Nov 14, 2017
4,928
I'm still waiting to hear about what investment vehicle the OP recommends that will reliably give me 1/4 to 1/3 of my income for the rest of my life in the way that paying off a mortgage will. Not having to make housing payments in older age is such a massive burden to take out of your old age financial planning.
As someone else pointed out in London rent is higher then the mortgage costs so I have never understood these arguments (and higher by quite a bit as well)

Edit: just to add some numbers I remember seeing my landlords mortgage statement by accident (honestly) and he was around 800 a month and we were paying 1200 a month. Also that was a reasonable rent price for that area as well!
Not just London, it's true for large parts of the UK. My mortgage payments are roughly 30% less than what I would be paying if I were to be renting a similar property in my area.

The OP makes too many assumptions, like that paying off a mortgage and paying rent are roughly similar in upfront cost. The reason why that's not true at the moment is because most private landlords are borrowing money at a higher interest rate that you'd be paying as an owner-occupier, and also trying to get a profit on top of that. If you can get monthly payments at a lower rate than what you'd be paying in rent, then owning is a clear financial win.
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,291
The principal repayment isn't expense in this comparison, you receive equity equal to the value of that repayment which is realised upon sale, cumulative property expenses are the taxes, maintenance etc.

This comparison is on the basis of an owner-occupier vs renting and investing the deposit instead, not having a bunch of cash and whether you should buy a property or invest in the market and live rent free. Since I think the latter makes no sense for most people.
If you're doing a discounted cash flow analysis, you would need to take into account the principal repayments distributed over time instead of an upfront lump sum.
 

El meso

Member
Oct 27, 2017
558
Brazilian Guy here

The OP is on point (at least here), you can easily find investment in braziian treasury with 10+ % per year

nevermind the money, for my lifestyle renting is straight up better since i can allways live next to my work (work in IT so i keeping changing jobs, im in my 3 job in 5 years)
 

Bitch Pudding

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,202
This topic is complex and demands that the individual situation is taken into consideration, hence such a generalisation is total bullshit.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,267
As someone who owend, then was adamantly against owning, and is back to owning I'm going to chime in here in address a bunch of things I'm seeing come up here:

1. Renting vs buying is 100% dependent on the current factors & situation of your life. A young adult without a clear career path would be better off renting so they can have the flexibility to move around. If you're a family then it becomes a bit more difficult to always find accomidating rental that fits your needs; this isn't always true but for man it is.

2. "You can just invest" -- yes, you can just invest but many people whom rent DO NOT make those investments. It's an assumption of taking X in your mortgage and paying it into investment vehicles. How many people can find another 500-1000 in funds to do this? Not many at all.

3. You buy a home for stability, that's it. For the most part you end up in a stable home situation and your costs should not increase too much beyond tax adjustments.

4. Maintenance costs are absolutely a factor that people need to consider when buying a home, but many of you are completely blowing out proportion the severity of things. Appliances? C'mon, these are not major cost breakers if you do them 1 at a time. Your HVAC & roof should at best need ONE replacement over the span of your ownership (roofs have lifespans of 20 years, HVAC can go 15-20). With new hot water heaters & maintenance they can easily go 10-15 years now and they're not cost breakers. Anything else beyond this such as landscaping or renovations are entirely on the home owner and not reqirements. Meaning, not all home owners look to spend 10K on landscaping but some love doing the work so it's a hobby and thus a value prop for them.

5. Homes are only investments in the sense that they're long term savings accounts (whomever made this analogy was spot on). Many people 'fail' with home owning because they get way too emotionally attached to the idea of making money on their home. Unless you're buying a multi-family or a second home, the home you actually live in should not be seen as an "investment".

6. On that same tip, in hot markets most home improvements do not have great return on investment. That 30K kitchen rennovation isn't going to suddenly add 30K to your home. At best it makes your house more appealing to the prospective buyers in the market. All those HGTV shows that make it seem like you can quadrouple your home value are ridiculous and that happens because they're buying houses way below market value. We're planning a rennovation of 270sq feet to convert an outdoor florida room to living space and it will run ~60K. We know for a fact this wont suddenly bump our house up but the investment is for ourselves and our time here; obviously long term it helps.

