If the property value stays the same, that can also be seen as a $14k increase in equity.

I'd love to fix it IP and have 25-30 in equity so we can sell it in a year or two.

You should have 100K or more in equity to protect before it makes sense to spend that money - compare that with how much you spend in annual insurance for the same property/equity.Here is a graphical representation intended to help you on your quest for answers on this subject:

I often read on BP about investors who turn their primary into a rental and think they're doing great by cash flowing $300/month, until you realize they have $100k+ in equity.

A recent editorial in the Star Tribune written by Owen Duckworth of the Alliance for Metropolitan Stability regarding evictions in MN ended his piece by writing, "And to cure chronic housing inequity, we need systemic changes that put power and ownership in the hands of tenants, not private landlords." 

After 10 years:1) A flipper will have a nice chunk of money in a retirement account but will have to keep flipping to eat.2) A buy and hold investor will be able to retire and will be making the equivalent of 100k per year with about 1mil in equity in their homes.

Thomas - staying vs. moving was the topic of the cost benefit analysis I did...which lead me to wanting to sell and move as soon as possible in order to start looking for a profitable buy and hold rental.If I stay in this property longer I save up more money each money and I may add a little $ in equity from principal pay down + minor appreciation into my pocket.

Today if we don't buy a minimum of 5 properties a month with at least 25 to 30% in equity shame on me.What seem like a nice car or a lot of money at one time today it's just okay so not sure if I really define success for someone else.

This would allow the buyer to have built in equity assuming cost to repair/rehab less than the ARV equity of solid comps.

I've turned a $30k investment into over $350k in equity and $2200 a month cash flow from this deal.