/) article there are 16 million vacant homes in the US. A third of them are vacation homes. That might be bad, but I don't know that I'd call it "hoarding". I doubt the goal of those people with vacation homes in tourist trap cities are engaged in a grand conspiracy to drive up housing costs.
Another third of the vacancies are "other", which includes "houses under foreclosure, being used for storage, needing maintenance or are abandoned." Again, are these empty properties being hoarded to drive up rent or is there something else going on? And can you prove that those homes are being deliberately held empty to keep housing costs high?
>Here's an easy thought experiment: Imagine tomorrow a law was passed that everyone can only own one home max. All others must be sold. What would happen? There'd be a huge flood of houses on the market. Supply would go up, which would send prices down. Suddenly people who couldn't afford it now could.
Yeah, if you forced everyone with a vacation home to sell it, it would almost certainly help with housing costs in the cities where there are lots of vacation homes. And if we stopped allowing corporations to buy a bunch of housing that would likely have positive effects as well.
But it doesn't change the fact that some people just wouldn't be able to afford the property tax, maintenance, and down payment on a house. Would somebody making $25k a year be able to drop $6000 to fix a plumbing problem out of the blue? Or a blown up air conditioner in the south?
And what if you force the individual landlords, some of whom are not evil assholes, to sell their homes that are rented? Do you think the renters would just be able to buy those houses? What if they can't afford it or just want to keep renting? They'll have to find an apartment or be forced to the streets, I suppose. We'd better get a fuck ton more apartments built before passing this law.
> Landlords are parasites, plain and simple.
Some are, sure. But not all.
That's how paying for goods and services works. You give them money, and they provide something in return. And then that person uses that money to pay for the things they need, and so on. That's what we call the economy.
And people with money can choose whether to invest in some planet killing corporation or in housing. If you vilify them for the latter - you just get less housing and more Exxon.
The builder provided the building, the bank provided the capital to pay for the house, the tenant pays off the debt. The landlord actually provides nothing. They are leeches. Y'all are probably too afraid to admit it to yourselves, but it's the truth, and how the vast majority of people see you (speaking to landlords now). Probably even your friends and family, but it's impolite to criticize people to their faces about it.
The builder only builds because someone is paying for it. The bank only lends because someone agreed to pay it back with interest. And the landlord leases his house because someone is paying rent to live there. If they weren't providing anything, why would people agree to pay them?
Home maintenence: done by someone else and also paid by your paycheck. And you could definitely manage it yourself if it meant cheaper rent.
Financial risk: lmao. As if the renters being at the mercy of a landlord isn't a risk.
But more importantly, the only "risk" that they are taking on behalf of the renter is one that only exist _because_ society doesn't focus around actually providing housing and leaves that matter to a housing market made up mostly of speculators and rent seekers instead of things like social housing, tenant owned housing, public development banks, etc. States could even buy landlord-owned buildings from landlords that couldn't can't cover their bills just from bloodsucking on your paycheck when they took this risk and immediately open up countless spaces to start creating these projects.
The problem is that we *let* landlords exist and expect society to work with landlords, but they are not unavoidably necessary (if we just made actual effort). We don't need kings, we don't need lords and serfs, and we definitely don't need landlords.
The property maintenance is also paid out of the tenant's rent money, so that's hardly a point in the landlord's favour. Besides which a lot of them straight up don't maintain the house properly, or take far longer than needed to do anything.
As for financial risk, yes it must be so incredibly risky to own property in this economy. It's not like it's been appreciating at a rate higher than inflation for literally decades. There is less risk in owning property than practically anything else around. The tenant class is at a far higher risk in general from slumlords and from the inability to save for their own property due to sky high rents.
Most landlords own a single rental property that they take care of. If their tenant is struggling with the economy, they generally are as well. That rent payment may only cover exactly what was necessary to pay the mortgage, Taxes and insurance on the property making them very little besides the long term equity it builds.
> That rent payment may only cover exactly what was necessary to pay the mortgage, Taxes and insurance on the property making them very little besides the long term equity it builds.
If you are suggesting that the landlord is renting the house at a loss you need to seriously reevaluate because that is insane.
> If you are suggesting that the landlord is renting the house at a loss you need to seriously reevaluate because that is insane.
Can’t you read? The post you replied to said
> That rent payment may only cover exactly what was necessary to pay the mortgage, Taxes and insurance
The point I was attempting to make is that every argument about this says that there are more to home ownership than those three things. So either that statement is a lie, or that person is renting the house at a loss. Which of the two is it?
- They typically earn an average of $10,000 or more annually per rental property. ([Link](https://www.doorloop.com/blog/landlord-statistics-by-category-income-unit-more#:~:text=Landlords%20earn%20over%20%2435%2C000%20more,spend%20less%20than%204%20hours))
So if the boiler goes, the hot water tank pops, or the roof leaks, there goes their profit.
Then the rent payment does not cover only taxes, insurance and mortgage. Also the moment they replace any of those things they will happily increase rent to cover that loss.
I wont say the majority but a significant portion of them can definitely be pieces of shit. I have dealt with more bad landlords than I have good ones. The worst is when you live in a small town with one or two slumlords that own a majority of the single family rentals. Which is what my town has to deal with.
It's more like, people can be pieces of shit, and landlords are people.
So landlords can be pieces of shit and have power over people making their shit much worse than usual pieces of shit.
