[socalgal2]

I agree there are pluses to living in a house. One, you can rent a house. But also, there are benefits for kids living in apartments, condos as well. If we're just talking about money, maybe the things you can afford (more travel with your kids, more activities for your kids, more money for kids hobbies, etc...). More time (instead of spending time maintaining your house, gardening, mowing the lawn, etc... you can spend that time with your kids).

I'm not saying an apartment is better than a house. I'm only saying it's not about "rich when your old" vs "kids treehouse and go kart".

Thinking about all the things I loved about my house. Had a pool (but so do many apartment complexes). Could be much noisier than I can in an apartment. Had a garage for tools. I thinking most of the other things I liked have analogs in apartments/condos. But again, you can rent a house.

[ameliaquining]

In the U.S., renting a single-family home is not usually a particularly good idea. Because of the tax disadvantages that I mentioned upthread, but also because the market's relatively thin (in part because of said tax disadvantages) and this makes it harder to find a house you like as much.

(You can pay people to do maintenance tasks on your house, and if you rent then you're already indirectly paying for that. Professional landlords benefit a bit from economies of scale and such, but it's a minor difference.)

[hintklb]

>> if you rent then you're already indirectly paying for that.

Quick note: People repeat this non stop ("The cost is passed down to the renter"). This has been proven false many times. The cost to the landlord is mostly irrelevant to the renter. Rent is set by offer and demand in a particular market. Just try to increase your place 1000$ above market rates because "Maintenance and taxes", your renters will move. So it obviously doesn't work like this.

[ameliaquining]

Increased costs that affect all landlords equally are reflected in market prices, though not necessarily in a linear fashion.