Unless there is higher rezoning, the value of property tracks inflation, dragging well behind for seven and more years and then catching up, hopefully. Only the foolish buyers and they are always buying to live in, lead prices beyond inflation (emotional home buyers, not rational investors who have to crunch numbers).

A purchase during any surge beyond inflation is heavily penalised because the buyer pays high interest rates on a property with a sale value well below what s/he paid for it. If things go pear-shaped in the home owner's life the bank is not going to forgive the debt. Home foreclosures are common.

At this stage those with experience in paying a mortgage could comment on the other large overheads of keeping and maintaining their homes. Landscaping and garden alone are often hidden sink holes for money.

I don't believe that much privately owned 'investment' housing is a worthwhile investment at all and it is high risk.

My opinion is that you buy where there is going to be good capital gain, and you rent where you want to live.

There are two reasons for this, One, your mortgage shortfall dollars are tax deductable, and Two, premium properties generally rent for less than a 5% return on investment.

Of cause this only works well if you don't spend the savings.

on the beach

'There will be interesting times ahead for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves and prepare for the future.'

'Interesting'? Try 'starving' or how about 'destitute' and 'homeless'?

You know, I’m really losing patience with this kind of hate speech.

In a world ravaged by the global financial crisis – caused mainly by people with screw-the-poor attitudes like yours – it’s as dangerous as it is callous. Inciting people to hate the poor and destitute, because they are supposed to have done, or not done, something to deserve it, creates a political climate that, if driven by sufficiently high hate levels, can potentially strip a portion of the population to having no means of livelihood, no food on the table and no roof over their heads.

It also reeks of a eugenics-level superiority complex.

Now that we are living under a conservative government, this kind of rhetoric starts crawling out of the sewers and into our everyday discourse. Whatever the faults of living under a Labor government, at least they don’t hand out megaphones to spruik this kind of hate.

As for your ever so 'responsible' casual friend with the housing portfolio, ask her next time you see her how much she makes out of taxpayer-funded negative gearing every year.

Now you are being silly Killarney. It is not 'hate speech' to note that cultural diversity is having a growing political impact, especially where we have inherited our concept and tradition of social welfare from the UK.

You need to accept that diversity doesn't just affect the variety of takeaway food on offer in cities like Sydney and Melbourne. It is a democracy and the political parties are going to have to change.

It is a fact that many migrants oppose forking out their hard earned to unrelated persons who simply don't make an effort and so often come from families with traditions of dependency on government and who consume inordinate amounts of other services as well, including police.

I am not someone who would recommend 'investment' in residential housing, negative gearing or no negative gearing. The government regulatory risk - as indicated by continual government regulation and interference in the market - is far too high. Matter of fact I reckon that investor confidence in the rental industry could quite easily collapse tomorrow. I am not talking about any illusory 'bubble', it is simply a fact that the returns are not there for tenanted property. A collapse would not be kind to tenants, nor to home buyers hoping to do well out of bad news.

It was worth noting as I did earlier however, that many who whine about not being able to buy their own home are likely lacking self discipline. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

My reference to hate speech had nothing to do with immigration or with government regulation of the housing market.

It was about people like yourself referring to those who cannot afford to buy a house as whiners and whingers who take no responsibility for themselves or their futures. And as others here note, these whingers and whiners are too busy supposedly squandering their money on lattes (and in other threads, the pokies).

This kind of hate speech achieves nothing more than a feeling of self-righteousness in those who promote it and a feeling of self-justification for those whose policies perpetuate the conditions that are turning Australia into a grossly unequal society.

People who can't afford to buy homes in an overpriced market are in that situation because (a) they are not earning enough money to start with or are trapped in long-term casual employment that does not permit saving, (b) because they live in one of the most expensive societies in the world and even those who do earn a decent living have little left over to save and (c) the housing market has simply become unaffordable for anyone but the well off.

I do not know a single person under 35 who did not get into a first home without a major cash injection from their baby boomer parents. Those whose parents can't fork out the necessary funds are now trapped in rental land - quite possibly forever.

Killarney,

Have you ever wondered if you might learn something from the elderly people you refer to as 'Baby Boomers'? How did they ever afford their first property and what was it like? Maybe you should ask. I am sure you will be very much surprised.

They didn't expect a hand-out on a silver platter and nor should anyone else. Doubtless others have previously mentioned the real estate sites and lenders' sites where most of the leg work has already been done for you.

I have given examples of workers in low paid casual jobs who have saved a deposit and bought in to what they could afford. It is their start.