The problem is that this doesn't work. You can use debt for investment and then pay it back from the profits. You can't use debt to increase your quality of life because that doesn't increase your income, so any extra you spend today you have to make up by spending less tomorrow.
That is true, but irrelevant for most people. In general, people's income increases as they get older. So yes, they are "robbing" themselves of future cash flow, but they are also likely to have more cash flow in the future. In addition, for something like a fixed-rate mortgage, they are locking themselves into a fixed cost for a very long period of time for housing. If they were renting, they would almost certainly pay more as time went on. At the end of a 30 year loan, a mortgage payment that once seemed onerous will look almost trivial as the cost inflates away and real income increases.
the Government is prevented from investing by austerity measures while households are expected to upkeep demand by going ever deeper into debt.
I agree, and think that the government should be held to the same standards that they apply to businesses (and especially banks) in their finances. I'm not sure personal debt is actually getting worse - I think in the US it is actually improving - but agree that it remains a problem. There is smart and dumb debt... Rent-A-Center is probably never smart debt, but a 30 year mortgage is often a great idea.
This quagmire isn't going to dissolve until its causes - wages too low to keep up demand without going into debt - are solved and the detritus cleared.
Well, they are currently attacking the debt problem by printing money. This will probably work in the short term, and maybe even the long term if the banks stay de-leveraged. But color me skeptical. But for now, indications seem to suggest that QE is less disruptive than your proposal.