The cost of cleaning the house that we rented far exceeds the security deposit. Should we bother?
"I am surprised at the amount of work this contract wants done.  I'd question if it's even legal given the high costs.  I suspect it's only there to remind abusive tenants of responsibilities they already have in law for extraordinary abuse beyond ordinary wear-and-tear: they are already on the hook to repaint if they trash the paint (think: child writing on walls, happens a lot), and already need to fumigate (and a lot more) if they are a filth-type hoarder who brings in a serious infestation (happens a lot).  The landlord can already go after these people for additional money beyond the deposit.   But that's not you.  So don't freak out about those clauses, until you talk to the landlord and see what he's really after.  Almost certainly, he really wants a ""fit and ready to rent"" unit upon your departure, so he doesn't have to take the unit off the market for months fixing it.  As long as that's done, there's no reasonable reason for further work -- a decent landlord wouldn't require that.  Nor would a court, IMO.  The trouble with living in a place for awhile is you become blind to its deficiencies.  What's more, it's rather difficult to ""size up"" a unit as ready when it's still occupied by your stuff.  A unit will look rather different when reduced to a bare room, without furniture and whatnot distracting you.  Add to it a dose of vanity and it becomes hard to convince yourself of defects others will easily see.  So, tread carefully here.  If push comes to shove, first stop is whether it's even legal.   Cities and states with heavy tenant populations tend to have much more detailed laws, and as a rule, they favor the tenant.   Right off the bat, in most states the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear-and-tear.  In my opinion, 6 years of ordinary, exempt wear would justify a repaint, so that shouldn't be on the tenant at all.  As for the fumigation, I'm not in Florida so I don't know the deal, maybe there's some special environmental issue there which somehow makes that reasonable, it sure wouldn't fly in CA.  Again that assumes you're a reasonable prudent tenant, not a slob or hoarder.  As for the pro carpet cleaning, that's par for the course in any of the tough rent control areas I've seen, so that's gotten a pass from the legislators.  Though $600 seems awfully high.  Other than that, you can argue the terms are ""unconscionable"" -- too much of a raw deal to even be fair.  However, this will depend on the opinion of a judge. Hit or miss.  I'm hoping your landlord will be happy to negotiate based on the good condition of the unit (which he may not know; landlords rarely visit tenant units unless they really need to.) You certainly should make the case that you make here; that the work is not really needed and it's prohibitive.  Your best defense against unconscionable deals is don't sign them.  Remember, you didn't know the guy when you initially signed... the now-objectionable language should have been a big red flag back then, saying this guy is epic evil, run screaming. (even if that turned out not to be true, you should't have hung around to find out.)  You may have gotten lucky this time, but don't make that mistake again.  Unless one of the above pans out, though... a deal is a deal.  You gave your word.  The powerful act here is to keep your word.  Forgive me for getting ontological, but successful people say it creates success for them.  And here's the thing. You have to read your contracts because you can't keep your word if you don't know what word you gave.  It's a common mistake: thinking good business is trust, hope, faith, submission or giving your all.  No.   In business, you take the time to hammer out mutually beneficial (win-win) agreements, and you set them on paper to eliminate confusion, argument and stress in the future as memories fade and conditions change.  That conflict resolution is how business partners remain friends, or at least professional colleagues."
"I recommend reading What's the catch in investing in real estate for rent? and making a list of expenses.  You have a known expense, the rent, and the assumption that it will rise a bit each year. If not each year, eventually the landlord will bump it, and on average, the rent should track inflation.  The buy side is the complete unknown, especially to us here. The mortgage and taxes are just the beginning. My ongoing issue in the buy/rent debate is that it's easy to buy ""too big"" or at least far bigger that what you are renting.  One extreme - a couple moves from their one bedroom apartment into their purchased 3BR home with far more space than they ever use. No need to paint the full picture of numbers, the house is a money pit, and they live for the house.  Other end - Couple already renting a nice sized home, and they buy a similar one. They rent out the two spare bedrooms for 5 years until they have kids and want their privacy back. They bought smart, for less than market price, and from day one, the mortgage was lower than the rent they paid. By year 5, having sent the extra income to pay down the mortgage, they've paid down half the loan. As the kids come along, they refi to a new 30 yr fixed at 3.5%, and the payment is tiny compared to the rest of their budget.  