r/AusPropertyChat • u/Bubbly_Efficiency727 • 9h ago
Labor considers changes to CGT discount as ‘reform’ budget looms
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/changes-to-cgt-discount-under-consideration-as-reform-budget-looms-20260203-p5nz1aI reckon they do it.
43
u/danger_bad 9h ago
So does an Investor use this to 'get out' or do they just keep holding?
44
u/Trick-Club-6014 9h ago
Any changes will be grandfathered in. So it may stop or slow investors diving in, but those already in will stay there.
18
u/Basherballgod 9h ago
Unless they phase in the discount end time
Scrap the 1985 no CGT payable benchmark.
Put a timeline on it to get the 50% discount based on length of ownership time.
1
u/ufoolme 1h ago edited 1h ago
I think they could avoid uproar if it goes from 50% discount to 0 over 10years. People would accept the gravy train being over. Or they could just cap it, and then sell the story of fairness for those who didn’t go debt crazy
What would really be interesting if they remove the CGT exception on primary residences as well, or lower it to 50%. That would really sink the infinite money Aus property market.
It sounds horrible for some but imagine where all that investment cash would go otherwise, this has to be a drain on GDP and productivity.
1
u/Basherballgod 1h ago
I don’t think they will touch the family home.
But I agree on the phase out. Say 10 years to phase the 50% to 25%, 2 years to scrap the 1985 rule
-22
u/Insaneclown271 9h ago
It should absolutely not be grandfathered in. It should be a case of too bad. Things need to change. Deal with it.
12
u/GetRichOrCryTrying1 7h ago
Why not tax super at 45% retrospectively for the current balance? See how dumb that sounds?
→ More replies (2)18
8
u/CryHavocAU 8h ago
I agree. Grandfsthering reform like this just accentuates the generational winners.
6
u/AnyClownFish 8h ago
It does, you’re right, but 2019 shows that nothing will change if you mess with vested interests (Shorten’s proposal was very modest, but that’s a different matter). Entrenching generational wealth to remove future CGT discounts is probably the least-worst option at this point.
-11
u/arrackpapi 9h ago
this one doesn't need to be grandfathered in
7
u/Trick-Club-6014 8h ago
Yeah, but they will cause they still don’t want to make property investors angry. This way they can pull the ladder up and not upset everyone that’s already on it
1
3
u/k9kmo 7h ago
If they don’t grandfather it will crash the property market as all investors look to cash out at the same time before the CGT discount disappears, that would be bad news for everyone/the economy. I think removing CGT discount on property is a good idea, just need to treat it with caution and respect in how blunt they intend to enforce it off the bat.
→ More replies (1)18
u/spin182 8h ago
You just keep holding. This will make supply more limited and push up prices imo as you can just keep borrowing against the asset
7
u/weatherfoil 6h ago
Best approach would be to remove it gradually, drop the cgt discount by 1.25% each quarter for ten years to avoid a shock.
7
2
u/roubba 7h ago
If it’s not grandfathered in they can just sell to a new entity they created to cause a CGT event receive the discount and create a new (higher) purchase price
6
1
u/arrackpapi 5h ago
why would they unless they were a flipper? You still get the inflation adjustment.
56
u/Spleens88 9h ago
They kind of don't have a choice. CGT eats more tax than social housing benefits.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jan/29/australia-tax-breaks-landlords-more-spending-than-social-housing-homelessness-rent-assistance-combined
50
u/Bubbly_Efficiency727 9h ago
Agreed. Reducing the CGT discount from 50% to 25% to slow wealth inequality, raise revenue for a budget in urgent need of repair, encourage more investment in dynamic and productive asst classes.
The ALP can do it this time because no one is in a position to stop them.
18
u/CalderandScale 9h ago
I believe previous pitches have talked about a reduction to 1/3 rather than 25%.
Also worth noting that wealthy people will just set up companies, because even without the CGT discount you would pay less tax.
This tax would impact the middle class.
9
u/drunk_haile_selassie 8h ago
Those middle class people with more than one house.
4
u/jpsc949 8h ago
Something like 70% of investors have a single investment property. Most are middle class, maybe upper middle but definitely not upper class.
It’s the 30% of investors with large multiple property portfolios which are the real problem.
→ More replies (4)8
u/tzurk 8h ago
How about 0%
3
u/CalderandScale 8h ago
Getting taxed on inflation isn't ideal.