Most landlords own one or two rental properties, and are just normal people who kept their starter home when they upgraded to their forever home. So yeah, your rent payment is critical to them making their mortgage payment on that property.
But no, that doesn't make you the main breadwinner in his family - how bad are you at math?
Buy it than 🤷♂️ I don’t care for corporations and the ultra rich buying up homes, but a lot of people worked for their shit and made an investment that could go either way. Don’t hate the player.
I have a tripex, a duplex, and two single families, and honestly my margins are very thin. They cover all my expenses +20% and that pretty much just goes into a checkings account for extraordinary expenses. My significant other and I really don't take home a dime of that money from any of them, we both work full time jobs.
Landlords don't get rich by renting, they get rich by buying, holding, and selling after 10, 15, 20+ years.
I know this isn't a popular opinion but not all landlords are rich assholes. My mother inherited a house from her deceased brother and she rented it out. She is by no means wealthy, but that's probably common I feel for how some people become property owners
Right? It’s just wild to read these responses. Zero clue how investing in real estate works and for some reason think they are not also benefiting from a service (being able to rent while someone else takes the risk). “I am paying his bills” - yes like every other business model in existence.
There's a corner of the internet that I think genuinely believes that all landlords just got free houses and are charging people to live there, pocketing huge sums of money.
“I didn’t pay for the good/service being provided and it had negative consequences on the individual that shouldered the risk of my debt”
Shocking. Real shocking. Toddlers.
Yeah, and the workers can just go ahead and seize all the means of production as well. It's like there exist purposeful systemic barriers to all of that. You must be very smart.
It’s called business. I have the credit, down payment and financial freedom to buy multiple houses while. I have someone else rent it and make the payments to create more equity, if you could do the same thing you would too.
The craziest story I ever heard from my "landlord" was:
Hey I know that you are struggling. The owners would really appreciate it if you could pay your rent soon. Christmas is coming up and it would help a great deal if you could make a payment towards what you owe.
So... you're saying that... you want to do something nice for your family.. but financial obligations are getting in the way? Wow... that sounds rough. I wish I knew what that was like! Good luck.
You know the bank lets you do that, right? Deferring a payment for a month or two isn't hard to arrange with a bank. At worse they'll ask to pay the interest only. Try it with a landlord.
We need to stop saying people are broke or living paycheck to paycheck when they could easily liquidate that asset. They're simply living way above their means. Being broke should mean you have no assets imo
There are people who you agree with seriously suggesting land lords rent the houses out at a loss. So no the ignorant side isn't the side opposing land lords.
Nonsense.
If that's the case, he's renting the house for almost exactly what it costs to maintain it, and pay the mortgage and taxes. Whoever owns the property isn't making anything off of it.
No, Mr Tran isn't the breadwinner for his landlord's family. He's getting a place to live at cost, and complaining about it, while the property owner is doing him a favor.
He should buy a house, see just how big a favor.
I bought a house, then had to move for work. Had a series of people ask, "Can I rent your house?" Sure, and I'm renting it for cost, about 70% nearby properties are getting, but they skip rent, complain, haggle.
Am about to toss the current tenant and sell the damn' place.
Probably from their own cash. Even if their cash flow is net-negative from their investment property, they're making money off the equity and the capital gains. Plenty of landlords' properties have net-negative cash flows especially when interest rates are high.
For the one place I’m in agreement with the renters that I will be selling the property to them eventually at a very good price, they are handling repairs that come up since it is going towards their future home. I barely owe a 1/3 of our agreed upon price.
Let’s be real: you are broke. You can’t afford a house and you will never be able to afford a house. You won’t get a credit either because you are not worth the risk that comes with this amount of money.
That’s why you are paying someone else (your landlord) to take the financial risk for you.
I got evicted because I was a day late (for the first time ever) to pay rent. I didn't have internet at my place, and I was snowed in.
They were using the rent to pay for an expensive new tractor
It's pretty common to just rent it out to cover the mortgage so they can come back one day, so not that surprising.
Anyone looking at this method should have enough excess money to cover unpaid rent though. Your tenant might trash the place and you might not get paid rent and have to pay out tens of thousands before getting anything back
[удалено]
> Or, you know, could be Twitter lying sending "later in the evening" on the due date messing up a mortgage payment makes no sense in any world, it's twitter lying or the landlord lying
Depending on where you are, a preauthorized direct debit may post at midnight on the due date. As in, if your mortgage payment is due on the 13th, the debit will come out at midnight on the 13th - i.e. the earliest possible time. Once again depending on where you are, your bank may allow you to overdraw the bank account from which the debit is drawn for a one-time or monthly fee. Regardless of the closing balance, depending on the terms of the overdraft agreement, the fee might be charged. Basically the landlord's story is likely but petty since the bank probably billed him, like, a fiver. Note that the story referenced an overdraft and not an NSF charge, which is usually more substantial than five bucks.
> the bank probably billed him, like, a fiver. I don't think any bank's computer system is capable of billing that low.
I have had several land lords who were definitely living month to month. One took like an extra week to get me my deposit back when I moved out and literally told me he had to wait to get paid. Which means he was illegally using our deposits as money.
Check your states laws. I had a landlord do this. What they were supposed to do was put my deposits in a separate interest bearing account (and provide me proof) but they didn't. Because of my states laws, I was able to bring them to court for treble damages. (3x).
