Switch Theme:

Money saving tips and tricks!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The 'treat your non-work hours as their monetary equivalent of work hours' is a useful guide, but don't take it as a rule. If for no other reason, than because it reduces the value of your life to a simple monetary amount.

People think in that manner way too much in America as it is. In which case, if a minimum-wage earner is 'only' worth $15K a year, then theoretically someone could just pay a fine of $15K times the number of work years said minimum wage worker had left until retirement for murdering them...

(Although given the way America handles negligent death caused by employers, doing that might be a hefty improvement...)

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Nevelon wrote:
You don’t need to take everything to extreme situations to save some money. Just stepping down a little from the worst case scenario will add a few coins to your pocket.

I can’t remember the last time I ordered a pizza delivered. You can get decent frozen ones from your local grocery store for like half the price. (You can also get bad ones for even cheeper, but I want something that can be distinguished from the cardboard packaging) Less topping options, but still a range.

You can get the stuff to build your own. Blob of dough, sauce, toppings. This might not actually be cheeper then the frozen, but the quality is better, and you have more choices.

Or you can go full from scratch. I make my own red sauce in big lots and freeze most of it. Take it out as needed. Pizza dough is one of the simpler ones to make, just a little effort and time. Heck, you could try your hand at cheese making.

If you have your own garden, great. Nothing beats fresh ingredients. As the old saw goes, the two things money can’t buy are love and home-grown tomatoes. More savings.

It’s the dance of money, labor, and convenience. You can work your job for cash, which lets you buy nice things. You can work in the garden and kitchen, and cook nice things. But most of us are somewhere in the middle.
Totally agreed, and explained better than I was trying to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vulcan wrote:
The 'treat your non-work hours as their monetary equivalent of work hours' is a useful guide, but don't take it as a rule. If for no other reason, than because it reduces the value of your life to a simple monetary amount.

People think in that manner way too much in America as it is. In which case, if a minimum-wage earner is 'only' worth $15K a year, then theoretically someone could just pay a fine of $15K times the number of work years said minimum wage worker had left until retirement for murdering them...

(Although given the way America handles negligent death caused by employers, doing that might be a hefty improvement...)
I disagree on one point; it would not be reducing the value of life to a monetary amount, it would be increasing it to its monetary amount, because it isn't like we actually value life that highly in the US right now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/17 17:32:19


 
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

Become a landlord and parasite off renters... That way you can roll around in all the profit you're making. I'm kidding of course..in the real world as opposed to the one inhabited by Reddit lunatics, that money actually goes back into things like insurance and upkeep/repairs to the property or items in it, and covering costs when you have no tenants.

If you do have enough capital to invest in property then you should do so. It's a long term investment that generally pays out well later down the line.

A stocks and shares isa is also worth putting savings into as the interest returns will be much better than a regular isa.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/17 23:35:21


Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in ru
Fresh-Faced New User




Hah, that is a really nice lifehacks, thx a lot!
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Become a landlord and parasite off renters... That way you can roll around in all the profit you're making. I'm kidding of course..in the real world as opposed to the one inhabited by Reddit lunatics, that money actually goes back into things like insurance and upkeep/repairs to the property or items in it, and covering costs when you have no tenants.

If you do have enough capital to invest in property then you should do so. It's a long term investment that generally pays out well later down the line.

A stocks and shares isa is also worth putting savings into as the interest returns will be much better than a regular isa.


Just for fun, when I left my old place I calculated how much money I'd given my landlord and what they'd done for that money in that time.

Over five years in that location, 1800$ a month means she got 108,000$. Over that time span, she

-Paid the cost of insurance on the property (my insurance in a different area but for a much bigger/more expensive home is about 100$ monthly)
-Paid the cost of heating, because it was a central heating system individual tenants could not control meaning legally THE NANNY STATE wouldn't allow the landlord to pass that cost on. Over my first year paying my own gas bills in a house twice as big I'll have paid about 2500$, so we'll assume that's the number per year to be generous.
-Installed a new refrigerator when the old one broke, a new radiator when one leaked, and a new window when a little gak from our block broke it. Over the five years of living in the location, her and her husband came to the condo to perform some physical task rather than hiring someone to do it a total of six times.
-Hired a professional cleaner twice, once before we moved in, once just after we moved out. Since the second time came out of our security deposit, I know the cost of the first time came out of the security deposit of the previous tenant - that's just her policy on this matter.

Lets imagine a fantastical figure for the fridge, radiator, window, and other minor repair stuff they did - lets say it cost them 5,000$ total. So that means over five years they did approximately 12 hours of work in person, plus whatever it took to manage the bills (pretty much automatic, in my experience) and coordinate the cleaners and showing the place to new tenants after 5 years, they profited 84,500$.

I think parasitism is a relatively fair characterization of that exchange tbh. I'd call selling water bottles in the desert for 1000$ a piece less parasitic.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

Landlords extract value out of the economy. I do productive work, my Landlord hasn't done a tap of work in the entire time I've been living here. I've had one landlord ever who did any work while I lived there, and I exclude him from the categorization of parasite.

The rest of them are just extracting value out of the economy and living off the useful work of others. Most of 'em get into the Landlord game off the back of inherited wealth as well, so it's not like they "worked really hard" to get into that position.

All I'm looking for is for gains through capital to be taxed more than gains through labour. Incentivise useful work over asset hoarding.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

the_scotsman wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Become a landlord and parasite off renters... That way you can roll around in all the profit you're making. I'm kidding of course..in the real world as opposed to the one inhabited by Reddit lunatics, that money actually goes back into things like insurance and upkeep/repairs to the property or items in it, and covering costs when you have no tenants.