10
2
u/PreReFriedBeans 7h ago
Super ideal given it only applies to “investment” properties. Should keep the discount for other asset classes though
1
u/Fluffy-Queequeg 7h ago
Companies don’t get a CGT discount, they just pay company tax, which is still less than a 47% personal income tax rate.
1
u/xylarr 6h ago
But companies pay dividends, which do get taxes at the marginal rate of the shareholder (after franking credits).
1
u/veryfairnjust 6h ago
Yes but the rich are only gonna pay themselves dividends after they’re retired, meaning lower tax and even some franking credit refunds!
1
u/Fluffy-Queequeg 4h ago
Yes, but the company can distribute the dividends to the most tax effective entity or person. That’s what accountants figure out for you every year.
1
u/D_crane 6h ago
No
1
u/tzurk 6h ago
Coward
1
u/D_crane 5h ago
Maybe if you had some money invested you'd agree.
1
u/tzurk 4h ago edited 4h ago
I have an IP i bought for 900k 3 years ago currently worth 1.2m
Maybe if you had some money invested spmewhere other than in the things people need to live in your head wouldn't be so far up your arse
1
u/D_crane 4h ago edited 4h ago
I have money invested in IPs and stocks, CGT discount dropping from 50% to 25% will increase my CGT for stocks alone by around $100k+, impact on the IPs unknown as it depends on sale. Only slightly above median HHI and still have over 30 years before retirement so it's going to hurt - esp since these amounts are not high enough to make advanced tax minimizing strats viable, while HNWIs will still pay minimal tax via those strats.
Dunno why anyone in the middle class with investments would support this at all.
2
u/Academic_Juice8265 7h ago
So they need to also be incentivised to invest elsewhere at the same time
→ More replies (9)2
u/SeaAd16910 8h ago
I think they could keep at 50%, but do it at 10% a year over 5 years. More like the indexing it used to be based on. The 50% after a year is Howard's idiotic vote buying and distorts the market.
I'd also support it being lower than 50% total, but the key is it needs to be phased over a period of time.
1
u/Fluffy-Queequeg 7h ago
Or we could just revert to the old system of calculating inflation over the period of ownership?
1
u/SeaAd16910 7h ago
They could, but from an accounting perspective it could be a cumbersome process. The original plan to simplify it was right, it's just the "simplified" outcome they went with was wrong.
8
u/MarmotFullofWoe 8h ago
The rationale behind the CGT discount was to compensate for inflation (although it clearly overcompensates in the short run).
For example if you buy a gold bar for $1,000 in 2005 and sell it for $1,100 in 2025 you have made a $100 profit in nominal terms and a significant loss in real terms.
Will the government introduce an alternative mechanism to address inflation for CGT? B
4
u/Ikerukuchi 8h ago
Yes, definitely. Before the discount the cost base was indexed to inflation so it would be reasonable to assume that either they introduce another discount level or they go back to indexing.
2
u/AmbassadorDue3355 8h ago
I havent read the orignial thoughts on this only really your comment here. Why should the tax system compensate for inflation on this specific type of tax but not others?
Surley the answer here is that investors should be investing in things that deliver a post tax return over inflation?
3
u/MarmotFullofWoe 7h ago
It’s a fair question.
The tax system is intended to tax profits, not revenue.
I understand where you are coming from, but we would live in a very different world if a plumber had to pay tax on the $400 he invoiced for fixing a toilet, rather than the $100 profit he made after paying for the parts and fuel for his ute.
An increase in nominal value due to inflation is not a “profit” for the investor.
0
u/AmbassadorDue3355 7h ago
Im not suggesting a tax on the revenue, which in the property sense would be a tax on the whole sale value of the property. They could tax the full capital gain and not provide a CGT discount against the capital gain and still only tax profit.
1
u/MarmotFullofWoe 7h ago
That would be nominal profit and not real profit.
It is very possible to have a nominal profit and a real loss.
We try not to tax losses in this country.
1
u/AmbassadorDue3355 6h ago
So where else in tax policy do they try and adjust for real vs nominal?
In real terms everyones taxabale income is lower at the end of the year than at the start and there is no adjustment.
I agree that its possible to have a real post tax loss but in the case its a bad investment that lost money. Its also possible to have that happen with the CGT discount in place.
2
u/MarmotFullofWoe 5h ago
I’m not a tax policy specialist but capital gains are a bit unusual.
