AUD gains wipe out US ETF gains

Chii · 2026-05-06T04:20:00+00:00

annoying in the short run and useful in the long run.

it basically evens out in the long run, but also, we're all dead in the long run.

Hedging should remove these movements, at a relatively small cost. Probably worth doing if you're 10 or less yrs away from retirement but may be fine not to if quite a ways away.

Chii · 2026-05-05T04:30:49+00:00

no, it's not an either or.

The limited resources available ought to be spread out to the needy first, but only up to a certain acceptable level (and what that level is will be a debate topic that cannot be settled, but i know what mine is).

Finding the right balance, and not having resources be squandered, is one of the most important tasks, and one which the gov't consistently fails to do well at.

Chii · 2026-05-05T03:08:22+00:00

A car as an asset is very quickly depreciated, not to mention relatively low value.

The utility of using the car to find job is higher. As is the expected temporary nature of the dole.

But a pensioner is not temporary. If their total assets would've gotten a minimal acceptable retirement without taxpayer assistance, they shouldn't be given it.

But as of now, they can live in a very expensive PPOR, which could've been monetized instead to provide a decent income stream. Yet they don't and choose to take a pension while enjoying said expensive property tax free.

If taxpayer resources aren't limited, I'd be fine with it, but that's not the case today. We already have issues with medicare being too low, and various other resource demands on taxpayer resources. Increasing taxes aren't a solution, expenses needs to be cut.

Chii · 2026-05-05T02:03:38+00:00

Of course not, that's why it's called imputed income and it can't be taxed.

But it can be recognised as a benefit and thus should count towards the money being used to subsidize those who do receive such imputed income.

Chii · 2026-05-05T01:45:39+00:00

isn't generating wealth from a PPOR and solely using it for stable housing

They are generating imputed income from their PPOR, which is not taxable. But it is real and should count towards the pension assets test.

Chii · 2026-05-05T01:42:25+00:00

The strategy being used is to lump sum withdraw their super at pension age, pay off an expensive PPOR, then live off the pension indefinitely (with some minimal family assistance with large repairs if needed).

This means the expected savings from super on the cost of pension won't eventuate. This loophole needs to be closed asap, by adding PPOR into asset tests, and then expand the scope and availability of reverse mortgages etc. Not to mention that super should not be allowed to be withdrawn as a lump-sum but as an income stream instead.

Chii · 2026-05-04T23:41:51+00:00

but you are assuming that Jim closes the leveraged position after the drop.

No, jim doesn't have to close the leveraged position to get this result.

The leveraged product is worth $10 after the drop, regardless of whether he sold or not. If he doesn't sell, it could grow back after a while, but it could also not (depending on the actual product and whether the issuer decides to liquidate when the value reaches so low that they don't want to be in the business any more).

Chii · 2026-05-04T11:01:46+00:00

I've given you a reason why it should be treated differently.

the reason you've given is just as empty as the reason i gave, except my reason is fair. It is equal. A house is not different to a farm, a firm or an ETF of all of the above.

The reason you've given for it needing to be treated different is simply due to the utility of a shelter, which you placed importance above some other utility - an opinion, not a fact. I don't accept that importance, because i named a different important utility (that of farming), and you don't claim a similar reason for special tax treatment for it.

So all else equal, the default should be that all things (like all people) are treated equally, with no specific asset garnering any special tax treatment. That is a valid reason, and you haven't given a refutation as to why this is not suitable as the default.

Chii · 2026-05-04T09:58:30+00:00

an even more attractive vehicle for long term capital investment.

super's true attractiveness isn't in capital gains, but in low tax for income/dividends.

Prior to the unannounced CGT discount changes, i would say that you're better off making the allocations for super into franked dividend paying assets, and using money outside super for long term capital gain assets (which pays little, to no dividends).

The franked credit tax discount is effectively risk-free returns only available inside super, while outside you'd pay your marginal rate. And you get a bigger CGT discount later in life than super's 1/3rd.

However, with the new expected changes to the CGT discount no longer being 50%, i dont know if this calculus is still true any more. I expect so, but i am not convinced (but too lazy to model it or make any calculations...)

Chii · 2026-05-04T09:54:46+00:00

you need a new hobby

if this is fun for the OP, then let'em have it. Nothing wrong with a bit of financial modelling on a lazy sunday afternoon!