If you do have enough capital to invest in property then you should do so. It's a long term investment that generally pays out well later down the line.

A stocks and shares isa is also worth putting savings into as the interest returns will be much better than a regular isa.


Just for fun, when I left my old place I calculated how much money I'd given my landlord and what they'd done for that money in that time.

Over five years in that location, 1800$ a month means she got 108,000$. Over that time span, she

-Paid the cost of insurance on the property (my insurance in a different area but for a much bigger/more expensive home is about 100$ monthly)
-Paid the cost of heating, because it was a central heating system individual tenants could not control meaning legally THE NANNY STATE wouldn't allow the landlord to pass that cost on. Over my first year paying my own gas bills in a house twice as big I'll have paid about 2500$, so we'll assume that's the number per year to be generous.
-Installed a new refrigerator when the old one broke, a new radiator when one leaked, and a new window when a little gak from our block broke it. Over the five years of living in the location, her and her husband came to the condo to perform some physical task rather than hiring someone to do it a total of six times.
-Hired a professional cleaner twice, once before we moved in, once just after we moved out. Since the second time came out of our security deposit, I know the cost of the first time came out of the security deposit of the previous tenant - that's just her policy on this matter.

Lets imagine a fantastical figure for the fridge, radiator, window, and other minor repair stuff they did - lets say it cost them 5,000$ total. So that means over five years they did approximately 12 hours of work in person, plus whatever it took to manage the bills (pretty much automatic, in my experience) and coordinate the cleaners and showing the place to new tenants after 5 years, they profited 84,500$.

I think parasitism is a relatively fair characterization of that exchange tbh. I'd call selling water bottles in the desert for 1000$ a piece less parasitic.


You left out the mortgage and property taxes that the owner has to pay. You also didn't factor in if the owner was doing all of the management or if the landlord was a 3rd party management firm in which case they'd be taking something like a 3% fee. How much did they pay for the building and what is their interest rate, how many units are in the building? Use that info to calculate how much they need to collect monthly from each unit to pay the debt service on the building and to cover the annual tax bill. You also need to consider their occupancy rate, how often were other units vacant? The owners have to pay the mortgage and taxes whether the building has full occupancy or is completely vacant so their rents from occupied units need to cover vacancy rate they forecast for a given year. They aren't going to charge only exactly what they need under full occupancy because then any vacancies would leave them short. I don't know what that number would be but it would be the cost that the bulk of your rent went towards.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

Man, sounds like being a Landlord is REALLY tough. They should sell up, let other people own their own homes, and go back to working a job. Just for their own wellbeing.

   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

Shh, PJ. Dont destroy their illusions of oppression...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
Man, sounds like being a Landlord is REALLY tough. They should sell up, let other people own their own homes, and go back to working a job. Just for their own wellbeing.


Have you considered that some people actually want to rent?

I also have a job btw. There are plenty of hard working landlords who care for their property and the tenants. Maybe don't lump everyone into your opinionated stereotype. Also,why should people not be allowed to benefit from a parent who may have provided them with some financial assistance? I don't understand why you're so bitter about people doing what they want with their money.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/18 13:56:31


Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

Generating income in something that's barely been touched upon except the landlord extreme.

If you start early and find a way to generate some passive income, it'll work for the rest of your life whilst you need to do nothing with it.

So as early as you can, get some money invested in stocks and shares. The UK has Stocks & Shares ISAs which give you tax free interest on them, with a funding limit of £20,000 per year.

A few hundred currencies thrown into them when you're 18 will get 50 years of compound interest by the time you retire. So if you can drop a pile of cash into them and top them up regularly you may find that in a few years you've got a big savings pot that's generating decent enough money just by sitting there, from which you can either keep re-investing it, spend the proceeds, or cash parts of it out to pay for cars/houses/whatever.

Pensions is the same deal. I can't remember the cut-off point but I remember reading that paying into a pension fund from 18-25 and then stopping will give you a bigger pension that if you pay into a pension from 35-65. Again, down to compound interest and inflation.
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

the_scotsman wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Become a landlord and parasite off renters... That way you can roll around in all the profit you're making. I'm kidding of course..in the real world as opposed to the one inhabited by Reddit lunatics, that money actually goes back into things like insurance and upkeep/repairs to the property or items in it, and covering costs when you have no tenants.

If you do have enough capital to invest in property then you should do so. It's a long term investment that generally pays out well later down the line.

A stocks and shares isa is also worth putting savings into as the interest returns will be much better than a regular isa.


Just for fun, when I left my old place I calculated how much money I'd given my landlord and what they'd done for that money in that time.

Over five years in that location, 1800$ a month means she got 108,000$. Over that time span, she

-Paid the cost of insurance on the property (my insurance in a different area but for a much bigger/more expensive home is about 100$ monthly)
-Paid the cost of heating, because it was a central heating system individual tenants could not control meaning legally THE NANNY STATE wouldn't allow the landlord to pass that cost on. Over my first year paying my own gas bills in a house twice as big I'll have paid about 2500$, so we'll assume that's the number per year to be generous.
-Installed a new refrigerator when the old one broke, a new radiator when one leaked, and a new window when a little gak from our block broke it. Over the five years of living in the location, her and her husband came to the condo to perform some physical task rather than hiring someone to do it a total of six times.
-Hired a professional cleaner twice, once before we moved in, once just after we moved out. Since the second time came out of our security deposit, I know the cost of the first time came out of the security deposit of the previous tenant - that's just her policy on this matter.