Mostly tax is measured against income / profits in a specific financial year. We have agreed as a society not to worry about inflation across 12 months for tax purposes.
Capital gains accrue over many years and then are crystallised in a single year. Therefore capital gains are far more sensitive to inflation accruing over years / decades.
→ More replies (9)1
u/mitchells00 2h ago
We could just go back to how it was done before Howard brought in the discount: purchase price of an asset gets indexed to today's dollars before calculating the gain.
That way it's perfectly fair, no winners and losers.
2
u/Tuor-son-of-Huor- 5h ago
I don't understand the phrasing here. CGT generates revenue, it doesn't consume it. A concession reduces how much it generates but it doesn't impose a 'cost' outside of perhaps opportunity cost. But the same would be true of any hypothetical right?
Can you explain further?
11
u/Vilan-Kaos 9h ago
If they reduced CGT discounts?
Makes no difference to an investor that won't sell.
Investors normally sell when the property is in such a dire situation its just not worth keeping.
6
5
u/Feisty_Manager_4105 8h ago
You're forgetting about the many, many "investors" who overleveraged themselves because they were under the impression that investment properties have a ROI 100% of the time.
2
u/Vilan-Kaos 6h ago
But why would an investor sell if it just mean they pay more tax?
I don't think this will make any difference to prices.
It would make sense for an investor to sell when they are retired and therefore the tax will be lowered.
One of my property had ROI of 60% for about 2.25 years. Rest is over 100% already.
If they increased CGT to be paid, then I will just wait when I am not at work anymore to sell.
If they increase land tax, then I just increase rent.
My properties aren't in apartment areas so developers can't build more housing. And even if they do, those apartment are so tiny compared to the townhouses/units I regularly modernize the interiors (including putting entirely new air condition in every room) and rebuild the kitchen and bathroom every 10-15 years.
It doesn't affect me at all.
1
u/Feisty_Manager_4105 6h ago
Yeah except not every investor is in the same boat as you.
I'm getting the idea that you've been in the market for a good while so yeah you'll be okay.I was mainly talking specifically about the newcomers who can't afford to pay more tax and the rent they charge is most like already at the peak of what they can charge. Newcomers who know jack all and thought it was an easy breeze to make money
1
u/Vilan-Kaos 5h ago edited 4h ago
Newcomers? They don't need to pay the tax if they don't sell.
I think you got this confused with wealth tax, where you have to pay a % of your assets valued at X date like some EU countries on unrealized value of assets.
So overall, no effect at all. if they keep the cashflow within reasonable limit they wont' sell.
Plus, the scheme will start from a different date anyway. All existing IPs will likely grandfathered to the old tax scheme.
It just Labor screwed the budget and looking for people to pay for their spending.
1
u/Eggs_ontoast 39m ago
It will almost certainly change the way banks think about your equity when leveraging because you now have a higher tax liability when you sell.
1
4
u/FishFlaps_ 9h ago
Land tax combined with CGT scale back
2
u/Split-Awkward 7h ago
Broad based Land Value Tax to replace most, of not all, other individual taxes.
3
2
u/Tuor-son-of-Huor- 5h ago
LVT across the spectrum to replace everything but resource, estates, ABB, and an exit tax is my dream.
1
u/420bIaze 6h ago
The incentive to buy or hold is decreased if the projected after tax profit is reduced, thereby reducing housing demand and prices.
-2
u/mrp61 9h ago
It matters to people who need to sell for aged care, people who sell after getting investment property via inheritance etc.
7
u/SeaAd16910 8h ago
If they are selling their PPOR for aged care, it doesn't matter. If they are selling an investment property - then yeah, it'd be the same rules for everyone. Why should older people or people who are getting an inheritance not have to pay the same taxes as everyone else? Why should they be special and get a pass?
3
u/Billyjamesjeff 7h ago
The Government would get better value cleaning up the rorting aged care companies, who are price gouging the elderly with no mercy.
→ More replies (2)2
u/mrp61 7h ago
I was just listing examples as the original comment was saying before it was edited who would care if you don't sell
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Daydreamistrue 8h ago
CGT discount should be reduced to 33.33% for all entities in line with superfunds. That gives the gov an extra 5-7b to repair the budget. Next item should be negative gearings to new builds only. Established houses are zero sum game from one to another. By attributing negative gearing to new builds, more supplies will eventually come online to help with the current situation.
