It must be a drag to be irrelevant. The GFC has actually passed.
The property bubble isn't a bubble its a long term problem created by our failure to develop satellite cities to our major cities.

WTF?

With a 0.4% Debit tax all other forms of taxation could be eliminated.

Regional consolidation would definately have helped - but would need to have been accompanied by interventionist industry policies aimed at creating jobs to sustain communities.

Urban consolidation within capital cities could also have made a difference. Already, for instance, there has been a surge of new people making the Melbourne CBD their home...

But this would need to be accompanied by policies supporting 'hubs' surrounding the city centre... In the case of Melboure again - think, for instance, of Box Hill...

To work, though, this also requires investment in infrastructure - especially public transport... And intervention/incentives to encourage development within these 'hubs': not just the city centre...

If this was accompanied by massive generational investment in public housing (think maybe $15b or more - I don't have solid figures to draw on) this would have a significant effect on housing supply... The most vulernable could have quality housing. And other Australians, excluded because of skyrcoketing prices in a tight market, and following on from a speculative bubble, would find that it was finally affordable to provide a roof over their heads - and for their families...

But all this requires active industry policy, and massive investment in infrastructure, including public housing... Even Labor's not likely to come up with the goods, here - but we have to pressure the Federal government and state governments to have a hope... And we won't succeed if we don't try...

WTF?
I have said this all along, only, I call it a 'transaction tax'. But, as usual, big business just won't cop it!

"WTF" and "rehctub": The best thing about the debit tax or transaction tax is that it has absolutely no chance of being implemented, because even mainstream economists understand that it's a dud: http://www.prosper.org.au/2005/11/07/critique-of-the-debits-tax-and-turnover-tax/ .

Tristan Ewins: Housing is unaffordable because the tax system rewards property owners for hoarding land but punishes them for building dwellings and seeking tenants or buyers. It should be the other way around; see http://www.prosper.org.au/2010/03/10/opportunity-has-a-name-its-called-land/ . The same reform would give governments the ability and the incentive to invest in infrastructure, especially public transport, because (at least) some of the uplift in land values caused by the infrastructure would be captured as public revenue; cf. http://lvrg.org.au/ .

If urban property owners (i.e. most voters) are to tolerate higher density, they will need to see it as a magnet for infrastructure that enhances their property values. But this in turn requires a viable method of financing the infrastructure.

grputland>> Housing is unaffordable because the tax system rewards property owners for hoarding land but punishes them for building dwellings and seeking tenants or buyers. It should be the other way around;

I think you may be confussing 'property owners' with 'developers' as, if a property is purchased and not producing an income, then there are no allowable deductions, including interest payments as 'deductions' are offset against income received.

Now if you are referring to developers, just be thankfull that they have the balls to take massive financial risks, otherwise, there would be no land available at all.

One major problem facing developers who 'land bank' is that they face the risk of having their land 're-zoned' and effectively 'locked away' by some government wanting to be seen as a 'greenie'.

Now if a 'land banker' has say 30% of his stock 'locked away', then he must recoup his losses by charging extra for what is left.

Increase the risk, the price goes up.

If the government, or any other interested body wants land preserved, then BUY IT!

I have seen first hand where farmers have worked land for 30 years, thinking one day they can develop and retire, only to have the government put some 'urban footprint' over it, essentially making it worthless.

Now as for the transaction tax, I will read your link when I get time.