| You're completely off the mark on this, and speaking like a landlord. > This doesn’t feel like a policy failure, IMO. Renters have the option to live in a free standing home while they save for a down payment, and “investors” have an incentive to increase density/add to the housing stock. First, when you have a renter, your payment is the "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%" Nobody, except for IT can save in predatory environment like that, no matter how much you wish it so. And you're double-dipping by having THEM pay your mortgage and handsome profit on top. And for what? A "let them eat cake" comment. Im sure someone paying 50% or more their income can 'save for a mortgage'. Knowing this scam, by the time they save up 50k, the bank will demand 100k down. But landlords can just capitalize on existing equity. Its a scam, through and through, that punishes renters. We do need residences. And they're simple to build. They're called "rent controlled apartments". But 'ewww socialism' rears its ugly head. |
25-50% is absurdly false.
We own a second home which we've rented out for years (wasn't the original intention, but anyway ...). The rent covers mortgage, taxes, and upkeep. Profit is minimal, less than 10%. Once you factor in eventual renovations, like replacing the roof, floors, etc., there is no profit at all, or very little.