Col, why do you go on endlessly arguing that black is white? What purpose does it serve to argue against the glaringly obvious?

I bought my house just prior (thank God) to the start of the housing boom. As of late last year, it was valued at almost 300% more than what I paid. Simply put, we would struggle to afford the exact same house today.

The decade just gone has clearly demonstrated that house prices are not at all constrained by people's ability to service the debt without mortgage overload, they are constrained only by the willingness of the lender to lend. We have just come through an age of easy credit in which people found they had the means to "have it all now" and without this, people would not have ended up with the debt levels they carry today. Make no mistake, as our percieved means expand, our desires expand as well and I have no doubt that this can carry on ad infinitum.

The ordinary house (by today's standards) next to my parents has an asking price of more than half-a-million. Even in this resource town full of well paid resource sector jobs, what average John and Jane can really afford to service such a debt without a lot of pain at least?

Fozz I corrected your misrepresentation on the matter of changes to CGT.

It was you who painted the white black in the first place.

To the rest of my post

“So if anyone can show me how housing is less ‘affordable’ these days, compared to say, 3 decades ago I open to being persuaded.”

I have made a request, not painted anything.

When I compare between now and three decades ago, I earn now, annually, about what 6 times what I earned then and my present house is worth about 6 times what would have been then

I see no change!

What I have observed is that income increases do not align, year by year, with the house values,
This is understandable, house prices are more subject to supply and demand and fashion issues than incomes.

If I go back another 30 years again, my father paid a lot less for a house than I did but he also earned a hell of a lot less.

In the coming 5 years I fully expect average incomes to fall. I expect house values will, likewise fall.

“they are constrained only by the willingness of the lender to lend.:”

Not me, I have a house loan which was 80% the house value 2 years ago but only 30% of it is drawn. The mortgage on which I pay interest is, therefore, about 20% the house value and I have a huge amount of financial reserve available to deploy on income generating opportunities.

A lenders willingness to offer me money does not motivate my willingness to spend it.

I suspect if you are experiencing financial difficulties with meeting your loan obligations, l it has more to do with your lack of financial responsibility than the largesse of any lender.

“John and Jane can really afford to service such a debt without a lot of pain at least?”

The first year of mortgage borrowing is always the hardest, everyone knows that.

But it is only the woosies who find it insurmountable.

Wanna try again?

“So if anyone can show me how housing is less ‘affordable’ these days, compared to say, 3 decades ago I open to being persuaded.”

I've noted over a 400% increase in one area in less than 10 years. Does this count, Col?

Nice try Col, but it's you who are misrepresenting. Howard slashed (if halving is not called slashing, what portion would you prefer is? 99%?) CGT to encourage an investment property boom. People subsequently bought up cheaper houses, rennovated them and flogged them for a profit, adding sometimes many tens of thousands of dollars to the resale value, rendering largely irrelivent the factor you mentioned. When a relatively small handfull of people and properties are involved in this, it is not a problem. But too many people were encouraged to dabble in investment capitalism, gobbling up cheap houses and turning them into expensive ones, pushing up the price all round. Nice one Howard.

"When I compare between now and three decades ago, I earn annualy, about 6 times what I earned then and my present house is worth about 6 times as much now". Gee whiz Col - no wonder YOU see no change. Could you spare a thought here for the average Aussie whose income has risen by half that rate in the past five-and-a-half decades?

I do like the cheap shot you fired as well but I'm afraid I'll have to dissapoint you. My finances are sound and a little over a years repayments in advance. As I said, I got in before the boom started and have always been perfectly happy with my little weatherboard shoebox.

I will ahve to continue this later but feel free to try again.

Col when I started working the median house price in melbourne was 3 times the graduate starting wage. Lets say a graduate starting wage is $52000 and the median house price is $320,000, that is 6 times the annual wage. Yes I know some graduates start earning more than this but many earn less and the majority of Victorians in their 20s have post secondary school qualifications [I know your daughters don't] New houses are generally larger than older houses.

Wendell Cox says that if there were no land restrictions then house prices would be lower. In Melbourne the middle and outer suburban dwellers are penalised by having no public transport, long commutes to the railhead to catch overcrowded trains, if they can find space in the car park. Their childrens' schools are new, large and tough and most services remain in the inner suburbs. Meanwhile their new housing development has taken productive non-irrigated farmland out of production.

"Wendell Cox says that if there were no land restrictions then house prices would be lower"

Yes, this is the main point of Cox's article. Listening to the declining housing affordability denialists is a bit like listening to David Irving. I'd also point out that affordability used to be measured against a single income. Now it is measured against household income. And as many would know, it is very hard to find information on house prices ten years ago, let alone thirty, so there is a fair reliance on memory.

As for the "blame the victim" blather about McMansions, it is a fact that building costs have halved and income has risen. But land costs have risen far more, and the restrictions are great. Instead of anger at profligate McMansion owners, I question why I dont see fitted out shipping containers with electricity, water and sewage services connected. Where have all the tightwad's gone these days? Of course, severe regulation prevents such choices.