# Cities in Ontario with the lowest and highest property tax ...



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

This is an interesting spin:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/torontos-property-tax-rate-the-lowest-in-ontario-report-184803281.html

So should Torontonians (lowest rate) be seeking to move to Windsor (highest rate) to save $ on their property tax???


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

They should appeal their property taxes. It’s not hard, doesn’t take very long, less than a day, and the savings can be significant.

It’s a little different in my case, since I own so many I don’t need large savings per unit to make it significant but, since I buy so cheap I usually get a good reduction on new purchases at least. I don’t appeal all properties every year, but I check every one to see if I should. This year I made 18 appeals, the savings I made from them meant that I didn’t pay any property tax on the equivalent of 3. That was substantial savings. 

I’ve got a good relationship with realtors so it’s easy for me to get a comparable report which is key to an appeal. If the assessment value is too high, which can easily happen (and we’re not talking 10k which is meaningless on a primary residence), especially these days where sales prices have dropped. It’s worth the appeal. 

Many time you settle over the phone and don’t have to go to the hearing. Save a couple hundred bucks if you do the work. If you’re a landlord, you can save thousands.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Do you have any stats on the "success" rate of appeals with MPAC in "Toronto"? 

I'm not sure in your case, why you would want to appeal since your a corporation in need of expenses. Besides, appealing in your case means the value of your equities (properties) go down ... which is not what you would want ... eventually when you sell.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> This is an interesting spin


I think it would be, if it was structured to reveal useful information. As it is, it is combining property values and municipal taxes in an impenetrable way. When a 1M house in TO costs the same as a similar 300K house in Windsor, the comparison of taxes across similar prices makes no sense. It would be be much more useful if it normalized around typical property types and factored out the market value: say a 1,200ft semi, an 800ft condo, a 1,500ft detached. Then compare the municipal tax burden between locations.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The article is pornography. A municipality has a 'need' for a certain budget of X and the mill rate, or tax rate, is set on total assessment divided by budget needs (setting aside for a moment there are different tax rates for different classes of property),

Example: If city A and city B have exactly the same budget needs, but A is a city that has double the market (and assessment) value of B, then the mill rate of B needs to be twice that of A.

It is dumb to compare mill rates. It is more correct to compare actual taxes paid for like properties.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

No one I know seriously looks at the assessment value when buying. My property is always only worth what someone else is willing to write a cheque for...everything else is opinion. My personal success rate was 100% until this year. Lost the appeal on three of my 18, but I didn’t appeal In Toronto. 

Giving money to governments isn’t exactly what I think of an a good use for my money. I don’t like waste. I’ve got plenty of expenses to write off against. 

As for selling, I don’t have much interest in doing that as I invest for cash flow. Don’t really care about the value of the property unless I wanted to refinance, and then they send out an appraiser, and they don’t care about assessment value either, they look at the comparable properties and what they sell for.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> The article is pornography. A municipality has a 'need' for a certain budget of X and the mill rate, or tax rate, is set on total assessment divided by budget needs..........
> 
> It is dumb to compare mill rates.........


Totally agree, it's a goofy article. Especially when they say, _"The property tax disparity between the two cities shouldn’t be all that surprising, considering the difference in real estate prices from one market to the next"._

Well, that's not how municipal taxes work. We've discussed this before and I remember offering this well written article on how city taxes actually work.

ltr


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

My brother used to appeal his tax assessment every year in Toronto. He always succeeded. Then in the last year, they said they would grant a $10k reduction or he could go to court. The house was a teardown so he always objected to the improvements assessment.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

That article referenced by OP is a load of crap. It is comparing mill rates, not average tax bills. Toronto's mill rates are lower because their property assessments are far higher. Who writes this stuff? I had never heard of ZOOCASA before, but if this is a sample of their "research" I wouldn't pay any more attention to them. Just another piece of internet misinformation.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Best to avoid buying homes in areas with low home ownership rates. Where there are a high number of renters to home owners the political correct thing to do will increase property taxes make the rich pay BS mantra will not lose as many votes. The government is on a hunt for taxes as well as wants to get elected to get their big fat pensions


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

According to this article, taxes are decided by the value of a person's home compared to the "average" value of a home.

