the figure of $52,000 was not one ever in my working life. there had been periods of unemployment in my life, but until I was fortunate in finally obtaining a public service position at age 45, it was only then that I had some disposable income. four years later, I happened to marry to a lady from the Philippines, and still happily married 20 years on, but no longer resident in Australia.

We decided to move here primarily for my son's education, and along the way bought a modest 2 story house for under $52,000, and for the first time ever, moved from renting to owning. It's a huge difference, and something that would have been quite impossible in Australia.

It's a pity that most young people will seem to be permanently excluded from home ownership throughout the Commonwealth, that the deck is stacked against them. That sort of retrograde policy will have serious social consequences later on, if not already (for instance, according to The Age of 6 April, 2014, the leading cause of death for people between 15-44 is suicide).

I would disagree with your cost of housing. In South Australia in many areas you can get a comfortable house for $250,000. Even in the top end and the Kimberley, one of the most expensive housing areas in Australia, you can get a 2 bedroom unit for under $400,000 and wages are higher there.
Part of the problem is higher expectations in people these days. My married life began in an old caravan, then we upgraded to a condemned house, furnished with salvaged goods from the tip and repaired.
I was widowed young, finished raising 4 children alone, and didn't buy my first home, ( a tiny 2 bedroom unit) until I was 50.
And personally, I think we need to return to building some very basic, 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom, no frills houses which would allow couples more opportunity to get into the market.
But would they live in houses like that?

I didn't start earning a decent wage until my mid forties, I have lost well over a $100,000.-worth of gear to theft-no compensation, could not obtain a loan to buy property till I was in my late 50's yet when I talk to young couples I find that they expect more at 20 then what others accumulate over a lifetime. When harvey Norman changed the australian way of life with get it now pay in a couple years, things changed. Credit cards with huge limits were thrown at the unemployed etc. Now we're copping the result of that nonsense.
Penalty rates compound the dilemma & to top it all off we have no national Service.

Sorry Ross, I have to disagree with some of your theory, & agree with
Big Nana. My first house was a farm laborers 3 room cottage, moved to a block on the edge of the bush in Fairfield. It had a chip bath heater, & a 2 plate pot belly stove to cook on & even that in 1961 cost 2.5 times my salary.

My next house, an ex housing commission house in Riverwood, a far from favored location near Bankstown, cost just over 5 times my salary, & I was considered to be fairly well paid. Homes in any of the more desirable locations were way outside my means.

I do agree with you that far too much is loaded onto housing by the various levels of government, but while we expect government to pay for our every life requirement, I guess they have to get it from somewhere.

I can't fault the idea that developers should pay the full cost of the infrastructure their development requires. I really see no reason why I should pay for sub development I don't need, & definitely don't want in my district.

However you did miss a major change making a 5 times salary house price much worse than in the past. When buying that second home, my interest rate of 3.25% at a major bank, made it much cheaper, but more important was my take home pay.

In 1965, on about average wage, I was paying only 7.5% tax. This made an enormous difference in home affordability, & paying personally for the things government now does, was much cheaper than paying public servants to do it.

<Take a modest house of say $400,000>

Why would you do that if you were on a low income when there are so many properties listing for less?

Even so, I know a forty-something woman who has been a shop security guard for one of the major retail stores for years and she has managed to amass a property portfolio of inner city apartments. She tells me she started when she was in her early years and still at home with her parents.

However, where is it writ that society is obliged to ensure that every person is gifted home ownership? What is wrong with people renting? For many it is their default choice since they either refuse to work and indulge themselves in the immediate gratification such as booze and paid entertainment, that prevents them from saving for anything.

I agree with the main thrust of this article, that we should remove many of the hidden taxes and regulatory costs that damage affordability. But I also agree with the many posters who point to inflated expectations as part of the problem. I know no other country in the world where a brand new 3 or 4 bed detached house is regarded as the normal starter home for people on modest incomes. It most surely wasn't for us.