Perhaps if the young were prepared to accept the sacrifices and major inconveniences their parents went through in order to buy their first house they wouldn't be complaining so much.
My parents lived in a single room with 3 children for years whilst they saved for a house deposit.
I didn't buy my first dwelling, a tiny 2 bedroom unit, until I was 50.
Hardly the life of privilege we keep being accused of.

An interesting slant on the topic:

"Grattan estimates that older Australians (aged 65 or older) receive more than $30,000 a year in government transfers, up a staggering 50 per cent since 2004. Those aged 25 to 55 pay all of these costs."

No consideration, I notice, of the contributions made by those "older Australians" through the taxes they paid when they themselves were aged 25 to 55.

The problem is that governments - all governments - have forever treated taxpayers' money as a pot with which to bribe their way into office at the next election. We should not then be surprised to find that they have pissed it all up against the wall, and there's nothing left but to lean on the youngsters.

But of course, this is The Australian, where every problem automatically becomes Labour's fault. But these days there does seem to be a touch of desperation creeping into the Murdochian narrative, as their chosen hero continues to display ineptitude at every turn.

Hmmm, is the writer arguing that the Coalition's policies will actually help younger folk?

In fact, younger generations will be asked to carry almost exclusively (at present indicators in the Fed Budget) the cost of their ageing parents and grandparents pensions and healthcare on the back of a shrinking tax base and ballooning HECS debt. Chances of owning a house before they're 50? Forget it. If ever there was a case of rising intergenerational tension, the current government is fuelling it, rather than taking preventative action.

Why is Angus Taylor, and the Coalition trying to push this young vs old agenda? This divisiveness is politicking at its worst.

"the truth is morality - namely, addressing gross unfairness dealt to younger Australians - is entirely on the government’s side"

How does this match up with Government policy to make people under 30 wait six months for the dole if they weren't earning or learning? At the very time when youth unemployment is hitting 20% in some regions. And when TAFEs are being defunded across the country, and the Coalition have plans to make tertiary education vastly more expensive. This was a big surprise for a government that said it would be a "no surprises" government.

"Yet Labor refuses to accept the need to tighten our belts"
It was the Coalition that gave $8 BILLION to the RBA that it didn't need or ask for. It was the Coalition that scrapped the Carbon Tax and the Minerals Resource Tax on super-profits. It is the Coalition that has quietly backflipped on its promise to go after multi-national tax cheats.

We need to have a discussion about why those with so much (like the banking sector) get given more, while those with so little like the sick, pensioners, the unemployed, students, are the ones who are getting punished by this Government?

Angus Taylor, like many others before him, is trying to turn a class issue into a generational issue. Most of the older people he attacks, like most people in all the generations before them, have worked hard all of their lives for modest rewards and had very little say in anything. They may well have bought a small house when they were going for 3-3.5 times the median wage. For the vast majority, nearly all of that increased wealth Taylor talks about is in the land that their house sits on, and this increase is entirely due to government policies intended to restrict the supply of housing and boost demand. The house itself may have negative value because a new owner would have to pay to have it demolished.

That wealth cannot be easily realized if they intend to stay in the city because house prices have gone up all over the Metropolitan area. Moving to the country is usually not a viable strategy, because most country towns don't have enough jobs for the children of the people who live there. Retired people are reluctant to move away from their family and friends, who also constitute their support network, and the services that elderly people are likely to need. If you have a heart condition, moving to a town with no doctor or one doctor for 3,000 people is not an option. In any case, their children are going to inherit that house, unless the nursing home gets it first.

If the Coalition were serious, it would be looking at such things as superannuation tax concessions as a tax rort for rich people and negative gearing for existing housing, as well as the issues raised by BJelly. If people could see some equality of sacrifice, it might then get some traction.

No balance here at all, at the political level; it's all Labor's fault.
What neither side has the balls to canvas is the obvious need to raise taxes, beginning with the wealthy and working down. We don't need cuts, we need higher, indeed progressive, taxation.
Fat chance of that, so raise the GST and raise the top tier of private taxation. The conservatives could also cut the massive perks to the wealthy in the form of superannuation.
Also, get rid of negative gearing and house prises would likely drop dramatically.
On the medical front, cut back on expensive procedures on the elderly that more often than not don't improve quality of life or life expectancy.
We are a wealthy country and that money should not be left in the deep pockets of the disgustingly rich. Tax them down to size!