You could argue household debt is just another form of rent, where you “rent” capital from the wealthy in exchange for paying interest on a monthly basis. Just because you don’t pay a rent directly named as such doesn’t change the substance of it.
It's a very different form of rent though, namely because the mortgage borrower has a lot of collateralized debt and the mortgage borrower owns the appreciation (or depreciation) of the property (proportional to their equity).
A home dweller is paying "rent" to the government as property taxes, possibly indirectly through a mortgage.
I don't think it is proportional to their equity. The borrower owns all appreciation and depreciation.
Debt, within reason, is just a tool. It provides leverage and it lets you buy things for which you don't have cash-in-hand--houses in particular. It can also encourage overspending (something that car dealers capitalize on) but that's another story.
Exactly my point. Rent and mortgage debt is functionally very similar and total household debt wouldn't capture rent obligations.