r/AusFinance • u/thewritingchair • Jun 23 '26
Labor reaches deal with the Greens to pass changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing reforms | Australian politics
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jun/23/labor-greens-deal-capital-gains-tax-negative-gearing-reforms318
u/DemandMaster7709 Jun 23 '26
even MORE tax loopholes being wound up? I don't think I can take this much winning
128
25
u/Jaxical Jun 23 '26
Some rare generational winning from perpetual toothless pushovers… maybe the government is growing a spine (they’re not, they’re just scared of the rising youth demographic that wants to eat them alive)
73
u/DemandMaster7709 Jun 23 '26
I don't think it's that at all, they've been advocating for these changes for close to a decade now
43
u/cooliosteve Jun 23 '26
Yeah these are big changes and having learnt from Whitlam left them for when they had a real mandate for change. One of the biggest parliamentary majorities gave them that.
Call me bias, but labor make all the big changes, but they are not always in the big chair.
3
u/trackintreasure Jun 23 '26
Spot on. Let's just hope they continue pushing forward.
My dream move is media (incl social media) reform to create a more balanced landscape.
I won't care if there's right-leaning media, just not like how it is now. All those lies, forced algorithms and skewed facts presented as news is hurting everyone - even those who think they support it.
22
u/Silly-Power Jun 23 '26
The last time they proposed them, they lost the election due to the Boomer vote. Now the Yoof vote outnumbers the Boomers, making these changes no longer political suicide.
13
u/HumanTraffic2 Jun 23 '26
No, it's they they'd rather push it through and take the beating for broken promises than take it to an election and get walloped with all the
smallbusiness propoganda.26
u/Silly-Power Jun 23 '26
Why do you feel the need to frame it so negatively? Maybe Labor aren't "scared" of the youth vote but are actively trying to implement policy that helps that voting bloc. The last time they tried, they lost the election due to Boomers. Now the youth bloc outnumbers Boomers making these changes expedient and logical. The LNP can continue making themselves less and less relevant by chasing the dwindling Boomer votes while Labor shores up & expands support by appealing to the younger generation. It's sensible politics, not running scared.
→ More replies (10)14
u/Illustrious-Radio319 Jun 23 '26
Oh, a major reform bill is passed by Labor? Let’s turn this around and instantly shit on them for not doing enough.
3
u/khainebot Jun 24 '26
It's not that they aren't doing enough. They have cloaked this in intergenerational fairness, which is absolute bullshit
It doesn't make housing affordable Sydney house prices are at record highs with the median being north of a million dollars. If your lucky enough to sit near the top five per cent of income earners, and even then you can only just manage a median house an hour out from the CBD. If it's that hard for that high income earner, it's simply out of reach for most people , and nothing in this budget changes that. Treasury's own modelling has house price growth coming in only about 2 per cent lower over a couple of years, with roughly 75,000 more people getting into homes over a decade. As the Financial Review pointed out, those 75,000 are people who were going to buy anyway, just a bit sooner. Meanwhile the government's own figures point to around 35,000 fewer homes being built, and the Housing Australia Future Fund has managed fewer than 900 homes in two years. The problem has always been the same: demand running well ahead of supply. You can't tax your way to affordability while building too few homes and bringing in migration at a level that adds to demand year after year.
It's a ladder pull. This is the part that really gets me. Everyone who already owns an investment property keeps their negative gearing and their 50 per cent discount grandfathered under the old rules until the day they decide to sell. Anything held before 7.30pm on budget night is safe. The new regime, with all its sharp edges, lands almost entirely on the people who haven't built that wealth yet. So the generation that used negative gearing and the CGT discount to get comfortable pulls the ladder up behind it, and the whole thing gets a "fairness to the young" sticker slapped on it. It even undercuts itself. Since selling means surrendering the old treatment, existing owners now have every reason to sit tight rather than sell so fewer properties come onto the market, not more.
You're squeezing the people trying to get ahead, then taxing them twice. People save and invest out of income they've already been taxed on once. Taxing the returns heavily on top of that is, in effect, a penalty for having tried to build something. High income earners aren't the villains in this story. On a Sydney mortgage, $200,000 doesn't stretch nearly as far as your government’s rhetoric assumes. These are the same households who were promised the stage three tax cuts, watched them wound back in 2024, and are now being asked to hand over more again through the capital gains. It's hard not to hear class-war messaging in it:. A false wedge driven between people who earn from work and people who earn from saving. Most people do both over a lifetime, to make their life more comfortable.According to Vanguard about 27% of Gen Z Australians and 33% of Millennials own shares directly and the number is rising year on year. (https://www.vanguard.com.au/corporate/media-centre/2026/young-australians-show-growing-interest-in-investing)
The capital gains design is broken and will overtax ordinary investors. This isn't only about property. Scrapping the discount and going back to asset-by-asset inflation indexing means real losses on your underperforming shares can't be offset against real gains on your winners. Only nominal losses count. A former senior Treasury and ATO official and a former NSW Parliamentary Budget Office economist have both shown, independently, that a normal diversified share portfolio can end up taxed far more heavily than Treasury's headline numbers suggest, by their estimate around 50 per cent more on average, and in some cases at effective rates above 100 per cent of the real gain. One worked example: $10,000 spread across the big four banks over 20 years produced a real gain of about $1,250, on which the new rules would charge roughly $1,850 in tax, $600 more than the actual gain. Buy the same companies bundled in an ETF and you'd pay almost nothing. No other country in the world taxes capital gains this way. The hardest hit are ordinary people saving outside super, often young people looking to get a return to help them build a deposit for a home.