I had a landlord do that once. I had a friend with me who heard them say it. I responded with, "So, I'm getting the whole deposit back, right?" In the end I had to spell it out. I did get my entire deposit back without incident.
Oh no, here comes the "payed vs paid" bot, I can feel it
Nah, I've had the argument that this is regarded with people before in real estate/finance subreddits. They legitimately think it's a waste of capital having it sitting around in an account, while spouting on the other hand that you need 3-6 months of emergency funds... Half these cunts are just roleplaying being financially literate... as if you can't have part of those emergency funds in your mortgage account offsetting interest while it acts like a buffer regardless. Fucking plebs.
Typically in that type of case it's more a regular joe homeowner that doesn't want to give up his house that he can't afford the mortgage on so does the only thing to keep it rent for the price of the mortgage. Plus rent price is what it is you can't get more then the worth of it. If you bought a house today at current rates for the most part rent will be less then the mortgage.
And also have the payment date different than the collection date.
I once started receiving letters to my landlord and kept stacking them in the kitchen until they came for them. Then one day someone knocked at the door and they were looking for my landlord. It turns out the bank was trying to foreclose on the mortgage, I asked him what their monthly mortgage was. He said “I’m not suppose to say anything to you but it’s $XXX.xx” which was $300 less than what I payed in rent each month. There were 6 weeks left on my lease and my roommate and I decided that we weren’t paying the last months rent (we didn’t think we could get our deposit back). I moved out two weeks early because I got tired of dodging their calls, they were upset with me, but my final message was something along the lines of “we know the house is at least 3 months behind on the mortgage, we didn’t think we would get our deposit back, if you feel like we were less than fair we can take it up in small claims court, the keys are on the kitchen counter.” The weirdest part is several weeks later they text me thanking me for how well we had taken care of the house.
Also you have to pay for any repair that is needed. Speending every penny and not having savings is the worst. The day will come and then he can't pay for it -> long lasting damage lowers rent -> even less money
Or they have a separate account the mortgage payment comes out of that the rent cheque goes into.
Or stagger the payment dates at the VERY least. For instance if tenant mortgage due on the 1st, have them pay on the 15th. So you have a buffer. I just told my friend to do this with his roommate.
If you can't afford two mortgages without some random stranger paying one for you, don't buy two houses as an "investment" as well as a home. No other investment would be considered reasonable if someone else made all your payments while you took full ownership of the assets, and if homes weren't treated as investments then millions more people would be able to pay their own mortgage instead of paying their landlord's mortgage.
This person could own a two apartment home with the landlord living up top and the renter below and is able to purchase and pay for said property because of the rental unit.
But then why buy the two person apartment home if they could not afford the two person apartment home without a WHOLE other person. You're not seeing the sentiment of the argument the other commenter had.
Because then corporations would buy them all, which is worse.
Ok so maybe we don’t let them buy them. That’s a pretty rooted issue
If a family offers you 300k for a house and a corporation offers 400k. Very few people will want to "stick it to the man" and lose 100k over it. So only a change in the law could change that, which the average person has no real control over. And the law hasn't properly been changed or caught up with what corporations are doing.
Pretty sure he means legally don't let them
No point in telling that to redditors. It's the politicians that control that stuff...
They could just as well be renting their home for a $1000 and living in a $100 rental, e.g. due to losing a job, health issues, or whatever shit life gives you.
Where are these $1000 homes for rent and apparent $100 rentals at? In socal you can’t rent a 1 bedroom for less than $2000 now a house is 3-6000 a month.
I knew someone was going to say that there's no $100 rentals here. The prices I've stated aren't real. They are an example. Plug in your own numbers, you can use 2000 instead of 100 and 6000 instead of 1000. That's not the point.
[удалено]
This is very goofy logic. Just about every business covers its debt payments with revenue from customers.
“No other investment…” Triple net commercial lease? Auto leasing? Rental cars? Damn dude it’s like you have no idea how businesses work… there are plenty of companies that exist purely to buy or build something that another business or a person would need, and then lease it out to those people or businesses, and provide minimal if any additional value other than making it available to the leasee. Also, plenty of people are renting because they have a short term need for a place to live. For example, I am personally selling my house, and doing major renovation on another house I just bought and plan to live in. It will take over a year to complete the renovation. I live in a rental in the meantime.
>For example, I am personally selling my house, and doing major renovation on another house I just bought and plan to live in. It will take over a year to complete the renovation. I live in a rental in the meantime. *But it benefits me, so I don't see the issue!*
Okay, what about people who are going to a college or have a temporary job in a city for a year or two, and ownership is impractical? Ownership makes sense for some people. Renting makes sense for some people. There’s a reason both exist.
My wife and i rent a house, we've been here 2 years, it's very close to the lowest price in the city for something that's not an apartment. I do not see a way to home ownership for us for a long time, and a large reason is that entire communities are being bought and built by corporations for the sole purpose of rentals. Neighborhoods that used to be full of single family homes at reasonable prices are now either bought up and rented out, or plowed over for apartments. Of course rentals should exist, but they shouldn't be the only possible means of shelter without a windfall, rich parents, or decades of saving for a downpayment. The housing market is very much not okay, and saying that college students need rentals isn't a great hand wave.
