Stephen Mayne

Rates can't go meaningfully lower.

We can't shift triple income households and political pressures on negative gearing in the CGDs.

This count is only growing.

So are we looking at much more modest property growth from here, leaving young people looking to other asset classes?

Or does property still deserve its place as the cornerstone asset for the next generation, the way it was for the last?

Very eloquently put, Matt.

Yeah, I was going to say that US new house prices for new builds has just dropped by 6.8% in the last 12 months.

So the first 12 months of Trump...

6.8% drop in the price of a new home in America.

And that's partially, you'd argue, that's the slashing immigration effect.

But I think we can never get away from residential property being the cornerstone of household wealth in Australia because it's worth $12.5 trillion.

And the tax system massively discourages foreigners or corporates from investing in the segment.

You cop land tax, all the exemptions that apply to the family home.

It just means it is reserved for Australian individuals, effectively.

So with that sort of tax system, how can it not always be the cornerstone

asset of Australian wealth.

What you're saying is it should only be the family home and that people, after paying off their mortgage, they should invest in other classes and not in other people's homes.

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.