[quote=bearishgurl]I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.
And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.
Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.[/quote]
In every case that I’m aware of, prior to the housing bubble, rents absolutely cover property taxes.
The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).
The negative cash flow “investors” are hoping for capital gains. Those aren’t real RE investors.
