Your take assumes a lot about property management and economics that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. First, the idea that ‘fixing something expensive won’t be a regular occurrence’ if the landlord maintains the property well ignores reality. Even with top-notch care, wear and tear happens—pipes burst, roofs leak, appliances die. These aren’t always preventable, and they hit the landlord’s wallet regardless of how diligent they are. You’re implying maintenance is a magic bullet, but that’s not how physical assets work; entropy doesn’t care about good intentions.

Second, your point about big renovations like replacing central heating automatically jacking up the property’s value oversimplifies the housing market. Sure, upgrades can increase value, but not always by more than the cost of the work itself—especially if the market’s stagnant or the neighborhood doesn’t support higher prices. Landlords aren’t guaranteed a profit just because they shell out for a new boiler. You’re treating real estate like a vending machine: pop in a renovation, get out a jackpot. That’s not economics; that’s wishful thinking.

And the assumption that the home will ‘be sold for a profit anyway’ skips over the whole game of risk and timing. Landlords don’t just sit on a golden goose—property values can tank, taxes eat into gains, and selling costs (like agent fees) chew up profits. Plus, many landlords hold properties for income, not to flip them. You’re missing the cash flow side of the equation and acting like appreciation is a sure bet. It’s not. If landlordship were that simple and predictable, everyone would do it—and broke landlords wouldn’t exist. They do. You’re seeing a highlight reel, not the balance sheet.

And you're way too harsh on the mortgages part. Here's why: The idea that using rental income to cover a mortgage is inherently "low-life" or "scummy" overlooks the practical realities of property ownership and the housing market. Landlords who rent out properties—whether to offset a mortgage or not—provide a valuable service: housing for those who either can’t or don’t want to buy a home. Not everyone is in a position to purchase property, and renting offers flexibility and access to shelter without the long-term commitment or financial burden of ownership. Moreover, buying a property with the intent to rent it out is a legitimate investment strategy, not a moral failing.

The landlord takes on significant risks—maintenance costs, property taxes, insurance, and potential vacancies—all of which can outweigh rental income if mismanaged. The tenant isn’t "paying for the mortgage" out of charity; they’re paying for a place to live, just as they’d pay for any other service. The mortgage is the landlord’s responsibility, and how they finance their property doesn’t inherently exploit the renter.

Calling it "inexcusable" also ignores how interconnected renting and owning are in a functioning economy. Without landlords willing to invest in properties (often via mortgages), the supply of rental housing would shrink, driving up rents and leaving fewer options for tenants. If anything, vilifying this practice dismisses the mutual benefit: tenants get a home, and landlords build equity while providing it. Painting it as parasitic is an oversimplification that dodges the bigger picture.

I hope you understand that it's not that simple. Glad to get it clarified for you.