Real Estate

Retired is absolutely correct. The only thing I disagree with is banks usually use a 25%, not a 20% vacancy rate figure, at least in NY.

That's so cool. They should teach this stuff on school @retiredsubmariner

That's so cool. They should teach this stuff on school @retiredsubmariner Originally Posted by Kathy915

When / where I went to school it was taught. But along with US Constitution, it has since been removed from the curriculum.

Thank you for sharing.
I always have to giggle a lot bit. Politicians and renters seem to think landlords deposit their checks and we run too the bank to cash and we are rich.

What politicians and renters don't understand is the costs associated with the maintenance of the place.

I always said, I made money on the appreciation of the property, but lost money on the rents. Anytime I spent cordinating contractors, dealing with tenants, and other at the property was un paid time. Originally Posted by Fizley

Whether a property appreciates, or not, it never made much difference to me.

So long as the rental income covers the mortgage, insurance, all taxes, and just a bit leftover, then I am good.

Every month you pay down the mortgage principal just a tiny bit. If I do the math to track my Net Worth, I can see where my Net Worth grows each month.

And when I move from one rental Real Estate to the next, I can move the equity right along so my Net Worth does not drop.

It is a net worth that is not taxed, and I can withdraw it at any time.

What is far more important to me, than the appreciation, is the depreciation. I stopped paying income taxes in 1983, because I had so much tax write-offs that I no longer owed any taxes. We kept that model going on our books until after I retired in 2001. We went from 1983 to 2001 without paying any income taxes. Mostly due to the depreciation on all of those properties.

My salary paychecks were a-third larger because I no longer had tax with-holding going on.