- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 240,623
- 荣誉分数
- 37,774
- 声望点数
- 1,393
只要付房租，你怕什么。
求村长及高人指点，房子该卖还是该租出去？
- 主题发起人 天空飘来的云
- 开始时间
只要付房租，你怕什么。
- 注册
- 2007-08-08
- 消息
- 8,877
- 荣誉分数
- 1,407
- 声望点数
- 373
卖。 世界日报说加拿大房价要跌44％
- 注册
- 2003-04-25
- 消息
- 4,680
- 荣誉分数
- 1,626
- 声望点数
- 323
要我说当不当房东的问题更简单。你觉得操那么多心给你带来的经济效益能给你带来快乐就当，如果觉得不值就别当（我是假设有效益的情况啊不知道会否有反面的风险）。房价大涨的时候已经过去了，目前投资，对于工薪阶层来说，一边有银行贷款要还，还有很多其它负担，一边又有房子投资，所以这投资也不会给你的生活带来翻天覆地的变化，无非就是钱多那么点少那么点的问题，好也好不到哪去，差也差不到哪去吧。在不是非靠着这钱来保障生活的前提下，完全看个人的偏好了。肯定有人觉得当房东好有人觉得不好，哪有答案可供参考。
老说钱放银行和保险点的投资亏，也许经济上是亏点，可生活中的很多快乐也不能完全用钱上的那点亏和赚来衡量吧。
有闲钱多的花不完的人那就没这烦恼哈。
老说钱放银行和保险点的投资亏，也许经济上是亏点，可生活中的很多快乐也不能完全用钱上的那点亏和赚来衡量吧。
有闲钱多的花不完的人那就没这烦恼哈。
annyInRain
资深人士
- 注册
- 2002-10-09
- 消息
- 996
- 荣誉分数
- 291
- 声望点数
- 223
A Beginner’s Guide to the Challenges for Ontario Landlords (ZT)
1) It does not make financial sense to provide decent quality lower cost rental housing in Ontario:
Other, more passive investments offer a much better return without the labor, risk and aggravation. For
example, five years ago, I bought a tired, run-down, 8plex and turned it around. It now provides clean
comfortable homes to 8 families at affordable rents. But it is a very poor investment. The building is
worth about $750K. I have a $300K mortgage on it, with $450K in equity. My annual return on the
building for a year’s hard labor (doing unpleasant jobs that most would refuse to do) is a mortgage
principle reduction of $17K. This is about a 4% return. The dividends alone on my blue chip Canadian
stocks give me a much higher return, (and at a more favorable income tax rate).
2) The Residential Tenancies Act does not adequately protect Landlords and their properties. The act
causes an increase in costs to responsible tenants, and causes landlords to leave the lower-rental housing
market. This is common knowledge and horror stories abound.
Example 1: A tenant can allow anyone to move into the apartment permanently. The new occupant does
not even have to give his/her name to the landlord. If the original tenant moves out, the new occupant
must be formally evicted and all the procedures and regulations of the Residential Tenancies Act must
be followed. The landlord can not even serve eviction papers because he/she doesn’t even know the
tenant’s name to write on the eviction notice. Even if an occupant has no proof that he/she is a bonafide
tenant, police will not get involved.
Example 2: Tenants do not pay a damage deposit. There is no incentive for them to look after their
apartments during their stay or when they leave. In theory, if a tenant damages the property and the
landlord discovers the damage when (or just after) the tenant vacates, the landlord can take a tenant to
Small Claims Court. However, the tenants don’t have to give a forwarding address, so the landlord can
not serve the court’s papers. As a result, either the new tenants pay for the damage through increased
rents, or more likely, the landlord has to absorb the costs. This discourages landlords from renting to
lower-income groups.
Example 3: Tenants do not pay a pet deposit. Tenants are allowed to have as many pets as municipal
regulations allow. This may be 3 dogs in a bachelor apartment. Again, the landlord can not recoup any
damage costs, and the tenant has no incentive to look after the property. A ‘pet deposit’ is required in
many areas outside of Ontario.
Example 4: Tenants are not required to carry tenants’ insurance. This is true even if the lease requires
the tenant have valid insurance. The Residential Tenancies Act does not require it, so it is not a legal
requirement. However, when a tenant causes property damage (particularly in a multi-residential
situation), the landlord’s insurance cost increases.
