4 ms·

Yeah, nowadays "passive income" is basically debt interests (like bonds) or rental income, both of which actually need a lot of work. I rarely traded financial

Yeah, nowadays "passive income" is basically debt interests (like bonds) or rental income, both of which actually need a lot of work. I rarely traded financial instruments so cannot say for that, but as a small landlord I wish I never entered the business. Like, all businesses need initial investment AND a lot of continuous effort and learning, and are probably boring (or VERY barricaded) because otherwise people are going to swarm in. I need to know the market, the laws and regulations, and some other stuffs, most of which are extremely boring and not really "hackable" (as for hackers) because accountants and governments already sorted everything up to make sure it's hard for small businesses to evade tax -- You can learn which parts are expenses in an afternoon, and then you have to deal with a lot of headaches. I know some people who own gas stations and large depanneurs (in QC they are independent convenient shops), which are luxurious on face, but they either have to pick a remote one (away from competition from supermarkets) or/and work 7 days without hiring an extra hand. They grind for 10 years and sell the business when time is good.

SirMaster 2y ago
Rental income doesn't need any work if you are just an investor though. I don't do a single thing. The people who are managing the deal are the ones who do the work and hire the workers to work on site and such. They of course get an even better return during the sale, but I am happy with what I get for doing nothing. My rental properties are paying me a decent passive income of about 6%, and additionally the total investment about doubles in roughly 5 years. Also the tax advantages are pretty huge with the depreciation and the ability to take the money from a sale and put it into a new property with no tax. So say you start with an initial $100K investment. That pays back about 6K a year for 5 years and then turns into about 200K after 5 years which you then put into a new property and make 12K a year, and so on and so on. So if you start with 100K when you are say 25, then when you are 50, you will have around 1.6M in property assets making you about 96K a year in passive income, where the depreciation on the property value and the assets in the property outweigh the tax on the income, so that income is all tax free. And that calculation is assuming you don't put even more capital in from some other source. Of course it's a roughly average return assumption. Some properties will do better and others will do worse, but it's been my experience that it's about right. Of course this is only one of my investment baskets. I allocate roughly half of the income that I can invest into real-estate like this and the other half into low cost index funds.
- __turbobrew__ 2y ago
  > and additionally the total investment about doubles in roughly 5 years That is a big assumption. What happens during the next real estate bust and your real estate value goes down to 1/4 of its prior worth? You are now set back 10 years. I think residential real estate is a bad bet long term. As real estate gets more expensive and more and more young people cannot afford to buy there is going to be more political capital to change the situation. You are basically betting that the next generations are going to be fine with being priced out. I don’t believe we have seen the full repercussions of the housing affordability crisis, it hasn’t even been going on for that long. As gen Z comes to house buying age I think there are going to be changes.
  - SirMaster 2y ago
    They have insurances for downturns built into the cost of the deal. Even if the value of the property doesn't increase as much as expected, you are still making a decent amount in income from the rent being paid. 6% maybe doesn't sound like much, but it's tax free income due to being able to deduct from that income the depreciation from the property and appliances and such which in my experience always is more than enough. It makes it pretty competitive with alternatives such as index funds long term IMO and again in my experience so far over the last 11 years. The worst case scenario is basically you hold onto that property longer and make about nothing on the sale which is more than can be said about the stock market in my experience. At least you still have what you made passively in the meantime. Sure, I can't predict the farther future, but I still make decisions to continue this or change my holdings based on policy changes like that. I'm not claiming this is some magic get rich quick scheme, but so far it has been working out well and definitely has given me income without me doing anything, which fits the definition of passive income here, so I just thought I'd share it.
    - __turbobrew__ 2y ago
      I believe your account, and agree that this investment has turned out well for you. The last 11 years are not normal in my opinion, and I believe the time will come where policy changes will make this investment strategy much less desirable.

SirMaster 2y ago

Rental income doesn't need any work if you are just an investor though. I don't do a single thing. The people who are managing the deal are the ones who do the work and hire the workers to work on site and such. They of course get an even better return during the sale, but I am happy with what I get for doing nothing. My rental properties are paying me a decent passive income of about 6%, and additionally the total investment about doubles in roughly 5 years. Also the tax advantages are pretty huge with the depreciation and the ability to take the money from a sale and put it into a new property with no tax. So say you start with an initial $100K investment. That pays back about 6K a year for 5 years and then turns into about 200K after 5 years which you then put into a new property and make 12K a year, and so on and so on. So if you start with 100K when you are say 25, then when you are 50, you will have around 1.6M in property assets making you about 96K a year in passive income, where the depreciation on the property value and the assets in the property outweigh the tax on the income, so that income is all tax free. And that calculation is assuming you don't put even more capital in from some other source. Of course it's a roughly average return assumption. Some properties will do better and others will do worse, but it's been my experience that it's about right. Of course this is only one of my investment baskets. I allocate roughly half of the income that I can invest into real-estate like this and the other half into low cost index funds.

__turbobrew__ 2y ago
> and additionally the total investment about doubles in roughly 5 years That is a big assumption. What happens during the next real estate bust and your real estate value goes down to 1/4 of its prior worth? You are now set back 10 years. I think residential real estate is a bad bet long term. As real estate gets more expensive and more and more young people cannot afford to buy there is going to be more political capital to change the situation. You are basically betting that the next generations are going to be fine with being priced out. I don’t believe we have seen the full repercussions of the housing affordability crisis, it hasn’t even been going on for that long. As gen Z comes to house buying age I think there are going to be changes.
- SirMaster 2y ago
  They have insurances for downturns built into the cost of the deal. Even if the value of the property doesn't increase as much as expected, you are still making a decent amount in income from the rent being paid. 6% maybe doesn't sound like much, but it's tax free income due to being able to deduct from that income the depreciation from the property and appliances and such which in my experience always is more than enough. It makes it pretty competitive with alternatives such as index funds long term IMO and again in my experience so far over the last 11 years. The worst case scenario is basically you hold onto that property longer and make about nothing on the sale which is more than can be said about the stock market in my experience. At least you still have what you made passively in the meantime. Sure, I can't predict the farther future, but I still make decisions to continue this or change my holdings based on policy changes like that. I'm not claiming this is some magic get rich quick scheme, but so far it has been working out well and definitely has given me income without me doing anything, which fits the definition of passive income here, so I just thought I'd share it.
  - __turbobrew__ 2y ago
    I believe your account, and agree that this investment has turned out well for you. The last 11 years are not normal in my opinion, and I believe the time will come where policy changes will make this investment strategy much less desirable.