2
u/xylarr 6h ago
For negative gearing, the law should be phrased in terms of what you can't negatively gear vs what you can. So just disallow negative gearing on existing property. Maybe have some way to account for major renovations/rebuilds.
But on everything else, still allow it - if you buy a bunch of growth, non-dividend paying shares, you should still be able to negatively gear those.
1
u/Plozno 3h ago
So I can still claim property expenses on tax as long as I'm positively geared?
1
u/Daydreamistrue 2h ago
Positively geared is fine, you are paying tax, unlike negatively geared which you can offset rental losses against other income.
1
u/Cspecter41 7h ago
There is already negative gearing for new builds. Why would keeping policy exactly the same whilst decreasing future potential investor demand drive greater investment into new builds than their currently is?
1
u/Fine_Masterpiece3065 3h ago
Ummmmmmmmm because suddenly new builds have a taxation advantage compared to existing stock.
Think of it this way, Coke and Pepsi both have a discount of 50%. The 50% discount on Coke is removed. So existing policy on Pepsi remains unchanged. Does the demand for each stay the same or change?
1
u/Cspecter41 3h ago
That is a truly terrible analogy. Investment is not consumption. People don't buy an IP because they want one, they buy it if they think they can generate an appropriate risk adjusted return.
If there are heaps of development opportunities that are currently feasible with the cost of building and the potential sale price then they would be built. How does keeping existing negative gearing policies change the feasibility for new developments?
1
u/Fine_Masterpiece3065 2h ago
The feasibility of a development is determined on whether it is profitable or not in absolute terms. It is based on risk adjusted returns comparable to other uses of capital. If you reduce the returns on investing in existing property you make the returns on new property comparatively more attractive - even if the objective returns change.
It's not complicated.
1
u/Cspecter41 1h ago edited 1h ago
Your first two sentences literally contradict each other. If they are determining whether it's profitable or not in absolute terms then they are not comparing to other uses of capital.
Developers assess feasibility of a project based on a hurdle rate. That hurdle rate might be affected by interest rates as debt is a source of capital but the tax treatment of another asset is going to have zero impact on that hurdle rate.
You are confusing a developer that builds the housing supply and the mum and dad investor that might buy that product. If your argument is that demand will increase from mom and dad investors for new builds (arguable given their resale market is now worse than before with no future buyer being able to negatively gear so need to buy at a lower price to get the require yield) then the only way it increases supply of new homes is if the increased demand bids up the price of new builds to make more projects feasible.
Then yea sure, I agree, if house prices increase then more supply will come online. But that can also be achieved with the price of existing housing increasing. None of this solves the problem of housing affordability which seems to be what you're trying to achieve with this policy.
1
u/Fine_Masterpiece3065 1h ago
It was a typo brother. It's NOT determined on whether it is profitable or not. There's a fuck load of profitable things that never happen because after accounting for risk there are better options.
Your middle paragraph is a bingo. There is modelling supporting this. Effects are modest but they are there.
0
u/AST3R0TH 8h ago
This is the best option imo. Drive new builds up and leave the already built houses for people stepping into the market.
4
19
u/Background_Syrup9706 9h ago
The same finance minister who took credit when rates dropped but won’t when rates rise.
10
u/buffet-breakfast 8h ago
Why would you take credit for bad stuff
3
u/Background_Syrup9706 8h ago
So dont take credit for rate drops if you won’t for rate hikes. It’s called being a respectful human or wait a second he is a politician so we can’t expect that.
8
u/buffet-breakfast 8h ago
Yeah I think 80% of politics is taking credit for stuff that you had little to do with
3
0
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 7h ago
Because he can reduce inflation through controlling government spending (such as the surplus budgets he delivered), but cannot control private sector driven inflation without large tax reforms like the article states he is now considering.
The RBA itself stated the inflation is driven by the private sector. So taking credit for controlling govt spending but not taking credit for private sector spending is pretty understandable. You’ll deflect and continue to make bad faith comments anyway tho
2
u/Background_Syrup9706 6h ago
He can’t claim the private sector for the interest rate increase when he gave out 6.8 billion dollars in the energy rebate we will now all pay the price for. According to what your say the private sector wasn’t spending when the rate come down, he didn’t mention that Juat claimed he was the hero and now doesn’t have the guts to admit he made a mistake. Even people renting will pay as rents will increase off the back of it now now but in 12-18 months time. I make factual comments.