Example 5: Lost income. Under the RTA, tenants are required to give 60 days’ notice when on a monthto-
month or yearly lease. The reality is that few tenants do give this notice. The position of the Landlord
Tenant Board is that once a tenant leaves a rental property, he/she no longer falls under the RTA, so the
Landlord Tenant Board will not enforce this notice requirement. Again, the landlord can not take the
tenant to court for lost rent (due to the improper notice) because the landlord can not find the tenant to
serve court papers.
Example 6: RTA usually favors tenants. For example: whereas the RTA refuses to assist landlords who
are victims of tenants leaving with improper notice, the RTA allows for (and provides procedures for)
tenants who have vacated a rental property to serve a landlord notice and demand a rent rebate for a
poorly-maintained property, up to a full year after the tenant has vacated. The perception is that
landlords are wealthy, greedy and dishonest. I am a landlord, a firefighter; these combined, I work 60
hours a week. I want to be financially responsible, provide a useful service and to be proud of my
properties.
Example 7: No control over open windows. Most low-income tenants live in apartment buildings that
provide heat at the landlord’s expense. Under the RTA, tenants can leave their windows open as much
as they like. The landlord has no legal recourse.
Tenants are not legally required to remove their window air conditioners in the winter. A great deal of
heat is lost through these air conditioners. This is an added business expense that the landlord can not
control but must pay for--a further deterrent to providing low-income housing.
Example 8: Guaranteed Tribunal Hearings (living rent-free). Under the newly-revamped RTA, tenants
are guaranteed a hearing at the Tribunal. This is true even if the tenant has just blatantly refused to pay
the rent. Under the new rules, if a tenant contacts the Tribunal and says he/she can not appear on the
scheduled hearing date, the hearing is rescheduled for a later date. This can happen numerous times.
Meanwhile, the tenant continues to live rent-free in the property while the landlord must still make all
his/her required mortgage, property tax, utility and insurance payments.
Example 9: "Trial by Ambush". Under the new RTA, at a hearing, the tenant can bring up ANY
maintenance deficiency claim. The claim does not have to be valid and the tenant does not have to
inform the landlord of their intention the "deficiency" prior to the hearing. (Unlike the landlord who
must properly deliver all notices of intention to the tenant prior to the hearing).
When the tenant makes a maintenance claim, the landlord can attempt to defend him/herself at the
hearing. If he/she is unable to satisfy the adjudicator of the falseness of the claim, the adjudicator can
actually make a monetary ruling in favor of the tenant at that hearing. This can and does happen when
landlords are trying to evict for non-payment of rent. If the landlord instead chooses to ask for a new
hearing date, so that he/she may properly prepare an argument against the accusations, the tenant
continues to live rent-free in the property.
Example 10: Water costs. Although I have installed low-flow aerators on the tenants’ shower heads and
taps, the tenants remove them and install non-water-saving heads. How can the landlord be responsible
for paying the water bills and yet have no say or control over water conservation? The RTA does not
address this issue, although conservation is strongly encouraged our governments.
Various levels of government also provide disincentive to being a responsible Landlord in Ontario.
Example 1. Exorbitant tax rates. The city of Toronto charges almost 3 times the property tax rate for
"multi-residential" rental properties as it does for single-family homes. Most of the lower-income
housing is in multi-residential buildings. The City classifies apartment buildings with more than 6 units
as multi-residential. My 8-plex in Toronto is worth about $700K, but I pay almost $14,000.00 annually
in property tax. This means that the entire annual rents from one and a half of the 8 units goes just to pay
the property tax. In addition, I still have to pay the mortgage, hydro, water, gas, maintenance, insurance,
repairs, business income taxes, allow for lost income from vacancies and non payment of rent,
inspection fees, bank fees, mileage costs, office supplies, advertising, credit checks, court costs, and
management fees etc. Ther is not enough profit to entice responsible Landlords.
Example 2. Provincial Assessment Rates. The valuation of a multi-residential building is based on its net
income. This means that as one improves the efficiencies of a building (lower utility costs), the property
tax rate goes up! When I paint, repair, upgrade or take any pride in my property, according to the
assessment procedures of the Municipal Property Assessment Board, the value of the building increases
and therefore I pay more property tax. This is a punishment to all responsible landlords who look after
their properties and it rewards owners who neglect their properties.