7. New vs old homes -- this comes a whole lot but a lot of newer constructions are absolute shit. Look up Ryan Homes and you'll see a lot of people with a list of issues in their houses. So buying an older house can actually be beneficial.

8. In highly competitive home markets renting can be really beneficial. Bay Area, NYC, where homes are in the millions and the cost of a down payment could be 100K it's just financially more sound to rent out.

No, you have to read and understand what market you're buying into. It's not luck that buying a house in the Bay Area in 2005 meant your house value increased. It was painfully obvious it would go up. What's luck is someone who bought in maybe the 70s and now has a house worth $2 million. That's luck, but someone in 2005? It was damn obvious the market was good here and for the foreseeable future.

The only way I'll put pause on this is some people in here saying "My house went up 100K-200K in 5 years". That's insane value add in such a short time and will not conitnue long term, if anything it should flatten out. The outliers to this are obviously the major metro hubs (Dallas, Bay Area, Seattle, NYC, Boston, Denver, Austin, etc) but in most cases that is 100% not normal.
 

Wiped

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
2,096
"Sometimes people buy houses and they appreciate significantly in value. Sometimes they sell them and make a lot of money. Also, sometimes people play the lottery and make millions of dollars."

OP what a dreadful argument this is. Unlike the lottery, buying property isn't a random gamble. Even cheap houses almost always increase in value over time. There is no investment that produces a more financially dependable increase in value like investment into property.
 

Gawge

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,655
Pay off somebody else's mortgage for years or pay your own and have equity? Hmmmm.

Anything you buy is paying off someone else's mortgage.

Why are you buying eggs from the shop? Buy your own chicken.
Why are you buying carrots from the supermarket? Plant your own carrots.
Why are you buying a car from a dealer? Buy your own factory and produce your own car.

When you pay someone for somewhere to live, you aren't throwing away that money, you are paying for somewhere to live... Just like when you buy some carrots, you aren't throwing away money just because you don't have the time, money or flexibility to develop your own vegetable patch.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,267
In the city = good
in the burbs = bad

Condos in the city centre are hot.
condos in the burbs, LOL? why?

For real. There is 0 reason to buy a condo in the burbs because you lose out on all the benefits of living in a lower density area. If you do want the benefits of condo/townhome at least look for the developments that are townhouses which offer you small yards/decks.
 

Deleted member 2340

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,661
There are many great reasons to buy a house. But they don't have to do with money.


I own my house. I pay no monthly note or rent. I have that extra income going straight into my savings every month. It has a ton to do with money.

If I were still paying rent or a mortgage I would be living a incredibly stressful life right now. I could live alittle bit better because of the extra income.
 

Mikebison

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,036
Anything you buy is paying off someone else's mortgage.

Why are you buying eggs from the shop? Buy your own chicken.
Why are you buying carrots from the supermarket? Plant your own carrots.
Why are you buying a car from a dealer? Buy your own factory and produce your own car.

When you pay someone for somewhere to live, you aren't throwing away that money, you are paying for somewhere to live... Just like when you buy some carrots, you aren't throwing away money just because you don't have the time, money or flexibility to develop your own vegetable patch.
Eggs don't generally cost upwards of £200,000.
 

tokkun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,467
This supposes that it would cost less to rent than to buy, but that it is not the case if you are going tor the same size. You are better off buying a house, and investing the money that you save.

It pretty much always costs less upfront to rent than buy because a renter's security deposit << the down payment + closing costs + inspection costs when buying a house. If you are modeling your return based on historic rates of return for different asset classes, the opportunity cost of that higher upfront cost for buying a house is substantial, and can outweigh the difference between rent and mortgage payments in many cases.

If you have some special method to avoid the upfront costs (e.g. buying from a relative and not needing a downpayment), it makes buying much more attractive. But most people are not in that situation.

And if the housing market temporarily decreases, then you just don't sell at that moment.

That investing philosophy is akin to the Martingale method of gambling. It only works if you are not resource-constrained, at which point the return on your investments is an afterthought.

Consider why this strategy failed during the last housing recession. If you get laid off and can't afford your monthly payments, you are forced to sell. If you have other debts you need to cover, you may be forced to sell. If you have to move for work and can't afford to pay for two places, you may be forced to sell.
 

