IT'S four years since the now legendary "if you stop eating avocado toast, you'll be able to buy a house" maxim became a recognised part of the modern lexicon.

I had to look that up because, honestly, I would have said it was six months ago, maybe a year maximum.

It feels so fresh, the earthquake of outrage that followed from the rumblings of Australian property millionaire Tim Gurner, when he suggested that young people might cut their cloth to make some savings towards a mortgage deposit.

He said that when he was saving for his first property he wasn't eating $19 smashed avocado toast and $4 coffees.

Mr Gurner is from Melbourne, a city with which I'm not overly familiar, but, from my more intense relationship with Sydney, $19 seems not that bad for a avocado toast and $4 a bit of a bargain for a decent flat white.

But his point was, he managed it, and so, if you can't, maybe you're just too spendy. Or lazy.

In a separate interview, the entrepreneur detailed buying his first gym with a loan from the NAB (National Australia Bank) and “The loan drove me to work tirelessly 24 hours a day until I could pay it off."

Good for him. Endless, 24 hour graft is not for everyone, though, and nor should it be. At least he's a self-made millionaire, in his defence.

Pity, then, poor Kirstie Allsopp, who has generated outrage enough to create an entirely new weather system. The TV presenter gave some top tips on how to get on the property ladder.

Cut out little luxuries - coffee, again - and fripperies like gym membership and Netflix, and move somewhere cheaper.

Ms Allsopp, or, I should say, The Honourable Kirstie Allsopp, probably thought this advice was innocuous enough.

he has not, however, been paying attention. Then, daughters of Barons are less obliged to pay attention to the financial mood of those without the comfort of old money.

It's not unreasonable to suggest that someone who has made millions of pounds from property might have a suggestion or two up his sleeve, or that someone whose TV career was build on house hunting, might have an idea of costs, but no one listens to advice when that advice involves chiding.

And this is one of the many problems when it comes to The Great Ownership Debate.

The advice largely centres around telling young renters hoping to buy properties where they're going wrong.

Their main error of judgement is having been born into a generation where the odds are grievously stacked against them.

One of the great frustrations of these sorts of stories is that the main takeaways become snippy nonsense along the lines of "Of course cancelling Netflix won't buy me a house". Absolutely, of course, cancelling Netflix will not buy you a house.

How many people are actually paying for their own Netflix account anyway?

On a separate but connected topic: a fatalistic attitude towards saving isn't helpful either. In the wake of The Honourable Kirstie's comments, there was a pushback along the lines of, "Why should we have to give up the little luxuries, the things that make life worthwhile?"

Well, because that's how saving works. Once you've paid for the essentials, you have, if you're fortunate, a disposable income, and from that you make choices.

If you have a goal, something you want to work towards, then you forgo other purchases to keep your money for that end result.

That's not to undermine how hellishly stymying it must feel to have a goal and know that, at current rates, it might take you literally 100 years to get there.

You can see why endless rounds of all sorts of toasts might feel like a better choice than scrimping and saving for a day unlikely to come.

And how galling to always be the ones in the wrong. It's always a conversation about what the kids should be doing differently.

The folk fortunate enough to have bought their properties on 105% or 110% mortgages are part of the problem but they're not being lectured to stick their hands up with a "Mea culpa".

They would likely argue that they used the resources available to them at the time and, if an opportunity is there to be grabbed, who in their right mind doesn't grasp it?

How about those who used a hefty inheritance or a sizeable deposit gifted by their parents in order to slip a grip on the property ladder?

What about all the folk who kept their starter flats and rented them out, rather than selling when they bought a family home? They might not recognise themselves as part of the problem but a private landlord is a private landlord, no matter the context.

Political choices that have assisted in wrecking the property market go without saying but pointless to even make a snarky remark about politicians taking responsibility.

The housing system is broken and many hands have been involved.

A Twitter user posted what became a really interesting talking point during the week: she asked people to be honest about how they afforded their first home.

The replies were vast and varied. As you would expect. Because there's no one size fits all to any of this.

My path to home ownership would make Ms Allsopp proud: working three jobs at once while studying, excessive scrimping, lifelong saving and, er, moving to a cheaper area. But that's not for everyone and I'm the last to recommend it.

This is one of these topics where the focus is relentlessly wrong.

Massive structural changes need to be introduced from the top down, changes of exactly the type likely to be resisted by the well-off folk smug in their home ownership.

That's the correct focus.

Anything else is small change.

If you are rich, come from wealth, benefited from a quirk of generation or had a parental handout and you think you might be inclined to opine on the various ways a mortgage deposit might be procured: some universally useful advice for you - don't.