Alan Kohler

I don't think they should do that.

So probably I reckon they should have a wider target, you know, maybe even 0% to 2.5% or 3% rather than sort of having a lower level target that they need to get it up to.

That's crazy, I reckon.

Look, I mean, my view would be that I would hope that property doesn't remain a cornerstone investment asset because we need it to simply switch to being simply something you live in rather than invest in because it doesn't keep going up.

at a rate that justifies being an investment.

You know, I mean, I think that property has to stop rising at the same rate as the share market.

That's got to stop.

Otherwise, you know, I mean, otherwise we'll be in strife.

Well, it is worth noting that it is the only investment class where governments everywhere, federal and state, are trying to stop it being a good investment.

by increasing supply to the point where it isn't a good investment.

I mean, that's kind of, I mean, they're not doing that with any other asset class and that's what's happening with housing.

Now, I mean, they might succeed.

Well, that's true, I know.

I mean, I'm not saying that they're going to succeed or they're doing it well, but they're certainly talking about that.

I mean, I do think that if you invest in real estate, residential real estate now, you are investing against government's statements at least, government rhetoric about what they're trying to achieve.

I mean, they are trying to increase the supply to the point where house prices stop rising so much.

So, you know, you are taking – if you invest in residential real estate, you're taking a risk that the governments will succeed in that and also that they'll tax you out of existence.

Also that, you know, the discount on your capital gain at the end will be different from what you thought it was going to be and you won't be able to negatively gear and all this.

I mean, I think that –

hopefully I think people will start to think, well, it's not that much of a good idea anymore.