So if a person buys a more expensive home, they can expect to pay more in taxes.

The article says about 50% of appeals are successful.

https://www.thestar.com/business/pe...t-appeal-your-property-assessment-mayers.html


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ That article is from 2016 and by the time your appeal is successful, the new assessment is on its way. Ie. appealing to a lower assessment is a moving to ... losing. 

And from the article:



> *How many people appeal?*
> 
> MPAC sends out five million notices a year and about 2.5 per cent, or 12,500 people, file requests for reconsideration, says MPAC’s McLean.


 ... interesting to note only "2.5%" appealed ... does this mean a whopping "97.5% think their assessment is "fair". Or the majority of homeowners are too lazy to appeal? Or the appeal is too difficult?



> *How many are successful?*
> 
> About half. Of those turned down, a very small portion go to the next level, McLean says.


 ... 50/50 is borderline ... and only half of 12,500 meaning 1.25% is successful. And only for the "current" assessment period. Wait until the next one comes along.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

kcowan said:


> My brother used to appeal his tax assessment every year in Toronto. He always succeeded. Then in the last year, they said *they would grant a $10k reduction *or he could go to court. *The house was a teardown* so he always objected to the improvements assessment.


 ... obviously. Mind you $10K reduction is peanuts ...with property values even back then. Eg. $10K of $200K assessment = 5%. Whoopie...okay, it's better than nothing. But what does the $10K assessment reduction equate in terms of tax $ reduction?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... obviously. Mind you $10K reduction is peanuts ...with property values even back then. Eg. $10K of $200K assessment = 5%. Whoopie...okay, it's better than nothing. But what does the $10K assessment reduction equate in terms of tax $ reduction?


Right on! He accepted the $10k on an assessment of $400k. In previous years, he had gained reductions of $30k. The house right next door was identical and well-maintained, so he had a base to start from.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think, when they say 50% are successful they mean without going to a hearing. Most of my appeals in previous years were all settled over the phone. This year many of them were sent before a hearing. I think a hearing is what they mean by going to the next level. I settled two this year over the phone, had 13 go to a hearing and lost 3 of those. In previous years I only rarely went to a hearing. 

I can’t say for sure but I can probably see doing at least 11 appeals next year.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

The thing about property taxes that matters to me, regardless of how it is assessed or whether someone appeals or not, etc. is that it is an ANNUAL COST of home ownership that is non-RECOVERABLE. So it matters when choosing where to buy a house you intend to live in.

My neighbour has talked about moving for years now but never has. One major factor in that is that he cannot accept paying more property tax for a comparable property. His current rate is .04290 which makes Toronto's .61 rate 50% more expensive! Funny how the link in the OP just lists cities. Imagine if more people realized just how high their property taxes are compared to some other places that are not on a list of cities. LOL

Just as Just a Guy is only interested in cash flow with properties, as a retiree, I am only interested in costs in regards to my primary residence. I don't care if it increases in value by say $500k or not, I don't plan to sell and it being worth more is of no benefit to me at all. Having said that, properties in our area have been increasing in value in double digits over the last 5 years or so thanks to Baby Boomers retirees moving out of cities like Toronto to where there money buys more and they can bank the difference. But what does matter to me is annual non-recoverable costs. If I spend $5k more on property tax, that's $5k less I can spend on hiking trips to Switzerland.

So back to my neighbour. He is fine with paying a higher price for a comparable house in his desired area he would like to move to. That money will still be there for his children to get when he dies. But every dime he spends on property tax will not be there for them to inherit, it will be gone. If he moves and pays twice the property tax for a comparable house, he sees that as spending money that he doesn't have to spend if he doesn't move and also as being taken directly out of his children's pockets. His view, not mine.

But it should make some people think about how property tax is a non-recoverable cost. Capital spent on buying a house is generally speaking all recoverable and hopefully will also increase in value over time. Property tax is gone forever.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The problem I have with property tax is it’s the one tax you can’t do anything to reduce, except appeal. Funny that one suggested I needed write offs to lower a different tax, but considered a tax appeal not very intelligent. Why someone wouldn’t try to reduce every tax seems silly to me. 

