Responses to the planned changes in the Federal Government's First Home Saver Accounts (FHSA) overwhelmingly say the accounts need to be far more flexible.The responses to the exposure draft of legislation designed to boost the scheme were posted on the Treasury website this week.From the Australian Bankers Association to self-described "young Australian" Dominic Skinner, most of the submissions agree the plan for increased flexibility is good but insufficient.The Rudd Government announced the FHSA in its first Budget, forecasting that A$4 billion would flow into the accounts in the first two years. In reality, APRA figures report that by December 2010 FHSAs had attracted just $154.9 million. The original FHSA rules made first-home buyers contribute to their FHSA over four financial years to qualify for concessional tax treatment and government contributions. They could not put the money into a home purchase until after that time had passed - and if they bought a house before the four years were up the money in the FHSA would go into their superannuation account. Now the Government plans to let them put their FHSA money into their mortgage after the qualifying period has ended.But, as predicted by Banking Day in October, most submissions have claimed that the four-year qualifying period continues to put people off FHSAs.The ANZ submission, for instance, argues the accounts will only be taken up in greater numbers when they provide "further flexibility, including appropriate avenues to 'exit' an FHSA in the event that an individual's circumstances change.""One possibility for increasing the level of interest in the account might be to allow an individual to close the account on the condition that they forgo any government contribution and tax concession."The ABA submission also argues the four-year rule should go, saying it was the area of most "complaint and confusion" for bank customers looking at FHSAs.The last word should go to a member of the public, Vivien Wong, who ended her 141-word submission thus: "Simple is good. Making things too complicated simply means additional volumes of tax laws."