SigEpTendo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
376
The Shadows
every year we rented the same apartment, our rent went up. For what we were paying, we could pay for a house. Buying our house was one of the best financial decisions we have made. It's definitely circumstantial, as different areas have different factors that go into it, but I don't think you can make this blanket statement. Too many variables.


I think the better argument to have isn't rent vs. buying, as so many have already pointed out the numerous financial and other reasons to buy if you can in most situations, but rather, should you pay off the house as fast as possible or instead pay the monthly note and invest any other money you may have that could go to principal.
 

tokkun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,467
"Sometimes people buy houses and they appreciate significantly in value. Sometimes they sell them and make a lot of money. Also, sometimes people play the lottery and make millions of dollars."

OP what a dreadful argument this is. Unlike the lottery, buying property isn't a random gamble. Even cheap houses almost always increase in value over time. There is no investment that produces a more financially dependable increase in value like investment into property.

Tell that to the people of Detroit or Flint.

The gambling comparison is an exaggeration, but houses do have risk and volatility. There is this false belief that houses have low volatility, and it comes from a couple factors:

1. Because the same house is not getting bought and sold every day you have no visibility into short term price fluctuations the way you do with stocks.
2. Although you can get public data on the asking price of houses by looking at listings, you can't get public data on the bid price. Due to factors like the sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, and the lack of price transparency in #1, it is possible for bid-ask spreads to become very large.
3. The high transaction costs and tax penalties associated with flipping houses makes it hard to capture short term price changes, and doing so is only profitable if the market is rising.

If people bought and sold stocks the same way they did houses, they would probably have the same false belief about stock volatility. If you buy a mutual fund and only look at its price when you sell it 30 years later, then you would probably also think that stock prices only go up.
 

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
It pretty much always costs less upfront to rent than buy because a renter's security deposit << the down payment + closing costs + inspection costs when buying a house. If you are modeling your return based on historic rates of return for different asset classes, the opportunity cost of that higher upfront cost for buying a house is substantial, and can outweigh the difference between rent and mortgage payments in many cases.

If you have some special method to avoid the upfront costs (e.g. buying from a relative and not needing a downpayment), it makes buying much more attractive. But most people are not in that situation.



That investing philosophy is akin to the Martingale method of gambling. It only works if you are not resource-constrained, at which point the return on your investments is an afterthought.

Consider why this strategy failed during the last housing recession. If you get laid off and can't afford your monthly payments, you are forced to sell. If you have other debts you need to cover, you may be forced to sell. If you have to move for work and can't afford to pay for two places, you may be forced to sell.

If you are renting, you don't have something to sell at all.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,267
Tell that to the people of Detroit or Flint.

The gambling comparison is an exaggeration, but houses do have risk and volatility. There is this false belief that houses have low volatility, and it comes from a couple factors:

.

They absolutely have a risk, especially with cities built on an industry but consider a city like Pittsburgh that has bounced back from the industrial hurt. Obviously Camden, Detroit, and others are not as well off but those were entire cities built on singular industries. The Bay Area or NYC aren't going to total collapse in the same way.
 

derder

Banned
Nov 1, 2017
371
I don't think this is true if you factor in that you have to move every two years. Moving is very expensive and cost and time
 

tokkun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,467
If you are renting, you don't have something to sell at all.

The premise is that the renter would take the money they are saving upfront and invest that in some historically higher-performing asset class, like stocks.

They absolutely have a risk, especially with cities built on an industry but consider a city like Pittsburgh that has bounced back from the industrial hurt. Obviously Camden, Detroit, and others are not as well off but those were entire cities built on singular industries. The Bay Area or NYC aren't going to total collapse in the same way.

Well, the Bay Area does have a strong industrial concentration in the tech industry. You can imagine Chinese tech doing to Silicon Valley what Japanese autos did to Detroit. You can also imagine climate change or another great earthquake wreaking havoc. It is also possible that cultural and / or technological may make city living less attractive than it is now. We have gone through such cycles in the past.

I'm not saying I think the values will go to zero, but when you have single-family homes selling for 10X the price of a similar home in a mid-sized city, there is significant downside risk even without total collapse.
 

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
The premise is that the renter would take the money they are saving upfront and invest that in some historically higher-performing asset class, like stocks.
Which would end up in one of two categories: untouchable because it is something with a specific duration, or decimated by the same thing that would tank the house market. In 2008, housing collapsed mainly in the US, the investment market tanked globally.
 
