Sure you do. You pay real estate taxes on someone elses' property. When your lease is up, your landlord still owns the real estate and you have nothing to show for your your money.
If renting frees up cash flow that you use to max out your 401K I wouldn't be surprised if renting would help you build equity.
Interesting theory, but it seems pretty speculative. Most people rent because they can't afford to buy, not to maximize their 401Ks.
Every calculation I've ever seen on this matter is biased falsely toward ownership. I've owned and rented and nobody is honest about all the hidden costs of ownership. Repairs and maintenance are more than people admit. Taxes are a much bigger impact than people admit. Also, most buyers buy more house than they would be renting if they rented. Hence there is a thriftiness to renting. When people buy houses they furnish them with things they don't really need. They throw parties that cost a lot of money. They buy lawnmowers and snowblowers and leaf blowers and get new gutters put on that only need to be replaced. Water heaters, furnaces, duct work etc.
Of course it is better to be a landlord than a tenant. But that has nothing to do with whether it is better to be a renter or a buyer. I drink milk and I'm left with nothing while the farmer still has the asset, the cow. Does that make me a sucker?
Americans are just too stupid to think this through. If I'm paying $1200 a month in interest on my mortgage plus $300 in taxes and $200 in utils on my house and my neighbor is paying $1000 a month in rent including utils, I'll think he is throwing his money out the window.
I rent. I have nice people as neighbors. I also shoveled a lot of $ into various liquid assets for years. Those are paying for half the rent. I could lay $250K cash on a condo that's on the top of that hill in Santa Clarita. It's nice there too. All I would need to pay for is utilities. They also have a bunch of women running around loose in that city.