The bricks and mortar mindset of lazy, investors should be taxed out of existence, with tax breaks all but reduced almost exclusively to nation building infrastructure!

The postwar Japanese economic miracle was founded by that wartorn and bankrupt nation working together as a single entity for the common good! A practice that built the second largest economy in the world for a time!

Until crippled by extreme capitalism and I'm all right individualism! That put a once prosperous nation into economic reverse and stagnation that profits nobody whatsoever!

And the very opposite to the former collective cooperative capitalism that raised almost everybody, left very few behind? And very different from today, where coffin sized apartments are the sometimes humble hovels of those left behind by selfish, I'm alright individualism!

If there is a lesson here or in the other remarkable tiger economies or the Celtic economic miracle! When the goal is national prosperity that leaves only the wouldn't work in an iron lung drones behind, everyone prospers!

Ireland imploded by allowing debt laden foreign speculators to all but take over her residential housing market! A result that served very few and guaranteed that the (hollowed out) Celtic economic miracle would fail!

Japan managed the same outcome by overvaluing and over-leveraging its real estate market! And again as seen elsewhere, all but destroyed a cooperative collective remarkable for the general well being of a nation that left very few behind!

We can do so much better every which way when the other man become the brother we look after via policy, which de-privatizes energy and capital as the first step to unprecedented and enduring prosperity for everyone and reverses housing as an investment, to one of a human right to affordable shelter!

Even so, leaves the entrepreneur with groaning smorgasbord of viable investment opportunities, ensures a large enough well heeled demographic to enable success!?

Doing what you've always done, and expecting a different result is insane! And hardly better than putting the inmates in charge of the asylum!? Today's Australia?
Alan B.

More Devils:

This argument overlooks the effects of family breakdown on the joint ownership of housing. Dividing up the house gives two halves of nothing in return, and guarantees a quick slip to the bottom on a snake.

The other is rent.
There is an urgent need for rent control, to ensure renters are not plundered for profit.
Profit is illegitimate if it plunders a family of resources. Especially if those families are powerless to control the rent gouged.

Protections across all states vary greatly in this regard. Queensland has a limited control for example, but laws on rent gouging in NSW are non existent, leaving rents entirely in the hands of greedy landlords.

Leases are structured in ways that afford no protection to families living in a rent-bind: Exampled locally where long term renters were evicted, either volunteering to go, or forced by law to go, as rents escalated quickly to capture an influx of road workers on high incomes, with the easy ability to trump the local population of subsistent renters.

This example is a merciless abuse by market forces, and should be controlled.

The deposit was always a problem.

Couples planning a future together cut their lifestyles and saved for a cheap block of land in the sticks. Then used a personal loan as well to buy a starter home. It took years of slog and self-denial. One bathroom, no covered carport or garage, boxes to eke out the secondhand furniture and recycled sheets for curtains. All entertaining at home with others in the same boat. Bring a plate. Cheap Chateau Collapsible, snags and salad, "We grew those lettuce, tomato and shallots".

Over half of my friends were well used to 'saving for Ron' (later on) from day one of the job. That happened irrespective of any thought of a family one day. However, there were always the self-indulgent, who even later with the behind out of the pants in middle age, scoffed at the savers, who 'didn't know how to enjoy themselves' (Yeah, right!).

There is nothing complicated, just compare the lifestyles and priorities. Young people really need to challenge the lifestyles of they are being sold on The Box and elsewhere. It has always been known for instance, how much can be saved with cut lunches.

Discretionary expenditure
Most middle aged or older here would have children who before their mid twenties spent more on toys for themselves than both of their grandparents might have received (in relative value) in a lifetime.

Values and expectations have changed. But movements like feminism have got what they wanted too, casting the baby out with the bathwater, focussing of endless self-entitlement and do not want to be accountable for any downsides later.

Frankly, if I was a young fellow starting out again I am not so sure either that I would forego the international travel to save. I'd do it forever, earning some online and dropping back into a job from time to time to build up again.

If you really want to reduce house prices, stop the state government stamp duty, levies and fees and council levies and fees.
and on a new home remove GST cost.

Then any new home built would be at least $70-100k cheaper.

The problem is governments are like salivating dogs seeing a bone, they forecast X in revenue from rates taxes and fees on houses and they have no incentive to make housing affordability easier. Cheaper houses means less taxes.

As for rental costs it is supply and demand, the more you charge for rent , the less people interested in renting it. I can't say for the big cities, but in Adelaide average rent is $350 per week, meaning a gross yield of 4% (and a net yield of 2.5% after expenses) So, you would be better off investing in the bank at 3.5% than property. But no you want capital growth on your land, so again no incentive to have cheaper housing.

So, new home buyers grant, is just a band aid on the problem

Hi Alan B.

I'd begin to read your posts if you learned how to be brief...

Cheers

Pete