Nov 14, 2017
4,928
The premise is that the renter would take the money they are saving upfront and invest that in some historically higher-performing asset class, like stocks.



Well, the Bay Area does have a strong industrial concentration in the tech industry. You can imagine Chinese tech doing to Silicon Valley what Japanese autos did to Detroit. You can also imagine climate change or another great earthquake wreaking havoc. It is also possible that cultural and / or technological may make city living less attractive than it is now. We have gone through such cycles in the past.

I'm not saying I think the values will go to zero, but when you have single-family homes selling for 10X the price of a similar home in a mid-sized city, there is significant downside risk even without total collapse.
OK, so what investment class do you recommend that after 30 years will all of a sudden start paying all your rent and will continue to do so for the rest of your life? That's what home ownership gets you.
 

SchuckyDucky

Avenger
Nov 5, 2017
3,944
This is far from true in a lot of different situations and markets. One is not universally better than the other.
 

Shadybiz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,164
Depends on where you are, how long you plan on staying, and other things.

My wife and I used to rent the house we're in now, but we ended up just buying it. Our mortgage is slightly cheaper than the rent was. But, you do have to factor in the fact that we'll have to pay for any repairs ourselves. At the same time though, we plan on being here until retirement, and we have been paying extra towards principal. So probably in around 10-12 years, we will only have to pay property taxes and insurance to live here; that is when it starts to be a lot better financially.
 

Deleted member 22750

Oct 28, 2017
13,267
Retirement would be a major plus.

It would suck to be working at 70 because you thought renting was better.

Because not everyone can accumulate assets and wealth so that by the time they are older they can afford to rent plus extras.
 

BassForever

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,109
CT
I didn't catch in OP's monolith if he mentioned the tax benefits of paying real estate taxes and mortgage interests. Obviously with the new tcja less people can itemize but home owners are more likely to be able to get more tax relief then renters.
 

LonestarZues

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,450
I'm 38 and my house is already paid off. No having to worry about rent or mortgage payment anymore especially after I retire is mighty nice. I'll have to renovate once or twice more in my life, but that's a lot better then worrying about it on a monthly basis.
 

nel e nel

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,139
If people bought and sold stocks the same way they did houses, they would probably have the same false belief about stock volatility. If you buy a mutual fund and only look at its price when you sell it 30 years later, then you would probably also think that stock prices only go up.

Generally speaking the people who see the most consistent benefits from the stock market buy and sell the same way they do houses. The short sighted get-rich-quick mentality is often what screws things up.
 

Jie Li

Alt account
Banned
Dec 21, 2018
742
If you live in coastal popular cities (NY, LA, London, Vancouver etc), my advise is you buy your house ASAP, because these cities have continue flow of oversea money to push the real estate price higher than the average markets.
 

TitanicFall

Member
Nov 12, 2017
8,372
I was in a situation where I paid $900 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment that I lived in for 9 years. Not once did rent increase but I felt like I just wanted a change of environment so I started looking at buying a house since I had a nice down payment saved. Anything decent that I wanted to buy was going to at least double my monthly expenses when you include property tax and home insurance. I almost bought a home but backed out because I wasn't completely sold on it. I did end up renting a townhouse which is $1600 a month to have the experience of living in something that's not an apartment. The place is nicer, has more space, and a garage, but I ended up realizing that I really don't need it and would have been happier with the extra $700 in my pocket a month that I could have used for traveling more. I was lucky in my situation because my previous landlord did not increase prices. I also had great neighbors, so renting wasn't a terrible experience. You need a place to live regardless, so paying rent to have a roof over your head is not throwing away money. You're not throwing away money by paying for electricity are you?

If you've built equity in a home, then yes you could sell it and make a profit. But what are you going to do afterwards? The market price has increased so whatever you buy next in your area is probably as expensive if not more so than the home you're leaving. You can move to a completely different area that's cheaper but that usually comes with a lifestyle change. I have met several transplants from bigger, more expensive areas, that made money on their sale, but they usually miss their old lifestyles and end up regretting the move. Most people aren't going to want to leave the area they've spent years in, so often they just stay put and never sell because they are priced out of buying another house in the same area. It just ends up being property that they pass on to their children. They never actually see any financial benefit unless the home is completely paid off in their lifetime. Even then, who knows how much they spent in maintenance. So in the end, I'd ignore the financial gain and just look at what you want your lifestyle to be.
 