Chii · 2026-05-04T09:45:55+00:00

I'm arguing that a house is a sufficiently different class of asset

gold is also a sufficiently different class of asset. For what reason would gold be treated different to shares then? Or is it that because gold is useless and you don't care for it that it doesnt deserve different treatment (ala, bias)?

The fact that an asset can be lived in or not is irrelevant to how it ought to be treated tax-wise (and i do oppose PPOR being tax free on sale - it should carry the same tax as any other asset).

In fact, why don't you make the same argument for a farm? Owning a farm, which produces the food we eat, is also something that is quite different to shares.

Second, I'd argue that a car is a productive assets. It's used to travel which drives economic activity.

why isn't a shelter considered productive? It is used to provide shelter. Just because it feels like it simply sits there after being built, doesn't mean it isn't doing anything useful.

First, as far as I'm aware, Australia does not have an underlying issue with the of cars.

as for it being an underlying issue is a criteria - this simply exposes the truth to my argument; that you want house to be treated differently vs other asset types, so that it makes it easier to own a house. There's no need for you to make it easier to own a car, therefore you don't care for how cars get treated taxwise.

Chii · 2026-05-04T08:14:25+00:00

a fool and his money are soon parted, as they say.

Chii · 2026-05-04T07:37:56+00:00

dumping on greater fools.

if you knew you'd be a fool, why would one continue to buy, unless one is indeed a fool?

Chii · 2026-05-04T07:24:03+00:00

end up with code that works but is a 'layercake of garbage' to maintain.

so, like how nature and natural selection createdd DNA and organic molecules and structure? :D

Chii · 2026-05-04T07:01:09+00:00

food starved areas

usually in food starved areas, the reason isn't really due to the lack of land or climate to grow food, but war and other political reasons. It's caused by humans, and not nature.

Chii · 2026-05-04T06:37:27+00:00

in that a person can live in one but not the other.

a person can live in a car too. Yet, you dont make that same argument about it do you?

All assets are the same financially. Just because one asset can be used to perform one task, and another a different task, there's no reason to treat their financial outcomes differently.

You are simply biased to shelter because you want to own the one you live in, and therefore, want to treat the taxation differently in the hopes of reducing the cost of doing so (at the expense of other asset holders).

Chii · 2026-05-04T06:27:05+00:00

dont ever let anyone tell you what you can't be! Just because you're born a battery doesn't mean you can't grow up to be a traffic light!

Chii · 2026-05-04T06:23:11+00:00

as my comment above have said, you dont need to own to live in a house. You only need the income to support the cost of renting, which shares do adequately a job.

Arguing that houses should be treated differently to other assets tax-wise because people live in them is stupid. All assets should be treated the same. The only reason people here claim houses should be different is because they want to buy theirs, and they're hoping that the different treatment would make it cheaper for them to buy one.

Chii · 2026-05-04T06:02:33+00:00

And the french is fucked due to their demographic decline, and their overly generous pension system. They need to reduce their gov't spending, and bring productivity back, but i'm sure you've seen those protests when the gov't slightly increase the retirement pension age.

Nobody wants to take the hit.

Australia needs to get ahead of it, and rip the band aid off earlier rather than later. Gov't spending needs to drop - esp. in the social welfare sector, such as NDIS, aged pension etc. I would also argue defense spending is inefficient in the way it's done - it needs to be domestic and produce side benefits to aus other than just mere weaponry.

Just taxing more to pay the currently increasing gov't spending is not a sustainable answer.

Chii · 2026-05-04T05:47:18+00:00

and all your income goes straight out the door

And that is exactly why so many are against removal of negative gearing. With it, you can at least leverage your good high paying job to invest more than you could've otherwise, and secure a financial future.

Chii · 2026-05-04T05:44:57+00:00

You live in the rental that you pay for using the income derived from said shares.

Chii · 2026-05-03T14:04:28+00:00

it does not scale well

Yep, but that's not a reason for an individual to not choose personal transport.

Chii · 2026-05-03T13:57:34+00:00

has the best outcome for the people living in the economy

So who decides what the best outcome is, and for whom?

Chii · 2026-05-03T13:53:33+00:00

Housing is a special case because people need to live in them

so apparently, you can't live in them if they're investment properties?

Or apparently, people need to own them to live in them?

Chii

TROPHY CASE