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.
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.