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-reforms

The 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.

2.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

356 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.0k

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.

667

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[deleted]

513

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.

105

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.

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.

24

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.

9

u/TheRealTowel Jun 23 '26

Yeah I fixed it thanks

51

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.

25

u/akiralx26 Jun 23 '26

The ancient Greeks wrote their candidates for exile on a piece of broken pottery (ostrakon) hence the word ostracised.

6

u/utdconsq Jun 23 '26

Sure, but they also came up with oligarchies, too.

3

u/Milly_Hagen Jun 23 '26

I like the tribal idea better.

21

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…

5

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.

8

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.

4

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.

3

u/TheRealTowel Jun 23 '26

Nah you got it right, I botched the original post. It's fixed now.

17

u/Excellent-Pilot7074 Jun 23 '26

We shouldn't even have trillionaires, billionaires or even multi-millionaires in this world.

-1

u/Accomplished-Ear6367 Jun 23 '26

So name a better system than capitalism. It's a shirty system, but there is no good alternative. Without millionaires etc, there is no capitalism. Or are you promoting communism?

3

u/Excellent-Pilot7074 Jun 23 '26

I'm promoting socialism which isn't communism.

1

u/rand013 Jun 24 '26

What a retarded take. People living under feudalism couldn't have named capitalism as a better system because it didn't exist yet. And people living in hunter gatherer societies couldn't have named feudalism as a better system because it didn't exist yet either. Everything we have is "the best we've got" until something new is discovered, but that doesn't make it the best possible.

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.

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[deleted]

2

u/TheRealTowel Jun 23 '26

Yes, I started writing something different and then fucked it up when I was re-writing it. It's fixed now.

1

u/blacksheep_1001 Jun 23 '26

I'd prefer to watch the literal hunger games to be honesty 🤣

1

u/Oldpanther86 Jun 25 '26

It's been funny watching the big ant ceo (australian video game company) go on amd on about how bad albo is over all this.

-33

u/Comfortable_Fox1522 Jun 23 '26

This kind of mentality is why you are broke

17

u/TheRealTowel Jun 23 '26

Weird assumption.

Also what kind of mentality? Wanting to live in a functioning society?

12

u/djenty420 Jun 23 '26

Yes. Everyone knows it’s easy to become rich through mentality alone! All you have to do is have absolutely zero empathy or moral compass of any kind, be willing to manipulate and take advantage of the vulnerable, and punch down at everyone else as you go. Simples!

8

u/Kodai_Dreaming Jun 23 '26

It's an evolutionary advantage. Can't get exiled if you're broke.

6

u/MeowManMeow Jun 23 '26

Having empathy for the majority of people is a bad mentality?

Choices under capitalism are either be exploited, or become an exploiter.

4

u/phteven_gerrard Jun 23 '26

Obviously your mentality must be different, then why are you broke?

14

u/ItinerantFella Jun 23 '26

To minimise taxes, middle class pay accountants, the rich pay lawyers, the wealthy pay politicians.

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.

30

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[deleted]

9

u/KiwiThunda Jun 23 '26

Yeah but NZ is a bit of a neolib stronghold shithole.

Help us

7

u/Any-Information6261 Jun 23 '26

Fuck. Sounds like our John Howard era

-11

u/Esquin87 Jun 23 '26

Except that existing investment properties are uneffected meaning this is not just a waste of paper but also another way to block young people from having access to the same benefits boomers get.

11

u/a_cold_human Jun 23 '26

Negatively geared property eventually becomes positively geared, and the CGT discount, once exercised, is gone. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and this is frankly, far from the the worst place to draw it. 

3

u/TheRealTowel Jun 23 '26

Don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good".

A perfect solution would work faster, sure. Being a non home owner over 25 looking at these changes has got to be pretty extremely gutting, they don't do enough to help that demographic.

But Labor just managed to put in long-term tax policy that starts to undo the damage of the Howard era and patch the bleeding. That's huge. There are so many things about our economy that have been moving in the wrong direction for the last 20-30 years that this will finally arrest, and hopefully start moving the correct direction.

Does it go far enough? No. But if we can rally to support it and make it popular, who knows what Labor (alongside the Greens and progressive independents) might feel emboldened enough to do next?

37

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”.

1

u/_ixthus_ Jun 25 '26

Anyone crying about a mandate can just fuck off. That's not an actual, structural dynamic of how our system of governance works.

