[greenshackle2]

> We're talking about a mortgage on the rental property itself not on the landlord's personal residence.

Yes. Everyone in this conversation understands that. There's no relation between the amount and terms on your mortgage for your rental property and the market price to rent a given unit.

If I take a 20 year mortgage does that mean I should charge more rent than if I took 30 years because my payment is higher? Should I drop rent by half when I'm done paying my mortgage since I no longer have a payment? It's nonsensical.

There's especially no reason to expect that rent should cover 100% of the principal fraction of your mortgage payment. Taxes, maintenance, interest, etc. are pure costs which are understandably passed on to tenants. The principal fraction of a mortgage payment is not a cost, it is building your equity.

If rent is covering all costs and "only" 50% of the principal fraction of your mortgage payment you're still making a profit. Because you're paying, let's say, $1000 of the mortgage payment with your own money, but you're getting a $2000 increase in equity.

[ClumsyPilot]

Indeed - it is increadible that so many people just assume rent should basically buy another person a house by default.

[nsxwolf]

If the increase in equity should be satisfactory, that's an argument for just letting everyone live in the place for free. I mean, you're coming out ahead.

I know other landlords with multiple units. If they don't think something will be an income producing property, they won't buy.

[greenshackle2]

My point is that you charge market price. Because that's how markets work.

Price to rent ratio varies very widely between different markets. If you don't want to buy in a market with a high price to rent ratio that's fine. There's simply no rule that guarantees a price to rent ratio such that rent covers all costs plus the full payment on a 30 year mortgage in all markets at all times.