It depends on the area I guess, but I don't agree with some of what you just said. Renting isn't terrible, but owning is ideal. There is a reason people are increasingly being shut out of being homeowners. Housing is a need and people with capital stand to make a lot of money if they can succeed at stopping you from buying a home.
Real estate moguls and landlords are the people that stand to make crazy money from the housing market. Buying an individual house as a financial investment itself isn't really any way to build any kind of wealth unless you were able to buy in an area that is expected to greatly appreciate and flip it.
Buying a house/townhome/condo gets you out from underneath a landlord and ensures that outside of taxes, your monthly payment on your house NEVER increases assuming you have a fixed mortgage. Your landlord decides what you will pay either according to market prices or how much they know they can price gouge you because housing is a need. This is why landlords are evil because they leverage capital to exploit the housing needs of people.
All the things you listed as "home-owners have to pay for" are things that YOU ARE PAYING FOR WHEN YOU RENT. In fact, you are expected to maintain the interior of your dwelling while not owning any of it. You claim that a mortgage is no different than paying rent, except for the fact that your landlord owns, and determines what you will pay.
The upfront costs function as a way to filter out poor people from ever owning. Sure, it is still "renting" if you want to consider that it is rent from the bank, but there is no middleman landlord.
Home ownership isn't about trying to save vast sums of money. A lot of your post is ignoring the autonomy a homeowner enjoys over a renter. (Can you even repaint your apartment you are in?) It doesn't account for differences in square footage, or how existing infrastructure of the US caters to houses/townhomes.
Also the homeowner can also "invest in stonks" just as easily.
I think you're on the money, I just had one point to add. When you say:
Buying an individual house as a financial investment itself isn’t really any way to build any kind of wealth unless you were able to buy in an area that is expected to greatly appreciate and flip it.
But I'm telling you, that if a person owns one house, they can use that to get another house. And another. I've seen it happen -- and I think it's the story behind these 'mom and pop' landlords that own like 20 properties. So while an individual house isn't the best financial investment (although honestly, I disagree with this even), it can be a fundamental step to becoming a kulak which is the American dream.
I agree that buying a home gets you out from underneath a landlord, but remember that it also puts you underneath a bank. You can just as easily be condemned to homelessness by a capitalist as a homeowner for non-payment. And you're still being exploited, just by mortgage interest payments rather than rent. Landlords are parasites, but banks are too.
You're correct that home ownership guarantees that you won't be subject to rent increases, but in the overwhelming majority of cases renting is still better for your bottom line because rent increases are not going to come close to the enormous closing costs of buying and selling real estate. I agree with you that protection from payment increases is a benefit of home ownership.
I also agree that you are more autonomous as a homeowner, although not by as much as you might think. In many nicer areas HOAs dictate a lot of what you can do with your home, and although even the most restrained homeowner is more autonomous than the most liberated renter it might not be by as much as you think. You say a renter cannot paint their house without landlord approval, but all too often a homeowner can't either without HOA approval. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with my post above. I am simply arguing that renting + investing is better for your bottom line than home ownership. I'm ignoring the autonomy associated with home ownership because that's literally not what this thread is about.
You're wrong, however, when you say a homeowner can "invest in stonks" just as easily. If we're doing an apples to apples comparison, where a person has X money and has to choose between homeownership and renting + investing in stonks, the renter will have a greater ability to invest because they are not paying closing costs. I am saying that if a person has, say, X thousand dollars and they can choose between purchasing a home or renting a home and investing the money they'd otherwise spend on closing costs the renter would come out ahead. That is all I'm claiming. Nothing else.
It depends on the area I guess, but I don't agree with some of what you just said. Renting isn't terrible, but owning is ideal. There is a reason people are increasingly being shut out of being homeowners. Housing is a need and people with capital stand to make a lot of money if they can succeed at stopping you from buying a home.
Real estate moguls and landlords are the people that stand to make crazy money from the housing market. Buying an individual house as a financial investment itself isn't really any way to build any kind of wealth unless you were able to buy in an area that is expected to greatly appreciate and flip it.
Buying a house/townhome/condo gets you out from underneath a landlord and ensures that outside of taxes, your monthly payment on your house NEVER increases assuming you have a fixed mortgage. Your landlord decides what you will pay either according to market prices or how much they know they can price gouge you because housing is a need. This is why landlords are evil because they leverage capital to exploit the housing needs of people.
All the things you listed as "home-owners have to pay for" are things that YOU ARE PAYING FOR WHEN YOU RENT. In fact, you are expected to maintain the interior of your dwelling while not owning any of it. You claim that a mortgage is no different than paying rent, except for the fact that your landlord owns, and determines what you will pay.
The upfront costs function as a way to filter out poor people from ever owning. Sure, it is still "renting" if you want to consider that it is rent from the bank, but there is no middleman landlord.
Home ownership isn't about trying to save vast sums of money. A lot of your post is ignoring the autonomy a homeowner enjoys over a renter. (Can you even repaint your apartment you are in?) It doesn't account for differences in square footage, or how existing infrastructure of the US caters to houses/townhomes.
Also the homeowner can also "invest in stonks" just as easily.
I think you're on the money, I just had one point to add. When you say:
But I'm telling you, that if a person owns one house, they can use that to get another house. And another. I've seen it happen -- and I think it's the story behind these 'mom and pop' landlords that own like 20 properties. So while an individual house isn't the best financial investment (although honestly, I disagree with this even), it can be a fundamental step to becoming a kulak which is the American dream.
I agree that buying a home gets you out from underneath a landlord, but remember that it also puts you underneath a bank. You can just as easily be condemned to homelessness by a capitalist as a homeowner for non-payment. And you're still being exploited, just by mortgage interest payments rather than rent. Landlords are parasites, but banks are too.
You're correct that home ownership guarantees that you won't be subject to rent increases, but in the overwhelming majority of cases renting is still better for your bottom line because rent increases are not going to come close to the enormous closing costs of buying and selling real estate. I agree with you that protection from payment increases is a benefit of home ownership.
I also agree that you are more autonomous as a homeowner, although not by as much as you might think. In many nicer areas HOAs dictate a lot of what you can do with your home, and although even the most restrained homeowner is more autonomous than the most liberated renter it might not be by as much as you think. You say a renter cannot paint their house without landlord approval, but all too often a homeowner can't either without HOA approval. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with my post above. I am simply arguing that renting + investing is better for your bottom line than home ownership. I'm ignoring the autonomy associated with home ownership because that's literally not what this thread is about.
You're wrong, however, when you say a homeowner can "invest in stonks" just as easily. If we're doing an apples to apples comparison, where a person has X money and has to choose between homeownership and renting + investing in stonks, the renter will have a greater ability to invest because they are not paying closing costs. I am saying that if a person has, say, X thousand dollars and they can choose between purchasing a home or renting a home and investing the money they'd otherwise spend on closing costs the renter would come out ahead. That is all I'm claiming. Nothing else.