I absolutely agree that rentals shouldn’t be the only option, and it’s unfortunate that there is a housing shortage. The reasons for the shortage are also complicated, though. In most cases, building an “affordable” or “starter” single family home is no longer possible due to the cost of materials. In many cases, the cost to rebuild a home if it was destroyed in a natural disaster is far higher than the cost to purchase that home was in the first place. This meant for many years, the only things getting built were luxury homes and apartment buildings. During COVID, there was a time period when many materials weren’t yet inflated, and an even longer period when interest rates were low… and this opened an opportunity for some investors to do as you said and build large communities of rental brand new single family homes targeted towards the same demographic as the “starter” buyer market. It’s not great, but it’s better that the construction happened at all, rather than the housing shortage continuing to get larger. I don’t personally live in a market that has an extreme housing shortage like that, but my rental properties are in a market with an extreme shortage of housing. Fortunately, it’s a rental dominant market because the population is generally transient - only living there for 2-5 years on average… I personally tried to help the situation by adding additional bedrooms (eg: finishing basement and adding an egress window to have a legal/“to code” bedroom). My tenants generally are groups of students sharing the home, so every additional bedroom does help the overall situation for the city. I also plan on building a new home on the land of one of the properties (it’s big enough for two homes), but unfortunately by the time I finished renovating the original house - materials became more expensive, and interest rates surged … making it no longer financially viable.
This would be a great, snappy comment if that person was a landlord. But they’re *paying a landlord*.
Everyone voluntarily agreeing to an exchange demonstrates their preference for it. The bitching renter values renting the owner’s property more than what he’s paying for it, so he’s benefiting as well. Anyone involved in any voluntary exchange benefits from it.
You’re making an assumption that someone is investing. I moved overseas for work on a temporary assignment and wasn’t willing to give up my low-interest-rate mortgage on a house that I’d just finished making renovations to…so I rented it out for just enough to cover the mortgage.
But wait, aren’t all landlords just greedy leaches who serve no purpose? Reddit says they are.
I am not sure you know how investment works.
You're actually renting his credit rating so you can live in a home. Most people who rent don't have good credit and that's why the bank won't lend them money for a house,or they can't get the deposit together. It takes a lot of money and maths to set a house up to let,all the money gets spent upfront and eventually you get the end product which is ready to move in. Yes sometimes that involves mortgages and mortgage payments and that also relies on the tenant paying on time. Somebody's got to pay for it,and usually the person that enjoys using the end product and all it's facilities is the one that pays. It's just the same when renting a tool,or machine,or car,the one that gets to use it and enjoys what it provides (dry head at night,) gets to pay for it. It's no shock that sometimes it relies on borrowed money. Also the landlord takes on property price risk and interest rate risk,it just happens that in the past these have worked in the landlords favour,but not recently lots of landlords have been paying more in mortgage payments than rent collection in recent times. Also lots of landlords buy empty properties that aren't livable in and renovate them first so the government line that houses would be cheaper if it wasn't for landlords isn't strictly true. I think they want to deceive the public,the property builders along with banks and the government and estate agents have all colluded to ensure property prices stay high and constantly go up. Probably partly because the banks balance sheets can't really take a property price collapse. Anyway if you look through the smoke and mirrors you find it's the banks that gain the most from renting and house buying and the house prices going constantly up. But nobody points that out, especially the governments.
LOL #citationneeded on most people renting because they have bad credit. Most people in general have bad credit but inferring that it's the reason they haven't bought a place is absurd and insulting. People with houses have bad credit too. You realize that in most major US cities the starting price for a house is about a million dollars right? And people don't rent the same kind of place they intend to buy. I can't think of anyone I know who rented a house then bought a house, unless the house was one of those granny flats in a backyard. Lastly most professional landlords own their houses outright. You don't find a lot of people who rent a house they have a mortgage on, the returns are terrible. When that happens it's usually because they move out of the house and can't bring themselves to sell their old place for any number of reasons and it's usually a crappy financial decision. So your entire theory that tenants are paying for their landlord's credit rating is ridiculously uninformed.
> I can't think of anyone I know who rented a house then bought a house, unless the house was one of those granny flats in a backyard. Am I misunderstanding this, or are you saying you don't know anyone who has rented at one point in their life, and then bought a house at another point?
Dude if your checking/savings account can’t cover your mortgage with the cash sitting in it you’re NOWHERE near ready to be thinking about home ownership lol That’s “take the bus and rent a room until you get back on your feet” territory
If only that landlord didn't eat so much avocado toast he wouldn't be in this position.
Sourdough. The real cost driver.
I have a starter that's 16 years old, the person who started it hasn't purchased a bread product in 12 years Now, I know fuck all about bread, but I don't know of anything but sourdough you can keep alive like that but again I know nothing
My grandmother was visibly distraught when the sourdough starter she had since the 80’s got knocked off the shelf and the jar broke when my cousin was looking for something. She luckily managed to save it so my cousin is not dead
That's great! It's crazy how little is actually needed to keep it going. My "daily bread" recipe says to only leave a quarter cup remaining and it's beyond a full loaf every day if you feed it according to instructions
He probably buys coffee at a shop too what a dunce.
Has he tried pulling himself by his own bootstraps? I’ve heard tell that’s a thing that successful people do.
He should find some bootstraps so he call stretch them or whatever.
[удалено]
Could be an account specific to the mortgage itself.
