All Forum Posts by: Ryan Moyer

Haha fair enough. I guess my point was the ROI was good there based on 2021 home prices, but Matt was talking about looking there in 2024. Does that $40k/yr still represent a good ROI at today's prices?

 What is that cabin worth today?  2021 was right when things really started going up so I'm guessing a fair bit more than that?

Would something like this have to be bought in cash or can it be financed?

 Thanks, ChatGPT!

 What features did hostfully have that you wanted to that were missing in Hospitable?

 I think you took it out of context.

You can only use bonus depreciation one time because once you've used it, you've used it.  But classifying your depreciation (either the leftover annual depreciation after taking bonus depreciation, or the regular amount of depreciation if you didn't take bonus depreciation) can be taken as an active deduction against your W2 income for as long as you materially participate in the property.

Disclaimer: I'm not a tax professional so not financial advice.  This is just my understanding of it.

We got dinged with one that was our fault, but felt the punishment way out-weighed the crime.

We took on a handful of properties from a new client.  They wanted to keep their old bookings though and leave them under the old PM to be sure the guest's wouldn't cancel when switching over to the new listing.  So we had to manually block off the dates for about 80 reservations across a bunch of properties.

Well, we missed one and accidentally took a booking on our listing for dates that should have been blocked off.  We noticed it pretty much immediately (within a few hours of booking).  We reached out to the guest but they weren't willing to work with us on it, adamant that they should get to keep the booking.

We ended up having to pay the fine and had our listing penalized pretty heavily.  It was our fault so it is what it is, but it sucks that an honest mistake that would have been a super tiny inconvenience for the guest ended up being a huge thing for us with a monetary fine and likely lots of money lost in future reservations.  

Oh well, live and learn.  At least we're a company with redundancies to make this happen very very rarely, and with enough inventory to make it not the end of the world.  I really feel for regular owners.  The whole point of Airbnb/VRBO is regular people are supposed to be able to rent their places, and those people make mistakes (especially on VRBO's garbage website).  Punishment seems way too harsh on those folks.

 You're killing me here man.

This thread is about a proposal that would discourage corporate landlords from raising rent by more than 5%/yr by reducing their federal tax breaks if they do it.

It's not my fault if you didn't read the actual proposal nor the other half of the OP that specifically mentioned the tax breaks being what is tied to the rent increase limit.

You can't separate them.  They're not talking about rent control in the same sense as New York City where it's illegal to raise rent by more than X%.  Just because Fox News threw around the term "rent control" 514 times to ragebait you doesn't make it the same thing.

The point here is you can't on one hand say "politicians shouldn't interfere to artificially change the market" and on the other say "these tax breaks that were created by politicians to artificially change the market need to stay in place".  There's no separating the two.  This proposal is about removing those tax breaks for certain landlords.  If you're against the proposal then you are in favor of the tax breaks staying.  Those same tax breaks that were created by politicians to artificially change the market in the first place.

The tax breaks aren't a separate thing.  The "rent control" IS the tax breaks.  Or rather, the removal of them.

Huh?  This whole thread is about tax breaks.  That's what the proposed 5% cap is tied to.

The white house is asking congress to remove tax breaks that were perks for real estate investors if they use those tax breaks to raise rent too aggressively.  Those tax breaks existing in the first place are examples of politicians intervening to artificially change market dynamics, by stimulating investors to buy those properties more aggressively than they would in a free market.  So if your stance is that politicians should not intervene to artificially change market dynamics, then by that definition you should be in favor of them removing or (in this case) limiting the tax breaks that artificially changed market dynamics.

The proposal is not to make it illegal to raise rent by more than 5%.  The proposal is to reduce tax breaks when rent is raised by more than 5%.  If you don't think the government should be meddling in the housing/real estate market in the first place, then you should be against those tax breaks existing in the first place, and rolling them back in any capacity would be a step in the right direction.

 But the tax breaks that would go away here were already bureaucrats and politicians intervening and artificially changing market dynamics.  If you're not in favor of politicians interfering with market dynamics, you should already want those tax breaks gone anyway.