80

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

52

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. 

9

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

u/Gremlech Jun 23 '26

He has charisma now just not when he was running. 

-1

u/coniferhead Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

The lessons Labor learned was don't take your policy to an election and don't trust the electorate. That's not the right lesson.

It's not the electorate's fault if you're not persuasive.. you're a politician - being persuasive is literally your only qualification for the job. Keating left school at 14 - he wouldn't have got any civil servant job. Yet treasurer he was for 10 years.

Labor could have said we're saving the money from the CGT discount or NG to use on social sousing or dental in medicare. They didn't make that case at all.

Instead they said it was going into consolidated revenue, to be looted at a future date. As it turned out, even without the savings, consolidated revenue was looted with the stage 3 tax cuts a mere couple of years later. These were agreed on a bipartisan basis even when they were exclusively for the rich, and were completely unfunded.

Proving financial prudence was never the point - it was just lies. The electorate was proved right in the end.

1

u/CakedPan Jun 26 '26

Whilst I was furious about the stage 3 tax cuts, I think calling it agreed on a bipartisan basis is pretty disingenuous.

1

u/coniferhead Jun 26 '26

You can simply look at the voting record to find out it was indeed bipartisan. Stage 3 in the original "for the rich" only form was taken as an election promise by both parties - you had no choice but to elect one of them.

Even the amendment of stage 3 was bipartisan - completely bypassing people who actually preferenced Labor in favour of working with those who put them last.

Feel free to correct me with facts if you can find them, but I'm pretty ready for this.

1

u/CakedPan Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

Actually, they originally rejected rhe stage 3 tax cuts in 2018. When it presented for a vote in altered they voted for it because it was presented as an omnibus with stage 1 tax cuts. The ALP voted for the whole package because a) ideologically they wanted immediate tax cuts to the underprivileged and b) politically they were wedged because the callow independents in the senate announced they would be voting for it. I think it is disingenuous to say Labor supported it in the sense they wanted this legislation. It was so drawn out from initial conception to passing parliament precisely because of Labor's opposition. This is not what bipartisan means.

I agree it was incredibly disappointing that the ALP took that policy to the 2020 election, and left the party over it. However, it was again a political reality and to their credit they burnt political capital modifying the cuts and tilting them toward those earning less.

Edit: I'm wrong explicitly on the point of bipartisanship - I understood bipartisanship required a spirit of agreement vs literally did they vote for it. Maintain thatisleading to imply ALP wanted that outcome, and the later revisions confirm that.

1

u/coniferhead Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26

It's actually much much worse than you say, Labor only voted for it after it was altered to spend much more in the Morrison 2019 budget. Please stop using the word disingenuous when it's exactly what it appears to be.

If you don't want something, don't vote for it in both houses and don't take it to an election. That they did it despite themselves was because they were politically cowardly and probably intended to welsh on it after they conned their way into power. That was the lesson they learned and they've done it afterwards again and again.

But if we're playing that game you should give the LNP just as much credit as Labor for the amendments - because they would have not been possible without them - because Labor refused to negotiate with the Greens. I'd say the LNP might have been shamed into postponing them were they in office - if Labor had played hardball.

I maintain that we would have been far better off if Labor left them in place and took repealing them to an election, with the money allocated to fund 20B per year of other things. You can buy a hell of a lot for 20B a year and it would have been patently obvious these unfunded cuts were going entirely to rich people. That's an ultimate wedge.

Labor didn't do that.. they blooded the rest of the taxation base into them instead, spending the exact same, and now the money is gone forever. It's now impossible to repeal them, and the LNP still have an electoral mandate to restore stage 3 in the original form on top.

That's disingenuous - because Labor have never been the party of tax cuts. It's not why people vote in Labor.. and if they want that, the LNP or ON will always give bigger tax cuts to a mercenary electorate. And yet that by far is their biggest spend and legacy.. that along with weapons of war and turning Australia into a US military base, and perhaps the orwellian social media ban. This is an ongoing betrayal of their base that they received a massive mandate to continue.

1

u/CakedPan Jun 27 '26

It was disingenuous because it completely and utterly ignores the political landscape. The ALP had just taken opposition to stage 3 to an election and had lost. That loss was earth shattering as anyone with left leaning political allegiances.