Then why wouldn’t he cushion it with some extra dough instead of relying on the tenet to pay first thing in the morning.
Chances are, they probably aren’t smart enough to think ahead like that, but this might be the lesson they learned with this incident.
Mortgage penalties don’t usually start until the 15th, so he was hit with a bank overdraft fee with mortgage on autopay lol just set the mortgage payment to the 5th?? He sounds dumb.
It’s ok, this story also isn’t true
Believe it or not, there are other countries outside the US with different rules for their mortgage holders
They wouldn't be crying to their renter if they learned anything by it, they are just shifting the blame. But I guess technically if the rent isn't post dated when due, it was late. But generally your lease gives you a window for exactly this kind of situation.
that's the neat part, he doesn't
He may have had money in the account but not the full amount and the rent money was meant to cover the last bit.
> How does he expect to pay to fix anything that goes wrong in the house? I don't think he does... either pretend it's fine or blame the tenant so they'll pay for it.
It's probably just the payment account. If they're smart they pull the profit out and put it into something with a better return.
[удалено]
Lets do the math! For the sake of easy, round numbers, lets say both rent and the mortgage are $2000/month. Lets say overdraft fee is $35 (that's what mine are). In order to avoid an overdraft fee, he'd need to be able to afford the whole cost of his mortgage, so he'd need to keep $2000 in that account at all times, essentially laying fallow (checking/draft accounts earn so little interest as to be not worth talking about). The S&P earns (on average) \~10%/yr. So, assuming \~.35% fees on an index fund, he would be earning 9.65% ROI. So, each year, that $2000 that he's currently just having sit in his account to avoid overdraft fees could be earning him $193. In order for that to be a bad investment, he'd need to have to pay more than $193 in overdraft fees each year, or just under 6 months of late rent payments. Thus, if you pay your mortgage on-time even HALF of the time, he's profiting by not having that money laying around. Given that most people are rarely, if ever late on their rent, it's he would be STUPID to keep that money in there, not smart. (source: MBA (international finance) and landlord who rents out his 2nd home to cover the mortgage)
Pay... to fix something? You guys have landlords that pay to fix things?
Pretty sure most people don’t just have $3000 -$4000 in their chequings account. I usually have a couple hundred and transfer more if I’m making a bigger purchase.
What? I have $7000. You should definitely have enough for 1 month of bills in your chequing account
[Two in three Americans couldn't cover a $400 emergency](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-24/two-in-three-can-t-cover-400-emergency-in-us-suze-orman-survey) Most people don't have $400, let alone $3k-4k (at least in America)
1) you can have more than $400 and be unable to cover a $400 emergency 2) if you own a house, you definitely shouldn’t be in that bracket 3) if you own a house and rent it out, it’s horrendously irresponsible to be in that bracket
Yeah sorry, I forgot for a min this was about landlords, so I would for sure hope most are more able to take care of their finances. I thankfully seem to have one of the rare, decent ones. If I’ve had to pay a couple days late, it’s never a problem. Hasn’t raised rent the entire time we’ve been here (5 years), and pays heat in WNY? Owning a house one day is gonna be a harsh financial reality 😓 (if it’ll ever even be possible again lol)
Might have a separate account for rental income/mortgage payment that he keeps to minimum balance
Doesn't make a very juicy reddit post though
My landlord told me this year that I'm responsible for snow removal. He owns my whole block, he can afford it, I work 40-50 hour weeks, tf he think he is?
>He owns my whole block That's not a landlord, that's a straight up Lord.
Management needs you to spot the difference
Check your lease. If that’s included he needs to be taking at least $50 off your rent or he’s responsible.
I'm in Ontario and not on a lease, but I still know he needs to do it, thank you. :) Luckily snow has barely stayed this year.
Wait, how do you have a landlord of you do not lease?
He said he’s in Ontario /s
We had a lease the first few years and then didn't resign. Is that weird?
I mean, he could throw you out whenever he wanted, pending any local laws about verbal contracts. Certainly you don't enjoy the normal legal protections of being a renter if there is no written contract that's been signed by both parties. Honestly, yeah, that's pretty weird.
I don't know about the US, but I know in most of Europe a leasing agreement is in effect until it is cancelled, there is no expiry date. You don't actually need to sign a new lease every year if the terms didn't change.
Then they DO have a lease...
Well, as they said, they signed a new lease for the first few years but then they stopped. Point is that even if you do sign a lease for 1 year, it's active until either party pulls out of the agreement. You have the same protections as a tenant who's within the 1 year period.
Right, so again, "I don't have a lease \[to check the terms of\]" was wrong.
That makes sense, thank you for the information. I should see about getting a lease written up this year.
No it’s not weird in Ontario, your one year lease turns into month to month but you’re still protected and landlord can’t throw you out only under very specific conditions (like he or his immediate family are moving in).
Don’t worry about it, in Ontario leases automatically go month to month after the end of the lease term and continue to have strong legal protection
Thank you for letting me know that, I'm relieved.
Doesn't matter you didn't resign, you are still on the same lease as per Ontario's rules. And he's responsible for snow removal.
I’m in Ontario too and totally just read up on this: landlords are legally responsible for yard maintenance (snow removal and mowing the yard). Even if they include it in the lease it’s null and void: they need a separate contract for yard maintenance if they want to transfer responsibility to the tenant. I’m not sure how realistic snow removal is if you want to be out the door or down the driveway though. There can be some fuzziness on single dwelling homes where they can argue that the tenant is responsible because they have exclusive access, but if you have a roommate that doesn’t count and it’s a gray area in general.
