[ChrisLomont]

>Are you really in good faith trying to argue that nobody will rent a house that is 30+ years old?

Nope, pointing out that in order to keep the house rentable, the landlord has in put money into over all those years, which the OP left out.

A house that has had no money spent on for 30 years would not be rentable, right?

So depreciation is not a free ride.

[lovich]

Why would it not be rentable? That’s an assumption that doesn’t stand on its face when you look at the unmaintained crackhouses landlords will rent easily because demand is so high for housing.

[ChrisLomont]

Are you claiming zero money was spent on those properties for 30 years? I don't think that claim would stand on it's face.

Over 30 years all sorts of things would break, pipes, leaks, batteries corroding and leaking out, animals move in, windows broken, doors removed....

Detroit ruins show what zero money put into a building for 30 years looks like - gutted shells.

Show me an ad for a rentable place that has had zero money spent on the building for any maintenance for 30 years and I'll believe you.

[lovich]

Does >0 money spent equal 100% deprecation over 30 years?

If the landlord spends a single penny in paint does that make up for getting an asset that’s considered zero value but still gets to be sold for hundreds of thousands?