> A house doesn't provide dividends. Unless you are talking about investment properties, which, again, isn't what we are talking about here. A house pays you b

> A house doesn't provide dividends. Unless you are talking about investment properties, which, again, isn't what we are talking about here. A house pays you by saving you rent, which as I pointed out farther down is mathematically indistinguishable from renting it to someone else and continuing to pay rent (although this is muddied a bit by tax laws that care about whether the owner is also the tenant). > Very, very, few people are going to spend as much on rent as they would a house. This can only be true if you're not comparing similar housing - like, yeah, if I buy a house twice as big as the one I was renting I've lost money. But if you're comparing like for like, this assertion implies that investment properties are a net loss. It's a bit curious how those rental companies stay in business. I agree with most of your responses, though. But they are all arguments that your house is a _bad_ investment, which is different from it not being an investment at all.