Simply put, the ratio of house price to rent for that same house is not a constant. When the ratio is high, it's time to rent. When it swings very low, it's worth considering a purchase. But the decision is never clear until every detail is known. The time may be perfect, and the day after you close, you lose your job, or in a good scenario, get a raise and are relocated. Just because you bought low yesterday, doesn't mean the market will pay you a good price today, it takes time for out-of-whack pricing to come back to normal.  A simple question? Maybe. But we first need a lot of details to help you understand what you are considering." If you think that your parents' home is in danger, you might want to check what it would take to make sure their house is safe, and what the financial situation actually is. You are paying rent, there are brothers who may or may not be paying rent. We don't have the information, you have. Saving that house might be a worthwhile investment.  I assume that if you moved out, either rented or by buying a house, they wouldn't get any rent from you anymore and whatever the situation is, it would be much worse. Your calculations are good as far as they go, but there are lots of other factors and pros and cons to each decision. Yes, you should certainly compare the monthly rent to what your mortgage payments would be, as you have done. Yes, you should consider how long you might live there. If you do move out, how difficult will it be to sell the house, given market conditions in your area? If you try to rent it, how difficult is it to find a tenant, and what rent could you expect to receive? Speaking of moving out and renting the place: Who will manage the property and do maintenance? Would you still be close enough to do this yourself? Would you be willing and able to spend the time? Or would you have to hire someone? Also, what if the tenant does not pay the rent? How difficult is it to evict someone in your area? Speaking from personal experience, I own a rental property in Ohio, and the law says you can evict someone with 3 days notice. But in practice they don't just leave, so then you have to take them to court. It takes months to get a court date and months longer before the police actually show up to order them out of the house. And you have to pay the lawyer and court fees. In that time they're living in your property rent free. In my case one tenant also totally trashed the place and stole everything that wasn't nailed down -- I had to spend $13,000 on repairs to a house worth a fraction of what you're talking about. Being a landlord is NOT just a matter of sitting back and collecting rent checks: there's a fair amount of work and a lot of risk. What do you have to pay the realtor, and what other closing costs would you have to pay? Where I live, realtors typically charge 6 to 7%. You may also have to pay for an appraisal, title search, and bunch of other little fees. Mortgage interest is deductible on your federal income taxes. Rent is not. If you own and something needs to be repaired, you have to pay for it. If you rent, the landlord has to pay for it.  If you own, you can do pretty much what you like with the property -- subject to zoning ordinances and building codes and maybe homeowners association rules, but you should have a pretty good amount of leeway. If you want to install ceiling fans or remodel the kitchen or add a deck, it's up to you. If you're renting, it's up to the landlord to decide what you can do to the property. And if he agrees to let you do some upgrade, when you're done, it belongs to him. With a condo, you are not usually responsible for exterior maintenance, like mowing the lawn and trimming the bushes and washing the outer walls. With a house, you are. You might pay someone to do this, which adds to the cost, or you might do it yourself, which takes time. Insurance on a condo or aparment is much less than insurance on a house. In my area, anyway. You should investigate those costs. If you buy, eventually you own the place and don't have to pay a mortgage any more. If you rent, you continue to pay forever. (Even if you don't live in the same house forever, as long as you don't take a terrible loss when you sell you should then have some money left over to apply to the next house, so you are still building equity.) Some of these pros and cons are easily quantifiable. Others are probabilities, like how likely is it that your water heater will fail?, and how long is it likely to take to find a buyer if you want to sell? And others are pretty subjective. The money your tenants spent on repairs and maintenance that is otherwise your responsibility is considered rent paid to you (and deductible to the extent you can deduct maintenance expenses, provided you have documentation etc etc). The money your tenants spent on utilities, which is their responsibility anyway, is not considered rent paid to you. Since in your question you seem to be mixing both together, it is hard to accept a claim that the additional $300 spent on utilities and maintenance is enough to bring the rent to the FMV level. Especially since the transaction is between related persons, it may bring additional scrutiny of the IRS. "I would not classify utilities (including electric) as additional fees.  In many cases you interact directly with the utility (not the landlord) and pay for what you use.  