Lets imagine a fantastical figure for the fridge, radiator, window, and other minor repair stuff they did - lets say it cost them 5,000$ total. So that means over five years they did approximately 12 hours of work in person, plus whatever it took to manage the bills (pretty much automatic, in my experience) and coordinate the cleaners and showing the place to new tenants after 5 years, they profited 84,500$.

I think parasitism is a relatively fair characterization of that exchange tbh. I'd call selling water bottles in the desert for 1000$ a piece less parasitic.


I earn about £100 in profit per month on the house I rent. That's 1200 a year. My land lord tax is about 250. Various yearly inspections and checks probably take another 3-500, leaving me about 400 to cover any repairs for the entire year. So yeah, I very rarely actually make any profit.

Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Prestor Jon wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Become a landlord and parasite off renters... That way you can roll around in all the profit you're making. I'm kidding of course..in the real world as opposed to the one inhabited by Reddit lunatics, that money actually goes back into things like insurance and upkeep/repairs to the property or items in it, and covering costs when you have no tenants.

If you do have enough capital to invest in property then you should do so. It's a long term investment that generally pays out well later down the line.

A stocks and shares isa is also worth putting savings into as the interest returns will be much better than a regular isa.


Just for fun, when I left my old place I calculated how much money I'd given my landlord and what they'd done for that money in that time.

Over five years in that location, 1800$ a month means she got 108,000$. Over that time span, she

-Paid the cost of insurance on the property (my insurance in a different area but for a much bigger/more expensive home is about 100$ monthly)
-Paid the cost of heating, because it was a central heating system individual tenants could not control meaning legally THE NANNY STATE wouldn't allow the landlord to pass that cost on. Over my first year paying my own gas bills in a house twice as big I'll have paid about 2500$, so we'll assume that's the number per year to be generous.
-Installed a new refrigerator when the old one broke, a new radiator when one leaked, and a new window when a little gak from our block broke it. Over the five years of living in the location, her and her husband came to the condo to perform some physical task rather than hiring someone to do it a total of six times.
-Hired a professional cleaner twice, once before we moved in, once just after we moved out. Since the second time came out of our security deposit, I know the cost of the first time came out of the security deposit of the previous tenant - that's just her policy on this matter.

Lets imagine a fantastical figure for the fridge, radiator, window, and other minor repair stuff they did - lets say it cost them 5,000$ total. So that means over five years they did approximately 12 hours of work in person, plus whatever it took to manage the bills (pretty much automatic, in my experience) and coordinate the cleaners and showing the place to new tenants after 5 years, they profited 84,500$.

I think parasitism is a relatively fair characterization of that exchange tbh. I'd call selling water bottles in the desert for 1000$ a piece less parasitic.


You left out the mortgage and property taxes that the owner has to pay. You also didn't factor in if the owner was doing all of the management or if the landlord was a 3rd party management firm in which case they'd be taking something like a 3% fee. How much did they pay for the building and what is their interest rate, how many units are in the building? Use that info to calculate how much they need to collect monthly from each unit to pay the debt service on the building and to cover the annual tax bill. You also need to consider their occupancy rate, how often were other units vacant? The owners have to pay the mortgage and taxes whether the building has full occupancy or is completely vacant so their rents from occupied units need to cover vacancy rate they forecast for a given year. They aren't going to charge only exactly what they need under full occupancy because then any vacancies would leave them short. I don't know what that number would be but it would be the cost that the bulk of your rent went towards.


She owns the place, doesn't pay mortgage. You're right, I did forget property taxes. Mine are 500$ monthly, lets again do the ridiculous leap of logic to pretend they're the same in the much shittier place I rented before.

My landlord profited 54,500$ for doing next to nothing.

The landlord was a part of a condo association which I'm sure had some kind of fees. I'm guessing they're not over 10,000$ annually.

Other units were essentially never vacant for more than a month. We found the next tenant for the landlord, so ours wasn't vacant even one month, and we moved in directly on top of the previous tenant.

Boy, I hope someday I get to do a side-job that pays 4,500$ hourly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Become a landlord and parasite off renters... That way you can roll around in all the profit you're making. I'm kidding of course..in the real world as opposed to the one inhabited by Reddit lunatics, that money actually goes back into things like insurance and upkeep/repairs to the property or items in it, and covering costs when you have no tenants.

If you do have enough capital to invest in property then you should do so. It's a long term investment that generally pays out well later down the line.

A stocks and shares isa is also worth putting savings into as the interest returns will be much better than a regular isa.


Just for fun, when I left my old place I calculated how much money I'd given my landlord and what they'd done for that money in that time.

Over five years in that location, 1800$ a month means she got 108,000$. Over that time span, she

-Paid the cost of insurance on the property (my insurance in a different area but for a much bigger/more expensive home is about 100$ monthly)
-Paid the cost of heating, because it was a central heating system individual tenants could not control meaning legally THE NANNY STATE wouldn't allow the landlord to pass that cost on. Over my first year paying my own gas bills in a house twice as big I'll have paid about 2500$, so we'll assume that's the number per year to be generous.
-Installed a new refrigerator when the old one broke, a new radiator when one leaked, and a new window when a little gak from our block broke it. Over the five years of living in the location, her and her husband came to the condo to perform some physical task rather than hiring someone to do it a total of six times.
-Hired a professional cleaner twice, once before we moved in, once just after we moved out. Since the second time came out of our security deposit, I know the cost of the first time came out of the security deposit of the previous tenant - that's just her policy on this matter.

