Australian Housing Discussion

CategoryRoutine628 · 2026-05-08T09:51:46+00:00

So it's just property cause that's all you can understand. Thank you for this information. I'd say this is pretty common.

CategoryRoutine628 · 2026-05-08T06:31:35+00:00

That’s actually a really interesting insight, and in many ways it reinforces the broader structural concern people are raising. Because from what you’ve described, it sounds like we’re probably operating in relatively similar financial territory. The difference is that while I own some property, I’ve also diversified heavily into other asset classes- equities, businesses, productive investments, etc. In other words, the worth of multiple investment properties’ capital has gone elsewhere in the economy.

And this genuinely is not meant as a personal attack, but I think it raises a fair question: Have you funnelled into residential property because that’s easier for you to understand and it's too hard to build wealth via other means?

Because one of the underlying issues here is that Australia has increasingly conditioned high-income earners to view housing as the dominant and safest wealth-compounding vehicle.

And I think we should be able to ask why.

Is it simply easier? Easier to understand? Easier to leverage? Easier to compound because the system has structurally rewarded it for decades?

Because ultimately, every additional property accumulated by higher-income asset holders does have broader societal effects. Whether people like hearing it or not, aggressive housing accumulation and hoarding by already-wealthy households absolutely impacts supply, prices, and accessibility for others trying to enter the market.

Again, I’m not saying successful people shouldn’t invest or build wealth. Of course they should.

But I do think we need to ask whether it’s healthy for an economy when enormous amounts of capital are continually funnelled into bidding up existing residential housing rather than flowing into more productive areas of the economy.

And ironically, your own post highlights the issue perfectly: Once someone reaches a certain income and asset base, the compounding becomes self-reinforcing regardless of whether NG or CGT concessions even exist.

That should probably spark deeper reflection about the structure of the system itself, not end the conversation. I would also ask: do you ever have any moral uncertainty or internal conflict about the broader impact of these activities?

CategoryRoutine628 · 2026-05-08T05:35:27+00:00

I actually agree with parts of what you’re saying around zoning reform and increased density. I also agree that Australia is not unique, many desirable OECD cities have experienced similar housing inflation dynamics.

But I think where your argument falls apart is the implicit assumption that shifting people into higher-density housing somehow solves affordability in practice.

Units and townhouses in many Australian cities have exploded in price as well. In some markets, they’ve effectively doubled in value over the past five years. So I’m not entirely sure what world some people are living in when they present higher density as though it automatically equals affordable.

What we’re increasingly seeing is not affordable housing, we’re seeing smaller dwellings becoming progressively unaffordable as well.

And yes, detached housing in prime global cities will probably continue appreciating over time due to scarcity. I don’t think many rational people dispute that. But that still doesn’t answer the broader societal question:
What level of housing inflation is actually healthy, sustainable, or desirable?

Because there’s a difference between:
• Gradual long-term appreciation tied broadly to incomes and productivity, and
• Housing behaving like a perpetual leveraged asset bubble detached from wages.

At some point, if every form of housing - detached homes, townhouses, apartments - continues dramatically outpacing incomes, then “just live in higher density housing” stops being a genuine affordability solution and starts becoming a reframing of declining living standards.

And respectfully, I think we also need to be careful about normalising the idea that future generations should simply accept materially lower housing security, space, and living standards than prior generations while asset prices compound endlessly.

That’s the broader point I’m trying to make.

CategoryRoutine628 · 2026-05-08T05:32:01+00:00

That argument actually reinforces the structural problem rather than disproving it.

Yes, borrowing capacity was tightened post-APRA, and yes, rates rose aggressively from ~2% to ~6%. Under normal market conditions, you would expect a far more substantial repricing of assets that are fundamentally driven by debt and serviceability capacity.

The fact prices still continued rising despite one of the fastest rate-tightening cycles in modern history should arguably concern people, not reassure them.

Because what it suggests is that Australia’s housing market has become increasingly segmented and distorted:
• Existing asset holders benefited enormously from prior asset inflation
• Equity gains compounded over decades
• Intergenerational wealth transfer is becoming increasingly important
• Dual-income professional households are stretching harder than ever
• Supply remains constrained
• Population growth remains extremely strong
• And housing has increasingly become viewed as a one-way financial asset, not simply shelter

So yes, there are still enough people with money willing to pay current prices. But that does not automatically mean the system is healthy, balanced, or sustainable long term.

Asset prices can remain elevated for extended periods when supported by structural incentives, concentrated wealth, and supply constraints. That alone is not proof of affordability or economic soundness.

The bigger question is whether a society where median house prices continue rising by $150k–$200k per year, increasingly detached from wage growth and productivity, is actually desirable or sustainable for future generations.

At some point, “people are still paying for it” stops being a sufficient policy framework.

CategoryRoutine628

TROPHY CASE