A sprawling luxury home is often seen as the ultimate symbol of success. Marble floors, premium address, grand interiors, and the pride of ownership make it feel like a wealth milestone. But what if that dream purchase is quietly draining your finances every single year? A chartered accountant has sparked debate online by arguing that many expensive homes are not wealth-building assets at all, but high-cost lifestyle choices that consume cash, block capital, and create the illusion of financial progress while delivering little real return.
CA Nitin Kaushik recently took to X to challenge one of the most common beliefs in personal finance: that owning a high-value home automatically counts as a smart investment.
Using the example of a luxury property worth Rs 15 crore, Kaushik argued that ownership comes with high recurring costs that many buyers underestimate. According to him, annual maintenance bills of around ₹30 lakh, along with property taxes and related expenses, can push yearly outgo to roughly ₹35 lakh to ₹40 lakh. That means the owner may be spending over ₹1 lakh a day simply to maintain the property, before considering groceries, travel, schooling, healthcare, or any other household spending.
Kaushik described this as the carrying cost of the house. In his view, this money does not generate income or create cash flow. It is spent purely to retain the lifestyle attached to that property. But his bigger point was not the visible cost. It was the invisible one.
He said the real financial burden lies in the opportunity cost of locking ₹15 crore into a non-income-generating asset. If the same capital were invested in a relatively simple portfolio earning 9 per cent annually, it could potentially generate ₹1.35 crore every year. From that lens, the owner is not only paying ₹40 lakh in annual upkeep, but also giving up ₹1.35 crore in possible earnings. Combined, Kaushik estimated the effective lifestyle tax of such a home at around ₹1.75 crore per year.
He also pointed to an alternative many wealthy individuals consider: renting. In several major cities, he noted, a comparable luxury property may be rented for far less than the annual cost of ownership, allowing the buyer to preserve capital and keep investments compounding elsewhere. According to Kaushik, true wealth is built through assets that produce cash flow. A home, especially an ultra-expensive self-occupied one, usually does the opposite. It demands money regularly instead of paying the owner.
He further explained that residential real estate is often less liquid than people assume. Selling a premium property can take months, sometimes longer, depending on market conditions. Transfers involve taxes, legal costs, brokerage, and documentation. Unlike dividend-paying stocks, rental-yielding investments, or interest-bearing instruments, the house does not send monthly income unless it is monetised.
Instead, it typically asks for more money in the form of repairs, renovations, society dues, insurance, staff costs, and upkeep. Kaushik also pushed back against the belief that property prices always rise sharply over time. After factoring in years of maintenance, taxes, inflation, and transaction costs, the actual gain may be much lower than headline appreciation suggests.
He noted that many homes appreciate at rates closer to 6 per cent or 7 per cent annually, which may only marginally stay ahead of inflation in some periods. That can make the real return far less impressive than owners imagine. At the same time, Kaushik did not dismiss home ownership entirely. He acknowledged the emotional and practical value of owning a house. Stability, control over your living space, family security, and peace of mind all matter deeply and cannot always be measured on a spreadsheet.
His distinction was between emotional value and financial value. In that sense, he framed a luxury home less as a pure investment and more as a lifestyle purchase, similar to an expensive car or a premium watch that may retain some value but is primarily bought for enjoyment, comfort, and status.
His final message was blunt: financial freedom usually comes from assets that pay you to own them. If your largest so-called asset requires constant cheques just to keep it running, then the ownership equation may deserve a second look.
CA Nitin Kaushik recently took to X to challenge one of the most common beliefs in personal finance: that owning a high-value home automatically counts as a smart investment.
Using the example of a luxury property worth Rs 15 crore, Kaushik argued that ownership comes with high recurring costs that many buyers underestimate. According to him, annual maintenance bills of around ₹30 lakh, along with property taxes and related expenses, can push yearly outgo to roughly ₹35 lakh to ₹40 lakh. That means the owner may be spending over ₹1 lakh a day simply to maintain the property, before considering groceries, travel, schooling, healthcare, or any other household spending.
Kaushik described this as the carrying cost of the house. In his view, this money does not generate income or create cash flow. It is spent purely to retain the lifestyle attached to that property. But his bigger point was not the visible cost. It was the invisible one.
He said the real financial burden lies in the opportunity cost of locking ₹15 crore into a non-income-generating asset. If the same capital were invested in a relatively simple portfolio earning 9 per cent annually, it could potentially generate ₹1.35 crore every year. From that lens, the owner is not only paying ₹40 lakh in annual upkeep, but also giving up ₹1.35 crore in possible earnings. Combined, Kaushik estimated the effective lifestyle tax of such a home at around ₹1.75 crore per year.
He also pointed to an alternative many wealthy individuals consider: renting. In several major cities, he noted, a comparable luxury property may be rented for far less than the annual cost of ownership, allowing the buyer to preserve capital and keep investments compounding elsewhere. According to Kaushik, true wealth is built through assets that produce cash flow. A home, especially an ultra-expensive self-occupied one, usually does the opposite. It demands money regularly instead of paying the owner.
He further explained that residential real estate is often less liquid than people assume. Selling a premium property can take months, sometimes longer, depending on market conditions. Transfers involve taxes, legal costs, brokerage, and documentation. Unlike dividend-paying stocks, rental-yielding investments, or interest-bearing instruments, the house does not send monthly income unless it is monetised.
Instead, it typically asks for more money in the form of repairs, renovations, society dues, insurance, staff costs, and upkeep. Kaushik also pushed back against the belief that property prices always rise sharply over time. After factoring in years of maintenance, taxes, inflation, and transaction costs, the actual gain may be much lower than headline appreciation suggests.
He noted that many homes appreciate at rates closer to 6 per cent or 7 per cent annually, which may only marginally stay ahead of inflation in some periods. That can make the real return far less impressive than owners imagine. At the same time, Kaushik did not dismiss home ownership entirely. He acknowledged the emotional and practical value of owning a house. Stability, control over your living space, family security, and peace of mind all matter deeply and cannot always be measured on a spreadsheet.
His distinction was between emotional value and financial value. In that sense, he framed a luxury home less as a pure investment and more as a lifestyle purchase, similar to an expensive car or a premium watch that may retain some value but is primarily bought for enjoyment, comfort, and status.
His final message was blunt: financial freedom usually comes from assets that pay you to own them. If your largest so-called asset requires constant cheques just to keep it running, then the ownership equation may deserve a second look.