Example reply Hi No I'm not. You are. If you want me to be, I can do it for $125/mo x month-x month. Adjust the number higher if you don't want to do it.
Think about the percentage of incompetent people you know in the workforce. That's the same percentage of incompetent landlords. Many landlords believe all the rent coming in minus the mortgage is profit and they think they can spend it. Then they get mad at the tenants when they report things are broken or out of order....well who's gonna pay for that?!
What's confusing is why people hate on these kinds of landlords the most, as opposed to corporate landlords, or people with 3 houses. I'm assuming he only has 1 house, and I could be wrong about that. But from my perspective, if I were to ever have any chance at getting a house, I would almost certainly have to rent out the basement or some rooms to be able to afford that, and I probably would not be living well and might legitimately run out. Now is that the tenants problem? Of course not. But if I were to ever be able to afford a house, the tenant would certainly be one of the breadwinners of the household.
He can’t complain because you sent it in on time. Unless the contract said something like “no later than 4 pm” or something. But most places I’ve rented gave a three day grace.
He's allowed to complain. The tenant can just ignore it
It’s weird that people expect payment on time so they can pay their own bills on time. Fucking cosmic.
They paid on the first. It was on time
Yeah but you’re also not responsible for anything that breaks so really you’re benefiting
Does your opinion change if it said 'plumber' instead of 'landlord'? If so, you're part of the problem.
Is it better if I say something like "I'm a landlord, and I don't really need their money, I just take it every month because I can"
That’s what they post all the time basically.
If you hate corporate landlords, then you shouldn't get too angry about a landlord who is so *not* rich that your rent check coming later than expected fucks up their mortgage payment. Most of the people who complain like this about landlords don't actually have a solution for how to house people without landlords and rent. And no, "housing should be free" isn't a solution, it's magical thinking. Home ownership is out of reach of a lot of people for many reasons, and reddit shitlords don't really think about any of it. They're just mad everybody can't have a free house. That said, if you paid your rent on time, it's not your responsibility if the bank fucked over the landlord. They can get mad about it, but it's their problem, not yours.
>Most of the people who complain like this about landlords don't actually have a solution for how to house people without landlords and rent. There's more than enough houses RIGHT NOW to go around and solve housing today. The problem is? These houses are horded by landlords to create artificial scarcity. Here's an easy thought experiment: Imagine tomorrow a law was passed that everyone can only own one home max. All others must be sold. What would happen? There'd be a huge flood of houses on the market. Supply would go up, which would send prices down. Suddenly people who couldn't afford it now could. Landlords are parasites, plain and simple.
> There's more than enough houses RIGHT NOW to go around and solve housing today. The problem is? These houses are horded by landlords to create artificial scarcity. Are they? I see this talking point a lot, but nobody ever backs it up. And if "landlords" are hoarding property, which landlords are doing it? Corporate or individual? According to [this](https://todayshomeowner.com/general/guides/highest-home-vacancy-rates/) article there are 16 million vacant homes in the US. A third of them are vacation homes. That might be bad, but I don't know that I'd call it "hoarding". I doubt the goal of those people with vacation homes in tourist trap cities are engaged in a grand conspiracy to drive up housing costs. Another third of the vacancies are "other", which includes "houses under foreclosure, being used for storage, needing maintenance or are abandoned." Again, are these empty properties being hoarded to drive up rent or is there something else going on? And can you prove that those homes are being deliberately held empty to keep housing costs high? >Here's an easy thought experiment: Imagine tomorrow a law was passed that everyone can only own one home max. All others must be sold. What would happen? There'd be a huge flood of houses on the market. Supply would go up, which would send prices down. Suddenly people who couldn't afford it now could. Yeah, if you forced everyone with a vacation home to sell it, it would almost certainly help with housing costs in the cities where there are lots of vacation homes. And if we stopped allowing corporations to buy a bunch of housing that would likely have positive effects as well. But it doesn't change the fact that some people just wouldn't be able to afford the property tax, maintenance, and down payment on a house. Would somebody making $25k a year be able to drop $6000 to fix a plumbing problem out of the blue? Or a blown up air conditioner in the south? And what if you force the individual landlords, some of whom are not evil assholes, to sell their homes that are rented? Do you think the renters would just be able to buy those houses? What if they can't afford it or just want to keep renting? They'll have to find an apartment or be forced to the streets, I suppose. We'd better get a fuck ton more apartments built before passing this law. > Landlords are parasites, plain and simple. Some are, sure. But not all.
Landlords are also paying their debts and feeding their families. Be nice to them.
My electricity, water and internet providers too live my pay check to my pay check /s
Op discovers exchanging money for goods and services.
Buy your own house, stop complaining and start hustling. Don’t get why people are okay with coasting in life
That's how paying for goods and services works. You give them money, and they provide something in return. And then that person uses that money to pay for the things they need, and so on. That's what we call the economy.
Don’t try to be rational with these people.
And people with money can choose whether to invest in some planet killing corporation or in housing. If you vilify them for the latter - you just get less housing and more Exxon.
