Renting or Buying an House
When you sell a house around between 7-10% of the sales price will go to various fees. Mostly to the agents, but also to county fees, city fees, deed tax, and possibly covering closing costs for the buyers. So if you sell a $400k house for the same price you buy, just in fees, you're out $40k. Mortgages are structured so that the frontend is very interest heavy, while at the end you're mostly paying towards principal. So for the first two years you will pay down very little of the principal. Figure around $2500 for the mortgage, and without running the numbers I bet you would pay an average for the first two years of around $1800/month in interest. $43,200. Mortgage interest is tax deductible, so you'll get some of that back. That's also $16,800 in equity you'll have on the house, so you'll get that back out when you sell. Rough numbers, I would be you lose around $50k buying the house and selling for the same price two years later. That doesn't take into account having to do any maintenance. And it assumes you can sell quickly when you want to. Renting is not throwing away money. You don't lose any money. You get a place to live in exchange. You don't build equity, sure, but you don't need to worry about maintenance and other related issues. When you're looking to be somewhere short term renting is generally the best idea. You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment.  If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off.  I would consider two things.  Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not.  Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck! "Some pros and cons to renting vs buying: Some advantages of buying: When you rent, the money you pay is gone. When you buy, assuming you don't have the cash to buy outright but get a mortgage, some of the payment goes to interest, but you are building equity. Ultimately you pay off the mortgage and you can then live rent-free. When you buy, you can alter your home to your liking. You can paint in the colors you like, put in the carpet or flooring you like, heck, tear down walls and alter the floor plan (subject to building codes and safety consideration, of course). If you rent, you are usually sharply limited in what alterations you can make. In the U.S., mortgage interest is tax deductible. Rent is not. Property taxes are deductible from your federal income tax. So if you have, say, $1000 mortgage vs $1000 rent, the mortgage is actually cheaper. Advantages of renting: There are a lot of transaction costs involved in buying a house. You have to pay a realtor's commission, various legal fees, usually ""loan origination fees"" to the bank, etc. Plus the way mortgages are designed, your total payment is the same throughout the life of the loan. But for the first payment you owe interest on the total balance of the loan, while the last payment you only owe interest on a small amount. So early payments are mostly interest. This leads to the conventional advice that you should not buy unless you plan to live in the house for some reasonably long period of time, exact amount varying with whose giving the advice, but I think 3 to 5 years is common. One mitigating factor: Bear in mind that if you buy a house, and then after 2 years sell it, and you discover that the sale price minus purchase price minus closing costs ends up a net minus, say, $20,000, it's not entirely fair to say ""zounds! I lost $20,000 by buying"". If you had not bought this house, presumably you would have been renting. So the fair comparison is, mortgage payments plus losses on the resale compared to likely rental payments for the same period." I actually didn't do the math with your numbers, but I recall Sal from Khan Academy did a nice video about your question, challenging the notion that it is always better to buy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL10H_EcB-E
If you are splitting rent, it is not income because you are reducing the amount of space you have available to you and reducing your rent, it's the same as if you moved to a smaller apartment. You can't claim a deduction for rent paid, so there really are no tax implications in this arrangement. If you own a house and someone helps pay the mortgage, that does become a rental situation if the other party has no ownership stake in the house. Could you find other ways to disguise it, like having your brother pay utilities or buy groceries? Sure, but I think it's technically taxable income by the letter of the law. I also don't think the IRS is going to come after you for trading a place to sleep for groceries/cable. Can I give the bank the $300,000 to clear the mortgage, or must I pay off the total interest that was agreed upon for the 30 year term? This depends on the loan agreement.  I had one loan where I was on the hook regardless.  Early payment was just that, early payment.  It would have allowed me to skip months without making payments (because I had already made them).   Most loans charge interest on the remaining balance. If you pay early, it reduces your balance, decreasing the interest.  If you pay it off early, there's no more balance and no more interest.   I'm curious why the bank would let you do this, since they will lose out on a lot of profit. But they have their money back and can loan it out again.  If they maintained the loan, they aren't guaranteed of getting their money.   Interest is rent that you pay for the loan of the money.  Once you return the money, why pay more rent?  While some apartment leases require paying through the entire term, most allow for early termination with proper notice.  You give back the apartment; the landlord rents it out again.  Why should they get paid two rents?   Another issue is that if someone with a mortgage switches jobs to a new location, that person will likely prefer to sell the current house and buy one in the new location.  This is actually the typical way for a mortgage to end.  If the bank did not allow that, they would essentially force the family to rent out the mortgaged house and rent a new house.  So the bank would go from an owner-occupied house that the inhabitants want to keep maintained to a rental, where the inhabitants only care to the extent of their legal liability.   Consider the possibility that the homeowners lose one of their jobs.  They can't afford the house.  