Stephen Mayne

So we should go to a much higher proportion of owner-occupied properties and discourage negative gearing where you've got someone who owns 20 homes on a tax-driven negative gearing scheme to get their tax down.

But it can't ever not be dominant, can it?

It has to be always a dominant investment class for total household wealth.

Are they really trying though, Alan?

I mean, 5% loan deposit scheme?

I mean, that's just stimulating demand and driving up prices even further.

Well, that's right.

CC's question was, you know, he owns a property.

He's making a loss of 15 grand a year.

He's getting a tax break on that.

He's being a perfectly reasonable landlord and his options are now sell the property, jack up the rent or look at an Airbnb or short-term rental.

And all of these options are bad for the people that are renting his house currently.

I mean, the flip side is if those renters then have enough cash to be able to buy the house and you just have a net increase across the board in owner-occupiers, more people can afford their home, less people are having to rent, that's the solution.

But for those who are currently renting, there's a lot of people getting kicked out of their rentals at the moment because if you make it uncomfortable and force people to sell…

The selling process is never with a tenant in the house, is it?

It's always evicted so I can sell.

So it's highly disruptive for those that are renting and rental supply is tight.

Not enough of it.

The tobacco friend, the alcohol friend, the television friend, the poker machine friend.

I mean, we've had dangerous and addictive products that have done a lot of harm in the past and we manage through them, don't we?