I'd have thought one of the major side effects of the house price rises was the shortage of affordable accommodation for those who missed out on the windfall capital gains of the housing market (either because they're our kids and were too young or were simply disabled, economically or otherwise). Consequently, that putting some of the governmental gains from this back into affordable housing would make sense whether it is from First Home Owners Grants, , the deletion of negative gearing and/or dedicating the use of sales tax returns, would be a reasonable governmental response.

I don't have any inherent problem with tax cuts except that, in our present consumer culture they're likely to result in spending and I think as a society /community and economy we could do better right now by saving or investing. To Peter's "many years of working and saving, traditional virtues emphasising hard work, saving, enterprise and deferred gratification" we should I think add investing and saving as "values on which capitalist liberal democracy ultimately depends". This might suggest investment in infrastucture, training or affordable accommodation, or savings perhaps through a universal superannuation arrangement supported by the government for the ? 5% who are not self supporting.

I am a renter I have owned property in the past but lost money. I want to get back into the ownership market but find it imposible because of the first home owners scheme.

My partner and I earn over $100k per year but can not get into the property market.

I have friends earning half of our income borrowing up to $300k on as little as 3% deposit.

I ask who is going to loose in the end not me I owe nothing.

For me to buy a house I would need minimum $30k cash if I had that I would try my luck overseas at 2% interes rate.

Like the article. Real tax cuts can only come if negative gearing is dropped and capital gains tax offsets are dumped, then the top rates of tax can come down to 30%. I don't think the housing boom has burst,it may have come off a little. People who have mortgaged themselves and gone into negative gearing know what they are doing and can only complain at the ballot box if things go awry.

Comments about rapidly declining housing affordability at the top of or just after a sustained boom is like complaining about how hot it is in the middle of, or shortly after, a 7 day stretch of 40 degree heat in the middle of summer.

It never lasts and eventually it gets cold again.

Which coincidentally is about the time that the pundits who complained about falling affordability, start warning prospective home owners about the risks and perils of negative equity, declining prices and foreclosures in an icey cold market of softening values.

Ironically, that is the time to buy. And its the time when savvy buyers who end up accumulating 'unearned' wealth make their move. Er, working hard is not the only path to wealth. One can also work smart.

A couple of sayings that come to mind...

'be afraid when others are brave and be brave when others are afraid.' Warren Buffet.

'a person with one foot in an ice cold bucket of water and another foot in a bucket of boiling water is, on average at a comfortable temperature, but not very hapy about it.' Austin Donnelly

Assuming, of course, you consider having your feet at a mean temperature of 50°C to be "comfortable". While I appreciate that the term comfortable is entirely subjective, Queensland Health tells us that water at 50°C will result in a major burn in just 5 minutes (http://www.health.qld.gov.au/phs/Documents/shpu/20210.pdf). This suggests to me that you haven't properly thought out your argument about housing affordability.

That last saying was offered as irony, albeit ineffectively.

Point being that the property market is relative and moves between extremes. Sometimes its hot, sometimes its cold.

The article seems to offer generalisations which to me read a bit like the absurd average one obtains by having their feet simultaneously in a bucket of hot and cold water.