Should you buy a bigger home to grow into or exactly what you need now?

Question

Rich Dad · Accepted Answer

“Your house is either your launchpad… or your golden cage.”
Let me be blunt: buying a bigger home just because you might grow into it is usually an emotional decision dressed up as strategy. A primary residence is typically a liability, not an asset. It takes money out of your pocket every month — mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance. If you stretch from a $400,000 home to a $650,000 home “for the future,” that extra $250,000 isn’t just a bigger living room — it’s 30 years of compounded opportunity cost.
Let’s run numbers. Assume the bigger home increases your payment by $1,200/month. That’s $14,400 per year. Invested at 8% over 20 years? That’s roughly $660,000. So the real question isn’t “Do I want a guest bedroom?” It’s “Is that guest bedroom worth half a million dollars in future wealth?” Most people don’t calculate that — they just imagine Thanksgiving dinners.
Now — here’s where I differ from the frugal crowd. There are strategic reasons to buy bigger. If the home has income potential, now we’re talking. Basement suite rented for $1,200/month? That offsets your upgrade. Extra bedroom you Airbnb 8 nights a month at $150/night? That’s $1,200. House hack the space and suddenly the bigger home becomes a semi-asset. I’ve seen young couples buy a 4-bedroom, rent 2 rooms for $800 each, and live nearly mortgage-free while building equity. That’s playing offense, not defense.
Another angle: transaction costs. Buying and selling real estate can cost 8–10% when you include agent fees, transfer taxes, staging, and moving. On a $500,000 home, that’s $40,000–$50,000 gone. If you know you’ll outgrow a starter home in 3 years because kids are coming, it may be smarter to buy once and hold for 10–15 years. Real wealth in real estate is built through time in the market, not constant moving.
But here’s the trap: lifestyle inflation. Bigger house → higher utilities, furniture, repairs, lawn care, property taxes. A 3,000 sq ft home doesn’t just cost 30% more than a 2,000 sq ft home — it can cost 50–70% more annually when you factor everything in. And once your lifestyle expands, it rarely shrinks.
My rule? Buy the smallest home that fits your life — unless the bigger one produces income or significantly reduces future transaction costs. Keep your personal expenses lean and your investments fat. Freedom comes from flexibility, not square footage.
Own real estate that pays you back — not real estate that owns you.

Poor Dad · Answer

“Bigger houses come with bigger bills — and bills don’t care about your dreams.”
I understand the temptation to “buy for the future.” It feels responsible — planning for children, guests, maybe aging parents. But you must be careful. A home is a long-term commitment, often 20 to 30 years. If you stretch your budget now assuming future income increases, promotions, or bonuses, you are building your life on assumptions — and assumptions can be dangerous.
Financial planners typically recommend your housing costs stay below 28–30% of your gross monthly income. If buying bigger pushes you to 35% or 40%, that leaves less room for retirement savings, emergencies, and unexpected life events. What if one partner loses their job? What if interest rates rise on a variable mortgage? In 2008, many families bought “dream homes” assuming values would keep rising. When the market dropped 20–30%, they were trapped.
Consider maintenance alone. The rule of thumb is to budget 1–2% of the home’s value annually for upkeep. On a $700,000 home, that’s $7,000–$14,000 per year. Roof replacements can cost $15,000. HVAC systems $8,000–$12,000. Larger homes have more plumbing, more windows, more things that break. These are not hypothetical costs — they are inevitable.
There is also lifestyle pressure. When you buy a larger home in a more expensive neighborhood, you may feel obligated to match the lifestyle around you — private schools, renovations, new cars in the driveway. This phenomenon, sometimes called “keeping up with the Joneses,” quietly erodes savings. I have seen colleagues buy beyond their needs and then delay retirement contributions for 5–10 years just to manage cash flow.
However, there is a sensible middle ground. If you expect clear, near-term changes — such as a child within 1–2 years — and you can comfortably afford the larger home while still saving at least 15–20% of your income for retirement, then buying once and staying long-term can reduce transaction costs and stress. Stability matters. Moving frequently is disruptive and expensive.
My advice? Buy what you comfortably need today, with modest room for change — but never at the expense of your emergency fund, retirement contributions, or peace of mind. A slightly smaller house with strong savings beats a spacious home filled with financial anxiety.
Security is not found in square footage — it’s found in financial breathing room.

Should you buy a bigger home to grow into or exactly what you need now?

Rich Dad Says

Poor Dad Says

The Bottom Line

Whose advice would you follow?

Share this debate

What do you think? (0)

More debates