[smartician]

You're assuming that all landlords are rational. Many either see it as a leveraged investment where rent is just one factor to offset their cost, hoping that appreciation will make it profitable. Or the home had strong appreciation so that their cost relative to the current value is low. Or they have some sentimental attachment to the property and rather rent it out at a loss than sell it. In California especially, they might have locked in a low property tax rate which is a fraction of what you would pay when you buy the home today. For example, my in-laws pay $700/month in property tax. If I bought their house at market price today, my property tax bill would be $3,000/month.

For example I rent a home that's currently worth $1.3 million for $3,500/month. The landlord bought it in 2004 for $570,000. Would it make sense for the landlord to sell it instead of renting it out? Maybe, but based on their original investment they're getting a good return. If I were to buy that home off of them, my monthly payment would be more than double the rent. So this works for both of us I guess.

[mattmanser]

And what's that got to do with the price of fish?

It doesn't change the facts, most people will not get amazing rental deals, your advice is wrong and it doesn't matter how many alt accounts you use Matt.

You're very badly wrong.

The irony here is that your landlord gained $3,300 a month in property value while you lost the same amount on rent. So the 7 year homeowner is absolutely destroying the renter.

So this demonstrates perfectly how, over a longer term of 7 years, you are always better off buying.

[smartician]

I don't know who Matt is, but I now know that you lack even basic financial knowledge. According to your logic, if I can rent a house for $1, then I'm still losing $1 and my landlord is "gaining $1 in property value". Looks like it was a bad idea to insert myself into this conversation in the first place.