> it takes decades to profit when renting out homes

Only if you don't count the equity built from the rent that you can cash in by selling at pretty much any time.

You have to pay this thing called interest and it's pretty high in the first 10 years. Your equity portion is not that big.

Yeah, but rent is covering that too, in addition to the equity. You've also got the inherent equity of the house itself being an appreciating asset.

Point is, when renting out an appropriating asset for the same as the monthly payments on your loan, defining "making a profit" as "completely paid off my loans on the appreciating asset that I can sell at any time" is a bit disingenuous.

> If you follow all the rules and regulations it takes decades to profit when renting out homes

What do you mean by this? You still have the property which presumably hasn't depreciated in price.

Let's say you do eek out some amount that could be called profit. You get taxed on it according to your highest rate bracket. Then you have maintenance costs. These can be substantial and come as a surprise. If you get good renters and they pay for ten years you might get to a point where the whole deal was worth your time. You can always skim a little but it's really a long term prospect. Maybe you get lucky and are building significant equity each month as well. I don't really count that. Maybe a tennant implodes and you are stuck with a huge repair bill for some fucked up reason. It is perilous and fraught with inconvenience...not easy money. Forgot to mention insurance.

Oh yeah, one of the towns where I have property just pulled a new rental regulation out of thin air requiring a notification filing and fee for each rental property per year or on each new tennant lease. This country is turning into regulation hell.

It sounds like you've never been a landlord. For small-timers at any rate, the main attraction is asset appreciation, and the second is tax subsidies. Excess rent is usually the least important factor, and is often around zero, and can even be negative.

My parents bought a house when I was a kid. They struggled through bad tenants but were able to stay afloat when rent was not coming in. Fast forward 30 years, the house is literally free money for my semi-retired mom. The house rent pays for taxes and repairs and gives my mum excess money for the month.

I don't think the typical landlord is paying more on maintenance per month than they are gaining from rent. Taxes are paid net of maintenance costs.

> You get taxed on it according to your highest rate bracket.

Why would you personally own the property as opposed to putting it under an LLC or Corp? You would still have to pay taxes on personal income but it offers a lot more options on how to recieve the income and handle expenses.

And you open up your personal assets to liabilities from the property. Not saying it’s not possible, the additional insurance costs usually even out that difference

In Australia people rarely expect to profit when renting out. It's all about negative gearing to offset your income tax and sell the property for a profit later and move up the ladder.

So on one hand you could say the renters get a good deal but in the long run the upward price pressure makes it tougher for everyone.