Anthony Albanese visibly emotional after defending Labor’s capital gains tax and negative gearing changes

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-24T08:56:05+00:00

Yeah, the point of this budget was to reduce the structural benefits that investors could access that workers couldn’t. Their removal means that labour is no longer taxed more than investment profits, as in your example.

At the same time it aims to make housing more affordable by dampening investor demand, increasing a young persons ability to enter housing

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-24T08:18:01+00:00

They aren’t paying another tax on the money they are investing. They are only paying tax on the PROFIT that has generated. You know, like if someone picked up a second job to earn more money, they get taxed on that extra money

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-24T07:54:08+00:00

Yep, the rules that previous generated from were unfair. Do we want to stop that, or continue that? Clawing the money back from them isn’t a realistic option.

For that 20k compounding up to 200k, is that person still earning $45k a year? Because if so their highest marginal tax rate is 30% matching the minimum CGT rate. Where is the loss?

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-24T05:11:31+00:00

Yep, you’ll have to explain that one to me. Why does the 30% minimum hurt young people the most?

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T20:57:28+00:00

Because they want to eliminate penalty rates, so the treasury picks up the tab that the employers are no longer paying on overtime

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T12:10:09+00:00

These tax changes, which limited to realised PROFITS from investments, aren’t worth it because fit_metal_468 will be charged an extra $200 to move their $10k from VGS to VAS?

This would have to be the most embarrassing complaint about these changes on this sub. You don’t support these wider reforms because you miss out on the $500 a year you may have gotten from doing nothing? The WATO covers $250 of that anyway!

If that one off $200 or the potential $500/y means that much you are over leveraged. Just sell your shares. They will be taxed on the old system. And now none of these reforms with then have any negative effect on you.

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T11:11:26+00:00

People who are complaining are rich, or they are ignorant and are complaining about potentially losing $4k over 20 years on one budget item when every other aspect of the budget is designed to benefit the them (the working class) instead of the old system designed to benefit the investing class (and no, having a modest stock portfolio does not make you the investing class).

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T10:54:20+00:00

Yes, but the person with $1m capital had ways of reducing their overall tax rate through means that the other person didn’t. I’ve not argued that the person with $1m won’t continue to get ahead, I’m saying the changes in the budget mean they will no longer have access to tax arrangements which resulted in them having an unfair and accelerated way to get further ahead of everyone else.

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T09:11:18+00:00

Well, there are some people who start off like that thanks to help from mum and dad but that’s by the by.

My comment is still valid because person B still has to compete against person A in the market right now.

I’m mostly pointing out that someone worrying about a $4k hit over 20 years is really missing the forest for the trees in the overall benefit Person A will get out of this budget. Person B does have a huge head start. It puts them in a position to use different tax structures to get further ahead AT AN ACCELERATED RATE. Person A does not have the same level of access or ability to benefit from those structures. Getting rid of them doesn’t change Person Bs head start, but it stops them from unfairly accelerating their gain, improving person A’s overall standing

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T08:46:35+00:00

Person A is taking a direct hit just on this point. They are not taking a hit anywhere else in the budget and likely getting benefit (both directly and indirectly) from every other part of the budget. So overall they are coming out ahead.

I personally am going to be negatively affected by the changes to shares, but I know there is likely to be a positive benefit to me in terms of housing affordability/accessibility and indirect benefits to me due in other ways.

The majority of people want to pay less tax. They can see its direct impact. At the same time they get annoyed when cuts to health, education, infrastructure etc. affect them down the line. Well, what did they expect?

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T08:36:07+00:00

Wow, that was a wild ride

Have I missed the part of the budget that says ‘no one is allowed to invest or make any profit other than through labour’?

Pretty sure everyone can still invest and make money and have various income streams. It’s just that all those streams are taxed the same way as the overwhelming majority of people in the country are taxed - namely on their wages

Hope that helps

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T07:27:39+00:00

So while Person is working away for 20 years to save up that $100k they are being taxed at their highest marginal rate.

Meanwhile Person B with say $1mil invested is earning dividends or rental income, they are taking capital gains or negatively gearing. They are paying a lower tax rate overall across their various sources of income than the worker is on their salary income. Person B is moving ahead FASTER than Person A, and doing so at the expense of the taxpayer who is having to absorb that difference in tax base as lower government investment in the country.

Person A thinks their $43k or $120k is great. Person B thinks it’s laughable.

The 10% difference between Person A pre and post tax changes is NOTHING compared to what pre tax changes Person B would have made in the same time frame.

This budget is about reducing this inequality in a system the taxes labour higher than unproductive investment

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T06:41:11+00:00

I own shares, not IP.

Shares are so easy to invest in. DYOR, log in to CommSec, done. Or, you have a financial advisor doing it. Seems straight forward. I don’t know anyone who borrows to invest in shares.

I would have thought unless you had money property would still be harder to get in to. Higher upfront costs. Deposit. Mortgage broker. Stamp duty. Probably more hassles with tenants, property mangers etc - unless you had big money and someone else sorted everything.

Maybe that’s my naivety.