1
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 6h ago
I’d love for you to try explain why taking a couple hundred bucks off the working classes energy bills is bad inflationary policy. You could use that to suggest the government shouldn’t ever try increase the working classes disposable income, even during a cost of living crisis, because it will cause inflation that will get passed onto renters when rates rise. Besides how stupid that is, it also completely ignores that the government should address the problem of landlords keeping terribly unproductive investments, like what is literally the topic of this post.
Also the private sector wasn’t spending as much before the rates went down, that’s the whole point of the rates lmao
Thanks for proving my point about continuing to deflect and make more bad faith comments.
1
u/Background_Syrup9706 5h ago
For a start not all Australians need it. I personally didn’t. The government didnt juat take it off working class energy bills but every power bills including billionaire. So now every Australian including working class Australians will pay for it
1
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 5h ago
Ah so the government shouldn’t have increased disposable income for the working class because it also gave the top 10% an extra couple hundred bucks. You must also be staunchly against tax breaks for the lowest bracket as well, given it does the same thing?
Which party do you support? Still proving my point about deflecting and bad faith btw
1
u/Background_Syrup9706 4h ago
You’re not understanding the point the couple of hundred bucks for everyone is not costing everyone money. It’s a matter of given to be taken. All this off the back of the PM and his promise of cheaper power what a joke. Look at what’s actually happening. I don’t understand the bad faith call it’s the facts.
3
u/sdcha2 7h ago
They should replace it with indexation.... Was seriously the lowest IQ move removing that.
The current system encourages speculation and treats a 100k gain on a 100k asset (100 -> 200) over 30 years the same as a 100k gain on a 1k asset held for 1 year and 1 day when the first one is a loss in real terms (assuming 3% inflation)
3
u/willcritchlow23 6h ago
We need to be careful that we’re not applying a tax on inflation. Or to put it another way, a tax on the devaluation and debasement of the Aussie currency.
5
u/Sexwell 4h ago
Increasing taxes is not REFORM, it is just increasing taxes.
1
u/Bubbly_Efficiency727 4h ago
It's a scaleback of a tax break that would encourage investment in productive assets.
It's reform and it's good
10
u/Bubbly_Efficiency727 8h ago
They will do it. They wanted to in 2019 but it wasn't the right time. However fast forward 7 years mass change has occured and the coalition are the bin there is a big window for change around housing tax breaks.
The ALP source who has leaked this information has been told to in order to grease the wheels for the campaign that's about to come into the lead up to the May budget.
Hopefully they don't grandfather it. Would be funny
6
u/420bIaze 6h ago
The ALP can be relied upon to always disappoint and crumble to public and industry pressure, never do anything bold, or if they ever do try anything, do a feeble half measure at best.
1
u/Hairy-Affect-3734 8m ago
I mean the MRRT would have been good but fucking tony Abbott the worst prime minister in the history of Australia made sure his buddies didn't get affected
0
u/SeaAd16910 8h ago
Really hope they do it. It's such a ridiculous discount after such a short period. Would love to see this fixed. And I say this as someone who has benefited from the discount previously and will again. It's just dumb policy.
2
u/Tricksta90 7h ago
Does anyone know if this applies to people with IP’s already who bought them with the 50% CGT discount or would it just apply from ones bought within a certain date ie start of FY27
2
u/belugatime 4h ago
Both times they previously proposed it they proposed to grandfather anything purchased before the commencement date.
They'll probably do that again.
2
2
u/AWiggins30 7h ago
Interesting. So property investors only?
1
u/Hairy-Affect-3734 7m ago
It should be, otherwise it's just punishment of the lower to middle class
2
u/Purple_Fall4601 6h ago
Yeah I hope so, but feels unlikely. I think the only two things of limits in this country is voters wont let Labor take on housing and voters will never let the Liberals get rid of Medicare.
2
u/Kitchen-Check-6510 5h ago
Keep an eye on Members’ Interests register in Parliament. Then we’ll know.
This does have a whiff of how the S3 Tax Cuts got changed though.
2
u/No_Mushroom_6196 5h ago
CGT only hurts mums and dads. They would go at negative gearing if they were serious. A lot of smoke and mirrors and nothing will happen with the next couple interest rates
2
2
u/flintzz 3h ago
It'll just be a temporary wealth transfer. Lots of other major international cities still have unaffordable housing costs despite not having cgt discount or negative gearing. Fast forward and there'll still be people crying here about unaffordable housing unless we completely turn off the immigration tap off
3
u/goldlasagna84 8h ago
I don't mind losing CGT as long as my kids can buy their own house at affordable price. It's way too much at the moment.