I’d love write offs against property taxes, it’s my biggest tax.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> The problem I have with property tax is it’s the one tax you can’t do anything to reduce, except appeal.* Funny that one suggested I needed write offs to lower a different tax, but considered a tax appeal not very intelligent. *Why someone wouldn’t try to reduce every tax seems silly to me.


 ... I did not say nor suggested that appealing property tax is not very intelligent. You're inferring it here. It may be easy to appeal property taxes in your side of town but for a big metro like Toronto, good luck.



> I’d love write offs against property taxes, it’s my biggest tax.


... I'm sure you would but then your rentals' cashflow wouldn't be considered positive or profitable, would it? 


As for this part in your post #6:


> As for selling, I don’t have much interest in doing that as I invest for cash flow. *Don’t really care about the value of the property *unless I wanted to refinance, and then they send out an appraiser, and they don’t care about assessment value either, they look at the comparable properties and what they sell for.


 ... you're the first RE investor that I have heard not caring about capital growth on the value of the property which is surprising. Or as you specifically said ... only "to refinance" of which I believe is quite often considering your RE empire is your strongest asset to leverage.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I don’t need to refinance because the cash flow is high, I use the new properties as a write off. I suppose if I wanted to buy something big, but they’ve been overpriced for a long time. There are many expenses you can write off, tools, contractors, materials, travel, professional services, property taxes, etc. Also, at the prices I buy, I don’t need huge loans. Besides, with my system all the money and equity is pure profit. I don’t put my money in any property. It’s an infinite ROI. Even if they don’t appreciate, its all someone else paying for it, literally money from nothing. 

When you start off, you need to refinance to grow, when you’re big, they get paid off and just generate cash. Last year I paid cash for the 7 properties I bought and then refinanced them clear title, no need to touch the old ones. They financed themselves. 

I’m not entirely sure how they do it but accountants are very good at getting rid of paper profits for tax purposes. I’ve passed my audits in the past with no corrections, so everything is kosher. 

Why would I care about capital growth, I invested for cash flow. I don’t want to sell my properties ever. In fact, there’s insurance (another write off) to ensure they get passed on to the next generation. There does come a point when you can actually generate more money than you can spend...maybe not more than my wife could spend, but certainly more than I could. Then money just starts to accumulate, you invest it in stuff, make donations, and don’t spend it, so you defer taxes on it, but you still have these first world problems to deal with.

I admit, it may have been an exaggeration to say property taxes are the highest, but it always feels that way when there’s no control over how much they can ask and only one way to lower them.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Funny how some people can't seem to understand that it is entirely possible to not care about capital growth if you have no intention of selling. We've just had 2 examples of when that is likely and yet we get a comment about, "you're the first RE investor that I have heard not caring about capital growth on the value of the property which is surprising."

Come on Beaver101, think outside of your own little box. Not everyone who puts money into real estate does so hoping to 'flip' down the road, for a profit. That can't be that hard to understand surely.

I'm thinking at the moment of a small jewellery store here in our little town. A family business, now in the 4th generation. The family were part of the original settlers of the town. They invested in a building back around the 1890s, do you think they gloat over how much it has appreciated in value since then? They invested in real estate from which to conduct a business, they continue to do so and have no interest whatsoever in the capital value of the property. That will only change if a future generation decides they no longer want to operate a business from the property.

There are all kinds of reasons why someone might invest in real estate and not care about capital value in their lifetime.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Hey, truthfully I know at least one person who appealed their property taxes to get the assessment raised. I guess they needed the ego boost to say their property was worth more. Figured it would bring more when they sold. Ironically, they weren’t even interested in selling, so they paid more taxes and got to brag about what their properties are worth. 

To me, my properties are not really worth anything but what they bring in each month. That includes my personal residence which also generated income. Unless someone offers me a cheque, they aren’t really worth anything. It’s probably more realistic than most people’s view. Try getting your price if no one wants to give it to you. This last year very few people were buying that’s how I could get a nice one bedroom and a den for 45k. There’s another one in the same building listed at 85k...and sitting. The city assessment is 95k. I’ll appeal this one next year.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> When you start off, you need to refinance to grow, when you’re big, they get paid off and just generate cash.* Last year I paid cash for the 7 properties I bought and then refinanced them clear title, no need to touch the old ones. They financed themselves.
> *
> I’m not entirely sure how they do it but accountants are very good at getting rid of paper profits for tax purposes. I’ve passed my audits in the past with no corrections, so everything is kosher.


