[thisisnotauser]

Housing is a huge cut of your salary. If housing were affordable, that money could be saved for retirement. Instead, it's paid toward a mortgage by necessity. So there is little room for savings other than hoping the house sells when you retire.

[globular-toast]

It doesn't have to be. You could live in a small place in a shit area miles from anything. But most people choose to allocate a large amount of their income to housing. This is what sets the pricing for housing in the good areas.

In other words, housing will always be a huge chunk of your income because it's hugely important. The only way it could be less is if it stopped mattering where you live. Then housing would be essentially a commodity and priced accordingly.

It's important to realise that money is an abstraction that we use to do trade, but it's not trade itself. Pricing is a reflection of market forces. You can't just magically change the price of housing and suddenly have more of everything else with no compromises. You have to change the market.

People always say "more housing*, but that's incredibly naive. More housing in the UK means tiny plots of land crammed in next to a dual carriageway in the middle of nowhere. People don't want to live there, but there's no choice. As long as there's inequality there will be high house prices. Turning housing into a commodity such that you can allocate only a small part of your income to it would take a lot more fundamental changes towards equality like vastly improved public transport, decentralisation of business, turning the most beautiful areas into national parks instead of estates owned by the rich etc.