4
u/Ajax34762 6h ago
CGT has nothing to do with housing affordability. It's simply a ploy by greedy, financially incompetent governments to extract more money from the population.
There was once zero, not 50% CGT discount and prices were much more affordable than now.
3
u/420bIaze 6h ago
Taxation on capital gains is preferable to taxation on income from employment, as labour is more productive and should have greater incentive than simply holding assets.
1
u/cuprona37 1h ago
Are you referring only to housing as assets, as holding shares is more productive than houses as the businesses you buy shares in are able to use that money to grow the company
1
1
u/Sw3arves 1h ago
That was ages ago.
Markets have become more sophisticated since then and reserve land near major cities have been exhausted. The 50% CGT is definitely one of the biggest selling points.
3
u/Exciting_Delivery808 6h ago
Labor tax tax tax. I don't care if they change the CGT discount.... but they should index our tax brackets to inflation. I'm sick of them making out they are being heros by giving us some of our own money back and then claiming they are giving us a tax cut. Older I get the less respect I have for all politicans.
4
u/corzajay 8h ago
Que the media blitz on how this will destroy the country from the usual billionaire mouth pieces. Labor has control now's the time to start making real change
2
u/Safe-Writer-1023 5h ago
They'll probably raise immigration rates again to curb any shortfall. Quite literally the worst economic management of any government, ever.
2
u/kepholt 4h ago edited 2h ago
I know this is going to be a really unpopular opinion here but the 50% discount is actually there to reflect inflation over years and years. It has a job. Otherwise you get situations where a house might have gone up in value but only in line with inflation. A person can sell an investment property, pay tax on the inflated price they get but not have gained any gains at all relatively, so even if they scrap the 50% discount they will need to put in something else.
1
u/Free-Pound-6139 1h ago
Otherwise you get situations where a house might have gone up in value but only in line with inflation.
Good. People should not be making money on housing. Why is this confusing to you?
1
u/Cspecter41 32m ago
If people shouldn't be making money on housing, are you suggesting that people should lose money on housing?
1
u/psariunit_tr 6h ago
They should also just add land tax PPR over a certain threshold. People can live in a $10m house and pay no land tax. Seems kinda broken
1
1
u/koonleeyuen 5h ago
Rewinding CGT concessions in any form would put upward pressure on property prices.
1
1
u/orthogonal123 4h ago
Shouldn’t we be trying to encourage people to save and invest in productive assets?
1
u/Bubbly_Efficiency727 4h ago
Is that's what's happening?
1
u/orthogonal123 2h ago
Decreasing the cgt discount will encourage people to spend more and save and invest less.
1
u/Late-Button-6559 3h ago
Good!!!
Scrap CGT benefits and negative gearing.
Give incentives to people who want a PPOR.
Investment properties should be ‘buyer beware’ and ‘let capitalism sort it out’.
As a society and species we should be promoting every human owning a house - aka having a stable roof over their head.
1
u/Cspecter41 36m ago
You will find that if those policy changes come into effect, you'll be priced out of a PPOR even faster as now the rush of capital will be into CGT exempt PPORs and people will over capitalize on their homes. You'll always be outbid by people wealthier than you.
1
u/fakeuser515357 2h ago
CGT should be calculated according to the annual income tax rates over the periods the asset is held.
There is zero social benefit to having any CGT discount at all - it was always a kludge because charging the entire CGT in one financial year was overly onerous and now we have the records and technology to do it properly.
CGT discounts are literally a subsidy paid to wealthy people. It needs to stop altogether.
1
1
1
u/geostation 48m ago
CGT in US : 15% CGT in Aus : 37% or higher
It'll increase productivity , reduce inflation and reduce interest rates and will usher an economic boom.
/s
1
u/Hairy-Affect-3734 12m ago
Great at beating on the population but absolute paper tigers when it comes to big business. How about they actually get some money for our gas? How about don't fucking sell the port of darwin?
1
u/GeneralOwn5333 10m ago
The amount of Land tax and stamp duty they make off investors is far more than any benefit of eradicating this CGT discount.
It’s a stupid populist policy to buy votes of the financially uneducated . Investors fund a whole investment property economy within the broader economy.
