The problem is that the banks control the money. in the UK a mere 2% is state issued cash, 98% is created in the electronic systems of banks. When you borrow the money the bank "puts" the money into your account, but they don't take it from anywhere. With chains of loans propping each other up the whole thing came down pretty quickly. Unfortunately instead of treating the banks like any other business we all paid the price to keep them afloat. This was a big mistake as while on the surface lots of rules changed but basically all it meant was that people were treated as the problem and not the banks who behind closed doors carried on just as before whilst paying themselves lots of money for running their business into the ground. Any other industry would have just failed, as Iceland allegedly allowed it to happen and apparently they are doing very well.
The whole things was pitched as "if the banks crash everyone losses their money and the world as we know it ends". So if everyone was going to loose their money then the answer as Iceland demonstrated was simple: Let the banks fail, give the money back to individuals and start again. I'd have banned all of the executives from ever holding a position in a company again (any company) and start afresh. But no, we still have a broken system that we the public are paying for, in the UK this takes the form of "austerity" which basically means we are all now paying taxes but getting very little in return and while it was promised that the cutbacks would not affect front line services we all knew this was a lie (ask any of the few remaining police officers, they are all that pissed off they will be pretty blunt about it). Our health service is in crisis, crime is on the rise, disabled people are being left vulnerable, people poor scorn on Zimbabway, I think that reality is closer than we think here too. And what is all this for? so that we can pay off the debt that meant the banks could keep OUR money, so basically we have lost our money anyway. How does this happen? well what do you expect when a government is run by a bunch of old boys who all went to the same school and didn't get very good grades at that.
Erm, no.
Whilst public sector finances and private sector wealth are clearly linked (govt. needs a healthy economy to tax), the financial crisis of 2007 isn't the root cause of the UK's austerity program.
I think many people in the UK fail to understand the difference between deficit and debt. Our politicians talk only about the former, and even the BBC's political editor (Kuenssburg) doesn't know the difference. With out a widespread grasp of these two fundamentals, it's easy to see why there is a backlash against austerity.
When our politicians talk about reducing the deficit to zero, the populous think they mean zero debt. They don't really care because they don't grasp the scale of the issue.
Deficit: The amount by which the governments income falls short of its expenditure each month or year.
Debt: The total sum of the money the government owes.
UK deficit last year was £56bn, 2.6% of GDP. It's a lot, but it was running at 10% GDP when the coalition took the reigns and austerity began.
UK debt however is running at 90% GDP. A debt of 100% GDP would mean that we're officially bankrupt. Government debt is £1.7 trillion (million million). Latest figures I can find for the interest on out debt are for 2015 (debt: £1.56trillion, 82% GDP), we paid £43 billion in interest that year. Roughly the same as our current budget deficit.
In short, we're almost broke. We can't afford our current lifestyle. We have to borrow money to pay the interest on our loan.
That is why our current government are hellbent on austerity.
You also said that increased wages would make houses more affordable. I'm afraid I think that's a little naive too. Increased spending power would merely lead to increased house prices as people spend the same proportion of their wages in an inflationary bunfight for their little corner of England. There are only two things that will reduce house prices. Thing one is a massive program of house building (see, the need for austerity above). Thing two is a massive reduction in the population (who knows, Brexit could result in an exodus!)
The assertion that the banks do not have to have money in order to loan money (quantitive easing excepted) is strawman woo of the most extraordinary kind. Sorry but that's the sort of thing I expect to hear from someone wearing a homemade faraday cage, constructed from aluminium kitchen foil. Perhaps this wasn't what you meant.