The comparison is never that simple. Even if you don't consider the simplicity of being able to pack up and move, or conveniences like garbage collection and m

The comparison is never that simple. Even if you don't consider the simplicity of being able to pack up and move, or conveniences like garbage collection and maintenance staff (I haven't picked up a snow shovel in two years), you have to account for closing costs for buying and selling as well as the limited equity you will have after only 5 years. As little as 30% of early mortgage payments go towards principal, the rest is paid to interest. My bank has a financial calculator "should I rent or buy" and if I plug in $1700/mo rent (+3%/yr), $350,000 home with 0% appreciation and %1.25 property tax, and leaving all defaults for closing costs on buying and selling, the calculator suggests I will actually save about $12,000 by renting. A quick summary of the details suggests that mortgage payments will be lower than $1,700, but additional expenses make the average monthly expenditure closer to $2,100, but in the long run tax breaks will recover most of that. After 5 years without selling, considering only payments and tax breaks, you'll be ahead about $4,000 if you buy. BUT when you try to sell, and look at the big picture, it's actually going to cost you money, because you have to pay the remaining loan balance in addition to closing costs and related fees. You only get back $60,000 or so, which isn't even enough to recover the initial downpayment of $75,000 the renter never had to pay (and was able to invest in something else). Obviously it's easy to tweak the numbers either way, but the point should be clear that the simple "renters have nothing to show for it" argument doesn't hold water.