Lets imagine a fantastical figure for the fridge, radiator, window, and other minor repair stuff they did - lets say it cost them 5,000$ total. So that means over five years they did approximately 12 hours of work in person, plus whatever it took to manage the bills (pretty much automatic, in my experience) and coordinate the cleaners and showing the place to new tenants after 5 years, they profited 84,500$.

I think parasitism is a relatively fair characterization of that exchange tbh. I'd call selling water bottles in the desert for 1000$ a piece less parasitic.


I earn about £100 in profit per month on the house I rent. That's 1200 a year. My land lord tax is about 250. Various yearly inspections and checks probably take another 3-500, leaving me about 400 to cover any repairs for the entire year. So yeah, I very rarely actually make any profit.


Removed - Rule #1 please

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 07:19:49


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


I earn about £100 in profit per month on the house I rent. That's 1200 a year. My land lord tax is about 250. Various yearly inspections and checks probably take another 3-500, leaving me about 400 to cover any repairs for the entire year. So yeah, I very rarely actually make any profit.


You profit by about £100/month after the mortgage? So whilst you're about breaking even in terms of income/outcome, you're gaining equity in the house for essentially free (because your tenant is paying it)?
You also get any house price inflation benefit.

Admittedly, neither of those would give you a tangible benefit right now, because you'd need to sell the house to access that money, but in the long term breaking even on a buy-to-let mortgage is a pretty good deal.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Perchance you're both forgetting that rents between different regions (let alone countries) vary a lot. Some rentals are going to make money like crazy - say student lets where each student pays full rent but only gets 1 room and a communal bath and kitchen and every other room is a "flat".

Others are going to be in poorer regions with older builds where the rents aren't as high and where the buildings generate more upkeep costs.


And yes there are going to be good landlords who invest back into the property and bad landlords that let half the building fall down and still won't lift a finger.

   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

Queen Ann: I'd just rather support hard working people providing value to others over people who profit from their parents hard work and asset acquisition. Call me a communist, I dunno.

   
Made in gb
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





Nottingham

Herzlos wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


I earn about £100 in profit per month on the house I rent. That's 1200 a year. My land lord tax is about 250. Various yearly inspections and checks probably take another 3-500, leaving me about 400 to cover any repairs for the entire year. So yeah, I very rarely actually make any profit.


You profit by about £100/month after the mortgage? So whilst you're about breaking even in terms of income/outcome, you're gaining equity in the house for essentially free (because your tenant is paying it)?
You also get any house price inflation benefit.

Admittedly, neither of those would give you a tangible benefit right now, because you'd need to sell the house to access that money, but in the long term breaking even on a buy-to-let mortgage is a pretty good deal.


He is also taking on board a risk though, bad tenants can cost a landlord thousands, through damage to property, unpaid rent and the costs of attempting to recover these. My step father had tenants growing weed in huge quantities in his loft, and had ripped holes in the walls and ceilings to run the cabling to the lights. You can't begrudge someone making a long term profit when it also comes with the potential for long term stress and anxiety.

Have a look at my P&M blog - currently working on: Tempestus Scions/Primaris Howling Griffons

Previous projects
30k Iron Warriors (11k+)
Full first company Crimson Fists
Zone Mortalis (unfinished)
Classic high elf bloodbowl team 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

 JamesY wrote:

He is also taking on board a risk though, bad tenants can cost a landlord thousands, through damage to property, unpaid rent and the costs of attempting to recover these. My step father had tenants growing weed in huge quantities in his loft, and had ripped holes in the walls and ceilings to run the cabling to the lights. You can't begrudge someone making a long term profit when it also comes with the potential for long term stress and anxiety.


That's what landlord insurance and letting agencies are for, though.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 JamesY wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


I earn about £100 in profit per month on the house I rent. That's 1200 a year. My land lord tax is about 250. Various yearly inspections and checks probably take another 3-500, leaving me about 400 to cover any repairs for the entire year. So yeah, I very rarely actually make any profit.


You profit by about £100/month after the mortgage? So whilst you're about breaking even in terms of income/outcome, you're gaining equity in the house for essentially free (because your tenant is paying it)?
You also get any house price inflation benefit.

Admittedly, neither of those would give you a tangible benefit right now, because you'd need to sell the house to access that money, but in the long term breaking even on a buy-to-let mortgage is a pretty good deal.


He is also taking on board a risk though, bad tenants can cost a landlord thousands, through damage to property, unpaid rent and the costs of attempting to recover these. My step father had tenants growing weed in huge quantities in his loft, and had ripped holes in the walls and ceilings to run the cabling to the lights. You can't begrudge someone making a long term profit when it also comes with the potential for long term stress and anxiety.



mmmm, mhmmm, and uh, who tends to have the money to lobby to make the laws surrounding who's liable for damage and illegal acts performed within rented property?

Because in my experience, the person who ends up paying for that is the tenant, unless they end up also going to jail for it as well.

People who break into convenience stores and steal the money in the register also often don't profit very much and are taking on a large amount of risk with the potential for long term stress and anxiety, and they could also conceivably decide to break in and leave money to invest in the property in a low income neighborhood, but I am allowed to begrudge them making a long term profit.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

I have a friend (he's 21) who's parents bought him a flat which he now rents out for £900 profit a month.
He also uses it as an excuse to count himself as self employed and write-off most of his expenditures as business expenses on his tax return.
The easiest way to save money is to have money in the first place.
   
Made in gb
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





Nottingham

 kirotheavenger wrote:

The easiest way to save money is to have money in the first place.