Phantom

Writer at Jeux.ca
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,446
Canada
Bought a house last year, don't regret it. Of course housing isn't nearly as costly here than in many US cities. It costs me at least 3x what I paid for our apartment though, so it's harder to save money. With $1200 CAD we cover mortgage+electricity+groceries. Our house is worth $250k so nothing too crazy, which helps a lot not having to pay through our noses each month. Since we now have a dog there's no going back, plus the freedom of not dealing with neighbors under/above us is great.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,973
Houses may go down crazy somewhere but your insurance against that is just buy on the west coast . I keep hearing how prices will crash any time now.... 20 years ago lol. Meanwhile my friend just bought a house for 600k 4 years ago and I thought it was crazy then they all started selling for 900k.

I was giving an extreme example to show how the comparison to a lottery ticket made no sense. You can't sell a losing lottery ticket and the common low paying tickets are less than 1% of the jackpot. A housing crash doesn't result in your home being worth <1%.
 

eso76

Prophet of Truth
Member
Dec 8, 2017
8,219
Well the assumption is that you still put the saved money into something so you earn more.

Are rents that much less expensive than mortgages though ? Where I live it's around the same or even higher and to be honest there's no investment here that makes you earn remotely nearly as much as a house you can rent to students or families.
Even better, make an air BnB out of it and see the cash flow.
Nope, there's absolutely no circumstance under which renting is financially preferable around here at least, even with taxes on house ownership skyrocketing in the past few years.

(That said, I might rent a house in the near future because I just like to change often and I don't want my house to feel like a burden)
 

Thunder11

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,951
I think people need to understand that it's not as clear cut as "buy a house, come out ahead" but it will, these days, work out better for many if not most imo.
 

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
That investing philosophy is akin to the Martingale method of gambling. It only works if you are not resource-constrained, at which point the return on your investments is an afterthought.

Consider why this strategy failed during the last housing recession. If you get laid off and can't afford your monthly payments, you are forced to sell. If you have other debts you need to cover, you may be forced to sell. If you have to move for work and can't afford to pay for two places, you may be forced to sell.

I thought it was determined the people that went broke were people that should've never bought in the first place because of dubious mortgage approvals.

But if you have 2 houses and you cant pay for both, it sucks but you can at least keep one. You cant keep one, you rent. You can't pay rent, it's the homeless shelter. It's a fall, but some falls are a slow downward trajectory instead of a nose dive at max velocity.
 

SRO7

Member
Nov 30, 2017
523
With buying you at least have the chance of making back on your investment

With renting you don't make back shit

Yeah think I'm going to disagree op (not from US btw)
 

Tigress

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,227
Washington
It depends entirely on your local rent and house market.

Also building coop is another option.

Exactly. I believe in my area a lot of apartments turned to condos and there is limited building area due to zoning so rent has gotten very high. To the point there are people who are homeless who have jobs. I work retail and had a manager who had to move away when his apt lease was up and he couldn't find an affordable apartment. I'm glad my husband bought a house years ago (our mortgage has stayed the same at least and we don't have to worry about rent raising on us). We bought it at the top of a bubble and even with the bubble crash it is now worth more than we bought it. We've also been rated one of the most overpriced areas to live (cost of living is way more expensive to what the wages would dictate).
 

Culex

Member
Oct 29, 2017
6,987
Don't forget that you can buy and dump money into your employer 401k. Basically all my extra money eack paycheck biweekly is put into my plan. It hurts now but over the past 10 years I've seen it go to 6 figures since I have it in index funds.

I'll have my house paid off by the time I'm 45 and have a nice retirement paid for.
 

SpinierBlakeD

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 28, 2018
1,353
Only benefit is a fixed mortgage. I've had to move three times in the last three years because my rent keeps getting raised too high.
 

Deleted member 33887

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 20, 2017
2,109
There's a vid for this:



Conclusion: it depends.


These videos are always stupid, because they take into account every last detail for the home owner, but they don't even account for rising rents. You're not getting locked in at your initial rent for 25 years, it's just never going to happen. It also doesn't take into account the renter is probably going to move a minimum of 5 times in 25 years, so they get jacked out of maybe half to all of their deposit (and they never mention the deposit), which might be over a thousand bucks. Then there's the actual moving expenses. Plus however else your landlord decides to screw you over.