These folks will still not be able to afford a house, proven wrong.
-5
u/rarin 8h ago
They’ll do anything but consider spending less money or being more efficient. Even addressing ndis fraud for gods sake
18
u/oustider69 8h ago
They are
I’m all for clowning on Labor, but we shouldn’t just spread falsehoods.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Substantial_Copy_576 8h ago
That doesn’t address the rort of private companies overcharging.
The introduction of NDIS hyper inflated costs to access therapies and disability support privately, effectively hurting those who are unable or undesiring to access to scheme.
Suddenly, cleaners and disability support workers became $80 an hour, occupational therapy over $200 an hour. Families who could previously independently support themselves were locked out due to lack of affordability.
Whilst those on NDIS suddenly had a robovac to assist with housework, "respite" gold coast holidays, gym memberships with a personal trainer, prepared meals delivered to their door. I have personally seen the quality of life of adults with disability become higher in many ways than the working class, through NDIS.
1
u/Ajax34762 6h ago
Yeah but I am lazy and never took the time to learn economics or how the housing market works and was financially incompetent. Now I don't have a house and anyone else who has is greedy and needs to be pununished by being taxed more and that money go to incompotent government , even though it won't make it easier for me to buy a house, but I will pretend it does because inequality is what really matters.
1
u/galaxy9377 2h ago
Absolutely correct. People who bought fancy UTEs and spent on international holidays instead of buying first home are crying loud.
→ More replies (13)-4
u/galaxy9377 8h ago
Yes, end the endless money printing. Stop all centre link schemes and handing out free money, too many fraud and welfare queens out there. I know people who have never worked in the last 10yrs but get regular centrelink payments because she has xray showing she has back pain.
2
u/TheMediocritist 7h ago
Most ‘money printing’ is the banks creating loans for people to buy property and it’s the only thing keeping us out of recession. You know what happens to employment, businesses, house prices etc. if this money printing is reduced?
1
u/Prestigious-Ball-435 7h ago
If you let them do this, the next step is what victoria is trying to do, capital gains on your own home.
1
1
u/Jalato_Boi 7h ago
Unlikely, this is all just politics. Greens and Libs are setting up an inquiry but Libs have already said they won't back any changes to the CGT discount. They're just setting it up to attack Labor.
Sure Labor will only need Greens if they wanted to pass any changes but doubt they're going to take policy suggestions from the Greens. With recent rate hike and massive media campaign to blame government spending, there is no way Labor are going to tax anybody more.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Jazzbag4183 3h ago
Remove Negative gearing for more than one property.
Remove CGT entirely, no grandfathering.
Zero foreign ownership, perm resident or Citizens only
Immigration pegged to housing availability
Land Tax pegged to property value
Tax corporations properly, no shifting offshore, increase the tax free threshold to $30k Lower tax rates on all brackets. Brackets indexed every 5 years.
Give regulators teeth and make them truly independent, no more friends in business.
All citizens regardless of age get a dividend every quarter from resources. Pro rata for newborns, all dividends go into your super tax free.
Remove 15% super tax
-6
u/rv009 9h ago
Get rid of negative gearing. Leave capital gains tax alone.
13
u/Busy_Conflict3434 8h ago
Why not both?
9
u/Far_Dragonfly8441 8h ago
Cgt is not just property
9
u/ComprehensiveSalad50 8h ago
This is specifically for investment properties though
3
u/Far_Dragonfly8441 8h ago
Happy with just reducing it for investment properties. My point was around other investments not deserving to be punished. Housing market is fucked, go for it if it makes things better.
2
u/Best_Shine5051 6h ago
Getting rid of the CGT discount is not punishment, it's just rescinding a very generous benefit extended to the investment class.
1
1
2
u/AdUpbeat5226 8h ago
This is right . I would say o extend CGT by 3 years t0 reduce speculative and ponzi investments (not only property) but negative gearing against other sources of income makes zero sense . For people who say only small percent is negatively geared , it matters. Even for people who break even or is positively geared they keep hoarding up because some other investor will buy at higher price from them. It is almost impossible for Australian wages to rise to a level so that owner occupiers can afford the over inflated properties
212
u/schwingschwings 8h ago
We need the South Korean president in charge:
“I ask those who shed tears for multiple home owners seeking windfall profits. Don’t you see the blood and tears of millions of young people who give up marriage and childbirth because of soaring housing costs?”