As the old song goes;

One things for sure and nothing's surer
The rich get richer and the poor get ... children.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/18 15:43:27


Have a look at my P&M blog - currently working on: Tempestus Scions/Primaris Howling Griffons

Previous projects
30k Iron Warriors (11k+)
Full first company Crimson Fists
Zone Mortalis (unfinished)
Classic high elf bloodbowl team 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

the_scotsman wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Become a landlord and parasite off renters... That way you can roll around in all the profit you're making. I'm kidding of course..in the real world as opposed to the one inhabited by Reddit lunatics, that money actually goes back into things like insurance and upkeep/repairs to the property or items in it, and covering costs when you have no tenants.

If you do have enough capital to invest in property then you should do so. It's a long term investment that generally pays out well later down the line.

A stocks and shares isa is also worth putting savings into as the interest returns will be much better than a regular isa.


Just for fun, when I left my old place I calculated how much money I'd given my landlord and what they'd done for that money in that time.

Over five years in that location, 1800$ a month means she got 108,000$. Over that time span, she

-Paid the cost of insurance on the property (my insurance in a different area but for a much bigger/more expensive home is about 100$ monthly)
-Paid the cost of heating, because it was a central heating system individual tenants could not control meaning legally THE NANNY STATE wouldn't allow the landlord to pass that cost on. Over my first year paying my own gas bills in a house twice as big I'll have paid about 2500$, so we'll assume that's the number per year to be generous.
-Installed a new refrigerator when the old one broke, a new radiator when one leaked, and a new window when a little gak from our block broke it. Over the five years of living in the location, her and her husband came to the condo to perform some physical task rather than hiring someone to do it a total of six times.
-Hired a professional cleaner twice, once before we moved in, once just after we moved out. Since the second time came out of our security deposit, I know the cost of the first time came out of the security deposit of the previous tenant - that's just her policy on this matter.

Lets imagine a fantastical figure for the fridge, radiator, window, and other minor repair stuff they did - lets say it cost them 5,000$ total. So that means over five years they did approximately 12 hours of work in person, plus whatever it took to manage the bills (pretty much automatic, in my experience) and coordinate the cleaners and showing the place to new tenants after 5 years, they profited 84,500$.

I think parasitism is a relatively fair characterization of that exchange tbh. I'd call selling water bottles in the desert for 1000$ a piece less parasitic.


You left out the mortgage and property taxes that the owner has to pay. You also didn't factor in if the owner was doing all of the management or if the landlord was a 3rd party management firm in which case they'd be taking something like a 3% fee. How much did they pay for the building and what is their interest rate, how many units are in the building? Use that info to calculate how much they need to collect monthly from each unit to pay the debt service on the building and to cover the annual tax bill. You also need to consider their occupancy rate, how often were other units vacant? The owners have to pay the mortgage and taxes whether the building has full occupancy or is completely vacant so their rents from occupied units need to cover vacancy rate they forecast for a given year. They aren't going to charge only exactly what they need under full occupancy because then any vacancies would leave them short. I don't know what that number would be but it would be the cost that the bulk of your rent went towards.


She owns the place, doesn't pay mortgage. You're right, I did forget property taxes. Mine are 500$ monthly, lets again do the ridiculous leap of logic to pretend they're the same in the much shittier place I rented before.

My landlord profited 54,500$ for doing next to nothing.

The landlord was a part of a condo association which I'm sure had some kind of fees. I'm guessing they're not over 10,000$ annually.

Other units were essentially never vacant for more than a month. We found the next tenant for the landlord, so ours wasn't vacant even one month, and we moved in directly on top of the previous tenant.

Boy, I hope someday I get to do a side-job that pays 4,500$ hourly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Become a landlord and parasite off renters... That way you can roll around in all the profit you're making. I'm kidding of course..in the real world as opposed to the one inhabited by Reddit lunatics, that money actually goes back into things like insurance and upkeep/repairs to the property or items in it, and covering costs when you have no tenants.

If you do have enough capital to invest in property then you should do so. It's a long term investment that generally pays out well later down the line.

A stocks and shares isa is also worth putting savings into as the interest returns will be much better than a regular isa.


Just for fun, when I left my old place I calculated how much money I'd given my landlord and what they'd done for that money in that time.

Over five years in that location, 1800$ a month means she got 108,000$. Over that time span, she

-Paid the cost of insurance on the property (my insurance in a different area but for a much bigger/more expensive home is about 100$ monthly)
-Paid the cost of heating, because it was a central heating system individual tenants could not control meaning legally THE NANNY STATE wouldn't allow the landlord to pass that cost on. Over my first year paying my own gas bills in a house twice as big I'll have paid about 2500$, so we'll assume that's the number per year to be generous.
-Installed a new refrigerator when the old one broke, a new radiator when one leaked, and a new window when a little gak from our block broke it. Over the five years of living in the location, her and her husband came to the condo to perform some physical task rather than hiring someone to do it a total of six times.
-Hired a professional cleaner twice, once before we moved in, once just after we moved out. Since the second time came out of our security deposit, I know the cost of the first time came out of the security deposit of the previous tenant - that's just her policy on this matter.

Lets imagine a fantastical figure for the fridge, radiator, window, and other minor repair stuff they did - lets say it cost them 5,000$ total. So that means over five years they did approximately 12 hours of work in person, plus whatever it took to manage the bills (pretty much automatic, in my experience) and coordinate the cleaners and showing the place to new tenants after 5 years, they profited 84,500$.

I think parasitism is a relatively fair characterization of that exchange tbh. I'd call selling water bottles in the desert for 1000$ a piece less parasitic.


