[andrewmutz]

He's saying that you factored in the depreciation deduction, but never factored in the expenses of related to keeping the property in good shape.

So you either left them out of your math, or you planned to do zero upkeep (hence, "nobody would rent it")

[wonnor]

To claim that you need to spend money equal to the tax-assessed value of the building over the course of 30 years to maintain equal value is slightly less ridiculous, but still not exactly reasonable. The (conservative) rule of thumb is 1% of the property value per year in repairs, which would be 30% of the property value over 30 years. And even then, it seems there's no shortage of fairly decrepit buildings that have no problem finding tenants.

[DubiousPusher]

Here is a starter list of things a house will need over the course of 30 years.

- a new roof (maybe two if they are 15 year rooves)

-new siding (unless fiber cement siding was installed originally)

-new exterior paint

-new windows

-major repairs to the driveway

-2 new furnaces

-2 to 3 new water heaters

-2 to 3 full new sets of appliances

-1 cosmetic kitchen remodel

-1 cosmetic remodel of each bathroom

-1 to 2 cosmetic relandscapings

-1 to 2 new floors (depending on the flooring material chosen)

-new exterior doors

-new garage doors and openers

None of this includes any repairs the home may have needed at the time of purchase. Nor does it include any upgrades. Nor does it include any unexpected repairs that may not be covered by insurance (there are many). Nor does it include any of the dozen or so minor repairs you either have to do yourself or get a handy man for.

I'm not going to symp for the landlords but maintaining property is brutally expensive. I know because I bought a 40 year old house. Since I bought a home I've become very convinced that there are a ton of landlords losing their ass out there. Some have been saved by the ridiculous property valuations we've seen lately. But that is not the norm. Houses typically increase in value at a pace with inflation.

Personally, I would only ever rent housing I had specced myself because the design choices and material choices have a huge impact on the cost of maintenance.

[jjav]

> Here is a starter list of things a house will need over the course of 30 years.

My house is 25 years old (bought it new) and from your list, the only things I've done is exterior paint and water heater.

I've also done cosmetic landscaping but that was strictly optional, as I like to work on the yard.

[ChrisLomont]

Factors also depend on the age of the house and your location - harsher climates are much worse on various house factors.

A new house will have much less costs to maintain over 25 years than a 50 years old house.

Having owned a few houses (both relatively new), and having gfs with houses and seeing the stuff they've done, and with helping my mom and sister with their house decisions and fixing, the list above is not far off.

State Farm says to budget 1-4% of the value of a house for annual upkeep costs. You're significantly below that it sounds.

[jjav]

> State Farm says to budget 1-4% of the value of a house for annual upkeep costs. You're significantly below that it sounds.

Certainly far below, maybe like 0.1%

Although basing it on the market value doesn't make much sense since housing prices cycle wildly up and down, whereas maintenance just increases with inflation.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Maintenance costs strongly depend on how handy the owner is and how much they're willing to pay for more modern upgrades.

[ChrisLomont]

>To claim that you need to spend money equal to the tax-assessed value of the building over the course of 30 years to maintain equal value is slightly less ridiculous, but still not exactly reasonable.

No one wrote that either. You're reading what you want to argue into what is written yet again.

> which would be 30% of the property value over 30 years

Ignoring increasing property value, compound interest, opportunity cost, that plenty of places put this between 1 and 4%, and that pretty much all places indicate the rate increases as the property ages, and that this rate is for owners whereas tenants are statistically worse on property, then sure.

For example, State Farm [1] recommends between 1% and 4%, which would vastly increase your estimate. And tenants are statistically worse on property than owners

In reality it's a far larger cost over 30 years than 30% of the original price.

[1] https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/residence/how-to-b...

[ChrisLomont]

Bingo - I'm surprised so many didn't understand the thread flow and jumped on this....