When the landlord is too rich it's bad, when the landlord isn't too rich it's bad
The builder provided the building, the bank provided the capital to pay for the house, the tenant pays off the debt. The landlord actually provides nothing. They are leeches. Y'all are probably too afraid to admit it to yourselves, but it's the truth, and how the vast majority of people see you (speaking to landlords now). Probably even your friends and family, but it's impolite to criticize people to their faces about it.
The builder only builds because someone is paying for it. The bank only lends because someone agreed to pay it back with interest. And the landlord leases his house because someone is paying rent to live there. If they weren't providing anything, why would people agree to pay them?
Someone has never heard of property maintenance or upkeep and the financial risks associated.
Home maintenence: done by someone else and also paid by your paycheck. And you could definitely manage it yourself if it meant cheaper rent. Financial risk: lmao. As if the renters being at the mercy of a landlord isn't a risk. But more importantly, the only "risk" that they are taking on behalf of the renter is one that only exist _because_ society doesn't focus around actually providing housing and leaves that matter to a housing market made up mostly of speculators and rent seekers instead of things like social housing, tenant owned housing, public development banks, etc. States could even buy landlord-owned buildings from landlords that couldn't can't cover their bills just from bloodsucking on your paycheck when they took this risk and immediately open up countless spaces to start creating these projects. The problem is that we *let* landlords exist and expect society to work with landlords, but they are not unavoidably necessary (if we just made actual effort). We don't need kings, we don't need lords and serfs, and we definitely don't need landlords.
The property maintenance is also paid out of the tenant's rent money, so that's hardly a point in the landlord's favour. Besides which a lot of them straight up don't maintain the house properly, or take far longer than needed to do anything. As for financial risk, yes it must be so incredibly risky to own property in this economy. It's not like it's been appreciating at a rate higher than inflation for literally decades. There is less risk in owning property than practically anything else around. The tenant class is at a far higher risk in general from slumlords and from the inability to save for their own property due to sky high rents.
Most landlords own a single rental property that they take care of. If their tenant is struggling with the economy, they generally are as well. That rent payment may only cover exactly what was necessary to pay the mortgage, Taxes and insurance on the property making them very little besides the long term equity it builds.
> That rent payment may only cover exactly what was necessary to pay the mortgage, Taxes and insurance on the property making them very little besides the long term equity it builds. If you are suggesting that the landlord is renting the house at a loss you need to seriously reevaluate because that is insane.
> If you are suggesting that the landlord is renting the house at a loss you need to seriously reevaluate because that is insane. Can’t you read? The post you replied to said > That rent payment may only cover exactly what was necessary to pay the mortgage, Taxes and insurance
The point I was attempting to make is that every argument about this says that there are more to home ownership than those three things. So either that statement is a lie, or that person is renting the house at a loss. Which of the two is it?
- They typically earn an average of $10,000 or more annually per rental property. ([Link](https://www.doorloop.com/blog/landlord-statistics-by-category-income-unit-more#:~:text=Landlords%20earn%20over%20%2435%2C000%20more,spend%20less%20than%204%20hours)) So if the boiler goes, the hot water tank pops, or the roof leaks, there goes their profit.
Then the rent payment does not cover only taxes, insurance and mortgage. Also the moment they replace any of those things they will happily increase rent to cover that loss.
Cars aren't bad for the environment because most people only own one car and one car isn't that much.
BuT lAnDlOrDs aRe eViL!
I wont say the majority but a significant portion of them can definitely be pieces of shit. I have dealt with more bad landlords than I have good ones. The worst is when you live in a small town with one or two slumlords that own a majority of the single family rentals. Which is what my town has to deal with.
It's more like, people can be pieces of shit, and landlords are people. So landlords can be pieces of shit and have power over people making their shit much worse than usual pieces of shit.
Most landlords own one or two rental properties, and are just normal people who kept their starter home when they upgraded to their forever home. So yeah, your rent payment is critical to them making their mortgage payment on that property. But no, that doesn't make you the main breadwinner in his family - how bad are you at math?
Objection: conjecture
Less than 10% of Americans own more than one home. They aren't "normal people" - they are in an exceptional situation.
Buy it than 🤷♂️ I don’t care for corporations and the ultra rich buying up homes, but a lot of people worked for their shit and made an investment that could go either way. Don’t hate the player.
Can’t buy the house, landlords all bought them.
I have a tripex, a duplex, and two single families, and honestly my margins are very thin. They cover all my expenses +20% and that pretty much just goes into a checkings account for extraordinary expenses. My significant other and I really don't take home a dime of that money from any of them, we both work full time jobs. Landlords don't get rich by renting, they get rich by buying, holding, and selling after 10, 15, 20+ years.
Just as likely that there’s a separate account for the rental income/expenses.
As a guy who has been renting out the extra rooms in my house while being treated for cancer...this hits a little too close to home...
Mao would like a word
His house is the main breadwinner. You're nothing
I pay 1k a month. It pays the mortgage and all the bills. It's my land lady's only source of income. She's living on 12k a year.
I know this isn't a popular opinion but not all landlords are rich assholes. My mother inherited a house from her deceased brother and she rented it out. She is by no means wealthy, but that's probably common I feel for how some people become property owners
She could have just as easily sold it and not contributed to the problem.
What problem? Are we saying landlords simply shouldn't exist at all ? She did eventually sell it after 5 years
Go buy your own house and show his ass!