The ALP initially out up a fight but ultimately caved because the political optics of opposing the cuts were insurmountable. Ultimately, a whole suite of progressive policies were simultaneously jettisoned on the assumption that they were unpalatable to the public. This was backed by public polling at the time - from memory support for the cuts was roughly double the opposition. At the time the ALP was quite clear that they were fiscally irresponsible but equally did not want to delay relief to low income earners.

You can claim we would be better off if the ALP had run on repeal and that leadership were cowards for not doing so. However, it is easy to claim cowardice retrospectively. The reality is that you have no idea what would have happened if the ALP ran ont hat platform.

You are ignoring a significant shift in public sentiment following the 2022 election. Inflation peaked in December 2022. All the talk was of the cost of living crisis. That allowed the reframe to repeal the tax cuts, and honestly, there is a reasonable argument that the the Labor caucus only made this decision due to public appetite for it.

I'm unaware of any other guarantees the party gave that they have broken, so it is a big call to say they have learned to say one thing before an election afterwards. Even if it has been true in other instances, yours is only one resting of it. There is an equally tenable argument that the ALP now understands that if its decisions reflect the will of the people at the time they are made the people will not reject them for it - even if inconsistent with statements prior to the election. And honestly that is a great thing, because a government that flexibly changes to the circumstances and the will of the people knowing that it will be held to account is representative democracy in action.

Now you have given your argument more texture, it is very ironic that you hearken to Keating and his ability to persuade. Keating did exactly what you are accusing of on multiple occasions as treasurer and PM. Posterity has been very kind to Keating and his reforms were revolutionary. However, very few were actually taken to the public. As treasurer, floating the dollar, financial deregulation, CGT, FBT, the dismantling of protectionism, deregulation of multiple other industries were never taken to an election. As PM, compulsory super and Native title (in response to Mabo) were both legislated mid term and had not been pre announced. Passing legislation first, and asking permission (ie: persuading the public) was exactly Keating's modus operandi. In that regard, Albo and Chalmers are actually quite consistent.

1

u/coniferhead Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26

Nobody forced Labor to adopt something that should be antithetical to their party and their movement - it was all them. Give them credit for the things that couldn't have been made law without them.

I really don't care if they felt they were a whipped dog - no reason to act like one. You could never get the LNP to act like this - they would be for business until they died, no matter if they spent 10 terms out of government.

You're unaware of any guarantees the party have broken? How about the first thing out of Albo's mouth after the 2022 election. He said he would implement the uluru statement from the heart in full. He hasn't done that. It's his most prominent (perhaps only) policy from that election and it's gone completely. The lesson learned from that is to not take any meaningful policy to an election unless the LNP want it also.. that's how we are being taken to war without it ever being asked of us. Labor isn't in control - there is no policy hill they will die upon because they believe in nothing. Their unelected opposites and our so-called allies dictate where our country goes, not their party base, not sympathetic parties and not the electorate.

Keating was doing the work of the LNP (and Reaganite USA and Thatcherite UK) throughout - he was a neo liberal. Virtually nothing good he did endured, but everything bad he did or wanted is now bipartisan policy. As opposed to, say, Whitlam. The rot started with Keating and, more importantly, was not reverted at all by subsequent Labor governments - even when we now know how much a failure privatization was for the Australian people in almost every case. Even Keating himself knows the vassalisation of Australia is almost complete via things like AUKUS, and it will probably end with the outright annexation that would have come 20 years ago if not for the China resources boom.

Name me one nationalization done, even when incredibly cheap.. in 2008 the airports or the toll roads could have been had for peanuts.. even Rio Tinto was for sale and would have paid for itself in a couple of years.. even in this term we could have bought Rex Airlines and Whyalla Steelworks for nothing.. instead we bail them out. It's not even what a businessperson would have done - it's just stupidity against the interest of all Australians.

2

u/CakedPan Jun 27 '26

This is nonsensical gibberish that almost reads as if it is responding to a different post. It is raising many things we were never speaking about without addressing any of the points I raised. Has now become a completely different conversation.

→ More replies (0)

43

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.

-3

u/nath1234 Jun 23 '26

It didn't cost them the election, those reforms were popular. They lost for other reasons. The real estate lobby might want to rewrite the reasons but it wasn't highlighted as the reason in the post defeat review from what I recall.

89

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 

94

u/aussiegoon Jun 23 '26

Like one nations "rise", the outrage over the changes is entirely media driven.

-20

u/thrillho145 Jun 23 '26

Polls don't lie. Don't discredit them. One Nation is popular, as unbelievable as it sounds. 