There are exceptions like when renting a room. The renter's insurance also is not part of the landlord's profit, it is simply there to protect you.  In the case of loss, the landlord cannot insure your property. You have to provide your own insurance.  Its pretty low costs, typically less than 20 per month. The application fee is typical.   The move in fee is something that could be negotiated away and sounds pretty sketchy.   You can always ""let your fingers do the walking"" and find out the fees before you look at the place." "The New York Times offer a remarkably detailed Buy vs Rent calculator.  You enter - From all of this, it advises the break-even rent, when monetarily, it's equal.  I'd suggest you keep a few things in mind when using such a tool. Logic, common sense, and a Nobel prize winner named Robert Shiller all indicate that housing will follow inflation over the long term. Short term, even 20 years, the graphs will hint at something else, but the real long term, the cost of housing can't exceed inflation.  The other major point I'd add is that I see you wrote ""We rent a nice house."" Most often, people are looking to buy what they feel they can't easily rent. Whether it's the yard, room number or sizes, etc. This also leads to the purchase of too big a house. You can find that you can afford the extra bedroom, family room in addition to living room, etc, and then buy a house 50% bigger than what you need or planned on. In my opinion, getting the smallest house you can imagine living in, no bigger than what you live in now, and plan to get on a faster than 30 year repayment. Even with transaction costs, in 10 years, you'll have saved enough to make the bump up to a larger house if you wish." Disappointing this is just an advertisement. I was hoping for a discussion on paying rent online. The online portal the property manager I rent from uses is horrible. They charge at 5% fee for processing payments online (which increases my rent by $45/mo). If the bank will escrow your property tax they may want as much as a full quarter's worth in advance. Closing costs can range from zero to 2% or so of the mortgage.  On the $100k house, I'd have $8-10k in a maintenance/repair fund. Much of this will depend on how old the house is and the condition of the systems. Everything powered will fail eventually, the heating/cooling systems, water heater, dishwasher, oven/microwave, fridge, pump if there's well water. All these listed items each have a range of cost depending on size, style, power, etc. "One reason I have heard (beside to keep you paying rent) is the cost of maintenance and improvements.  If you hire someone else to do all the work for you, then it may very well be the case, though it is not as bad as a car. Many factors come into play:   If you are lucky, you may end up with a lot that is worth more than the house on it in a few decades' time. Personally, I feel that renting is sometimes better than owning depending on the local market.  That said, when you own a home, it is yours.  You do have to weigh in such factors as being tied down to a certain location to some extent.  However, only the police can barge in -- under certain circumstances -- where as a landlord can come in whenever they feel like, given proper notice or an ""emergency.""  Not to mention that if someone slams a door so hard that it reverberates through the entire place, you can actually deal with it. The point of this last bit is the question of home ownership vs renting is rather subjective.  Objectively, the costs associated with home ownership are the drags that may make it a bad investment.  However, it is not like car ownership, which is quite honestly rarely an invesment." BLUF:  Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment.  It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live.  Do the math.  The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy.  When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems.  Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system.  And the repairs as an average yearly cost.  Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say.  Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability.  As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move.  Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break. "Should you negotiate? Yes, what harm can it possibly do? The landlord is unlikely to come back and say ""Because you tried to negotiate, I'm putting the rent up by 10% instead."", or to evict a paying tenant merely because they tried to negotiate. Is the proposed rent increase ""normal""? Yes. Landlords will generally try to get as high a rent as they can." "As others have pointed out, you can't just pick a favorable number and rent for that amount. If you want to rent out your house, you must rent it for a value that a renter would agree to.  For example there is a house on my street that has been looking for renters for 3 years. They want $2,500 a month. This covers their mortgage, and a little bit more for taxes and repairs. It has never been rented once. Other homes in my neighborhood rent for around $1,000 a month. There is no value to a renter in renting a house that is $1,500 more then a similar house 2 doors down. Now what you can look at is cost mitigation. So I am using data from my area. Houses in my part of Florida must have A/C running in the wet months to keep the moisture from ruining the house. This can easily be $100 a month (usually more). The city requires you to have water service, even when not occupied, though the cost is very small. Same with waste, which is a flat fee: $20 a month. Yard watering is a must during the dry months (if you want to keep grass). Let's say that comes out to $50 a month, year round. Pest control is a must, especially if your house has wooden parts (like floors or a roof). Even modest pest control is $25 a month. Property taxes around $240 a month. Let's say your mortgage is around $1,000 a month. That means to sit empty your house would cost $1,435. Now if you were to rent the house, a lot of those costs could ""go away"" by becoming the tenants' responsibility. Your cost of the house sitting full would be $1,240. Let's pad that with 10% for repairs and go with $1,364. Now let's assume you can rent for $1,000 a month. Keep in mind all these rates are about right for my area but will change based on size and amenities.  Your choices are let the house sit empty for $1,435 a month or fill it and only ""lose"" $240 a month. Keep in mind that in both cases you will be gaining equity.  So what a lot of people do around here is rent out their houses and pay the $240 as an investment. For every $240 they pay, they get $1,000 in equity (well, interest and fees aside, but you get the point). It's not a money maker for them right now, but as they get older two things happen. That $240 a month ""payment"" pays off their mortgage, so they end up owning the house outright. Then that $240 a month payment turns to extra income. And at some point, their rental can be sold for (let's guess) $400,000. SO they paid $86,400 and got back $400,000. All the while they are building equity in their rental and in the home they are living in.  The important take away from this, is that it's not a source of income for the landlord as much as it is an investment. You will likely not be able to rent a house for more then a mortgage + costs + taxes, but it does make a good investment vehicle." It sounds extremely fishy to me. Who has $750 in cash in his pocket and uses it to pay rent?? I would ask the tenant to show a statement from her checking account which shows that she took out that much cash in the days before the 'payment', and if she cannot provide it (or another convincing explanation), I would consider it a lie and request payment. A lot of people do this. For example, in my area nice townhouses go for about $400K, so if you have $80,000 you can buy one and rent it. Here are the typical numbers: So you would make $350 per month or $4,200 per year on $80,000 in capital or about 5% profit. What can go wrong: (1) The property does not rent and sits vacant. You must come up with $2100 in mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance every month without fail or default. (2) Unexpected expenses. A new furnaces costs over $5,000. A new roof costs $7,000. A new appliance costs $600 to $2000 depending on how upscale your property is. I just had a toilet fixed for a leaky plunger. It cost me $200. As you can see maintenance expenses can quickly get a lot higher than the $50 shown above... and not only that, if you fix things as cheaply as possible (as most landlords do), not only does that decrease the rentability of the property, but it causes stuff to break sooner. (3) Deadbeats. Some people will rent your property and then not pay you. Now you have a property with no income, you are spending $2100 per month to pay for it, AND you are facing steep attorney fees to get the deadbeats evicted. They can fight you in court for months. (4) Damage, wear and tear. Whenever a tenant turns over there is always a lot of broken or worn stuff that has to be fixed. Holes in the wall need to be patched. Busted locks, broken windows, non-working toilets, stains on the carpet, stuck doors, ripped screens, leaky showers, broken tiles, painting exterior trim, painting walls, painting fences, etc. You can spend thousands every time a tenant changes. Other caveats: Banks are much more strict about loaning to non home owners. You usually have to have reserve income. So, if you have little or no income, or you are stretched already, it will be difficult to get commercial loans. For example, lets say your take-home pay is $7,000 and you have no mortgage at all (you rent), then it is fine, the bank will loan you the money. But lets say you only have $5,000 in take home pay and you have an $1,800 mortgage on your own home. In that case it is very unlikely a bank will allow you to assume a 2nd mortgage on a rental property. The more you try to borrow, the more reserve income the bank will require. This tends to set a limit on how much you can leverage. Another vote for a bigger downpayment, for the reasons Benjamin mentions. Also, from experience, I would save up at least a small pile as a separate house emergency fund because you will find things that are wrong and/or that got bodged by the previous owner and it's probably not going to last past the first few months of home ownership. In my case, the home inspector missed - amongst other things - that the shower on the 2nd floor was leaking both into the adjoining bedroom and the living room below. That added a little unexpected expenditure as you might guess.