> But the purely financial aspect of home ownership just doesn't
> stack up ...
Don't tell that to the majority of households in the US :-)
> without the capital gains that of course you can't actually
> realise without sacrificing ownership.
Bill, do you read the papers at all? The big innovation of the last decade or so in the US ("home equity") has been exactly the ability to tap the equity in your house. It is, if you like, a reverse down-payment. The fact that you *can* realize the appreciation of your house without moving is one (but only one) of the reasons that things have gotten so frothy and out of control. I expect this is a game-changer, and once things die down and correct, we'll be left with a much more sophisticated home buyer. Hell, 10 years ago it was "big news" that you could stop paying Private Mortgage Insurance (typically required anytime you have less than 20% down) once your "skin in the game" was above 20% whether from principal payments OR appreciation.
I see this as a positive: until recently, all the power and control of the asset that you call "home" was contained in the bank. Today it's a much more even proposition. With great power comes great responsibility, and some people aren't up to it (and others are unscrupulously sold something they oughtn't) but on balance I think that the scales have tipped in the other direction for once.
> Just look at the figures.
Please see my earlier figures instead, since yours are incorrect. It's simple math to do, but you have to actually do it and not just make numbers up on a napkin.
> As for the notion that if the landlord's costs go up he can simply
> put the rent up to recoup the losses, well only if he was charging
> below what the market would bear to begin with.
Except in regulated markets, if a rental become non-economic, Something Must Be Done. Usually it's an even split between selling it and letting it degrade.
> I wouldn't expect the mathematical logic to convince anyone.
Especially if it's faulty :-)
/jordan