So you’d rather yourself and your kids work for 50 years and have no asset/s at the end ?
The property market is as good as any other investment.
Therein lies the problem.
If property was no good "as an investment", the logical corollary of that statement is that it does not outperform other means of increasing "wealth".
And would therefore, always remain within the grasp of the average person's means.
It follows that a place in which to live and, perhaps, raise a family, would not continue to move further and further away from what "the average" person can reasonably afford.
Which is where we are now.
The wealthy getting wealthier, and the have nots getting further and further cut-off.
I have no problem with people making their fortunes from entrepreneurism, through being the best TikTokker or making better mobile phones or car tyres or chocolate bars than anyone else. I do however baulk at an essential - somewhere to live - being used as a means to enrich some, at the expense of a growing number of others.
We've already gone from "affordability" being 25yr mortgages and single-income, to 40yrs and dual-income (and not always so, for a growing number of couples). And a big leg-up from "bank of mom and dad" being not a niceity, but a necessity.
Where next? The Japanese situation, where you take out 100yr mortgages, which are passed through the generations? Who is benefitting from that?
