Sorry, you both skip right by the main point and start dropping details like maintenance into the conversation. If a roof needs to be replaced at $15000, both an owner and landlord have to face the same costs. The owner pays it directly. The landlord has either been planning for such costs all along (if they are smart) or MUST raise rent to cover their costs. Either way, the renter pays for it and if the landlord is smart it comes with a bit of a markup to the renter. Either that or they are subsidizing their tenants, which is absurd. You can argue about how much a landlord can make on a property but none of them are renting a property to pay the tenant's bills. That's government's job.
Issues like not staying in a house for 30 years don't matter. The only way a discussion like this makes sense and matters is if the conditions, like the size of the property, the location, etc. are held equal. If I own and sell my house (and take whatever appreciation of value it has made with me) and move to another, I would also rent and change to an new but equivalent house to the owner situation. Otherwise, we might as well try to compare the cost of a one bedroom rental to a 4 bedroom home that is owned. It is pointless. Of course the one bedroom apartment is cheaper.
There are advantages that are built into home ownership that, all other things (size, location, condition of house, ..., ad infinitum) being equal, beat out renting every time. You can argue that some of those things are NOT equal but then you are trying to compare apples to bananas and that, while perhaps meaningful to your individual situation, is pointless as a general comparison.
If you think that for your individual situation you are better off renting, knock yourself out. You may be right. But it is not true in general. If most people couldn't make a profit renting property there would be little available rental property. That is NOT the case and THEIR profit is YOUR added cost.
|