[dragonwriter]

> If the rent is more than the mortgage why would I rent?

Because the you don't have the savings for the downpayment to qualify for the mortgage with the payment at issue.

Because property ownership cones with more expenses than just he mortgage, many of which remaining with the owner in most leases.

Because no one is selling single units of the type you want at the time, but someone is renting them out.

Because you're bearish on the housing market and prefer the risk of paying too high a rent at the end of a relatively short lease term to longer-term exposure to risk of loss of property value.

Because you intend to have a federally controlled, even if state legal, substance on the property, and want to control your exposure to risk from civil forfeiture.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[michaelscott]

As with conveyancing or transfer fees, a downpayment can be negotiated into a mortgage loan. Extra expenses should remain with the owner, since it is their asset. Everything else you've mentioned would be a corner case at best and not applicable to the average person looking for somewhere to keep the rain off their heads.

[dragonwriter]

> As with conveyancing or transfer fees, a downpayment can be negotiated into a mortgage loan

Sure, but it drives up the mortgage cost (both because the principal is higher and because interest rates are higher with lower downpayment), so the rent being higher than the actual landlord's mortgage doesn't mean that it is higher than your mortgage for an equivalent property purchased at the same time.

> Extra expenses should remain with the owner, since it is their asset.

Whethe it should or not, those costs can be a reason to prefer renting over ownership even with a slight premium of rent over mortgage cost.