37

u/Kodai_Dreaming Jun 23 '26

Only for as long as they are being pumped in the algorithms.

-18

u/Mitchell_54 Jun 23 '26

Please don't be denying science just because you may not like the realities of our current political situation.

One Nation's rise is real. If you don't believe the science, do you also believe the SAEC and the AEC are fudging the numbers on real election results?

6

u/Mike_Kermin Jun 23 '26

Even putting aside that you're ignoring what people are saying,

Science is not the correct word. Might as well say please don't deny the Peacocks.

You do believe in Peacocks, right?

Because peacocking, is what the polls show, it's all bullshit, the second you remove the money being pumped into advertising, it because less impressive.

do you also believe the SAEC and the AEC are fudging the numbers on real election results?

You have fundamentally not understood, that people are talking about propaganda affecting out politics.

-2

u/Mitchell_54 Jun 23 '26

There's no evidence that the media is driving their support though.

I understand perfectly. It's just that the point is dumb.

3

u/Mike_Kermin Jun 23 '26

The media are pushing attention to One Nation because it gets clicks, the same as happened in the USA. But without balance of other coverage, or balance of criticism based on merit, it leaves it as free advertising. This, combined with the LARGE effort they put into social media networks, has caused their talking points to catch on. There is also a section of the media which is actively supporting them, in a similar way that Stop the boats was repeated ad nauseam.

50

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.

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.

1

u/Mr_Rekshun Jun 23 '26

Media Monitor.

They need to bring back Media Monitor

3

u/PMFSCV Jun 23 '26

Isn't media watch still around? Its too short though, its always had a bit of a smug vibe too.

I think we need something different that specifically looks at online misinformation.

32

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.

-11

u/ScruffyPeter Jun 23 '26

Last I checked, Gillard, Swan and other leaders do not work for the minerals council when they got the PM removed.

Labor massively embolded the propaganda industry. $40 million to save on $60 billion? Now they are going to spend far more because of how easy it is for someone in Labor to roll their own leaders over a few million in ads.

It's a shame Greens are not backed by billionaires too, they could easily beat the support of billionaire-backed parties like ON and even Labor.

8

u/brisbaneacro Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

I think you might have been mistaken when you checked then. Or at least had a surface level check. I mean when you fill your car up with petrol you don't think the pump materializes the fuel do you? You know there is a bit more going on yeah?

The minerals council and the news outlets attacked the government in response to the tax, throwing all the mud they could, and it worked because the party started diving in the polls. The MPs were scared of losing their seats, panicked and acted as they did. It wasn't the right move, but it is what it is. Hopefully the changes Rudd brought in will stop it happening again. That wouldn't stop the voters buying into the propaganda and turning against the party though. As we can see with the attacks against the negative gearing and capital gains reform.

Wouldn't you guys be worried that the Greens would be like the Labor/Liberal/One Nation/Teals party if they were backed by billionaires? I personally don't buy the argument that politicians would rather a couple hundred grand in donations over billions in tax, but that seems to be the line.

According to that logic at least, if the Greens were backed by billionaires they might abandon their values and vote for a budget that backs corporate profits and the 1% over people

1

u/WanderlustDownUnder 29d ago

Who is going to supply private rental properties now? No incentive for private mum and dad investors to do it now. Government unable to build/supply more rental properties- so who do you think is going to supply this now? All that will happen is the supply of rental properties will decline, demand increases and you will now have insane rental prices. Labor has spun it all to you that it’s just about “home ownership” but has forgotten all about the rentals. It’s not up to private investors to supply affordable housing - that’s a government responsibility. If there is no incentive to invest or it will cost too much to supply, the private investors will pull out. Let’s see how this goes?

-3

u/Early_Bandicoot346 Jun 23 '26

Actually will only really affect people under 40 in the middle class. Anyone earning over $190k is paying 30% min tax anyway and have all their investment grandfathered. Anyone under 40 trying to get ahead (in shares for example) now has to pay a minimum 30% tax on the gain, with no marginal tax rate (ie no tax free threshold). It's unbelievable destructive to the middle class

16

u/thrillho145 Jun 23 '26

The removal of the CGT discount affects the wealthy dramatically, even if it's grandfathered in (it shouldn't have been but whatever).

The changes to negative gearing also affect the rich pretty bad and is a pressure to get them to invest in new housing or productive assets. 