I earn about £100 in profit per month on the house I rent. That's 1200 a year. My land lord tax is about 250. Various yearly inspections and checks probably take another 3-500, leaving me about 400 to cover any repairs for the entire year. So yeah, I very rarely actually make any profit.


Then why the feth you in here pretending to give people financial advice, idiot? Can't even profit off of being a fething landlord, jesus christ. Owning and maintaining a living space is so hard that literally everyone who isn't homeless manages to do it on top of doing their full time jobs I feel so bad for you.


If the owner already paid off the mortgage then that's the source of her profits, having already made decades of payments or having had enough capital to buy it outright in the beginning. Since you were able to find a new renter without much trouble it sounds like you were paying a market rate for your area which would be greatly influenced by property values and debt service payments. Most properties aren't paid off and the debt service and taxes are driven by the value of the property which is largely dependent on local zoning laws. Large multi unit housing buildings are very expensive to build and many locales have ordinances in place to limit the size of buildings and also where they can be built. Those laws create a cap on the number of housing units that can exist in a given municipality and that scarcity drives up demand and value which makes rents high. The value of the apartment or house is independent of whether or not its paid off which is why renters are going to pay roughly the same rent for a 2BR apt in the same city regardless of the age of the building or whether it's paid off or still mortgaged.

It's really easy to understand why QAR doesn't make a huge profit if he's renting space that he's still paying a mortgage on and/or if he's renting space in a market where rates are close to his expenses. Landlords can't just set rents to whatever they want and expect people to rent from them. Landlords need to set competitive rates for their market to attract tenants regardless of their costs. The high market rate rent locations like London and NYC make new construction extremely difficult to profit from which prolongs the housing shortage.

I don't know what you are basing your idea of laws favoring landlords when it comes to bad tenants. I have never seen a market like that. In my state rent is due by the 5th of the month but not considered late until the 10th of the month. Landlords must give tenants 10 days notice before filing for eviction for nonpayment which means the earliest a landlord can file to evict a tenant for nonpayment is the 21st of the month. Once the eviction is filed the landlord and a sheriff's deputy will post the summons for the eviction hearing and then after the hearing the landlord can repossess the rental property. The whole process can take about 6 weeks depending on the date of the hearing. During that time the landlord can't enter the rental property. The landlord or manager could look in the window and see rotting food on counters or dog crap on carpets or any kind of mess or damage but can't do anything to mitigate the damage until after the legal process is finished. Then the only money available to the landlord to cover any cleaning or repairs is the security deposit. The landlord could take the tenant to small claims court but in cases of nonpayment evictions it's unlikely that the former tenant has the money so the landlord would waste money on court proceedings just to be petty and vindictive which is really unlikely. Bad tenancies inflict more consequences on landlords than tenants.

You may want to take a break from aggressive rage posting, it's a bad look for you and it's not good for your health.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

I don't think that anybody really thinks that landlords do zero work and have zero risk, that's obviously foolish. I had a high school economics teacher who used to say that the easiest dollar you can make is by owning a bar or renting properties, but he's not sure either is worth the headache. As Prestor Jon pointed out, Landlord tenant law can be complex, varying by state, county, or city, and many courts have unofficial policies which are either landlord or tenant friendly. (here's a hint: places with a lot of short term renters, like student housing or very low income areas, tend to be more landlord friendly since nobody sticks around long enough to vote. Places that have a lot of long term renters are more tenant friendly since the tenants vote).

That being said, owning rental properties is one of the most reliable paths to expanding wealth, even if the income is low. The reason for this of course are the two more boring concepts around: depreciation and step up basis. If you buy a rental property, you can deduct all expenses against any rental income when you do your taxes. Included in that is the mortgage interest you are paying, but not the principle. However, you can deduct what's called depreciation, which is a concept of spreading the tax deduction for a capital expense over many years. For rental houses, that's 27.5 years, which means that each year, you can deduct 3.6% of what you paid (your "basis") from your income. So, if you buy a 100,000 house, every year for 27 years you can deduct $3,600 from your income. This helps to avoid taxes on the money you bring in.

The one downside to deprecation is that it reduces your tax basis on the property, which means that if you sell it, you no longer pay income tax on just the simple profit of Purchase price - Sale price, but instead, you subtract the basis. So, if you fully depreciate a rental house, and you sell it, the whole thing is considered profit, and therefore taxable. Sucks, right?

There's a simply loophole though: die. When you die, not only is your estate transferred without income or estate tax (unless it's quite large), when your heirs receive that rental house, the tax basis is reset to fair market value. So, you can buy that rental house for 100,000, deduct the full purchase price against your income, and then, when you die, and the house is now worth $400,000, your heir can sell the whole thing and not pay a penny in tax.

this is obviously a long haul proposition, and it's the sort of exploit that only makes sense for people with a networth high enough they can buy rentals but low enough to avoid estate tax, but It's a powerful tool.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

Well there goes another one onto the ignore list. Incapable of basic civility...

Herzlos wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


I earn about £100 in profit per month on the house I rent. That's 1200 a year. My land lord tax is about 250. Various yearly inspections and checks probably take another 3-500, leaving me about 400 to cover any repairs for the entire year. So yeah, I very rarely actually make any profit.


You profit by about £100/month after the mortgage? So whilst you're about breaking even in terms of income/outcome, you're gaining equity in the house for essentially free (because your tenant is paying it)?
You also get any house price inflation benefit.

Admittedly, neither of those would give you a tangible benefit right now, because you'd need to sell the house to access that money, but in the long term breaking even on a buy-to-let mortgage is a pretty good deal.


