▲ | const_cast 13 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No, it's not, not always is my point. We don't count the asset of having the home because we're comparing that part to the stock market investment. Made up numbers: consider: Mortgage: 2,000 Home price: 200,000 Difference from rent: -500 Rent: 1,500 Home price: 0 Difference from mortgage: +500 If (500/month invested over 30 years) > (200,000 appreciated home price over 30 years) then you came out on top by renting. It might be or it might not be. Also, the type of asset matters. Stock might be a more flexible asset than real estate, in which case you should probably rent depending on your location. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | carlosjobim 12 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What I'm trying to say is that there is nowhere on the planet where the rent is less than the mortgage. So your situation is impossible, it simply does not happen. If it happened for 10% or 20% of properties, then I agree with your considerations. But it happens for less than 0% of properties. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|