And expect to repaint and make other repairs when the tenant leaves. You might have a security deposit but it will rarely cover the actual costs of painting, cleaning , and so forth following even a good renter.
I'm renting my house out with a property management company at the moment, and I was told that unless there was serious damage, I couldn't count the costs of re-painting, carpet cleaning, etc from the security deposit as it would be "normal wear and tear". So I'm assuming that I'll have to fork out about $1,500 after my tenant leaves.
I'm also making $108 more than my mortgage payment every month, after property management fees. (Assuming no expenses/maintenance that month.) That would cover insurance for the year, but not come close to property taxes.
I think that is fairly typical.
I rent out a place now but short term so the rules are different. You can't withhold from a security deposit for normal wear and tear or other things that you would normally have to do between tenants. You can't charge for your time, for incidentals, etc. And you need to document all expenses and "mitigate damages" (keep them as low as reasonable).
Often, and economic theory says it should be this way though reality doesn't always make it happen, the rent that the market will bear is equal to the current cost of a mortgage with taxes combined in and accounting for expenses that would be the same if you owned. That is, there should be no benefit to owning vs renting. The current US federal income tax deduction for mortgage interest distort this and makes mortgages cheaper which draw down rents as well.
In most cases when people make money as a landlord it is on older properties that are fully amortized, property they acquired when rates were much lower or that they put a lot of sweat equity into. There are many exceptions but almost every landlord I know of who is making a profit fits in one of those categories.