I'm aware of that. There has to be a benefit, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. That will provide the deposit for the house my family eventually decide to live in when I leave the military. That's the financial upside for those who have the means to do so, hence I consider it valid money saving advice. You're saving for the future.

It's pointless trying to convince these folks that landlords arent bad by definiton. They are unable to get into their heads that some people may invest in property as a way to ensure financial security for their future and/or that of their kids, and instead refuse to look past their caricaturish vision of some sort of Scrooge character counting his cash while his tenants live in misery. It's laughable

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/18 22:55:22


Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







If you've inherited property and rent it out, you're an economic parasite. Just by owning your own house and having two more feeding you annual income, you can quite literally put your feet up and never work a day. You contribute nothing to the economy except draining the earnings of people who weren't fortunate enough to be born into as good a position; those who have to be productive to meet the basic survival need for shelter, but lack good enough credit to get a mortgage.

If you've taken out a mortgage on a property which you rent out, things are a little more complex. You're basically hoping to redirect the earnings of other people with worse credit than you through your bank account to the lender; whilst continuing to accumulate equity in the property. It's still pretty leech like, because you're not paying for the property, the renter is. Any repair bills, taxes, and so forth are inevitably paid for by the renter (even if routed through the landlord's account first). But the landlord does have to put in a bit of work to facilitate it all and assumes a degree of risk to their credit (which the inheritor does not).

The end goal however, is to end up in the position of the person who inherited their wealth; whereby you do it for long enough that you own the propert(ies) and can then keep all the income for yourself for relatively little work. In other words, to transition to being a non-productive economic parasite. And then ideally to pass that down to your children, because you don't want them to have to struggle at all.

In my experience, landlords who deny this are reacting angrily to the negative social and cultural connotations to the words 'parasite' or 'leech'; rather than taking serious issue with the literal definition of the words (in which use I am deploying them above). They feel that words like these are judgemental and have negative moral connotations attached. Which they do. And your average small-time 'buy-to-rent' landlord is just trying to establish themselves well enough financially for they and their families own security, rather than Scrooge McDucking it up.

Ultimately, the entire basis of capitalist society is about exploiting whatever leverage you can for personal gain. So anyone in the West who judges landlords too harshly on a moral account is probably a hypocrite who has never considered how they themselves likely exploit others to some degree, whether directly or indirectly. If you don't like it, you can always go live in a forest somewhere, or move to a country with a higher degree of socialism worked into the economic fabric. Likewise, if landlords really don't agree with the exploitation of the lesser well off that their commercial position demands, they can always sell up and buy bonds or something.

EDIT:- Thinking some more about it, I suppose the problem is that it's much harder to opt out when you're the renter than when you're the landlord. Your average renter doesn't get a choice but to either rent, or go off grid and live like a 19th century peasant in Tsarist Russia. Someone who has enough money and credit to get mortgages has a wealth of alternative options for investment though. So if a person chooses to invest a field which grants higher returns in exchange for a higher degree of social exploitation, is that something worth judging someone for? I suppose I'll leave that one to the philosophers.

This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 14:20:58



 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


I'm aware of that. There has to be a benefit, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. That will provide the deposit for the house my family eventually decide to live in when I leave the military. That's the financial upside for those who have the means to do so, hence I consider it valid money saving advice. You're saving for the future.

It's pointless trying to convince these folks that landlords arent bad by definiton. They are unable to get into their heads that some people may invest in property as a way to ensure financial security for their future and/or that of their kids, and instead refuse to look past their caricaturish vision of some sort of Scrooge character counting his cash while his tenants live in misery. It's laughable


I don't disagree; I'm just pointing out that you're not doing it for charity. You're setting up a pretty reasonable nest egg and taking advantage of the economic situation. I'd do the same thing. Why wouldn't you get someone to pay your mortgage for you?

Whilst there are plenty of landlords out there that are decent and small scale (quite often when 2 single property owners marry they'll keep both properties and rent one out), there are also plenty of pretty awful landlords who really do give the bad name. As a student, I rented a dive of a place from a landlord who owned 50 apartments in the city, acquired over about 50 years and all pretty much run into the ground because he didn't want to waste money maintaining properties he'd paid off years earlier. When they became too bad to rent out he'd just sell them.
In the building we stayed in, there were 8 apartments 3 of which were owner occupied and the other 5 landlord owned. The owner occupiers often complained about how it was essentially impossible to get the landlords to pay a penny towards any communal repairs like the roof.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Ketara wrote:
If you've taken out a mortgage on a property which you rent out, things are a little more complex. You're basically hoping to redirect the earnings of other people with worse credit than you through your bank account to the lender; whilst continuing to accumulate equity in the property. It's still pretty leech like, because you're not paying for the property, the renter is. Any repair bills, taxes, and so forth are inevitably paid for by the renter (even if routed through the landlord's account first). But the landlord does have to put in a bit of work to facilitate it all and assumes a degree of risk to their credit (which the inheritor does not).


A big part of it is that most people looking for long-term residence wouldn't voluntarily give up ownership/equity in exchange for avoiding that credit risk; it's imposed on them. Avoiding credit burden is a benefit, but for long-term renters an extremely minor one compared to a massive loss of value. Even in this case of renting out a mortgaged property, the landlord is gaining the equity that an owner would otherwise be gaining, and that represents a substantial profit. It's not a relationship tenants seek out so much as one imposed on them by property owners having an advantageous position.

A middleman that inserts themselves into the limited market for a fundamental need and extracts value from tenants who, given the choice, would rather just buy the property themselves and deal with the banks directly? Go figure they're commonly viewed as parasites.