Just curious, where does the re-financing money go then after you get it? Is this in a corporate account discount brokerage where you hope to earn more than the interest rate on the mortgage? Is the operation something like:

- Make cash offer
- Quickly liquidate pre-existing investments within corporate account
- Buy and close on the deal
- Re-finance for ~100% after everything is settled
- Re-invest the money back into whatever was invested in before.

How do you decide on what is the right amount of equity to keep in the property - to refinance it to 100%? or just let it slowly pay itself off over the years?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I make the offer, usually buy on a secured line of credit that’s set up already (so I can write off interest if it takes a while), close the deal, contact the banks, get 100% financing repay the loan, rinse and repeat. Heloc is set up on old paid off properties.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> I'm thinking at the moment of a small jewellery store here in our little town. A family business, now in the 4th generation. The family were part of the original settlers of the town. They invested in a building back around the 1890s, do you think they gloat over how much it has appreciated in value since then? They invested in real estate from which to conduct a business, they continue to do so and have no interest whatsoever in the capital value of the property. That will only change if a future generation decides they no longer want to operate a business from the property.


Remind me of an IT executive who was saving a ton of money from his bonuses and decided to invest it with two school buddies in an office building on Yonge Street at St Clair. When it appreciated, he wanted to do some profit-taking. Sadly his two buddies were dentists and had their offices in the building. There was no "out" clause in their agreement.

So he continued to become richer on paper and his heirs will probably get a windfall if the dentists don't have kids in the same business. Lesson: Look at liquidity for any private investment. He shared that nugget 40 years ago and it has saved me much grief.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Funny how some people can't seem to understand that it is entirely possible to not care about capital growth if you have no intention of selling. We've just had 2 examples of when that is likely and yet we get a comment about, "you're the first RE investor that I have heard not caring about capital growth on the value of the property which is surprising."
> 
> *Come on Beaver101, think outside of your own little box. Not everyone who puts money into real estate does so hoping to 'flip' down the road, for a profit. That can't be that hard to understand surely.*
> 
> ...


 ... LTA, maybe you should get off your boat as what makes you so sure that future generation(s) would not want to sell the farm/land ... to a developer for a few million bucks. Isn't this how JAG's kids (not grandkids) gonna to be multi-millionaires in his lifetime? I can't see collecting rent as a road to multi-millions riches ... maybe rich cashflow.

Or how the next generation up-keeping that hand-me-down cottage in order to preserve the family's legacy? Is this the trend?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

My kids don’t expect to inherit anything. They weren’t brought up that way. My son has a plan to buy a lot of real estate at a young age following my strategy. He also has plans to invest in stocks. That’s why I predicted he’d be a multimillionaire before reaching 30. Had people started in their teens they may also be rich at an early age. Most of his friends are busy blowing all their money. He’s different. 

Beaver, you do realize that properties are paid off in 17.5 years with a standard mortgage right? They do have a value as well as cash flow. That’s how you become a multimillionaire. I may not value the properties, but that doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t. 10 properties worth 100k each make a million dollars in 17.5 years. 20 would be 2 million. (In 10 years, it would be worth more than 1M). At 1000/month (low end) he’d be making 10-20k/month. That doesn’t even include his stock investing or his personal income. He’s got plans for more than 20 properties, depending on what he finds. Since I bought 7, or 8 including his last year, this could easily be possible...especially if I stop buying and let him get the properties. Yeah, I can see him being poor at 30, nowhere near my predictions...sure I may overestimate how well he’ll do, but he’ll probably wind up better than 99% of the population. There probably is a reason why my lawyer sat him down to talk prenup and cohabitation agreements when he bought his first place. The lawyer could see where he was going as well. 

Oh, according to the bank and it’s appraiser, he already has 70k of equity in his first place. It was a steal of a deal, I haven’t seen one that good in a longtime. He made money because he biought when others wouldn’t. There’s a two bed for same in the same building for 120k, need Renos. 

If some future generation sold my stuff, what do I care, I’m long gone. I know my kids want to build their own wealth, it’s how they were brought up. They weren’t brought up to be entitled. 

Same with their RESPs, there’s enough money in there to send them to school to at least a masters degree and I’ve still got contribution room of 10 years for the youngest one.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> Remind me of an IT executive who was saving a ton of money from his bonuses and decided to invest it with two school buddies in an office building on Yonge Street at St Clair. When it appreciated, he wanted to do some profit-taking. Sadly his two buddies were dentists and had their offices in the building. There was no "out" clause in their agreement.
> 
> So he continued to become richer on paper and his heirs will probably get a windfall if the dentists don't have kids in the same business. Lesson: Look at liquidity for any private investment. He shared that nugget 40 years ago and it has saved me much grief.


A good reminder indeed kcowan. I have advocated investing in small commercial properties to be tenanted by doctors, dentists, etc. They tend to make excellent long term tenants and generally pay their rent on time. An alternative is to own the property along with the doctors as per your example, but yes, in that case, you do have to an a clause in the agreement (partnership) that allows you to get out if you decide to do so. You don't say but I assume the guy is getting rent out of his share of the property, not just getting 'rich on paper' based on the capital value.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... LTA, maybe you should get off your boat as what makes you so sure that future generation(s) would not want to sell the farm/land ... to a developer for a few million bucks. Isn't this how JAG's kids (not grandkids) gonna to be multi-millionaires in his lifetime? I can't see collecting rent as a road to multi-millions riches ... maybe rich cashflow.
> 
> Or how the next generation up-keeping that hand-me-down cottage in order to preserve the family's legacy? Is this the trend?


Beaver101, if you want to attempt a rebuttal of something, you have to address the point. The point being made was that not everyone is bothered by capital growth as shown through examples of someone who does not intend to sell and wants income. ie. Just a Guy. Or, someone who intends to live in the property until they die. ie. many retirees including myself.

Whether a future generation would choose to sell and then be interested in capital growth, does not refute either of those examples of when capital growth is not a consideration. So, when someone says, 'everyone is interested in capital growth, two clear responses rebutting that contention have been made. If you in turn want to try and provide a rebuttal of the contention that not everyone is interested in capital growth, you are going to have to show how everyone IS interested in capital growth.

If you want to attempt to debate an issue, you have to know how a debate works.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We have lots of unoccupied buildings or vacant land in prime areas that sits empty. The owners keep the property because land prices continue to rise.

If there was no capital growth expectation in real estate, a lot fewer people would invest in it. They would simply invest their money into more profitable ventures.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Our landlord built the base of their company in the 1960s. They built thousands of rental units in an English village type of setting within our city.

They used perceived "equity" to expand their business into retirement homes, subdivisions, office buildings, golf courses and other ventures.

It is the capital appreciation of their original properties that facilitated their company expansion.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Beaver101, if you want to attempt a rebuttal of something, you have to address the point. The point being made was that not everyone is bothered by capital growth as shown through examples of someone who does not intend to sell and wants income. ie. Just a Guy. Or, someone who intends to live in the property until they die. ie. many retirees including myself.
> 
> Whether a future generation would choose to sell and then be interested in capital growth, does not refute either of those examples of when capital growth is not a consideration. So, when someone says, 'everyone is interested in capital growth, two clear responses rebutting that contention have been made. If you in turn want to try and provide a rebuttal of the contention that not everyone is interested in capital growth, you are going to have to show how everyone IS interested in capital growth.
> 
> If you want to attempt to debate an issue, you have to know how a debate works.


 ... it's OK LTA. It's anyone's perogative with what they want to do with what they have.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... it's OK LTA. It's anyone's perogative with what they want to do with what they have.


Or as in your own case, with what they TRY to do with what they DON'T have. You can't try to rebut something without having some relevance to what you want to rebut. LOL


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ What I have or what I don't have is NOYB. Besides, I'll let you enjoy your retirement here with your attempts.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ What I have or what I don't have is NOYB. Besides, I'll let you enjoy your retirement here with your attempts.


You made it my business when you tried to argue that everyone is concerned about capital growth Beaver101. If you didn't want it to become part of my business, you should not have commented.

Now, having failed to present any kind of cogent argument to back up your comment, you seem to think trying to avoid admitting you were wrong can be achieved by suggesting the old excuse of 'to each his own' as a final position. Well, it is not a case of 'to each his own' at all, it is a case of you were wrong to say that everyone is concerned about capital growth. You can admit it and be done or not, either way the fact remains the same. You were wrong.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

LTA, you’re beating a dead horse. Beaver isn’t the only one who’s been wrong, it’s not even the only time she was wrong in this thread (that she believed assessment values play a role in the value of the property is also wrong to a large extent). This board will probably have multiple postings today from a number of people who are wrong. People are wrong all the time, Sags makes a living out of it it seems. 

The point of the board isn’t to get people to capitulate, most people can’t admit publicly when they are wrong, some attack those who go against their long held beliefs (Just look at the verbal abuse I usually get when I talk about being successful in real estate...it starts off as “Can’t be done”, then progresses downhill from there.

We don’t need people to admit anything, hopefully others will learn from what they refuse to admit publicly, but probably know in their minds is true. Of course some people will go to the grave claiming they’re right no matter how wrong they are, there’s no help for them.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> You made it my business when you tried to argue that everyone is concerned about capital growth Beaver101. If you didn't want it to become part of my business, you should not have commented.


 ... of course, you made it your business to comment as you stuck your nose into my post #18 first of which I was responding to JAG. Since then you subsequently commented or made it your business, then I commented.



> Now, having failed to present any kind of cogent argument to back up your comment, you seem to think trying to avoid admitting you were wrong can be achieved by suggesting the old excuse of 'to each his own' as a final position. Well, it is not a case of 'to each his own' at all, it is a case of you were wrong to say that everyone is concerned about capital growth. You can admit it and be done or not, either way the fact remains the same. You were wrong.


 ... I don't need any cogent argument to back my comment so you can rebutt to the moon as it's a given JAG's kids or his spouse (who then will bequeath) will inherit his properties (provided he doesn't sell first) even or do you expect JAG will be giving them away to charity, the government? OTOH, if and when he decides to sell, would he be happy to see his properties worth lower than what he bought for? Concept is no different than buying stocks low, sell high. Common sense doesn't need rebuttal except for someone who got alot of time on his hands. 
y


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I won’t really care if they sold for less, I’d probably be disappointed and surprised considering what i bought them for but they were all, even my primary residence, 100% financed and paid for by someone else. I have no cash in any of it, so all the proceeds are pure profit. I literally create money from nothing. So, if i bought for 100k and sold 17.5 yers later for 50k, i still made 50k out of none of my own money...should i complain? If i’d Invested 20k (20% downpayment on 100k) to get 50k in 17.5 years, I probably wouldn’t be too impressed with real estate, but infinite ROI is hard to complain about.

It’s like your kids getting your estate, doesn’t matter what you paid for it, to your kids its free money.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Yeah, you can lead a horse to water.................................


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> You don't say but I assume the guy is getting rent out of his share of the property, not just getting 'rich on paper' based on the capital value.


Yes the rents contributed to his returns. However, both dentists with their offices in the building did not pay rent and so his returns did not match those of his partners. Again he acknowledged that he was immature at the time of the investment. Did not hire his own lawyer to look at the contract, etc.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> Yes the rents contributed to his returns. However, both dentists with their offices in the building did not pay rent and so his returns did not match those of his partners. Again he acknowledged that he was immature at the time of the investment. Did not hire his own lawyer to look at the contract, etc.


A hard lesson learned then obviously. That the two dentists did not pay rent or that all other rents were then divided equally between the three partners, boggle the mind.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> A hard lesson learned then obviously. That the two dentists did not pay rent or that all other rents were then divided equally between the three partners, boggle the mind.


They paid a nominal rent but he did not notice that it was fixed with no escalator which quickly became an issue in the 70s & 80s.


----------

