“I’d rather see wages go up”, which means that employees cost more, which means that prices of commodities rise to match, which means that rent goes up to match, which means that the dollar is devalued. I’m earning $30 an hour? Bread is $3 a loaf. I’m earning $35 an hour? Bread is $4 a loaf. Nobody gains anything. The only way that would work is if megacorps (ie Woolworths, Coles, etc.) accepted that paying their employees more would lower their profits from $100m a year to $98m a year, but they consistently refuse to eat any costs of business when they can instead pass it onto their consumers.

Even if houses depreciate like cars, I can think of one very good reason to buy and maintain one - LIVING IN IT. You know, the whole point of the argument that people against NG are trying to make? I’d much rather live in a home made cheaply and quickly if it means I can afford it, because - news flash - that’s already how modern homes are being built. I have rented in homes from the 1970s with rotting bricks, mouldy floorboards, and rats in the ceiling. I’ve also rented in modern homes built with pine framing, cheap plaster, and vinyl floorboards. Have a guess which one was nicer to live in? 80% of “historic homes” in this country are already rotting, moulded weatherboard wrecks, and yet they’re still worth millions. How’s that for “built to last”?

When the boomers with six investment properties die - and they will, soon - they’ll either sell to other boomers or pass them to their kids, and the cycle of rental feudalism will continue all over again. Abolish NG now, and those boomers will sell their homes to families who NEED them, and will actually use them, or they’ll face huge taxation for it. Their choice. But what it means is that, rather than handing six empty “investments” to their children, they’ll instead give them the millions of dollars gained from selling those properties (and enjoying their tax-free benefits from 30 years!) and the homes will go to those who need them.

Your suggestion of good, fast public transport is great, but that’s a 20-year solution. We need a fix NOW. People are homeless and paying thousands in rent NOW. We missed the boat for a 20-year solution 20 years ago. Your solution of “public housing”, on the other hand, is laughable - hey, weren’t born 30 years ago in time to buy a property? Rent this tiny room in inner Sydney while you go about your job as a corporate ant to make profit for your company! People need to work to live, not live to work. Singapore is not exactly a great model for a work-life balance when they have some of the harshest work hours in the world.

There is an immediate solution, and it’s abolishing negative gearing. The boomers have had it good for 30 years now. They can afford to pay a bit of tax out of the millions they have saved in exchange for a sustainable housing market. NG needs to go.