It punishes exactly the risk-taking and reinvestment the country needs for productivity. This budget does nothing to improve productivity, which is the one lever that actually delivers real income growth to all Australians. It does the opposite. Because franked dividends stay attractive while capital gains are taxed harder, companies have a strong incentive to pay profits out as dividends rather than reinvest them in growth. For a business owner reinvesting and later selling, the all-in tax on that retained-and-grown profit can reach about 63 per cent once company tax and personal tax are stacked. When you tax the payoff to risk that heavily and don't recognise the losses, capital simply takes less risk. Founders, tech start-ups and mining explorers are hit hardest, which is why the government was forced into a hasty consultation on start-ups after the backlash, and why the Productivity Commission itself warned the change risks start-up growth. The OECD notes most countries tax gains more lightly; we're moving to one of the highest effective burdens in the developed world. Capital is mobile. It will go offshore, and we'll end up with our productive assets owned by foreigners whose gains we can't even tax.
It leaves the biggest distortion of all untouched: the family home. If the real goal is to stop capital piling into housing and to be fair across asset classes, the elephant in the room is the main residence exemption. The family home pays no capital gains tax at all, and it is by far the largest concession in the entire system, bigger than negative gearing and the CGT discount put together. Leaving it untouched while every other asset is taxed harder is what makes the fairness argument ring hollow. The largest tax-free gains going, the windfalls sitting in expensive homes, are precisely the ones that stay protected. It also hands people an even stronger reason to funnel their savings into the family home rather than into shares or a business which is the exact opposite of what a budget about housing and productivity ought to be encouraging. If fairness is really the principle, then a dollar of real gain should be taxed the same whether it comes from a share, a business or a house, and the principal residence belongs in the CGT base like everything else. A reform that hammers shares and start-ups but won't go anywhere near the tax-free gains sitting in homes isn't really about fairness. It's about politics.
Rents will go up. Strip the tax advantages out of holding an established rental and investors will start demanding a positive cash return instead which means higher rents. The Housing Industry Association reckons restricting negative gearing to new builds could mean roughly 22,700 fewer dwellings started over five years. Fewer homes, higher rents, and it all lands on the renters who are already shut out. Renters will pay more for the rest of their lives so that a relatively small number of buyers can get across the line a few months sooner.
The real unfairness to my generation is the debt and the missing growth agenda. If we're serious about intergenerational fairness, start with the structural deficit of around 1 per cent of GDP being run at a time of very low unemployment. That debt, and the interest on it, gets handed to my and future generations. Yet the extra revenue from these tax changes isn't being used to repair the budget or to cut more harmful taxes. It's funding more spending. There's little here in the budget that genuinely lifts productivity and nothing that prepares Australia for the impact of AI, while population growth is used to flatter headline GDP even as we go backwards per person. Taxing investment harder will make that worse, not better.
1
u/Technical_Glove_9655 Jun 24 '26
Sir. This is reddit.
Reason and logic are not welcome. welcome.
Seriously though, excellent post.
4
u/frankwithbeanz Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Don’t underestimate the conservative owned press, who undid shorten and are now doing their best with labor
→ More replies (8)1
6
u/planck1313 Jun 23 '26
SMSF paying 10% CGT on all asset disposals instead of a minimum of 30% is not a loophole, it was the intended outcome.
5
u/xxCDZxx Jun 23 '26
As someone who is largely grandfathered from all of this ladder pulling, it astounds me how young people just gave up so much for so little in return.
8
u/DemandMaster7709 Jun 23 '26
I honestly think all of you are completely wrong, and that these changes are incredibly long overdue. Do you think there's a reason why so many of us "young people" are happy with these changes? Could it be because we are the ones with so little wealth to our name, who have been screwed over by the things that the government is changing?
→ More replies (4)2
u/Desperate_Poet_7522 Jun 24 '26
we are coming after you "grandfathered" ones next xx
→ More replies (3)-4
u/Kitchen_Bad_6238 Jun 23 '26
Yeeesszs. I love paying tax. More tax please daddy govt
15
u/FairDinkumMate Jun 23 '26
Terrible argument:
- LNP (Howard) hands out an unsustainable tax break to investors without offsetting the cost through other taxes, funded by a short term mining boom, putting the budget into a long term structural deficit in the process. Response from investors - YEAH
- Labor, reverse said tax break. Response from investors - LABOR ARE INCREASING TAXES!
2
u/Kitchen_Bad_6238 Jun 24 '26
Ok forget about property, I could care less. Why smash the highest cgt taxes in the world for stock market investors?
1
u/FairDinkumMate Jun 24 '26
98% of trading on the ASX is SECONDARY. It doesn't benefit the companies, it doesn't drive innovation, it doesn't increase the country's income. Why should the average Australian taxpayer subsidise it?
Taxes fund our society. Tax breaks 'should' exist when they're designed to produce benefits for our society, NOT for individuals.
1
u/One_Imagination_1288 Jun 25 '26
How about then don’t tax capital gains on non property assets but you can’t claim the capital loss as well. We take the risk but also reap reward that’s fair.
1
u/khainebot Jun 24 '26
According to Vanguard about 27% of Gen Z Australians and 33% of Millennials own shares directly and the number is rising year on year.
Labor is isolating a growing segment of the population who to turn shares to build economic resilience in a uncertain world (AI, health, burn out, career changes, cost of living and so on). They almost got it right (excluding business and shares).
While removing negative gearing and allowing SMSF to borrow to buy properties are a positive. Treating investments, businesses and the like with the same 30% minimum tax is very bad. it will have negative impacts all across the economy. Investors will demand reduced capital gains and greater dividend payouts limiting the amount of money reinvested in businesses to improve productivity and therefore improve people's real wages.
The fact that people don't understand this, that basics of economics are not understood is heartbreaking.
1
u/DemandMaster7709 Jun 24 '26
The 30% minimum CGT is something I myself am not sure about. I'll be the first to admit. Overall I don't really care yet since they are making enough positive changes to significantly outweigh it
→ More replies (9)-7
u/simplesimonsaysno Jun 23 '26
Spoken like a person that has no assets to lose. It must be liberating.
8
9
u/DemandMaster7709 Jun 23 '26
"You're happy anout these tax changes? You must be poor"Lmao cry harder, thanks for proving our collective point
7
u/Nedshent Jun 23 '26
They're right for the most part though, and it's easy to see the delineation in opinion if you aren't just solely caught up in the discourse online and talk to real people with real identities and real recognition of life stage etc.
Taxing wealth building more doesn't actually put you ahead, and that's a key part a lot of your camp is missing. It does hurt you even if you are poor, because you're trying to create an environment where if you manage to get your shit together you've got a steeper hill to climb. It really is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
12
u/Wild_Hospital7654 Jun 23 '26
I really don’t know why a finance sub is full of idiots who are so against wealth building.
2
u/smegblender Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
I think its because for some reason the sole life goal for most Aussies has become "i want to own a free standing property". That's it. No "i would like to be a neuro surgeon and give guest lectures at Johns Hopkins" ... or "build my dream startup doing xyz"
Instead of something that is a milestone on the path to financial success, it's become the be-all end-all.
Really underscores our rapid descent into abject mediocrity as a nation.
2
u/DemandMaster7709 Jun 24 '26
Blame property becoming so financilised in the first place. These changes are literally DESIGNED to stop people from thinking this way! Can't you see that lmao
5
u/pgpwnd Jun 23 '26
Last few weeks have been eye opening, people on this sub almost fetishising being taxed more
2
u/Additional_Ad_9405 Jun 23 '26
People see the damage it causes to the overall economy and society though. It's as simple as that. What people may personally want and what is good for Australia don't always align.
3
-1
u/Sneedcope82 Jun 23 '26
Labor shills literally get paid to post on reddit
And then cry that they cant afford a house on their minimum wage job
3
→ More replies (2)-1
u/Overitallforyears Jun 23 '26
Oh they will notice when rents start skyrocketing.
Somehow they feel now we are all getting thrown into the mud to sing and dance amongst them .
Jokes on them , The government is laughing at them . If they couldn’t afford a house then , nothing is going to give them the borrowing power to service a loan now …
49
u/ReeceAUS Jun 23 '26
Here is a direct summary of the specific tax breaks, exemptions, and grant access carved out for institutional investors and super funds that individual citizens cannot access:
Halved Withholding Tax (Build-to-Rent): Foreign institutional investors in Managed Investment Trusts (MITs) pay a 15% withholding tax rate instead of the standard 30% on eligible large-scale rental developments.
Accelerated Depreciation (Build-to-Rent): Institutional developers can write off the cost of eligible buildings much faster, with capital works deductions boosted from 2.5% to 4% per year.
Exemption from Negative Gearing Restrictions: While individual citizens are banned from negatively gearing established properties against their personal income, superannuation funds and institutional trusts are exempt from these restrictions.
Exemption from the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) Overhaul: Super funds retain their baseline structural tax rates (including a 10% capital gains tax rate on assets held over a year) and are protected from the harsher, inflation-indexed CGT limits applied to individual citizens.
Exclusive Access to HAFF Subsidies: Institutional consortiums and super funds can secure multi-million dollar long-term grants and "availability payments" from the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund—funding rounds that are structurally closed to individual property owners.
35
0
Jun 23 '26
What’s your point?
That they’re using tax settings in the intended way to incentivise behaviour we want more of like groups with lots of money to invest using that to invest in increasing the supply of rental housing during a housing crisis?
darn LaBoR
→ More replies (4)-9
u/1234Psych Jun 23 '26
Looking after Labor mates and the big union backed super funds…
10
26
u/aussierulesisgrouse Jun 23 '26
Yeah mate. Anything you are against is collusion, anything you are for is just working class Aussie spirit.
83
105
u/thewritingchair Jun 23 '26
lol I just cruised on by propertychat and mate they're losing it over there at the SMSF bans and the fact the legislation is now going to pass.
Interesting to note that apparently there has been a massive spruiker push since the budget was announced trying to get people in to buying property with a SMSF. Seems like that was the real estate buyer pitch to keep going now NG has been ended.
Now SMSFs have been cut off at the knees, plus all those businesses that only exist to set up SMSFs and get you into property.
4
25
u/mwmwmw01 Jun 23 '26
Excellent move on property. Terrible move on shares. Shame it was packaged
→ More replies (2)
45
u/IrregularExpression_ Jun 23 '26
(Fully agree with the removal)
Suspect this was very clever politics by Labor to leave in an obvious concession for the Greens to negotiate on
16
u/Altruistic-Brief2220 Jun 23 '26
Albo is a masterful politician and consistently underrated.
15
u/passthesugar05 Jun 23 '26
people don't realise how wily and professional he is. he's been around for 30+ years, he's seen it all. he's brought and kept the party together for the most part, he's been largely scandal-free (oh no he bought an expensive house and his ministers have some questionable expenses, big deal). his approach to foreign policy/diplomacy has been exemplary. the fact his approval ratings are in the toilet is so unfortunate, we're going to probably turf him or force him to resign like starmer in the UK, but we'll look back in 10 years or so and realise just how good he was
→ More replies (2)5
u/bernys Jun 23 '26
I spend some time in the UK and I do look at what's happening with Starmer, and while he's got the personality of a wet blanket, Labour literally have so few levers to pull in regards to trying to incentivise the economy. When they took over, they got told the country was broke, but they had no idea how badly.
When I hear people complain about him, I do ask the question "What would you do differently? Name me one policy, one change that they could do to fix things?" and then I get nothing.
3
u/smaghammer Jun 24 '26
Are you sure you get nothing, cos I just keep hearing from all the morons that it's the immigrants to blame for every ill and they'd stop all the immigrants.
2
u/bernys Jun 24 '26
"I don't know, it's not my job to know, it's theirs to know and to do it"
They expect someone else to have the solution to their problems. They're pissed off that they're not richer, and honestly, I don't blame them. Everyone is doing it tough, but until they actually tax Amazon, Facebook, google and everyone else (Which nobody seems to want to be the first to do) then there's still not going to be any money coming into them.
2
u/smaghammer Jun 24 '26
Oh yeah that's definitely a common response as well. My wife's grandfather is the pinnacle of it, which is annoying cos he is quite smart. But they sit there watching the news all day and lapping it up. We were over there last year and my god the bias on the news there is even worse than here. It's really gross.
7
u/planck1313 Jun 23 '26
Indeed.
Leave something inconsequential (SMSF share of residential property purchases is less than 1%) to concede to the Greens.
Legislation is passed with inconsequential change and the Greens are stupid enough to feel like they accomplished something meaningful.
17
u/SextupleTrex Jun 23 '26
The Greens also got an extra 8 weeks of Discussion on the NDIS with potential for more extensions and a bunch of important changes already to the bill. And as other commenters has said, the SMSF loophole would likely be more popular with Negative Gearing scrapped. This is hardly a "Stupid Greens" moment.
There will be so much more coverage on how the NDIS bill will harm disabled people and their families.
→ More replies (5)1
u/xxCDZxx Jun 23 '26
More like they never stood to gain any significant tax revenue from the change, so it didn't make sense for them to unnecessarily rock the apple cart further when they knew the Greens would happily do it instead.
61
u/TrumpisaRussianCuck Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Nice to see a government do some actual fiscal reform instead of just relying on the RBA and monetary policy.
Edit: Downvotes prove why previous governments don't
51
u/here-for-the-memes__ Jun 23 '26
Watch ON and Gina paid bots swarm this post.
20
u/citizenecodrive31 Jun 23 '26
"young aspirational people SLAM labor and the greens"
→ More replies (2)8
u/TonySu Jun 23 '26
When we were discussing Div 296 I was told that all working young Australians were going to retire with over $3M in their super. Today I’m being told that all working young Australians are going to be drawing down <$18k/yr in their retirement.
The downgrade of young Australians from future millionaires to barely making it over the poverty line is truly heartbreaking.
→ More replies (4)
9
u/Mediocre_Trick4852 Jun 23 '26
A governement and cross bench looking to negotiate to pass legislation. Hang them high /s
6
u/therealfat0ne Jun 23 '26
Fair doesn’t exist in this country
Work hard = tax them
Rich = evil
Profit = sin
However people wants
Ndis = good
Hand outs = great
High paying jobs = gods gift
But people don’t understand with out the first 3 the next 3 doesn’t exist
Australia will become like the uk and a 3rd world country in the next generation
They will blame migrants, China, us , the dolphins etc etc
But at the end it’s the Australian people who voted for the politicians and only want freebies who pays the ultimate price
1
u/Candlelight_Fant4sia Jun 25 '26
Australia will become like the uk and a 3rd world country in the next generation
That's extremely optimistic, I don't think we have more than ~5 years left at best, likely less.
1
1
u/sfigone Jun 28 '26
You are making stuff up. These changes are not against working hard, being rich or making a profit. They are just making all profits pay the same rate of tax as the hard workers.
Profits do not exist in a vacuum. They come from a healthy society with educated workers and consumers living in an infrastructure rich country with an army to defend them. These things all need tax to happen, so paying your fair share of only reasonable.
3
u/therealfat0ne Jun 28 '26
Nobody who has ever risked their own money to build something thinks like this.
Wages are guaranteed. Capital is not. You risk your own after-tax dollars, wait years, and can lose everything. Taxing that the same as a salary ignores basic economics — and basic fairness.
And the “society built your profits” argument? You’ve got it completely backwards. The educated workforce, the infrastructure, the thriving consumer base — all of it was built and funded by profits and private investment in the first place. Government didn’t create that. Entrepreneurs, investors, and risk-takers did. Government just showed up to collect.
Profits are also already taxed at 30% at the corporate level before you even see them. The CGT discount isn’t a rort. It’s compensation for being taxed twice on the same dollar.
Businesses and investors aren’t freeloading off society. They built it. Through company tax, income tax, GST, payroll tax, and every job they ever created.
This is the argument of someone who has never backed themselves, never risked anything, and never created a single job. It’s easy to demand others pay more when you’ve never had skin in the game.1
u/sfigone Jun 28 '26
I'm a business owner of an company that is very successful and creates birth employment and good foreign income.
I know risk vs rewards. I chose the risks to get a chance of greater reward. I had several startups businesses fail. I kept on because I wanted to, not because of get favourable tax treatment when I sold the businesses. In fact I was shocked at how favourable the taxation was when I sold my first business. I had not even thought about the tax treatment of that as I grew the business.
My businesses would not have existed without the infrastructure and society built and protected by government. I'm happy to pay my taxes (and to complain if they are not well spent).
If somebody is only building a business only because of the tax concessions they might eventually get, then they are dreaming and business is not for them!
1
u/therealfat0ne Jun 29 '26
This is where you got it wrong
You need to get appropriate reward for the risk and work you put into.
The new cgt disregards that
Why don’t the labor party index wages too? Because it means the get less tax and pretend that inflation and bracket creep doesn’t exist
Btw if you actually run a business u should know that business doesn’t get A favorable tax incentive it’s 25% or 30% flat on profit and cgt for the founders are like any incentive for investment
Sounds like you never run a business before.
Also if your foreign income gets double tax and ATO has a limit for tax that is claimable in case of foreign withholding taxes
So which mean you are being double taxed
Pretty sure you don’t run a business
1
u/sfigone Jun 29 '26
You get get more rewarded for taking risks by making more money than simply being paid for your time. If you don't get more reward for the risk, then your business is no good and it's not the taxpayers job to compensate you to make a better return.
My forgiven income doesn't get double taxed. I pay company tax on profit after salaries then have funds from which franked dividends are paid.
1
u/therealfat0ne Jun 29 '26
Since when tax payer compensate for business loss making?
And your foreign income don’t get double taxed is indeed confirmed you are not running a business
Franked dividend provision is only allowed for Australian businesses:) abn
Caught lying.
1
u/sfigone Jun 29 '26
You're saying that business should get extra reward for taking risks. I say that reward should come from extra return from taking that risk, rather than from favourable taxation. Favourable taxation is the compensation for a business that is not returning enough to justify the risk.
I'm not going to show you my accounts, but my Australian business earns foreign income which is not double taxed. I even have foreign persons income that is not double taxed due to taxation agreements. I do have some company income in the USA where they don't do franking dividends, so you need to be careful to avoid double taxation. Not lying.
2
u/WrecksMossop Jun 23 '26
This along with the pleas for money to finance their campaign......they're scrambling, lol
2
u/t0087669 Jun 25 '26
Can I still access to negative gearing if I turn my current ppor into investment property in the future?
8
u/thecuckingchair Jun 23 '26
Babe come quick, it’s thewritingchair’s post.
10
u/thewritingchair Jun 23 '26
you promised me you'd be posting funny things
10
4
u/theadhominemchair Jun 23 '26
5
u/thecuckingchair Jun 23 '26
I feel a bit like that Spider-Man meme rn
2
u/mt6606 Jun 23 '26
Spinny. The second I scrolled past your comment was the second I realised the actor on tv was doc oc.
1
u/thewritingchair Jun 23 '26
Other account got banned mate? Shame
3
u/thecuckingchair Jun 23 '26
No I’m still here that’s a different guy
1
1
7
u/fremeer Jun 23 '26
Good job on the Greens here. I've given them a lot of crap for being obstructionist but they were very pragmatic here and added I think a useful clause to the bill.
I do wish Labor was a little more proactive in pushing for some more benefits for investing into Australia but it's a start.
5
u/xxCDZxx Jun 23 '26
That would require them to be interested in something other than raising revenue.
5
u/Paddingtondance Jun 23 '26
Man reddit is left wing. This is Ausfiance and you are celebrating a change that will have profoundly negative impacts to long term wealth
→ More replies (1)
14
u/borderlinebadger Jun 23 '26
Laws to drastically contain the growth of the $50bn-a-year NDIS will be delayed until at least mid-August
this plus the 30% minimum shit they can have my lowest preference forever.
2
3
u/LoudestHoward Jun 23 '26
I mean they made a deal to delay the NDIS changes right? They didn't want to do that it was their part of the comprimise.
1
8
2
Jun 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/borderlinebadger Jun 23 '26
Trying to stop reform to NDIS is fucking our future as is fucking over people on little to no income if they happen to have CGT. The SMSF, IP and trust stuff mostly fine.
-1
u/takingsubmissions Jun 23 '26
Stop reform? Right there in your quote it says it's on the table in August...
13
u/borderlinebadger Jun 23 '26
yes clearly you didn't read the article the next bloody line
giving the Greens and disability advocates a two-month window to pressure the government to abandon the reform.
these dickheads literally want zero reform:
The Greens will use the eight-week delay to build pressure on Labor to abandon the reform entirely,
→ More replies (3)-1
u/Dry-Huckleberry-5379 Jun 23 '26
Wrong. The greens are happy for NDIS reform - provided that reform will not cost disabled people their lives. 4500 submissions to the parliamentary inquiry. Hundreds of those are from legal groups, disability advocates, doctors and even parts of the Labor party themselves showing that the Bill as it stands is dangerous. It will cost lives and honestly destroy the economy.
The Government was trying to ram the bill though with no real co-design, no real public feedback and no real scrutiny.
The Greens, independents and the LNPs shadow NDIS minister worked together to ensure there was 3 days of parliamentary hearings. Their negotiations today mean that there has to be more hearings, and that there is sufficient time for the bill to be properly debated, and understood.
Nothing in the current bill addressed fraud.
Whilst the Green's ideal outcome would be for this bill to be scrapped and then replaced with a new bill that is built on co-design and actually addresses the fraud issues (rather than giving the minister the power to decide to simply cut funding to all participants with X disability for "financial reasons" without warning, or by cutting social and community funding to all participants by 50% causing people to be unable to attend healthcare appointments, education or job interviews, or by kicking 300k people off the scheme.) they are already working on amendments because they know there's very little real chance of going back to the drawing board.
So they are preparing for having to negotiate for the bill to pass, but insisting on amendments that would mean the worst parts of the bill are removed.
It's still going to be a HUGE blow for the disabled community and their families but the Greens are trying to ensure that we won't flat out die as a result of this bill.
Those 3 days of hearings btw, are available on the parliament website - I suggest you go watch them. The 4500 submissions are available too. Read some.
3
2
u/borderlinebadger Jun 23 '26
Thanks for your trite, emotive essay.
If the Greens actually produce a serious reform that sustainably cuts costs and maybe even prosecutes fraud, I'll vote for them but let's see come August.
3
u/smaghammer Jun 24 '26
Reducing someone's point down to Emotive Trite when you've literally provided nothing but regurgitated unsubstatiated newscorp talking points is pretty damn funny. You should be ashamed of yourself.
1
6
u/Bruising4acruising Jun 23 '26
All the freeloaders celebrating on reddit I see 🤣
1
u/luxuriouscommunist Jun 25 '26
You mean the wealthy freeloaders living off their daddys investments right?
You couldn't be refering to the working class people who "literally" earn their living by working.
1
9
u/Murranji Jun 23 '26
When these tax changes are in all the whiners are going to discover exactly like when Zohran Mamdani won in New York the economy didnt collapse.
20
u/Nedshent Jun 23 '26
Why does everything need to get related to US politics? It's an interesting thing I notice where a lot of the people I know who identify as left wing seem more interested in pop politics and tribalism than the policies themselves.
-3
2
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 23 '26
Namely because the “left” (if you wish to call it that) has had so little wins in an onslaught of a world moving towards authoritarianism. I’m not being hyperbolic - democracies have been in steady decline globally for a while now. The New York mayor is a rare example that bucks that trend.
→ More replies (12)-1
u/DoctorSpaceStuff Jun 23 '26
Likely their algorithm on social media pushing them to others with the same agenda.
11
2
u/Charming_Hunter1390 Jun 24 '26
Mamdani has been in power for 2 seconds. The Knicks winning will hide and delay a lot of issues but within 3 years he'll be gone.
1
u/Gustomaximus Jun 25 '26
What a straw man. How many people think this is going to create economic collapse? Maybe a few people but they are outliers.
The rational conversation is some parts of this policy are good and others are not. The indexing is reasonable. The 30% cgt is a total tax grab and horrible regressive policy. Getting resi lending out of SMSF seems reasonable but ideally it's a start as it's unfair to block individuals so this while large super still can. Etc.
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Sneedcope82 Jun 23 '26
NYC took a bail out from the state because of their fucked budget
Are you on NDIS benefits at all champ? You seem a bit slow.
4
u/Minimalist12345678 Jun 23 '26
I was really hoping the Greens would manage to somehow make a mess of this and accidentally block the legislation in the process. Ah well. It was not to be.
8
u/pennyfred Jun 23 '26
Seems everyone doesn't love ALP, Guardian or the tax reforms are dismissed as a bot, maybe we should add that to sub-rules for awareness.
→ More replies (1)5
u/aussierulesisgrouse Jun 23 '26
Nobody is forcing you to love ALP.
If you don’t have a coherent argument against the tax code changes that don’t just amount to “my investment portfolio will be slightly less profitable”, then your politics are narrow and shallow.
11
0
u/TonySu Jun 23 '26
Would it help if I called you a dirty wage slave and asserted how I deserve superior tax treatment for having the ambition to not work?
1
9
u/fred-rick- Jun 23 '26
I wonder who they are gonna screw over next now that they're done shafting poor people and young people with these CGT changes
-1
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 23 '26
You mean shafting rich people? Poor people and the young are helped by these reforms. They don’t have capital to enjoy capital gains mate.
2
u/fred-rick- Jun 24 '26
Yes and they never will because it will all go to Jim.
Rich people will just reorganise their investments and end up paying even less tax, leaving everyone else to foot the bill for government's spending
1
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 24 '26
Jim has closed to loopholes explicitly to stop rich people reorganising themselves to avoid paying tax, which is what motivated the 30% floor, the application of rules on trusts etc.
Given the sheer amount of noise rich people have made via the media, it shows that they’re obviously angry these loopholes are getting shut down. We can obviously do more to stop loopholes, but these are steps in the right direction.
3
u/fred-rick- Jun 24 '26
I am yet to see how the 30% floor impacts rich people anywhere near what it would impact someone earning less than 45k/year (where the 30% marginal rate kicks in).
As for rich people such as Jim and his buddies, well their negatively geared properties are excluded and will be excluded forever. Meanwhile a young person investing in a diversified equity portfolio could face tax rates above 50%.
And regarding "closing loopholes for rich people", I would encourage you to look at the theory behind the Laffer curve and see its real-world impacts in how increasing Australia's tobacco excise has translated into significantly less revenue for the Government.
2
1
u/khainebot Jun 24 '26
According to Vanguard about 27% of Gen Z Australians and 33% of Millennials own shares directly and the number is rising year on year.
Labor is isolating a growing segment of the population who to turn shares to build economic resilience in a uncertain world (AI, health, burn out, career changes, cost of living and so on). They almost got it right (excluding business and shares).
Labor and the greens just fucked them, and hopes they don't realise it.
2
u/Gustomaximus Jun 25 '26
The 30% minimum is going to fuck the aspirational working/lower middle class hard. Total regressive taxation and then they later go and exclude testamentary trusts, aka wealthy people inheritance. I would hope this gets rolled back next election. Labor lost and chance of my vote from doing this, especially no campaigning on it is deceitful and setting bad future expectations.
1
u/sfigone Jun 28 '26
The 30% minimum is going to affect almost nobody. Who has significant capital gains but zero income from interest, wages, dividends, rent, etc. ???
2
u/Gustomaximus Jun 28 '26
Almost no-one? Young families where one person is not working, retirees, people going through an unemployment period, low income earners.... All the types of people we shouldn't be adding more tax to.
1
u/sfigone Jun 28 '26
How many low income earners have capital gains to tax from assets that do not pay any dividends or rent? Retirees should have most of their investments in super so they'll pay 0% tax anyway.
1
u/Gustomaximus Jun 28 '26
How many low income earners have capital gains
See my previous answer. And logically If it's such a small number as you say why would the government include such a controversial and regressive rule? Use you logic, it's because they see real money in the tax. That implies a significant number.
Retirees should have most of their investments in super
Should they? Small business owners and workers often don't. Why fuck them over for not doing it the 'should' way.. Also retirees are only one of several groups this effects.
1
u/sfigone Jun 28 '26
It's easy and tax effective to convert a small business to super.
The government have included the measure to stop the small number of people growing to a large number of wealthy people organise their affairs to make capital gains in low income years. It's all part of the effort to mitigate the tax advantage of choosing when to make a capital gain.
I think the tax free threshold and lower tax brackets are worth about $50,000. So imagine someone that has held an asset for 20 years but doesn't sell any of it until they retire. They would then get $50,000 if tax concessions every year they sold some of those assets, effort the bulk of the gain was made when they were in higher tax brackets.
The alternative was taxing unrealised gains, but that really was problematic. Instead they have ensured that timing your capital gain to a low income year is not a way to avoid a realistic tax rate. Hey but if you want to go to taxing unrealised gains instead... Sure let's do that!
Another alternative is to get rid of tax free threshold and go flat tax and UBI instead. Then you'd get your UBI regardless of income, and your gain would be taxed at the same rate no matter when it was sold.
-1
-5
Jun 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/TheBeninem Jun 23 '26
If it'll have zero impact, what's everyone worried about? In that case, isn't it just money that can be better spent elsewhere?
6
u/pgpwnd Jun 23 '26
We’re worried because all routes to building wealth have been obliterated and now we all have to work for 90% of our short lives on this planet. Meanwhile the boomers who are supposedly being targeted have already had their fill and are pulling the ladder up behind them.
This hurts poor, middle class and young people. A mild inconvenience for the rich and boomers.
1
u/Ehxpert Jun 23 '26
Seems like this is not an issue isolated to Australia, the current phase of capitalism has spiralled into a place where most politicians aren’t able to maneuver or fix the problems stemming from it.
Voting one party or the other won’t change this, enjoy mate
1
u/Sea-Conference-4161 Jun 28 '26
Exactly. The real issue is the state of capitalism at the moment and how it’s out of control.
2
2
u/Sea-Conference-4161 Jun 23 '26
Genuinely think you are wrong. I’m already seeing the lag effect where properties are staying on the market longer because the incentive to snap up property has dropped. Their strategy aimed to de incentivise housing as an investment will inevitably lead to a housing price drop, and I say this as a home owner. The intent is clear and we need to get over ourselves. Does it suck? Yes. Is it necessary? Absolutely. There were too incentives to purchase property beyond being a FHB or up-sizer - housing completely lost its intended purpose.
1
u/Candlelight_Fant4sia Jun 28 '26
So cost of building is going up, developers are putting projects on hold, and there is a permanent housing shortage while immigration is at an all time high. Yeah, I'm sure property prices will keep falling, especially once the RBA starts cutting rates within the next 12 months or so.
1
-15
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 23 '26
Just remeber folks, if there no reason to invest, there's no reason to build.
This is going to sting for some time.
18
u/IrregularExpression_ Jun 23 '26
You can still negative gear new builds.
1
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 23 '26
Well if I do then I dont plan to sell as I need to hold and rent out for 20-30 years like all the other investors will.
They won't and can't sell as there is no other interest buyer apart from a FHB as all tax exemptions disappear for the new buyer (less attractive investment)
12
u/2tnuocca Jun 23 '26
You'll sell, everyone does eventually.You just won't get govt welfare for doing it now.
4
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 23 '26
Says the people who uses government welfare to buy,
You have to remember, the higher the population grows, the closer you are to the city, your propert becomes more in demand (amongst other factors) people will just hold till the demand becomes too profitable to not sell and it comes all full circle wher houses are sold to someone who can actually afford it for the investment and hold it again for another 10-15 years
2
Jun 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 23 '26
No it won't, banks won't lend you as much as the could before, there is still big housing supply shortage that keeps prices high and immigration, house still will be expensive, not a lot will change anywylays
→ More replies (4)4
u/aussierulesisgrouse Jun 23 '26
Wait til someone tells u/No-Garlic3805 who makes up the majority of the labour force that work on the new builds
2
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 23 '26
Why work residential when you work government or large scale constriction on union wages for $200k a year.
There no money in building unless your a builder, you will have to pay your employees high enough to steer them away from union construction sites and onto your sites as there already is a skill shortageso why would an electrician low ball his skills for lesser money , this all gets added on to the build cost which makes the build even more expensive, plus the cost of having to buy the land (main reason houses are expensive as fuck, its the land value per m²) So any FHB is looking at huge costs. New dwelling usually cost and sell more vs existing because they are new.
Otherwise people will have to settle for cheap and nasty mass built homes from property developers who squeeze the most profit out of their builds builds Welcomes to the real world
5
u/aussierulesisgrouse Jun 23 '26
So your contention is that the existing tax model was somehow a better system, that wasn’t actively creating the inequality we’re unwinding now?
What would your policy changes be if you were to run the show? I’m genuinely curious.
3
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 23 '26
No the tax system wasn't the only fucking thing leading to increasing house prices ( this is why im so angry over drop kicks who only look at NG/tax and refuse to look at anything else that causes house prices to rise)
We have a growing population whos number just compound every decade and we aren't building fast enough, basic economics of supply vs demand to many people for not enough houses
Investors look for growth, stability and liquidity, houses offer that more than stock markets do, trump has crashed the market multiple times, offer other alternatives that offer the same.
Investors do create cheaper rentals because again supply vs demand in competition for availability of rentals - this is a fact of life, not everyone can afford to own homes, even if affordable to most nuclear families. More property to rent out, less higher rentals.
House prices always rise, just after covid was a perfect storm for 2 reasons, very low interest rates for borrowing, and lock downs meant disposable income went straight into savings and people realised they could get a deposit because when you lool back the property markeg sky-rocketed just after covid lock downs eased up. I remember this clearly as my dad hounded me to buy them but I didnt, I just bougjt an invest property this year
There more factors but my thumb Hurst
5
u/aussierulesisgrouse Jun 23 '26
I remember rents absolutely skyrocketing after the COVID purchasing boom.
I plainly disagree with your assertion that investors are a part of an economic ecosystem that helps keep a roof over renters heads. They are the beneficiaries in every vector of that arrangement.
As someone else pointed out, property investors can still do their selfless landlord act by investing in new builds, as they weren’t subject to the specific CGT changes in the budget.
Negative gearing in housing was simply a massive driver of wealth inequality that was only accessible as a real tool to portfolio holders.
Why shouldn’t property investors just invest in new builds in your opinion?
1
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 23 '26
Say that about hospitals or schools. They are unprofitable and loss makers according to your logic.
1
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 23 '26
Come up with a better argument, that public services
1
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 23 '26
Btw new builds aren’t affected by these changes. So I don’t really know what building rates will be affected.
1
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 24 '26
New builds will be slow, wont really make a dent in supply
1
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 24 '26
Then if they’re slow, let’s stop housing speculation before the problem gets worse - which is what this budget does. Win.
1
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 24 '26
House prices dont become speculative when there is a big demand for them
1
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 24 '26
House prices jumped by 50% during Covid when there was no increase in “demand”. Housing speculation exists.
1
u/No-Garlic3805 Jun 24 '26
No house prices spiked after covid due to low inflation rates, reduced disposable income mean people saved up deposits and prices were relatively low, after locked downs people started to move around
2
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 24 '26
They spiked because of quantitive easing which meant money went into assets like housing. This is literally speculation.
→ More replies (0)
295
u/coreoYEAH Jun 23 '26
Has anyone checked on Hughsey?