Tax, Credit and the Demand Side

Housing supply matters, but so do the incentives that shape who can borrow, invest and bid for homes.

The paired portraits and credits appear on the series home. This is Martin’s independent commentary on Kohler’s published work. Alan Kohler has not reviewed or endorsed it.

Kohler’s documented work

What he has argued

Kohler’s housing coverage does not reduce the problem to construction alone. It examines how tax concessions, credit, investor demand, migration, land use and transport affect the balance between homes and the people seeking them. The details are politically contested and interact: changing one incentive does not automatically deliver a home in the right place at a price a household can afford. His work asks readers to look at the system rather than turn one lever into a complete explanation.

Martin’s response

Where I agree, and where I go further

This systems view is where I find common ground. A market price is shaped by public rules and shared infrastructure; it is not a neutral verdict about who deserves a home. At the same time, reducing investor demand or changing tax settings does not by itself answer what ownership should mean, how renters gain security, or how new homes can be built without damaging the places people value.

Open question

What I still want to understand

Which combination of tax, lending, planning and construction changes would reduce speculative pressure while expanding secure housing? What evidence would show that the changes improved access rather than simply moving the pressure elsewhere?

Research trail

Sources

Published 18 October 2026 · Commentary by Martin Davies-Roundhill · Contact End Up Here