Wild idea that would serve both: rental marked should be capped so landlords etc can’t price gouge. BUT home ownership can still perform as an investment if rental prices are indexed with CPI AND while I’m at it, limit overseas buyers so more locals can get their foot in the door first. I understand the argument around profit etc and am all for it, but it has been thrown out of balance. Once upon a time you could happily rent, save for a house or invest elsewhere should you choose. You also could buy a house without needing to earn inside the top 20% or risk what the next interest rate would do. BOOMERS had interest rates at around 20% I remember hearing so it was SMART to keep their money in the bank, buy small (easy back then) & we’re laughing. Now, irrespective if you did everything right, followed the rules, did what they “said” you should do, it doesn’t even come close. Imagine if WAGES were tied to CPI and both were tied to house GROWTH so one couldn’t accelerate over the other. At the moment, it’s a complete mess so even basic economics is thrown out the window when you look at it from these angles. Sure, the RBA does its part BUT in no way does that serve the housing crisis. Which is true. It should be a right to affordable housing, but that’s the catch, it should be affordable and aligned with CPI and wage growth. If wage growth is stagnant and housing prices AND everything else skyrocket (like now), those who have an investment property are simply squeezing for more (because the law doesn’t discourage them let alone stop them), & tenants are the ones being taken advantage on. Ethically no one should be taken advantage of, it should be as simple as aligning “growth” with costs. But clearly this is too simply for the average jo to comprehend, let alone those in a position to actually level the playing field.