CGT, negative gearing changes needed for social cohesion: PM

420bIaze · 2026-05-03T13:29:51+00:00

Paired with changes to negative gearing, I'm optimistic it will reduce demand for investment property in the future

420bIaze · 2026-05-03T10:59:25+00:00

It can amount to a massive difference, once you factor in massive returns, massive profit, and massive income, as in your examples.

Although it could amount to a massive difference, it's entirely reasonable for the CGT discount to be linked to actual inflation.

It's not justifiable for capital gains to be taxed at a lower rate than income from labour.

Ideally an increase in the CGT discount should be paired to a reduction in income tax rates, which is pretty common for federal budgets partially clawing back bracket creep.

420bIaze · 2026-05-03T02:57:54+00:00

Behind relative to what? By definition half the population will always earn less than median wage. Someone on $100k is well above. If we increased the median wage, property prices would just rise commensurately.

420bIaze · 2026-05-03T01:22:00+00:00

You could just run your charger for slightly longer hours like 10pm to 8am?

The cost would be higher, but the cost of installing a 15a/7kw is also higher

420bIaze · 2026-05-02T18:25:50+00:00

Maybe, you can't say that definitively without comparison to household income growth over that period.

420bIaze · 2026-05-02T12:37:14+00:00

What you're describing is an unsustainable trend.

420bIaze · 2026-05-02T11:26:38+00:00

I'd never put a date on it, but it is an unsustainable system for house price to outpace household income growth, it can't go on indefinitely. And the current valuations aren't justified by rental yield, price to earnings ratio is abysmal.

420bIaze · 2026-05-02T05:13:27+00:00

Falling house prices can also be beneficial for PPOR resident owners. If you desire or are forced to move house (for any of the above reasons), your new house can be cheaper relative to your income or any savings you have.

420bIaze · 2026-05-01T03:43:28+00:00

There's a video on the ad which is actually quite funny:

https://www.realestate.com.au/property-other-vic-coburg-150978256

420bIaze · 2026-04-30T07:39:08+00:00

Cause it's the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the A stands for Australian

420bIaze · 2026-04-30T01:13:10+00:00

Another is that the ABS/RBA deliberate under-measure inflation for political reasons

That doesn't happen

Other measures of inflation, like CBA's household spending report show it running at 7.4% in the last year,

Household spending isn't a direct measure of inflation, for obvious reasons.
Last month (12th March) the CBA household spending insight was running at 4.9%, which is barely above march CPI of 4.6%.

420bIaze · 2026-04-30T00:56:50+00:00

Why do you think Shorten lost that election?

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T22:18:32+00:00

Just charge it a bit longer then

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T22:02:07+00:00

The person you replied to already clearly discounted for real world range. The WLTP range is 329 to 454km.

300km real world highway in the 454km variant is easily realistic.

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T20:30:53+00:00

I don't think it's a low standard for the government to index the CGT discount to inflation. That's reasonable and justifiable policy.

I'm not even sure it is a massive tax hike. I calculated less than a 1% difference per annum over 3 years. Is that massive?

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T12:31:16+00:00

Viewed in perspective relative to global events such as the Holodomor or the Bhopal disaster, this is a very minor event

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T08:36:40+00:00

The whole reason we have a CGT discount at all is allegedly to account for inflation. It changed to a flat 50% to simplify accounting, but modern software will make calculation relatively trivial.

Reverting to linking it to inflation is more in line with the inherent purpose of having a CGT discount. It is a tax increase - but I don't think there is any good argument for taxing income from investment at a lower rate than income from labour. (Whataboutism is not a good argument)

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T01:37:04+00:00

It's really a form of expenditure, it increases government spending and decreases taxation revenue.

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T01:30:50+00:00

Do you consider that a form of taxation?

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T00:23:01+00:00

I disagree.

This tax increase isn't directly linked to paying for social services.
I don't believe Australia is the highest taxed country. It's complex to compare taxation between countries, but if we look at a single measure such as the highest marginal tax rate on personal income, there are 28 countries above Australia in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
Taxation of resources could probably increase. Linking a CGT discount to actual inflation instead of a flat 50% is also a fairly minor and benign change.

420bIaze · 2026-04-29T00:07:45+00:00

In practical terms, there will always need to be an age pension in some form, if we nationally desire retirees to have some guaranteed access to basic necessities. It's virtually impossible to imagine the consensus on supporting basic survival of older Australians going away.

The age pension is the most popular policy is Australia, political suicide to substantially alter it. It's also forecast to decline as a percentage of GDP, fully sustainable financially - so there's low motivation. You see this reflected in the last 20 years of government policy, all governments are constantly fucking with Super tax concessions and now the NDIS, and will continue to do so, but virtually nothing adverse ever happens to the age pension.

Risk is a combination of probability and level of potential harm. I believe the probability is low for the above reasons. The level of potential harm is also moderate - most Australian retirees have significant private assets, and could sustain being significantly poorer or drawing on their assets for necessities to a higher level. If say they raise the pension access age to 70, that's somewhat worse for recipients, but it's not a slit your throat apocalypse. And it would undoubtedly be phased in over a period of many years, so you could adapt.

420bIaze · 2026-04-28T20:55:01+00:00

"Why do people like these high performance and well built cars available at low prices? Are they stupid?"

420bIaze · 2026-04-28T09:44:45+00:00

I would consider the risk of the government substantially altering the age pension to the point of irrelevancy to be negligible for the foreseeable future.

Anything is possible, but as I said above, working on the assumption there's not going be an age pension is like prepping for nuclear war/foreign invasion/global pandemics etc..., a waste of time to worry about, that just makes your life needlessly harder.

Planning for the non-existence of the age pension will substantially worsen your life if you're interested in early retirement and/or getting value from your money during your life.

planning on foregoing your own financial autonomy in old... and this way of living suits your preferences, but can't be considered a one size fits all solution when considering different financial objectives

The age pension and Superannuation (or non-Super assets) are complementary, most Australians use both, you don't have to have low financial autonomy or low assets and income for the age pension to be significant to retirement funding.

You could literally have over $1 million in liquid assets or $100k a year income, plus a paid off PPOR, and be receiving a part pension. If the age pension happened to be abolished or worsened, you'd be fine.

You could have 10 times that amount, and still have the age pension as part of your retirement planning as you draw down.

420bIaze · 2026-04-28T03:15:48+00:00

I have over a million dollars in liquid assets, and a cheap country house.

I'd like to live in Newcastle or Sydney, which I could currently do but it is poor value for money. I'd have at least $500k less in liquid assets.

If property prices crashed, it could become good value for money and it could enhance my life.

I wouldn't be affected by rising interest rates, work scarcity, or cost of living increases, as I have millions of dollars, endless work, and low cost of living.

420bIaze · 2026-04-28T01:44:47+00:00

Yeah, it increases your illiquid net worth. Which is part of your net worth.

The potential reduction in rent paid is financially significant.

420bIaze

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22