Firstly, rented homes are not only from homeowners. Second and more importantly, for people that already have a home through say inheritance, or ability to pay outright cash, it makes sense for them to use it as a source of income. Not saying those are the only people for whom home-ownership makes sense, but the cases above are the easiest non-subjective examples to cite in favor of home-ownership.
And neither homeowners nor renters need be indebted to each other.
Personally, I don't understand the anti-mortgage sentiment at all. I can buy a home at 5%, and then use the money I'm saving to build something else in order to make a higher return. Point being is that it's not always black and white (banks bad, cash good).
Also, though homeowners aren't the only source of rental properties, outside of city life, they are the most prominent. Either way though, the same argument applies. Without someone buying a property and renting it, there would be no place to rent.
The house I'm renting to someone in NC is being paid off because of my renters. It's not income now, but when it's paid off, that's $1k/month free to me.
This might be going off the main topic here, but I'll address it: For someone who has the ability to pay outright, I agree that paying a monthly amount might give some flexibility. If someone is making a monthly payment because thats all they can do, its basically debt and holds you down. I agree though, that its not always black and white.
Back to the main topic: Should renters be indebted to home owners? Its all a case of supply/demand. I dont see renters having a shortage. Which means that more people are willing to rent out their home, than renters wanting to find a place to rent. In this market, homeowners need renters more than renters need homeowners. If say in a hypothetical situation all homeowners stopped putting out their houses for rent, more people will gravitate towards other sources of rentals like rental properties owned by companies. These rental property companies do not have an emotionally-vested interest in their home. They see it just as a service.
I agree when you pay off the money for your house, the renters give you free money. But this is close to the end-game and by this time you would have to factor in also opportunity costs. I am not saying the opportunity cost is huge, but usually a mortgage holds you down for 30 years (in most cases), and its too long a time to just consider what happens at the end of it.
Firstly, rented homes are not only from homeowners. Second and more importantly, for people that already have a home through say inheritance, or ability to pay outright cash, it makes sense for them to use it as a source of income. Not saying those are the only people for whom home-ownership makes sense, but the cases above are the easiest non-subjective examples to cite in favor of home-ownership.
And neither homeowners nor renters need be indebted to each other.