Something that never fails to get under my skin is when people try to pretend a situation is different from reality, and fail to disclose that they’re benefiting in some way from this mass social gaslighting.
Take housing, for example. For decades, Australians have gone back and forth about homeownership as if there’s still some kind of genuine debate to be had about the extraordinary value of this particular kind of asset.
But let’s get real, the jury has been in for quite some time now. Anybody who owns property knows that they’re far more likely than not to be on a winning ticket. And anybody who is stuck in the rental market paying off someone else’s mortgage knows that they’re either falling behind or at the very least, failing to get ahead. So why do we still struggle to admit this out loud?
In large part, it comes down to who owns properties – and in particular, investment properties – and how this group has historically benefited from policies that have made it easier for those already on the ladder to climb higher.
That’s no doubt why the recently announced changes to negative gearing and capital gains taxes have been so divisive. Because despite there being myriad ways to invest money, a vocal cohort of Australians have come to not just love property as an investment strategy, but see the huge returns it has historically yielded as a right, even if that means a huge number of people are left behind.
Why has housing for so long been such a popular investment strategy? Unlike stocks or bonds, property is a real, tangible thing that you can actively engage with. You can do inspections, walk through it, drive past it. All of this gives you a level of interaction that you don’t really get with other kinds of investments, and this can help make it feel approachable to first-time or entry-level investors.
Also, unlike other assets, having somewhere to live is a necessity – meaning there will always be some level of demand for your investment.
But it’s this point in particular that is, in my opinion, the real sticking point of the debate when it comes to housing and the government’s new tax changes.
According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, roughly one third of Australians (31 per cent) currently rent their home. In real figures, this translates to 2.9 million households across the country. Of those, the AIHW says that 82 per cent of these households (2.4 million) are living in properties owned by private landlords.
As hard as the vast majority of us work to get onto the property ladder, that also doesn’t mean that the 31 per cent of Australians who are renting don’t also deserve the same chance.
While I don’t have a fundamental issue with people’s right to invest in property, I do have a major issue with not acknowledging the obvious part out loud, even when every piece of data and research confirms it to be true. And that is that those of us who own our own homes know that by living under a roof we are either still paying off or already own outright, we are several steps – if not several giant leaps – ahead of those who aren’t in our position.
For a sparkly and clear example of this being true, we only need to look at the most recent Australian Financial Review annual Rich List. Among those lucky enough to find themselves among the richest 200 people in the country, 178 are now billionaires. And of that, roughly a full quarter built their wealth through property (both residential and commercial).
The AFR found that $136 billion of the 2026 list’s $707.25 billion total value came from property – making it the second-highest wealth generator of the year behind mining. Let that sink in for a minute.
Property also turned out to be the second-most common way that people made their way on to the Rich List over the past 12 months. Even among those whose primary wealth was in other industries, property was still used as a way of investing and healthily growing their investment portfolios.
Among those lucky enough to find themselves among the richest 200 people in the country, 178 are now billionaires. And of that, roughly a full quarter built their wealth through property (both residential and commercial).
Take Gina Rinehart, the country’s richest person, and Anthony Pratt, who came in at number three. Both have been lucky enough to inherit not only their parents’ companies, but also sprawling estates worth tens of millions of dollars. These generous bequests mean that when it came time to move into their new homes, neither billionaire had to save up and purchase their properties like the rest of us, or pay any inheritance taxes when they were handed the keys.
While there’s no doubt in my mind that all of us would say “yes, please” if we were to receive the same incredible offer, the point I’m trying to make is that if real estate wasn’t the great wealth generator some of these very same people on the Rich List like to pretend it is not, they wouldn’t be benefiting from it quite so much, or pushing against tax changes quite so hard.
As hard as the vast majority of us work to get onto the property ladder, that also doesn’t mean that the 31 per cent of Australians who are renting don’t also deserve the same chance to join us or aren’t alongside us because they haven’t worked hard enough.
Because consider this: In their most recent Q1 2026 rental report, Coatlity found that between April 2025 and April 2026, rents increased nationally by 5.7 per cent. Wages, meanwhile, grew by an average of just 3.4 per cent over the same period, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
To my mind, among the most shocking findings in the report though was that five years of sustained rental growth had meant household budgets were now having to find an extra $202 per week to cover rent, and that rents now account for 33.1 per cent of a household’s gross median income.
Compared to mortgage repayments, this is actually substantially lower. Last year, Cotality found that on a national median average, 45 per cent of a household’s budget was now going towards mortgage repayments. The 12 per cent difference here, though, is that where mortgage repayments are going directly towards paying off an asset you already own, renters are in the impossible position of paying off somebody else’s, while also then trying to find enough spare money to save up for a deposit. That’s some genuinely impossible maths.
And we know that this is true because we see time and time again that the average age of first home buyers today is well beyond what it was for that of their parents’ or grandparents’ generations and that more people are retiring with mortgages.
Saying it out loud might feel uncomfortable, yes, but only for those who are currently benefiting the most.
Victoria Devine is an award-winning retired financial adviser, a bestselling author and host of Australia’s No.1 finance podcast, She’s on the Money. She is also founder and director of Zella Money.
- Advice given in this article is general in nature and is not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.
Expert tips on how to save, invest and make the most of your money delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up for our Real Money newsletter.
Victoria Devine is an award-winning retired financial adviser, best-selling author, and host of Australia’s number one finance podcast, She’s on the Money. Victoria is also the founder and managing director of Zella Money.