Example 3. Income Tax Rate. The CCRA charges owners of rental properties a "Passive" income tax
rate of almost 50%! Compare this to the small business rate of about 20% (and that is falling). It’s no
wonder that landlords of multi-residential properties are fed up and disheartened. Again, the result is that
few, new landlords are willing to work with lower-cost housing, and few builders are willing to build
this type of housing.
Example 4. Smart meters add cost. The Provincial Government has made Smart Meters mandatory.
These meters actually increase a landlord’s hydro costs. In multi-residential buildings, the Landlord
typically provides: laundry facilities; lighting in the common areas; and heat throughout the building, via
a central boiler system.
As the landlord has NO control over when these electrical demands are satisfied, he/she can not take
advantage of using hydro in "off hours"; the building must be heated when it is cold; the lights must be
on when the hallways are dark; and tenants do their laundry when it is convenient for them, not
necessarily during "off hours" for hydro use. As a result, "peak hour" hydro cost increases are charged
to the landlord, who can’t control the tenants’ use, AND the Landlord has to pay for the smart meter.
Example 5. Unrealistic ‘allowable rent increases’: The yearly allowable rent increase doesn’t reflect the
rising cost of operating a multi-residential apartment building. Every year, the property tax on the 8 plex
increases almost 7%, (despite Mayor Miller’s claims of 3%). The cost of natural gas from Nov 2007 to
Nov 2008 has risen over 30%. The City of Toronto’s water rate is going up 10% every year for the
foreseeable future. My building insurance increased by over 6% in 12 months (without having placed
any claims). Toronto charges $ for the new garbage and recycling bins, and threatens to bill landlords
for tenants’ misuse of the bins. It also is introducing a new garbage pickup fee. Although Toronto’s
public housing has been shown to be in much worse condition than most privately-owned multiresidential
low-cost housing, Toronto is also considering an annual Landlord Licensing fee. The
allowable rent increase for 2008 was 1.4% and 1.8% for 2009.
Example 6. Illegal Parking. The City of Toronto has taken away the ability for Landlords to effective
keep unauthorized vehicles from parking on their properties. Under the new City rules, only the police
can tag and tow illegally-parked vehicles. This is a serious issue ensure that his/her tenants can park
their cars. I have had this problem many times. The police can not ticket the vehicle in a timely manner,
and have even told me that if I call more than a couple of times, they will certainly take a very long time
to respond.
Example 7. Landlords have no effective tools to deal with trespassers. This has been a big issue at my
property. My tenants have been intimidated and their safety was compromised. The police can not attend
in an effective time, and have expressed little interest in/ability to do so. Effective laws are needed because the tenants justifiably have a right to their parking spots, but the landlord can
not so Landlords can protect thier property and their tenants' property and increase safety and security
levels.
1) It does not make financial sense to provide decent quality lower cost rental housing in Ontario:
Other, more passive investments offer a much better return without the labor, risk and aggravation. For
example, five years ago, I bought a tired, run-down, 8plex and turned it around. It now provides clean
comfortable homes to 8 families at affordable rents. But it is a very poor investment. The building is
worth about $750K. I have a $300K mortgage on it, with $450K in equity. My annual return on the
building for a year’s hard labor (doing unpleasant jobs that most would refuse to do) is a mortgage
principle reduction of $17K. This is about a 4% return. The dividends alone on my blue chip Canadian
stocks give me a much higher return, (and at a more favorable income tax rate).
2) The Residential Tenancies Act does not adequately protect Landlords and their properties. The act
causes an increase in costs to responsible tenants, and causes landlords to leave the lower-rental housing
market. This is common knowledge and horror stories abound.
Example 1: A tenant can allow anyone to move into the apartment permanently. The new occupant does
not even have to give his/her name to the landlord. If the original tenant moves out, the new occupant
must be formally evicted and all the procedures and regulations of the Residential Tenancies Act must
be followed. The landlord can not even serve eviction papers because he/she doesn’t even know the
tenant’s name to write on the eviction notice. Even if an occupant has no proof that he/she is a bonafide
tenant, police will not get involved.
