Even if the math makes sense. Doesn’t mean it’s by principle a good idea. One can also start selling illegal drugs, beat both of those, and become a tycoon.
In scenario 1, a person is a slave to a bank, in scenario 2, the person is free to do with his life as he pleases.
Of course the incentives are stacked to create slaves. One must choose his life wisely.
Person B is dependent upon landlords indefinitely and at steadily rising price, and Person A owes the bank for a time, for a fixed price and enjoying an income tax discount, and is then "home free".
Housing is not an asset like fine art because you can't choose to simply have none. You can only rent or own.
If one can’t afford to own, they rent. When you rent you are buying a service. Just like you buy electricity, water, and food.
You are not dependent on the landlord. It’s an equivalent exchange. He is dependent on you, just as much as you are dependent on them.
Market decides the value of this exchange. You don’t like the price tag you look somewhere else. Price is discovered and a fair value is usually achieved.
Yes, but what isn't priced into the rent is any lower quality of life. The worse neighborhood and infrastructure, the insecurity of not knowing if your lease will be extended or raised, bad landlords, higher running costs, etc.
We're renting and literally counting down the days until we can escape to our own property.
Once you start seeing the Rich Man’s Trick everywhere you can’t help but see how they keep slaves slavin’ away.