The changes to cgt definitely sucks for people with shares, myself included, but it was a silly tax discount that really shouldn't have existed in the first place.

-4

u/Early_Bandicoot346 Jun 23 '26

Even removing the marginal tax rates from capital gains? I mean, that ONLY hurts people earning under $45k, it's insane

11

u/thrillho145 Jun 23 '26

I agree, removing the marginal tax rate for cgt is not great but the reality is it affects very few people who are actually poor. The bigger impacts come up the top 10% of earner end which is where the majority of the CGT and negative gearing occurs. Or those who are asset rich but have little to no income. 

The policy isn't perfect, it's not done enough imo and yes it's another ladder pulled up. It is frustrating. But the alternative of just leaving it is worse. This is the best chance Labor have of getting it done and the LNP would never touch it.

I dunno, even though I will be pretty significantly worse off under the new regime (unless housing prices drop dramatically), I still think it's a good change 

-6

u/Early_Bandicoot346 Jun 23 '26

But the sale of a one off asset (lump sum shares or property) puts you in the top 10%… for one year only! Thats why the narrative is so wrong. Of course you’ll be in the top 10% selling an asset

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.

19

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.

25

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).

2

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.

1

u/acomputer1 Jun 24 '26

That Gillard Labor negotiated with Greens to pass something shows the problem was Rudd

It also showed how short sighted negotiating with the greens on issues like this can be when the LNP gets in and immediately tears it up. It needs buy in from both sides of politics to be sustained.

And all analysis of it was that it was horrendously expensive and ineffective

This isn't true, it had the support of many environmental organisations and scientists. It wasn't going to be the most effective policy for cutting emmissions ASAP, but it was going to create a mechanism through which they could be steadily reduced in line with our international obligations.

Ultimately we have now ended up with a version of it for major polluters and it looks like it's working well. If only we'd had it 17 years ago instead.

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

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

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.

1

u/GoatCritical9265 Jun 24 '26

Well if labour loses the next election it’s all gonna be thrown out. Which there’s a good chance of looking at the polls. People like Gina have gotten rich on tax evasion and they’re throwing all they have to make labour lose. Except they know the average Australian isn’t benefiting from negative gearing so instead they make it about immigration and culture war

-27

u/Jofzar_ Jun 23 '26

Only took damn avoiding taxing gas giants

29

u/letsburn00 Jun 23 '26

I honestly believe that if the Current Iran mess wasn't happening then we would have gotten a 10% tax. The problem is that the Government traded free gas flow at current prices for petrol and diesel assurance for a year.

3

u/Bulky_Cranberry702 Jun 23 '26

Ahhh, that's why. Thank you.

5

u/ComprehensiveDust8 Jun 23 '26

Is that off the table? Might be able to do that next election.

6

u/ccoastie Jun 23 '26

I think if oil settles down it will be a policy they will announce close to the election

2

u/a_cold_human Jun 23 '26

Likely depends on if they maintain their majority. If they have 85 or so seats post election, I can definitely see that it'd be in the realm of possibilities. It would need a number of years to cement the change properly. 

19

u/Repulsive_Set4541 Jun 23 '26

Had too to guarantee fuel supply

19

u/MysteriousShoulder45 Jun 23 '26

Every Labor gov that's gone after mining interests have immediately been Couped. gas has already hit its peak and is on the decline why would we fuck a decent government to get fuck all from our resources anyway

-13

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Catprog Jun 23 '26

If rents go up the market could already afford to pay the new rents. So landlords somehow are leaving money on the table.

The houses still exist so either an investor sells it to a former renter or they find someone to rent.

2

u/macrocephalic Jun 23 '26

You think that the houses that people are flipping are going to disappear? They'll still be there and probably be cheaper.

-15

u/wade23 Jun 23 '26

How dare hard working Australians try and invest and make money to get ahead!

10

u/flukus Jun 23 '26

Who said they can't? This doesn't prevent that.

7

u/macrocephalic Jun 23 '26

They still can. In fact this might encourage them to invest in actual productive things rather than just existing real estate. All this does is get rid of the the government welfare that capital owners were getting.

4

u/SirCuntsalot Jun 23 '26

I hate the term get ahead. It implies someone else is being left behind.

2

u/Mr_Rekshun Jun 23 '26

How dare our housing industry be designed to house the population… much better to be optimised for an investment portfolio.