It's already that way in the US, the percentage of paid off home owners is ~29%.
I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA.
I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA.
That 29% is a huge chunk of people; to put things in perspective US presidents win elections with a lower percentage of support from the population.
> I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA.
Because they actually have equity in that asset, and that equity might be the majority? For example, they bought the house for $500k, then ten years later they owe $350k but the realisable value of the house is $800k. If the house is turned into cash, they own more of the cash than the bank does.
Also, because there is a clear path to ownership[1]? You aren't at the whim of the landlord - upgrade (or not) your property whichever way you feel is best with very little interference from the actual "owner" (i.e. the bank). If you have complete say in how an asset is used, and when it will be disposed off, and who may use it, that sure looks like ownership to me.
My residence, for example, will, at the current trajectory, be completely paid off in 24 months or less. My monthly costs drop dramatically at that point, which can be the major goal when "buying" property.
Again what matters is net worth, not whether you house is paid off.