I never understood this sentiment. As if landlords don't bake the taxes and maintenance into the rent. They wouldn't be very successful landlords if they didn't. As smart as any other homeowner who doesn't put a little aside each month for the inevitable water heater or roof.
In high cost areas, houses and the taxes and maintenance are more than renting a smaller apartment. In San Francisco, California, the average house price is $1.3 million. On a 30 year fixed rate 6.94% mortgage financing 90%, the payment is going to be $7386, plus about $650 a month in real estate taxes. So total of about $8,000 not including any maintenance. Also, you have $132,000 in down payment tied up in the house that could be invested. The average rent on a 2 BR apt is $4000. So from here it looks like you'll have $4,000 a month to invest. Yeah you can find alternative mortgages with variable rates or balloon payments, so the above is just one scenario.
San Francisco is an extreme example, but if you take the above numbers to other high costs areas the percentage between buying and renting are going to be about the same.
For Example, the average house is Sacramento, California is $468K (+400/month taxes) and to rent a 2BR apt its $1855.
This comparison is apples and oranges of course. With an apartment you don't have a yard, have less space and less control. However, an apartment may be close to your job, friends and things you like to do. If you want to change jobs and want to move you don't have the hassle of selling your house. If you move way out of the city to get a more reasonably priced house, but still have a job in the city now you have commuting costs and commuting time every work day (and time is money).
In smaller towns like the the one I'm in, rentals are scarce and it is cheaper to buy a house, if you have the down payment and good credit.
Example high cost house:
This 0 square feet Single Family home has 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. It is located at 430 Arch St, San Francisco, CA.
www.zillow.com
The above house is ridiculously priced compared to what I'm used to, and doesn't look like much from the outside, but if you check out the photos, its actually pretty nice and I would think would be a big upgrade compared to apartment living. But it would cost $1,000/week more than the average 2 BR apartment. Is that a good deal? Too some it is, to some no, it isn't.
What extra money? In my experience, renting is more expensive than buying, as far as monthly payments go. Of course, renting doesn't take money from your savings when you move in, but trying to put money into savings is harder when you rent. Buying a house, part of the monthly payment is actually going into your pocket by the way of equity. And the payment is usually less than rent, allowing more money to go into savings.
Yeah in that kind of market it makes sense. And in the real world, are any renters "saving" any extra money to
invest? Or just spending the cash as it comes in? If a person has extra income and self control to to put money into savings/investing, then they'll probably end up buying a house anyway. Buying a house is a kind of forced savings.
So as I mentioned earlier, making the decision of buying vs/renting involves way too many factors for an easy answer.