State budgets tinkering around the edges of our housing crisis

For investors, this means that the first rental property they own probably falls below the land tax threshold, but the second one will take them above it. This changes the investment math and discourages landlords from owning more than one property.

If people are going to be renters, they need someone to rent from, but this tax structure encourages that potential landlord to invest anywhere but housing after their first housing investment.

It also penalises developers because it makes the cost of holding land more expensive.

State governments also tend to tax overseas investors more heavily than local ones.

Capital only speaks one language, the language of commerce, and penalising it because it comes from overseas is absurd.

Only big developers stand a chance

But the really big problem is in infrastructure charges.

While infill development-development in existing urban areas-can meet some of the demand, broadscale subdivision is where the real grunt comes from.

The land available for this sometimes comes in very large parcels.

North Lakes in Brisbane, for example, was a pine plantation. And sometimes it is fragmented amongst a large number of small landowners.

North Lakes needs a very large developer. The original developer wasn't large enough, went bankrupt, and almost took his financier Elders Lensworth down with him.

They are now the joint venturer in the project with Stocklands, an even larger developer than the first.

One of the reasons it takes a large developer isn't just the size of the parcel, but the fact that the state government loads all the infrastructure costs onto the developer-things like upgrading highways, road intersections, water, sewerage, electricity, and social infrastructure.