Also they don't increase maintenance, tax, or insurance costs over time for the home owner. It's like, please take me to the this inflationless utopia please. I suppose maybe the idea is those costs are already baked into the rent so they sort of cancel each other out. Except rent rises a lot faster than maintenance, tax, and insurance costs, so they probably don't.
 

Rune Walsh

Too many boners
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,096
Where you live makes a huge difference. To get an apartment with the amount of sq. ft. I have in my house, I would be paying much more than my mortgage. I honestly don't have any friends who live on apartments because my city has available housing sub 200k. It would make no sense to rent in my city if you have a steady income over 50k.
 

Evan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
922
Idk, I went from paying nearly 800 for a small apartment to paying 600 for a much larger home in the country.

I'll take smaller payments, less noise, and being able to do whatever I want to my house.
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,446
Getting most of it back is not the worst case scenario. Sometimes you have to pay money when you sell it. It's like 2008 never happened.
even in a 2008 scenario, prices are back above where they were then. so as long as you don't turn around and want to resell it right away (something you should never do, due to the way interest is structured) you should eventually be fine.
 

Totakeke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,678
Haven't read such a divergent thread in a while. A lot of the initial argument is about the math and there isn't that much of it from people being confident of their arguments. Mostly reads like home buyers think buying homes are better and renters think renting is better.
 

inner-G

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,473
PNW
Re: Maintenance

I'm pretty sure a landlord is baking into your rent every time you call him so it's not "free".
Most things around the house can be fixed with basic tools and a YouTube tutorial

We also have a 'home warranty' that we pay a few hundo per year for, and we've had problems with plumbing, broken ceiling fan, etc. and they only charge like a $75 service fee at the time to fix. Last year they fixed leaks on both our exterior faucets and replaced our kitchen faucet (with a fancier one that has an extendable sprayer) for under like $500 total.
 
Dec 22, 2017
7,099
Lmao. Yup houses are just free money. Let's all just buy houses and get rich.

When the next crash comes please remember I tried to warn you.

I thought this was generating some good discussion, but I see you are wilting under the criticism and resorting to sarcasm.

And I am sure you know that any index fund be affected by the same market downturn.
 

CatnipClassic

Member
Nov 8, 2017
61
Calgary, AB
The numbers in the OP seem to be chosen to prove the point better, for example if you take a 40 or 50 year time period instead of 100 then the returns on each are closer. Either way though, even if you take OP's numbers you still come out better with buying (10% on stocks, 4% on real estate, with 3% inflation).

For example, take a situation where someone has $100,000 and can either rent or buy a house:

1) Renter
Puts $100,000 in S&P stocks
Get's 10% return
$100,000 * 0.10 = $10,000 per year (+ compounding interest)

2) Buyer
$100,000 allows the person to put 20% down on a $500,000 house.
4% return (which is on the entire property, not only the down payment)
$500,000 * 0.04 = $20,000 per year (+ compounding interest)

The power with owning is that you make money on other people's money (the banks money). With this example I am even helping the rentals argument by forcing 20% down, which is not required everywhere.

Also, other monetary advantages with owning are:
-A portion of your monthly costs go to pay off the mortgage. Therefore every month you are "saving" a portion of this money. This is not the case with renting.
-You get tax incentives to own. For example the gov't allows you to depreciate a portion of your home every year and you can use that to lower the tax burden on your normal income. There are (usually) no tax incentives with renting.

Both of these can be substantial, depending on your situation.

Now closing costs are real and can be a lot of money (like OP stated, 6% +) and generally the seller pays almost all of the closing costs. Therefore, if you do plan to move in less than 3 years, it's probably better to rent.

Of course there are a bunch of considerations when renting vs buying. How long are you planning to live there? Do you want to take care of maintenance or want someone else to? Would you feel over-leveraged with a house? How much do the tax incentives help you? Are you able to you trade well enough, without panicking, to get 10% in stocks without someone else handling it and taking a portion? The cost for rent is decided by the market and can be more or less than the total expenses of owning, so how advantageous is it in your city? etc. These need to be thought about before making a decision.