You're correct that the calculations are a bit more complex in reality. However, in a mortgage situation, the borrower does accumulate capital, whereas in a ho

You're correct that the calculations are a bit more complex in reality. However, in a mortgage situation, the borrower does accumulate capital, whereas in a housing association scenario the resident/renter does not. The major factor distinguishing the returns on the two options (lower rent vs mortage + depreciation) is whether the value of the property increases more than the costs of the mortgage, and what else the renter might do with their money. Note that most of the value of prime property (e.g. that in or near major cities) is in the value of the land, not the structure. So there is substantial political pressure to support land value increases, to the cost of everyone except mortgage lenders.... Further, the notion that the cheaper costs achieved by housing associations and the like, including public housing are the result of subsidies can be shown to be incorrect. They're cheaper because of the different treatment of capital.