'Plus and this is the big one Souly, and the very nature of what we are talking about
People who would access their Super for a house deposit don’t have the money to invest, that’s why they would want to access their super, so sure invest savings if you have it
But they don’t.
So they are losing. that renting/investing proposal only works if they are investing. They don’t have the money, hence why they want to access their super.
Now let’s use your calculations
So Shane and Jane get access to their Super and get approved for a loan for 320k and buy their first home in Cranny, 30 years, fixed variable, insured.
Over 30 years they will pay $217561 in interest on top of the 290 they borrowed. So all in they are out 510k on their home. Retire at 67, starting at a zero balance today (coz he cleared it to get the deposit) he retires with around 250k super, and a home, lets be conservative. Worth 400k
So his net worth is 650. (Not counting for 7 years he is free of his mortgage and could have saved 50k in that time
Callum on the other hand rents for the next 30 years of his life and starts his Super at the same time instead of zero with a base of 30k, he doesn’t invest because he never had any savings but plugs away renting.
He retires with around 340k
His net worth is 340k
And he spent , 617k in that same time on rent.
Post 67 Callum is still renting, paying his 396 and lives another 20 years.
Those last three years he does not have a cracker to his name if he only spent his Super on rent.
Shane has a roof over his head till the day he dies and his kids end up with 150k in each in inheritance.
So assuming his house doesn’t devalue to the point it’s only worth 80k when he dies, he made the right decision for his family in 2017.