But it's more than that. The truth is, buying a home is the only form of investing on margin for most. Also, it's compulsory investment and savings -- both with

But it's more than that. The truth is, buying a home is the only form of investing on margin for most. Also, it's compulsory investment and savings -- both with the principal payment and in the form of property improvements. I'd need to see a lot more justification before accepting that leveraged investments are a net positive either for individuals or for society. In general, leverage increases variability while reducing expected value in the form of interest payments. In other words it is analytically opposite of insurance. I do agree that program or automatic savings are a positive "nudge" both for individuals and for society, but there's nothing but status quo bias that says that this asset class has to be the heavily favored vehicle for that. While it's true that we incentivize home ownership, possibly too much, I think it's unfair that you paint it as an otherwise neutral activity that we strangely endorse with public policy. Land has real value, you can live on (and off) it. It was long seen as the one enduring source of wealth (See John Adams, George Washington, etc). It's much deeper than our postwar tax policies. Prior to the industrial revolution land was the primary means of production. Today that's no longer true, and the vast vast majority of real property (by value not acre) is not used as an input factor for goods. The best translation of those classic references to the importance of land ownership today are modern means of production (e.g. ownership shares in productive businesses), not a quarter-acre of lawn in the suburbs. Governments ought to be encouraging investment in positive sum productive enterprises, not zero sum positional goods. And at least as a default bias for non-wealthy citizens it ought to encourage holding diversified portfolios of assets with transparent liquid markets and low transaction costs.