I basically agree with Bruenig. To put what I said in a couple of comments in one place: The idea is that if renting is cheaper than owning in your city, you p

I basically agree with Bruenig. To put what I said in a couple of comments in one place: The idea is that if renting is cheaper than owning in your city, you pocket the difference you would've spent on owning and put it in the market. So your total market gains will exceed (home appreciation minus repairs minus taxes/insurance/water&sewer minus real estate commissions and taxes to sell) Over a long enough time span, 90+% of the building has to be replaced- everything from the roof down to the basement is essentially on a clock to obsolence from the moment you sign the deed. So even calculating what your expenses are in a given year doesn't cover every 5 or 10 year expenses (a new bathroom, say), or the tail risk of a new roof or new heating system. Over multiple decades of ownership, you have to renovate the house- just to stay at the same level of quality. So yes you could theoretically sell your home you've owned for 30 years for a profit- but if you didn't replace the kitchen, bathroom, repaint, redo the roof, etc. etc.- the value's going to be pretty low. No one wants your kitchen from 30-40 years ago! So you probably renovated the house at least once- so subtract $50-200k renovation cost from your profit & loss. Once you want to sell your house, you encounter even more expenses- even without a real estate agent, you say a few % just to the city/state/attorneys! Yes, a landlord can make money on rent (and if you consider all the risks of being a landlord in a blue state, I'd argue that's an excessively risky business). But, they're paying income taxes on the rent, while my gains in the market are tax free