as they can't get their own. As I said, it's important that not everybody who might be able to afford monthly rates gets a mortgage, for otherwise you'd get to

as they can't get their own. As I said, it's important that not everybody who might be able to afford monthly rates gets a mortgage, for otherwise you'd get too many defaults, leading to financial instability. And very few tenants rent for the whole duration (typically 25-30 years) of a mortgage. Finally nobody needs to own their dwelling -- renting is fine. I rented most of my life, and so did German chancellor Merkel. someone else's mortgage As I've pointed in previous posts, that's fine, for they provide a valuable service, that can be summarised as a "risk transfer". That needs compensation. Finally you seem to think that there is a difference between a first and second mortgage: the first being given by magic first-mortgage-fairies out of the goodness of the lender's heart and the second out of sheer greed to oppress people like you. Well, I recommend a quick calculation how much you overpay on the property if you get a first mortgage, vis-a-vis a cash purchase. forced into renting the ability For some bizarre reason you (like many others I have discussed this subject with) are unwilling to admit that the price of dwellings whether paid by rent or mortgage repayment, is primarily (indeed almost exclusively) determined by supply/demand; the solution to high prices is to build more. It's almost like there is some deep-seated investment in the status-quo that is needed to stabilise your world-view. I recommend to let go of your deep seated resentment and instead learn about the social function of credit.