Example 2: Tenants do not pay a damage deposit. There is no incentive for them to look after their
apartments during their stay or when they leave. In theory, if a tenant damages the property and the
landlord discovers the damage when (or just after) the tenant vacates, the landlord can take a tenant to
Small Claims Court. However, the tenants don’t have to give a forwarding address, so the landlord can
not serve the court’s papers. As a result, either the new tenants pay for the damage through increased
rents, or more likely, the landlord has to absorb the costs. This discourages landlords from renting to
lower-income groups.
Example 3: Tenants do not pay a pet deposit. Tenants are allowed to have as many pets as municipal
regulations allow. This may be 3 dogs in a bachelor apartment. Again, the landlord can not recoup any
damage costs, and the tenant has no incentive to look after the property. A ‘pet deposit’ is required in
many areas outside of Ontario.
Example 4: Tenants are not required to carry tenants’ insurance. This is true even if the lease requires
the tenant have valid insurance. The Residential Tenancies Act does not require it, so it is not a legal
requirement. However, when a tenant causes property damage (particularly in a multi-residential
situation), the landlord’s insurance cost increases.
Example 5: Lost income. Under the RTA, tenants are required to give 60 days’ notice when on a monthto-
month or yearly lease. The reality is that few tenants do give this notice. The position of the Landlord
Tenant Board is that once a tenant leaves a rental property, he/she no longer falls under the RTA, so the
Landlord Tenant Board will not enforce this notice requirement. Again, the landlord can not take the
tenant to court for lost rent (due to the improper notice) because the landlord can not find the tenant to
serve court papers.
Example 6: RTA usually favors tenants. For example: whereas the RTA refuses to assist landlords who
are victims of tenants leaving with improper notice, the RTA allows for (and provides procedures for)
tenants who have vacated a rental property to serve a landlord notice and demand a rent rebate for a
poorly-maintained property, up to a full year after the tenant has vacated. The perception is that
landlords are wealthy, greedy and dishonest. I am a landlord, a firefighter; these combined, I work 60
hours a week. I want to be financially responsible, provide a useful service and to be proud of my
properties.
Example 7: No control over open windows. Most low-income tenants live in apartment buildings that
provide heat at the landlord’s expense. Under the RTA, tenants can leave their windows open as much
as they like. The landlord has no legal recourse.
Tenants are not legally required to remove their window air conditioners in the winter. A great deal of
heat is lost through these air conditioners. This is an added business expense that the landlord can not
control but must pay for--a further deterrent to providing low-income housing.
Example 8: Guaranteed Tribunal Hearings (living rent-free). Under the newly-revamped RTA, tenants
are guaranteed a hearing at the Tribunal. This is true even if the tenant has just blatantly refused to pay
the rent. Under the new rules, if a tenant contacts the Tribunal and says he/she can not appear on the
scheduled hearing date, the hearing is rescheduled for a later date. This can happen numerous times.
Meanwhile, the tenant continues to live rent-free in the property while the landlord must still make all
his/her required mortgage, property tax, utility and insurance payments.
Example 9: "Trial by Ambush". Under the new RTA, at a hearing, the tenant can bring up ANY
maintenance deficiency claim. The claim does not have to be valid and the tenant does not have to
inform the landlord of their intention the "deficiency" prior to the hearing. (Unlike the landlord who
must properly deliver all notices of intention to the tenant prior to the hearing).
When the tenant makes a maintenance claim, the landlord can attempt to defend him/herself at the
hearing. If he/she is unable to satisfy the adjudicator of the falseness of the claim, the adjudicator can
actually make a monetary ruling in favor of the tenant at that hearing. This can and does happen when
landlords are trying to evict for non-payment of rent. If the landlord instead chooses to ask for a new
hearing date, so that he/she may properly prepare an argument against the accusations, the tenant
continues to live rent-free in the property.
Example 10: Water costs. Although I have installed low-flow aerators on the tenants’ shower heads and
taps, the tenants remove them and install non-water-saving heads. How can the landlord be responsible
for paying the water bills and yet have no say or control over water conservation? The RTA does not
address this issue, although conservation is strongly encouraged our governments.
Various levels of government also provide disincentive to being a responsible Landlord in Ontario.