So they sell it and close out the mortgage.  Should the bank refuse to allow the sale and attempt to recover the interest from the impoverished homeowners?  That situation would almost guarantee an expensive foreclosure.   Once there is any early termination clause for any reason, it makes sense for the bank to structure the loan to include the possibility.  That way they don't have to investigate whatever excuse is involved.  Loan regulators may require this as well, particularly on mortgages. The New York Times has a useful rent-vs-buy calculator.  Based on your numbers, it suggests buying makes sense if you stay in the house for 5 years or more.  This is just based on default values for various other parameters, though, like mortgage interest rate, rent increase rate, etc.  You could try playing around with the numbers.  Also as other answerers said, maintenance costs, closing costs, etc., should be factored in. If renting it out is a possibility even if you move out, it could be a better deal.  One thing to think about renting-wise is, if you move out, where are you likely to move to?  If you move far away, it could be impractical to manage the property as a rental.  You could hire someone else to do that, but that would reduce your income from the rent.  On the other hand, if you stay in LA, it could be feasible to manage the property yourself. Another key factor is, what rent would you be able to charge for this house?  If you can make enough in rent to cover the mortgage payment, you may be in good shape; but due to overpriced real estate markets, sometimes you won't be able to do that, which would mean renting it might not be cost-effective. "A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the ""renter"" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the ""landlord,"" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a ""lot"" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your ""rent"" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have ""portable equity"" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will ""get lucky"" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because ""sky rockets"" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house." You apparently assume that pouring money into a landlord's pocket is a bad thing. Not necessarily. Whether it makes sense to purchase your own home or to live in a rental property varies based on the market prices and rents of properties. In the long term, real estate prices closely follow inflation. However, in some areas it may be possible that real estate prices have increased by more than inflation in the past, say, 10 years. This may mean that some (stupid) people assume that real estate prices continue to appreciate at this rate in the future. The price of real estates when compared to rents may become unrealistically high so that the rental yield becomes low, and the only reasonable way of obtaining money from real estate investments is price appreciation continuing. No, it will not continue forever. Furthermore, an individual real estate is a very poorly diversified investment. And a very risky investment, too: a mold problem can destroy the entire value of your investment, if you invest in only one property. Real estates are commonly said to be less risky than stocks, but this applies only to large real estate portfolios when compared with large stock portfolios. It is easier to build a large stock portfolio with a small amount of money to invest when compared to building a large real estate portfolio. Thus, I would consider this: how much return are you going to get (by not needing to pay rent, but needing to pay some minor maintenance costs) when purchasing your own home? How much does the home cost? What is the annual return on the investment? Is it larger than smaller when compared to investing the same amount of money in the stock market? As I said, an individual house is a more risky investment than a well-diversified stock portfolio. Thus, if a well-diversified stock portfolio yields 8% annually, I would demand 10% return from an individual house before considering to move my money from stocks to a house. I did this about 8 years ago with a buddy in Chicago for the reasons specified in the original post.  As other posters have suggested, we discussed  a lot of the same questions listed above, figured out the possible scenarios, and then had a lawyer draw up a contract.  We bought a 3 bedroom house, and rented out the 3rd bedroom.  Overall, it was a great experience.  We both built equity while having a renter pay a third of the mortgage.  Plus the property tax and interest on the loan were tax deductible.  Compared with renting an apartment, it made us  a lot more money.  In the end, we sold the house, and split the profits.  Assuming you have the personalities to make it work, I say go for it. The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting.  Additionally, Alex B helped me with two additional sources of information for this: Real Estate is local, all the articles here refer to the US housing market. Bankrate says purchase price / annual rate in the US has a long term average of 16.0. Fool says Purchase Price/Monthly Rent: 150 is good buy, 200 starts to get expensive This answer is copy pasted from a similar question (not the same so I did not vote to merge) linked here.. The biggest red flag is the fact that your parents may lose their house. There are multiple parts of the decision.  The red flag comes in because you are stretching your finances to the max to afford the house you are interested in. Buying down the interest rate makes some sense depending on how long you plan on staying, but not a a way to afford house X.  Of course a bigger down payment will also influence the size of the house. You are also buying something in case your parents need a place to live. What happens if that never occurs? You now have something bigger than you need. You are mixing investments and housing. There is no guarantee that you will even break-even on the house as a investment. It can take several years to make back the closing costs involved in buying and selling a house, based solely on stable price and your monthly payments. If the price drops you might never make the money back.  You might be better off renting what you need now or waiting until the current house is lost and then renting what you need then.