You might have a house at the end of the mortgage. You'll definitely have the land, but the house and its paint only grow older, its plumbing and utilities more dated, and its interior design antiquated. Upkeep of an owner-occupied home comes with a lot of "weekend projects" that would otherwise be the responsibility of the landlord when renting. For those able and willing, that's fine. But it's not for everyone, and all should enter homeownership fully informed.

To be clear, I do think homeowner should be a realistic prospect for most people, but the notion that paying rent is equivalent to throwing it down the drain requires falsely assuming that one's time is low-value, that homes aren't depreciating assets, and that all land becomes more desirable and thus appreciates over time. Many communities in the Rust Belt, USA demonstrate the latter point.

If you’re renting you’ll be paying pretty close to the same amount but won’t have anything to show for it.

You also won’t have had to maintain a house or pay property taxes. I sold mine and rent now because I found ownership to be a PITA. YMMV.

Compared to renting, you pay substantially more when you own. Maintenance, repairs, insurance, property taxes, full utilities. Mortgage is just the base you pay.

At the end of the day, sure you own the house, but all those extra expenses don't go away. Lately I have been seeing retired home owners selling because they can't afford all the upkeep so they end up moving into a smaller unit.

Decades ago buying was a no brainer, but do you really think houses will continue to appreciate at this rate? Will a 2 bedroom run down bungalow really be worth 2 or 3 million in 10 years? At least with renting you can invest that money you save from not buying and get a guaranteed return.

For the record, I'm not saying not to buy, but you should not just buy because you think it is a good financial decision. It might not end up being the case depending on where you live