Example 1. Exorbitant tax rates. The city of Toronto charges almost 3 times the property tax rate for
"multi-residential" rental properties as it does for single-family homes. Most of the lower-income
housing is in multi-residential buildings. The City classifies apartment buildings with more than 6 units
as multi-residential. My 8-plex in Toronto is worth about $700K, but I pay almost $14,000.00 annually
in property tax. This means that the entire annual rents from one and a half of the 8 units goes just to pay
the property tax. In addition, I still have to pay the mortgage, hydro, water, gas, maintenance, insurance,
repairs, business income taxes, allow for lost income from vacancies and non payment of rent,
inspection fees, bank fees, mileage costs, office supplies, advertising, credit checks, court costs, and
management fees etc. Ther is not enough profit to entice responsible Landlords.
Example 2. Provincial Assessment Rates. The valuation of a multi-residential building is based on its net
income. This means that as one improves the efficiencies of a building (lower utility costs), the property
tax rate goes up! When I paint, repair, upgrade or take any pride in my property, according to the
assessment procedures of the Municipal Property Assessment Board, the value of the building increases
and therefore I pay more property tax. This is a punishment to all responsible landlords who look after
their properties and it rewards owners who neglect their properties.
Example 3. Income Tax Rate. The CCRA charges owners of rental properties a "Passive" income tax
rate of almost 50%! Compare this to the small business rate of about 20% (and that is falling). It’s no
wonder that landlords of multi-residential properties are fed up and disheartened. Again, the result is that
few, new landlords are willing to work with lower-cost housing, and few builders are willing to build
this type of housing.
Example 4. Smart meters add cost. The Provincial Government has made Smart Meters mandatory.
These meters actually increase a landlord’s hydro costs. In multi-residential buildings, the Landlord
typically provides: laundry facilities; lighting in the common areas; and heat throughout the building, via
a central boiler system.
As the landlord has NO control over when these electrical demands are satisfied, he/she can not take
advantage of using hydro in "off hours"; the building must be heated when it is cold; the lights must be
on when the hallways are dark; and tenants do their laundry when it is convenient for them, not
necessarily during "off hours" for hydro use. As a result, "peak hour" hydro cost increases are charged
to the landlord, who can’t control the tenants’ use, AND the Landlord has to pay for the smart meter.
Example 5. Unrealistic ‘allowable rent increases’: The yearly allowable rent increase doesn’t reflect the
rising cost of operating a multi-residential apartment building. Every year, the property tax on the 8 plex
increases almost 7%, (despite Mayor Miller’s claims of 3%). The cost of natural gas from Nov 2007 to
Nov 2008 has risen over 30%. The City of Toronto’s water rate is going up 10% every year for the
foreseeable future. My building insurance increased by over 6% in 12 months (without having placed
any claims). Toronto charges $ for the new garbage and recycling bins, and threatens to bill landlords
for tenants’ misuse of the bins. It also is introducing a new garbage pickup fee. Although Toronto’s
public housing has been shown to be in much worse condition than most privately-owned multiresidential
low-cost housing, Toronto is also considering an annual Landlord Licensing fee. The
allowable rent increase for 2008 was 1.4% and 1.8% for 2009.
Example 6. Illegal Parking. The City of Toronto has taken away the ability for Landlords to effective
keep unauthorized vehicles from parking on their properties. Under the new City rules, only the police
can tag and tow illegally-parked vehicles. This is a serious issue ensure that his/her tenants can park
their cars. I have had this problem many times. The police can not ticket the vehicle in a timely manner,
and have even told me that if I call more than a couple of times, they will certainly take a very long time
to respond.
Example 7. Landlords have no effective tools to deal with trespassers. This has been a big issue at my
property. My tenants have been intimidated and their safety was compromised. The police can not attend
in an effective time, and have expressed little interest in/ability to do so. Effective laws are needed because the tenants justifiably have a right to their parking spots, but the landlord can
not so Landlords can protect thier property and their tenants' property and increase safety and security
levels.
LZD20091119
新手上路
- 注册
- 2009-11-19
- 消息
- 211
- 荣誉分数
- 8
- 声望点数
- 28
我还真不知道应该至少住多长，所以说要请教专家最好。
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 240,623
- 荣誉分数
- 37,774
- 声望点数
- 1,393
请您调研一下，然后写几百字大家分享您的劳动成果。
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/...rprtng-ncm/lns101-170/127/rsdnc/menu-eng.html
你真厉害，这也能猜到是谁！