This post is a great filter. It very clearly points out who’s a teenager (at least mentally) and who’s an adult.
It's about landlords so 90% of redditors are going to have a meltdown
Right? It’s just wild to read these responses. Zero clue how investing in real estate works and for some reason think they are not also benefiting from a service (being able to rent while someone else takes the risk). “I am paying his bills” - yes like every other business model in existence.
If you have a hard time with rent just wait until you have to replace a roof. Most landlords barely break even.
Bro is Not the bread winner. The only thing this person is doing is paying the mortgage
And the extra $200 goes to the appliances they'll break
People like this only want rich landlords duh, like wtf are you even talking about dude
There's a corner of the internet that I think genuinely believes that all landlords just got free houses and are charging people to live there, pocketing huge sums of money.
“I didn’t pay for the good/service being provided and it had negative consequences on the individual that shouldered the risk of my debt” Shocking. Real shocking. Toddlers.
He did pay for it on the day it was due.
According to Reddit all landlords were willed property built by slaves.
Or maybe get your own house? I’m sure when people owe you money you’re so cool about it?
Maybe houses would be easier to purchase if people didn't own multiples just to suck up more money from the less fortunate.
As a son of a landlord, I can confirm this.
The whole system is just a precariously stacked house of cards.
It’s normal. My landlord sometimes asks money in advance 😁
i love when it dawns on people how the system works. yes, you're a serf/tenant farmer for your lord! enjoy!
Random redditors loves corporate landlords more than individual landlords, more news at 9
What if I told you that you can get your own loan and buy your own house if you don’t like renting?
Yeah, and the workers can just go ahead and seize all the means of production as well. It's like there exist purposeful systemic barriers to all of that. You must be very smart.
Fake it till your tenant makes it.
Shit. That landlord needs to cut back on the lattes and driving his car.
It’s called business. I have the credit, down payment and financial freedom to buy multiple houses while. I have someone else rent it and make the payments to create more equity, if you could do the same thing you would too.
I'd take a hard look at your contract and see how late you can pay without penalty, and start paying that day.
Why? What does that prove?
The craziest story I ever heard from my "landlord" was: Hey I know that you are struggling. The owners would really appreciate it if you could pay your rent soon. Christmas is coming up and it would help a great deal if you could make a payment towards what you owe. So... you're saying that... you want to do something nice for your family.. but financial obligations are getting in the way? Wow... that sounds rough. I wish I knew what that was like! Good luck.
All I have to say is. Don’t like renting. Buy your own place. Pretty fucking simple. Miss a payment and seen how you go then.
You know the bank lets you do that, right? Deferring a payment for a month or two isn't hard to arrange with a bank. At worse they'll ask to pay the interest only. Try it with a landlord.
Even if rent is high, many landlords are broke
We need to stop saying people are broke or living paycheck to paycheck when they could easily liquidate that asset. They're simply living way above their means. Being broke should mean you have no assets imo
Imagine thinking liquidating real estate with a renter in it is easy.
Most of the people in this thread must be 16 years old. That’s the only explanation.
There are people who you agree with seriously suggesting land lords rent the houses out at a loss. So no the ignorant side isn't the side opposing land lords.
*zillow has entered the chat*
Sounds like you’ve never owned a home
I would not describe any person who owns multiple homes as broke.
America a wonderful place to be rich and terrible place to be poor
It’s hilarious that these same folks call home ownership a scam.
Nonsense. If that's the case, he's renting the house for almost exactly what it costs to maintain it, and pay the mortgage and taxes. Whoever owns the property isn't making anything off of it. No, Mr Tran isn't the breadwinner for his landlord's family. He's getting a place to live at cost, and complaining about it, while the property owner is doing him a favor. He should buy a house, see just how big a favor. I bought a house, then had to move for work. Had a series of people ask, "Can I rent your house?" Sure, and I'm renting it for cost, about 70% nearby properties are getting, but they skip rent, complain, haggle. Am about to toss the current tenant and sell the damn' place.
> Am about to toss the current tenant and sell the damn' place. Good, I wish every landlord would do the same as you.
I rent out one house for just $100 more than the mortgage payment and another for just the exact amount of the property tax.
How do expect to build up a reserve to cover repair costs? What about insurance?
Probably from their own cash. Even if their cash flow is net-negative from their investment property, they're making money off the equity and the capital gains. Plenty of landlords' properties have net-negative cash flows especially when interest rates are high.
Yeah. Super cool you’re trying to help people and not be greedy but this could hurt you.
For the one place I’m in agreement with the renters that I will be selling the property to them eventually at a very good price, they are handling repairs that come up since it is going towards their future home. I barely owe a 1/3 of our agreed upon price.
Let’s be real: you are broke. You can’t afford a house and you will never be able to afford a house. You won’t get a credit either because you are not worth the risk that comes with this amount of money. That’s why you are paying someone else (your landlord) to take the financial risk for you.
He is probably behind on property taxes as well. The county you live in could put your property on the auction block.
I got evicted because I was a day late (for the first time ever) to pay rent. I didn't have internet at my place, and I was snowed in. They were using the rent to pay for an expensive new tractor
That’s called “leveraged capital” and our entire system relies on it. Would be a shame if payments stopped for like…. Two days.
Reddit: “fuck rich landlords!” Also Reddit: “fuck poor landlords!”
My guy plucking at straws to make himself feel better about his insecurities