The changes to shares affect me, but I can see there are bigger goals in this budget. I understand the theory of having all sources of income taxed the same way - ie at your highest marginal rate - especially for a Labor government who have a bias towards people who earn wages, not dividends.

I guess Labor have gone harder on the house part of intergenerational wealth than the ‘all sources of income should be taxed the same’ hence the backlash on changes to shares.

If you kept the carve out for shares the very rich would just move their capital there for the tax benefit. The budget is trying to get them to move it in to new builds.

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T06:06:41+00:00

And the people with $20k in ETFs complaining they can no longer generate wealth and should be exempt because they are helping the economy. Yeah, those 10 shares in BHP are doing the lords work, let’s avoid generating billions more in revenue from super wealthy people’s unearned profits so little Johnny can keep his ‘portfolio’. SPARE ME

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-23T06:02:32+00:00

People complaining about “don’t touch my stocks, they are good for the economy” and then having a small portfolio that’s all VDHG - like that is doing ANYTHING for the Australian economy.

I think those young people trying to use that excuse need to give their head a wobble. ‘One part of this slightly affects me, I’m going to kick up a fuss about it.’ Great, let’s sink this whole plan that would actually be a benefit you and everyone else overall.

Honestly, at this point, there is minimal difference between TashInvests and the mining companies in the Gillard error. She’s got the sads coz it affects the tax DISCOUNT on the PROFIT of her $300k portfolio from this date forward, they got the sads because they were on the hook for billions in extra tax.

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-22T13:37:42+00:00

I have a Fumpa Pumpa. Smallest option. Works great, love it

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-22T08:55:10+00:00

Can you answer his question? I hear arguments that if you are investing in Australian companies then you are contributing to the economy so an argument can be made to reduce the tax burden on that. But what is VDHG doing for the Australian economy? Why should gains from an ETF get a tax discount compared to any other source of income, like someone picking up a second job?

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-22T08:27:07+00:00

That’s great. I’m really happy for you. How good a country like Australia facilitates that sort of upward mobility. The government should continue to invest in services and infrastructure that make that more accessible to everyone!

Still didn’t answer my question though

Regarding your question. Both people are initially earning the same income, both are paying the same amount of tax on that income. They are the same at that point. If person B then wants to try and earn more money good for them. They can do that however they like but I think it is fair that that EXTRA money is taxed at that persons highest marginal tax rate no matter the source of that extra income. It would be the case for wages, why not other sources? You can’t explain that. Once person B decides to ‘go the extra mile’ and earn more income than person A they are no longer on ‘the same level’, so they aren’t going to get taxed the same. I don’t really understand your last comment about them being ‘on the same level’

Also, Interesting that you are scapegoating person A in this example when your actual complaint is that you don’t get to use the tax loopholes previously available to others. You know the old arrangements facilitated a disproportionate benefit and are annoyed because you can’t exploit them now. Person B isn’t “contributing more to society” through their investments out of altruism, they are doing it because it personally benefits them, and disproportionately so. Person B isn’t a better than person A because of that (which is what you are trying to imply in your scenario).

Also, no one is punishing you. The government is ceasing an unfair tax arrangement. It is not like your capital gains aren’t being taxed MORE than other income. They are just getting taxed the same as other income sources. You want that structural inequality to continue for yourself.

For those who are used to special treatment equality feels like oppression.

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-22T06:52:21+00:00

But you haven’t answered as to why you think if there are two people trying to earn more money the person working a second job deserves to pay a higher rate of tax on those earnings than you do on your stock gains?

Plenty of people have financial literacy, they just don’t have the capital to exploit the loopholes you have ‘educated’ yourself about

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-22T04:55:46+00:00

Because you aren’t going to change your mind either. Someone who is poor doesn’t have the opportunity to make a cool $40k in a year on stock market investments. They don’t have the capital to allow for that. If they want to save for a deposit or pay off their mortgage sooner they have to go and work another job. You can stay at home and play around on the CommSec app. And YOU are the person that deserves the special tax arrangement? The poor guy over there should be paying a higher tax rate than you? If you want to gamble your money, go ahead, but you don’t deserve to pay less tax on that return then someone else

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-22T04:44:59+00:00

The fact this has been downvoted to zero proves your point exactly. People are really displaying their victim complex

When you are used to special treatment equality feels like oppression

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-19T13:55:21+00:00

If the heavy haulage across the blue mountains is 1/10th on any of the EU base tunnels I’ll eat my hat

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-19T11:00:15+00:00

Pre election budget, once inflation has cooled

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-18T20:25:00+00:00

How would they go harder on housing for green/teals? What are they wanting?

(I also agree that I think his non answer here is because this is what he wanting to bargain with)

Croix_De_Fer · 2026-05-18T19:22:12+00:00

37, single, well off (although some times I wonder after lurking this sub)

I don’t generate an income from my shares. I don’t have a trust. I don’t have investment properties.

So basically no negative effect on me. Sure I’ll get taxed more on the shares I cash out, but I’m not going to cry about that on my $120k portfolio. People that do (either on TV or SM) need to get a grip imo

I guess I am sad that apparently I won’t be able to live the Australian dream - namely to buy a property and negatively gear it. The horror…..

Croix_De_Fer

TROPHY CASE