An example of renting that provides tangible value would be a hotel, where 'tenants' don't want to have to buy and sell the property they inhabit for a few days or weeks, so having someone else keep the equity is an acceptable tradeoff. People don't hate hotels the way they hate landlords.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/19 15:56:35


 
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






This reminds me....Lidl, possibly Aldi, have opened up near me. Same shopping bit as Sainsbury’s, just the other side of the carpark.

Gonna go check it out, as I’m in the mood for some fresh fruit. Might as well go to the cheaper shop, because fruit is fruit is fruit.

Also worth having a nose around in general.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This reminds me....Lidl, possibly Aldi, have opened up near me. Same shopping bit as Sainsbury’s, just the other side of the carpark.

Gonna go check it out, as I’m in the mood for some fresh fruit. Might as well go to the cheaper shop, because fruit is fruit is fruit.

Also worth having a nose around in general.


Sainsburys have gone right downhill over the last twenty odd years. All the fixtures are old and cracked, the quality of the home brands has dipped to gak, and the staff has started acquiring that mildly suicidal vibe that the bottom end supermarket workers all have. They're not really any better than Asda/Lidl/Aldi any more. And the two latter ones usually beat them on price.

The trick is to buy your fruit and veg at Lidl/Aldi, because it comes off the same boats/fields, costs less, and tastes the same as the upmarket places. Get your tinned, frozen, and non-perishable ranges/goods from Tesco or Iceland (they have the best deals with those sorts of manufacturers). Tesco's Finest range are also the best value for half-decent ready meals. Then get your fresh meat, dairy, and bakery goods from Waitrose (good ethics and best quality for price).

That's the best equation for value/quality. Every time I've stepped outside it, things have gone wrong. Tesco chickens are flavourless battery gak injected with water that shrivel. Waitrose veg comes from the same farms as the Aldi ones most of the time, but they double the price. Aldi doesn't sell any bread that wouldn't survive nuclear fallout. You get the idea. If you're shopping at Marks and Spencer, you're basically paying Waitrose plus 20%, and if you're shopping at Asda or Sainsburys, you could buy whatever you're getting there for 10% less at another budget supermarket.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/19 16:48:23



 
   
Made in ca
Fireknife Shas'el






The people banging the drum on the evils of landlords seem to be forgetting a few things.

First, there's an entire segment of the population that can literally only afford to rent a single room in a shared rental house or apartment. Take landlords out of the picture and those people are on the street. Whether through circumstance or from bad decision making, this group CANNOT afford to own their own home. If you were left with only home owners renting one room of their own house, it would not be enough, because few people who own their own home want to rent a room to a stranger. It's much more acceptable to rent a house you don't live in to a group of strangers.

Second, there's another segment of the population that doesn't want to own. Someone who is working a new job, contract job, a university student or other transient people don't want the hassle of buying, owning then selling the home on a short term basis. In fact, with real estate fees this could be a serious money loser in the short term. So renting, even at above the cost to pay a mortgage, taxes and utilities, still makes economic sense for these people. I have older relatives that sold their homes to free up capital and rent during their retirement, and it's probably a path I'll have to take myself in my later years.

Obviously renting is a bad option for a lot of people. But it does fulfill the needs of a segment of the population. I'd much rather see the government incentivize high density rental (apartments) over owning rental houses to free up houses and make them more affordable to the average person, or at least make basement apartments less of a hassle to increase the supply of rental units to depress the cost of renting to something more realistic.


   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 John Prins wrote:

First, there's an entire segment of the population that can literally only afford to rent a single room in a shared rental house or apartment. Take landlords out of the picture and those people are on the street. Whether through circumstance or from bad decision making, this group CANNOT afford to own their own home.


I'm sorry, but this is utter rubbish and reads like some Edwardian Scrooge caricature opinion.

'Landlords need to rent room, or else where would poor people live? On the street, dammit! Why aren't they more grateful!?'

Think about the economic effect on the housing market of restricting the ability of people/companies with lots of money to buy multiple residential properties. The houses won't vanish, and nor will construction. What would happen is that demand from the wealthiest would vanish, thus lowering the price barrier for buying property to something far more affordable to that excluded segment you're talking about. If property is a tenth of the price, then that 'entire segment of the population' you're talking to would be far more capable of purchasing it. It's basic supply and demand economics. If you outlawed purchase of residential property units by anyone who already owned two of them tomorrow; the bottom would fall out of the property market so hard it would smash through the Earth's crust. Harder and faster still if you forced existing landlords to sell up, there'd be a sudden massive glut on the market.

I'm not advocating this, but making the point that the drive of the well off to accrue still more wealth is the primary engine behind the ridiculous house prices you see today. It's not the minor population increase over the last thirty years, or that the land has become intrinsically more 'valuable'. It's supply and demand economics. Property bestows wealth and income, so everyone chases it. Remove the profit incentive, and the price will plummet. If the Government built more social housing for the poorest segment of long term renters, rental prices and mortgages would also plummet in turn (as they'd have to compete with council house rents).

No Government wants to do anything like this however, because the ripple on effects to the economy would be extreme.

Second, there's another segment of the population that doesn't want to own. Someone who is working a new job, contract job, a university student or other transient people don't want the hassle of buying, owning then selling the home on a short term basis.


I don't think anyone has said that transients should be buying the property they're in for three months or so.

What is interesting is the number of llandlords switching rental properties to Airbnb, as a way of circumventing tenant rights and functioning as semi-hotels for rapid churn and burn and maximum profit. In many cities, this is actually now inflating rental prices, as it reduces the amount of property available for rent in the normal manner.

This message was edited 13 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 17:15:37



 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: