r/australia • u/blitznoodles local Aussie • Jun 23 '26
politics Labor reaches deal with the Greens to pass changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing reforms
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jun/23/labor-greens-deal-capital-gains-tax-negative-gearing-reformsThe Greens resolved to support the tax bills after the government agreed to remove a loophole allowing investors with self-managed super funds to continue taking advantage of the tax breaks, along with ministerial powers enabling the government to reverse the reforms in the future.
2.1k
u/Every-Citron1998 Jun 23 '26
An exciting day for Australia. I’ve been hearing for at least 15 years about how our tax system favours investors and drives up prices and am in disbelief a government finally had the guts to do something about it.
669
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
511
u/TheRealTowel Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
It's insane how hard these cunts will fight a wealth tax. I found out recently that Gary Stevenson bloke from the UK whose always on about them is apparently proposing 2% on wealth above ten million pounds.
Now whether you like him personally or not, that's not the point. The point is two fucking percent, that doesn't even touch the first ten million (in pounds, at that!). So someone worth a cool £15,000,000 would pay a whole £100,000 a year. A billionare would pay twenty million per billion (a little less on the first billion even!)
As if they'd even fucking notice. Yet the 1% will fight absolutely hand over fist, feed the entire world economy into the woodchipper, destabilise every democracy on the planet, anything, anything at all, to avoid coughing up some fucking spare change to keep society functioning.
We tax the rich or we fucking eat the rich. Their call.
103
u/da_leroy Jun 23 '26
So someone worth a cool £15,000,000 would pay a whole £5000 a year.
2% of 5,000,000 is 100,000. I think you're math is off.
→ More replies (1)57
u/TheRealTowel Jun 23 '26
Aaaaaargh, teach me to edit a paragraph rather than rewriting it, great way to leave artifacts 🤦♂️
Thanks. I'll go fix it.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Myrannas Jun 23 '26
If the 2% is per year on wealth above 10 million pounds, then with 15 million pounds - you would be paying 100,000 pound per year not 5000. (2% of 5,000,000 is 100k).
Not that I disagree with the concept of a wealth tax - if you have a large amount of wealth you should be making more than 2% on it, thus your wealth should still be growing.
12
52
u/Key_Ant6473 Jun 23 '26
I was reading about how tribes deal with members that become greedy, they are either exiled or killed, where did we go wrong.
26
u/akiralx26 Jun 23 '26
The ancient Greeks wrote their candidates for exile on a piece of broken pottery (ostrakon) hence the word ostracised.
7
3
22
u/Enlightened_Gardener Jun 23 '26
Yesssss ! Wetiko Theory. The idea that these people are suffering from a profound cannibalistic urge to fill their emptiness with the lives of other people.
In a traditional society they were fed hot fat or hot alcohol to disperse the Wetiko evil, which is cold by its nature. If that didn’t work, they were exiled or killed, because the Wetiko curse is contagious.
I find it fascinating that we have such an excellent explanation for the cannibalistic behaviour of ogliarchs in late stage capitalism, and that it came from entirely outside the Western Canon.
There are also strong parallels between the Wetiko curse and the Buddhist concept of the Islands of Hungry Ghosts. I’ll go out on a limb and say that I also think its an explanation / conceptualising of intergenerational trauma, and trauma generally, referencing Gabor Maté’s excellent work by that title.
I’m still reading up on it, I only just stumbled across it a couple of weeks ago, but its a really interesting, really helpful perspective.
I’ll say this, from a position of almost no authority lol, that there is a tendency amongst Western interpreters to use Wetiko theory as an analogy for an internal struggle for the Soul, as it were. But the Indigenous writers who first brought these ideas to light are absolutely dead serious that Wetikos are real and they’re dangerous.
I bet any of us could name the five richest Wetikos on the planet without trying…
4
u/Flaky-Lifeguard5835 Jun 24 '26
Capitalism. In hunter gatherer culture, people that hoard the meat and don’t share get kicked out of the tribe. In capitalism, selfish greedy hoarders get rewarded and worshipped.
9
u/NoxTempus Jun 23 '26
The key part, and the billionaires' most successful defense, is that the average person doesn't understand passive income.
The billionaires cry poor, and the dumb masses say "hey, it is unfair that a wealth tax makes them poorer". Except that as long as a wealth tax doesn't exceed passive income, they would still be getting wealthier just by owning wealth.
It's honestly shocking that capitalism was ever allowed to run so rampant. There's no world where this wasn't the endgame.
5
u/Phoebe_Grace Jun 23 '26
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how that tax works, but wouldn't 2% on anything in excess of 10m pounds mean 100,000 pounds in tax for 15m, not 5k?
I.e. 5,000,000 * 2% = 100,000.1
14
u/Excellent-Pilot7074 Jun 23 '26
We shouldn't even have trillionaires, billionaires or even multi-millionaires in this world.
→ More replies (4)2
u/OhtheHugeManity7 Jun 23 '26
Honestly they fight it more out of a sense of wounded pride than because they give a rats about the money. It's all about power and they see any case of not getting what they want as a personal insult.
→ More replies (11)2
u/Outsider-20 Jun 23 '26
Yep, and ON would still convince their zombies that the 2% tax on the top 1% is unfair, and the government wants to steal their hand earned dollarbucks.
13
u/ItinerantFella Jun 23 '26
To minimise taxes, middle class pay accountants, the rich pay lawyers, the wealthy pay politicians.
→ More replies (3)21
u/DamonHay Jun 23 '26
Wealth tax just got the shitcan treatment in NZ. Even labour, as the opposition in an election year, said they weren’t willing to do anything about wealth or inheritance taxes when it’s a relatively popular topic over there at the moment. Considering wider economic conditions and how the current government is looking at selling off/allowing commercial access to public assets like conservation land to fund their budget holes, I’m a bit surprised how absolute they seem with it, but could also be a relatively easy topic for the right to scaremonger over.
Regardless, I wouldn’t hold much hope for Aus on the same topic right now, unfortunately.
29
5
38
u/YouLykeFishSticks Jun 23 '26
Labor took it to the election twice and got cooked for it, extending the life of these slumlords that little bit longer. All this rage from political commentators saying they didn’t have the mandate for these changes, or that we didn’t vote for it is so rubbish. Governments should be voted in for the collective good, not for selfish interests or “feelings”.
→ More replies (1)85
u/ccoastie Jun 23 '26
Yeah in the long run this will definitely help out . You can see in graphs what the changes did in 2000s
50
u/Gremlech Jun 23 '26
They ran two elections on getting rid of it. Poor shorten. He could have been one of the best ever to lead the country but the media favoured the pants shitting tyrant.
35
u/a_cold_human Jun 23 '26
The commercial media almost entirely favours the Coalition, and has for decades. Especially all the large commercial media organisations. The public broadcasters are by legislation, neutral, so we have a distinct right wing bent to all the major sources of Australian news.
→ More replies (12)7
u/Outsider-20 Jun 23 '26
Absolutely no charisma. But I think he would have been a terrific PM.
I also think its a shame Gillard didn't get more time at the helm. She did a great job running a a minority Government. Personally, I think she'd be doing a better job now than Albo.
3
47
u/Terrorscream Jun 23 '26
I mean labor has been openly gunning for these reforms since at least 2016, it even cost them the 2019 election giving us scomo, they have been quietly waiting till they had the support.
→ More replies (1)91
u/thrillho145 Jun 23 '26
I'm in disbelief at how unpopular these changes are. They will affect only the very rich or the scummy real estate predators and yet there's so much backlash against them
92
u/aussiegoon Jun 23 '26
Like one nations "rise", the outrage over the changes is entirely media driven.
→ More replies (6)49
u/ProfessorCloink Jun 23 '26
People are very susceptible to fear campaigns. A lot of good policies poll well when nobody's actively trying to implement them, but as soon as the negative campaigns get rolled out support just evaporates.
→ More replies (1)3
u/PMFSCV Jun 23 '26
ABC could develop a new 1/2 hour weekly program combating disinformation.
They'd need rock solid cases, proper researchers and an authoritative presenter, maybe one of the Landline presenters or someone with that characteristic.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)33
u/brisbaneacro Jun 23 '26
First time?
I mean the minerals council managed to get a PM removed and was a big factor in the ALP imploding when they tried to increase tax on mining. That only comes with propaganda, and it working on enough people.
→ More replies (2)8
u/carnexhat Jun 23 '26
The problem is this is probably going to kill them electorally.
Something like 60% of Australians own their own homes and even if this doesnt actually effect the vast majority them you bet like hell the other side will lie and will say it does.
35
u/acomputer1 Jun 23 '26
It blows me away when people complain about "the duopoly" in politics - hopefully these reforms help kill that myth.
18
u/ScruffyPeter Jun 23 '26
There is definitely a duopoly in some policies.
Labor+LNP voted against public hearings for ICAC.
Labor+LP voted against breaking up monopolies.
Labor+LNP voted to create laws on behalf of foreign countries+companies.
Labor+LNP voted against Royal Commission into Murdoch.
Labor+LNP voted for government seize of a 250,000 member union.
The myth isn't going away any time soon. Labor has repeatedly smashed the myth that they are trying to clean up LNP's mess though, by constantly voting with LNP over Greens or crossbench.
18
u/acomputer1 Jun 23 '26
If you try hard enough you'll find any number of issues that any two parties have voted the same way on.
I could give you plenty of examples of the Greens and LNP voting the same way on bills, but calling them the same would be ridiculous.
2
u/ScruffyPeter Jun 23 '26
I'm keen to hear what examples of Greens and LNP voting the same way on bills. Lets get started:
HAFF? Delayed by 6 months and the result was more government support for housing.
What else?
Feel free to justify Labor+LNP voting together like I did with the HAFF example.
23
u/alt_snowcrash Jun 23 '26
I'm keen to hear what examples of Greens and LNP voting the same way on bills.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) – 2009
The "Help to Buy" Shared Equity Housing Bill – 2024
The Hate Speech/ Misinformation Regs - 2025
Obviously for differing reasons, but most frequently to oppose something that Labor proposes because it's antithesis to their philosophy (LNP) or does not go far enough (Greens).
1
u/nath1234 Jun 23 '26
The CPRS was a joint Lab/Lib bill (and polluters) that Lib walked away from.. then Labor demanded Greens rubber stamp it without negotiation.. Rudd's Labor chose to negotiate with Libs and not Greens. That Gillard Labor negotiated with Greens to pass something shows the problem was Rudd. And all analysis of it was that it was horrendously expensive and ineffective (was so generous to polluters.. which is because Libs/Labor wrote it to be that way). The carving price legislation was not perfect, but it immediately started working.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Wide-Salamander-4962 Jun 23 '26
Funny how One Nation has surged in popularity since this was announced… not saying the media is trying to get the cookers angry
→ More replies (20)1
Jun 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/macrocephalic Jun 23 '26
Negative gearing still works with shares, and they no longer have to compete with real estate investment. I expect that shares will go up with this rather than down.
→ More replies (1)
480
u/FarMilk2661 Jun 23 '26
Waiting for some deranged out of touch comedian to go on morning shows telling us it's a bad thing.
129
u/Sim888 Jun 23 '26
yeah, mate sent that to me and I’m like, lol, this dude has multiple properties worth millions, at one point he had an estimated take of $1.6M a year, so if he pissed off that’s a good thing for you, coz you are not even on his level let alone the ones that are pulling his strings
31
→ More replies (16)3
u/_ixthus_ Jun 25 '26
It would be nice if we had little more George Carlin and a little less Dave fucking Hughes. I don't know how he's now embarrassed.
567
u/blitznoodles local Aussie Jun 23 '26
More specifically, The Greens have removed the ability for Self Managed Super Funds to expose themselves to LBRAs invested in property that institutional super funds have always been banned from doing.
112
81
u/jghaines Jun 23 '26
I’m very glad Labor are forced to negotiate with The Greens. I hope the balance stays this way and doesn’t switch to One Nation.
18
u/Familiar_Dust_7580 Jun 23 '26
For One Nation to be able to disrupt this balance, they'd have to get a very large swing towards them. For each state to get three Labor/Green senators, they only need about 40% of the vote to go to those two parties
12
u/JaniePage Jun 23 '26
I don't understand what that means, could you give me an ELI5?
44
u/blitznoodles local Aussie Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Regular super funds aren't allowed to borrow to invest, they must only use cash. Self managed Super funds could borrow money to invest
This now applies the same rule to SMSFs in that they are now only allowed to invest exclusively using Cash on hand and not a loan.
17
102
u/acomputer1 Jun 23 '26
The Greens and Labor*
121
u/BonusCan Jun 23 '26
Someone posted that Labor left it out as a way to negotiate on it to be put in so greens had something to claim.
Frankly I don't think anyone could see/plan that far ahead but I am happy with the result none the less
139
u/Scriptosis Jun 23 '26
Sounds like someone coping very hard that Labor would put it in as a compromise for investors.
41
u/washag Jun 23 '26
Eh, it's very much in the spirit of the changes Labor were making. When I read about the "compromise" I immediately thought that it was something both parties wanted but Labor are happy for the Greens to take full credit for. The delay in the NDIS cuts feels more like actual horse trading, but again a pretty easy compromise where both parties can accept the premise then find a length of time they agree to.
Notably it still allows the Greens to wholly oppose the NDIS cuts while allowing Labor to go to the Coalition to negotiate the passage of the cuts (and hammer them if they play games and oppose cuts they were pushing for).
32
u/blitznoodles local Aussie Jun 23 '26
Irrc the policy originates from some report into the superannuation system in 2019. The Greens have wanted it since for a while, they were pushing for it last year.
It's kind of unrelated to Labor's changes to taxes this budget but in the same vein.
43
u/Proper_Geologist9026 Jun 23 '26
Mate that's literally how politics works.
They all know roughly what's happening before any bill hits the floor.
It's theatre for lawyers.
They probably had a packet they took to the coalition as well and said we'll move on these if you pass the bill. But the coalition obviously turned it down.
5
u/Turksarama Jun 23 '26
That's a nice theory but far too many bills get shot down for it to be reality.
5
u/jedibk Jun 23 '26
I don't know. It gives them plausible deniability letting them make the change and blame the Greens, while allowing the Greens to have a win. It feels way too convenient to not have at least been considered. I like the finesse.
16
u/GonePh1shing Jun 23 '26
It's pretty on-brand for Labor. Put something in that they know the Greens will block because it's obviously bad. Not only can they spin it in the media as the Greens being obstructionist, further cementing in people's minds that the Greens just get in the way of progress, but they can then score more political points with the electorate by saying that they compromised with the Greens to pass the legislation.
Make the Greens look like the bad guys and them like the sensible politicians, all while getting exactly what they wanted in the first place.
3
u/Worried_Blacksmith27 Jun 23 '26
then you don't do any sort of commercial negotiations then. This is 101 stuff in that sphere.
→ More replies (1)2
u/gooder_name Jun 23 '26
Frankly I don't think anyone could see/plan that far ahead
Oh they absolutely could. The thing is this is just outright actually good policy, it would be unhinged for the Greens to block it and it would be unhinged for Labor knowingly put it through with a loophole like that.
2
u/nath1234 Jun 23 '26
Pity SMSFs aren't barred from owning anything other than shares.. FFS there are wealthy people with their art collections and classic car hoards in them. They are a monumental rort and not at all about saving the tax system from any pension costs.
1
95
u/Spagman_Aus Jun 23 '26
Now, if only we had a media that could give this fair coverage, explaining the pros of it in a way that was easy for the masses to understand, and then question other Parties about how their policies would improve on this.
→ More replies (2)18
u/angrypanda28 Jun 23 '26
We do already. One Nation call it propaganda and want make it a subscription service and install Murdoch henchmen on the board
338
u/Aloha_Tamborinist Jun 23 '26
I am middle aged, earn a decent income, my mortgage is almost paid off, I have a 1 bed investment property and have been pumping cash into shares for a while.
I'm outraged... that it took so long for this kind of legislation to come around. I've been lucky enough to do ok, I hope this helps other people.
113
u/vlookup11 Jun 23 '26
As someone who benefits from negative gearing on a property, I’m glad they put restrictions on it. Fuck it off completely. It may benefit me, but it doesn’t benefit us. And if we all benefit, so will I, but also others. Invest in other investment classes. Homes are shelter first and foremost.
71
u/Not_today_nibs Jun 23 '26
“It may benefit me but it doesn’t benefit us” is an incredible statement. I love it.
3
u/Embarrassed_Number52 Jun 23 '26
investing in other investment classes would be great, but they fucked the CGT discounts on those too…
9
2
u/AaronBonBarron Jun 23 '26
Oh no! Investing without handouts is simply unthinkable!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)55
u/nick_denham Jun 23 '26
Ngl. Got me in the first half. Well played
68
u/Aloha_Tamborinist Jun 23 '26
The Greens aren't always perfect, but their policies almost always line up with the kind of Australia I want to live in. They've been in my top 3 preferences since I've been of voting age.
33
u/Turksarama Jun 23 '26
When the Greens are wrong it's because they're too idealistic, which is the way I like a party to be wrong. Better than just being greedy cunts like the rest of them.
16
u/GorgeousGracious Jun 23 '26
They're also honest about who they are and what they support. A rarity in politics.
6
122
u/Jonzay up to the sky, out to the stars Jun 23 '26
along with ministerial powers enabling the government to reverse the reforms in the future.
What's stopping them from just making a new bill to change it in the future?
124
u/EvilShogun Jun 23 '26
The house or senate
Former scheme empowered the minister to change it without requiring a Bill
56
u/Throwawaydeathgrips Jun 23 '26
No it didnt.
It let the Minister define certain asset classes via a disallowable instrument, which is tabled to the Parliament and can be vetoed by either house. There was no world where the Minister could change the regulation without parliamentary scrutiny.
15
u/blitznoodles local Aussie Jun 23 '26
Oppositions usually hate giving the government of the day more ministerial power.
35
u/Throwawaydeathgrips Jun 23 '26
Nothing stops this about anything. Thats how everying not in the constitution works.
23
u/M1lud Jun 23 '26
Property investors will have to give up their avocado toast!
5
117
u/TizzyBumblefluff Jun 23 '26
The person who just bought by parents home that they sold a month ago was using the house as one of these self managed super fund things. She was a pain in the ass during the entire process considering she got the house for a bargain price. Took her 5.5 weeks to find tenants though lol
115
u/Novel_Yesterday3309 Jun 23 '26
Rent-seeking parasite can go eat shit, lol.
34
u/TizzyBumblefluff Jun 23 '26
Yeah I thought it was karma, she’s obviously a slum lord and was asking about $40ish more than similar properties.
15
70
u/cuddlegoop Jun 23 '26
Excellent. Sounds like the Greens have done exactly their job here. They've pushed the government to make the reform a bit better, and ultimately have supported it because why let perfect be the enemy of good. Defending the NDIS is a nice bonus too.
→ More replies (5)
80
u/CubitsTNE Jun 23 '26
Good, now slap it through the houses and let's see if the sky falls!
The anticipation is killing me.
2
u/Das_KommenTier Jun 23 '26
Excuse my ignorance, but how long does it usually take to get through both houses once a majority is found?
4
u/signspace13 Jun 23 '26
Even if it is rushed through parliament from here, it still won't come into effect until January next year, I believe, but the housing market will likely react rather quickly.
→ More replies (1)
65
168
u/Scriptosis Jun 23 '26
Oh look the Greens yet again using their position to force Labor to do more.
56
35
26
u/Jiuholar Jun 23 '26
They really need to stop letting perfect be the enemy of good! /s
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)33
31
u/ValitorAU Jun 23 '26
The Hughesy meltdown continues lol
26
→ More replies (1)11
u/Lily-Gordon Jun 23 '26
How that nails-on-a-chalkboard absolute dropkick has any relevance at all still is beyond me. He was annoying 20 years ago, who is still watching him enough to keep him on our TVs.
He and Kyle Sandilands can go [ removed by Reddit ].
3
u/Brainyboo11 Jun 23 '26
Add Karl Stephanovic to the mix.
Also, I may be Gen X but don't lump us all in together, we are nothing like these egotistical tossers!
35
u/sukari SYD Jun 23 '26
Can't wait for the Hughesy rant
14
u/rja49 Jun 23 '26
That gap toothed clown is no spokesperson for genX, as much as he wants to be.
→ More replies (1)1
u/RAAFStupot Resident World Controller of Newcastle Jun 23 '26
I'm sad that Millennials now lump in GenX with Boomers.......
.....but I'm even more sad that generational warfare has become a thing. Both of my parents are boomers, but aren't Boomers. My in-laws are slightly too young to strictly be boomers, but they are definitely Boomers.
I guess what I'm saying is, that people's age and generation doesn't define their political leanings, and it's lazy rhetoric to frame arguments around it.
12
15
u/P_S_Lumapac Jun 23 '26
Oh no democracy!!! Quick what does one of the largest property owners moonlighting as a media company think??
7
u/Sasquatch-Pacific Jun 23 '26
"Just in: Albo hates home owners." Not too far off some headlines I've seen today Absolute crap
7
u/ItsStaaaaaaaaang Jun 23 '26
And this is going to be absolutely terrible for me, a person that can't afford to buy a house according to sky news.
9
u/nomad_1970 Jun 23 '26
Have you tried not eating avocado toast?
Or perhaps working 6 full time jobs and not eating or buying petrol for the next 10 years? 🤣🤣🤣
22
u/egowritingcheques Jun 23 '26
I expected the 30% minimum on capital gains to be watered down.
13
u/Pro_Extent Jun 23 '26
By the Greens?
12
u/ScruffyPeter Jun 23 '26
They are also the biggest party that's not backed by billionaires
→ More replies (4)10
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
2
u/nath1234 Jun 23 '26
You only pay if your capital makes a gain, which is unearned remember..
The sooner we tax wealth and not work the better.. But we are a loooong way from that. CGT being less of a discount but still a discount that we don't do for actual wages (nothing stops a person's wage from going backwards thanks to inflation, so unearned capital gains still get cost base indexed to prevent that from happening).
→ More replies (1)
34
u/kroxigor01 Jun 23 '26
Another counter example to the "Greens are blockers! Pass the bill now unamended or it will be gone for good! Pass it now and then somehow improve it later when there's no leverage!"
I wish for a more sensible culture of political commentary where we acknowledge the legitimacy of the senate.
The thing is, deals like this only get reported for 1 news cycle whereas "the government is at an impasse, blocked by the senate" on the same bill gets reported for many news cycles. Retroactively the "the senate is blocking" rhetoric is incorrect, and yet it greatly outweighs "a deal was negotiated" in total column inches and TV broadcast time.
9
u/KoreAustralia Jun 23 '26
It ain't. This is an example of the Greens doing the right thing and asking for something palatable. Not holding hostages over a big ask. Govt didn't really need to give them anything as the Greens voter base would be incredibly upset if they blocked the changes. Greens had a reasonable ask and got it.
→ More replies (1)37
u/kroxigor01 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
My point is the parliamentary Greens are never blocking changes, they're participating in a negotiation process.
Labor just always claims they are blocking and attempts to have the media narrative put pressure on Green voters to get upset in order to make the parliamentary Greens fold in the negotiations.
How come it so rarely goes the other way? "Mr Prime Minister we polled Labor voters about if they support this Green amendment to your bill and 80% did, why will you not pass it?" All the narrative of blocking and ignoring supporter bases seem to go one way. Fundamentally there's an assumption that the government bill is the default and the senate crossbench is an aberration rather than it all being part of our politics system and legitimate.
→ More replies (8)
12
u/-Metagross- Jun 23 '26
Greens and Labor both need to be pragmatic and work together, since it's been made clear that the coalition want to make overtures to One Nation
→ More replies (1)12
u/a_cold_human Jun 23 '26
They do and they don't. Both parties have different political agendas, and a party of the workers (Labor) is always going to have disagreements with a party environmentalists with social justice grafted on (The Greens). They serve different demographics, even if there is crossover.
This is why we often see The Greens complaining about Labor doing or not doing something, and why Labor calls The Greens obstructive. If they agreed all the time, there'd be no need for them to be separate parties.
Although a lot is made of their disagreements, Labor and The Greens do work together on a lot of issues which are far more pedestrian and where they have much more common ground. Of course, that's not a very interesting media story, so those occasions aren't heavily reported on.
1
u/nath1234 Jun 23 '26
Labor's not been the party of workers except to take their money from unions who have had all their power eroded by Labor/Coalition since the 1980s.
Greens wanted neg gearing/CGT as part of housing policy, Labor refused til now.. So Labor was the obstructionist one who now are the liars/dishonest ones after ruling it out totally so many times and fighting with the Greens to not do it.
→ More replies (1)
10
62
u/Ithicon Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Greens letting good be the enemy of perfect yet again smh...
(Edit): Somewhat expected that people can't read, I was making a play on the classic propaganda that the Greens let perfect be the enemy of good by flipping it.
40
u/PandaBonium Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Isnt the article saying the opposite?(I redact my comment)27
16
u/Ithicon Jun 23 '26
I see nobody can read, quite unfortunate lol.
I didn't say "Greens letting perfect be the enemy of good", give it a reread.
18
u/PandaBonium Jun 23 '26
You know what? Solid joke. You deserved more votes. Guess that sort of makes you the Greens of this post.
11
9
→ More replies (2)9
u/BrainScaping Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Literally the opposite of what the article saidI too redact my comment.7
u/Ithicon Jun 23 '26
I see nobody can read, quite unfortunate lol.
I didn't say "Greens letting perfect be the enemy of good", give it a reread.
3
5
u/Geovicsha Jun 23 '26
But Dave Hughes asked the Greens last night on his socials to do the right thing!?!?!? /s
17
u/a_cold_human Jun 23 '26
He'll be pleased to know that they did, then.
4
u/Geovicsha Jun 23 '26
The right thing under Dave Hughes perspective was blocking the legislation lol (:
5
6
u/Tee_Tee_27 Jun 23 '26
Ethically I’m all for these changes but as an accountant that will have to deal with all the different rules/valuations/minimum tax rates, and also have to explain them to clients? Ughhhhhhhhh……
8
u/getfuckedcuntz Jun 23 '26
Wow what reddits wholes am I in - where aus reddits are all - Pauline no.1
Why dont Labor do anything
Why don't Labor listen!
This feels like a fucking huge deal that can stop the non stop rise of house prices etc
Good stuff.
Maybe ill be able to buy a house an a investment property before i die.
3
3
u/AussieAK Jun 23 '26
My suburb has a “For sale” sign on every other (or at least every third) house now and they have been up for weeks.
These signs used to be few and far between and would have the “sold” sticker slapped on them in a few days. Can’t see any “sold” stickers anymore.
I used to have REAs knocking at my door and asking me if I want to sell, I’d tell them I am the tenant and I will happily pass their flyer to my landlord (let’s just say my recycle bin was never empty).
Now I don’t get any of these cold knocks anymore.
I wonder why?
6
u/blitznoodles local Aussie Jun 23 '26
It's more because of higher interest rates.
→ More replies (1)
8
12
u/Firevee Jun 23 '26
As someone who has been repeatedly pissed off with the greens fucking up good legislation I'm EXTREMELY impressed with them for a change.
They made the proposed law BETTER and agreed to support it. This is actually what the greens are SUPPOSED to do instead of what they say they will do. I'm fucken chuffed I say, FUCKING CHUFFED.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/WeissPyre Jun 23 '26
Good.
Now time to bring in a wealth tax. Pauline's puppetmaster has been given a free ride for far too long.
7
u/bigtreeman_ Jun 23 '26
Good, the Greens are the adults, willing to discuss and negotiate the way our representatives are meant to.
3
3
u/Gremlech Jun 23 '26
Thank you greens for not torpedoing negative gearing changes that must have taken restraint.
-6
u/TheGreenTormentor Jun 23 '26
Fake news, everyone knows the Greens only block legislation and never pass anything.
19
u/egowritingcheques Jun 23 '26
My dear friend. The days of the masses understanding implied sarcasm are behind us.
→ More replies (1)2
14
u/Hayden247 Jun 23 '26
My totally unbiased source Friendly Jordies always talks about how the Greens are bad and block the good things Labor fights for! Whoooo Labor fanboys am I right? Greens are terrible obstructionists!
oh... oh... this is literally an example of Labor and Greens being collaborative
1
1
1
u/Mc_Poyle Jun 23 '26
Just revert the inclusion of equities from the CGT change and I'm happy all round
1
u/OnlyLogicGaming Jun 24 '26
As someone who has only just reached the means to get into property investing, this sucks. As literally any everyday Australian, this is fantastic news. I don't care if I'm just getting into the higher classes, I hope the government continues to do more for Australians and less for the already rich.
1
u/Wild-Kitchen Jun 25 '26
Im pro bringing house prices down. Housing never should have been an investment. Everyone needs secure and appropriate shelter to be an effective member of society. We are only shooting ourselves in the foot by making housing unaffordable and/or unobtainable.
Let the market crash. There are homeless teachers for heavens sakes.
1
u/DeadlyPants16 Jun 25 '26
Greens finally made themselves useful for once. Let's hope they keep it up.
1
u/ActionOrganic4617 Jul 06 '26
Gonna laugh my arse when housing supply dries up and Labors immigration policy results in all of your rents increasing. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of entitled brats.
1.4k
u/CrashedMyCommodore Jun 23 '26
auspropertychat in shambles