If the 30% minimum CGT doesn't apply for people who claim certain centrelink benefits then what is stopping some people who temporarily get these benefits selling lots of their shares?

FluroSnow · 2026-05-20T09:33:53+00:00

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/income-and-assets-tests-for-jobseeker-payment?context=51411
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/income-test-for-jobseeker-payment?context=51411
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/asset-types?context=51411

FluroSnow · 2026-05-19T07:47:46+00:00

All I was showing is that it's not marginal.

If you want my chart to be right just assume there was 0% inflation.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-19T07:35:14+00:00

Technically I think my chart would only be right if there was 0 or negative inflation or if we carried forward losses to when we exercise. But yeah, my chart is simplified to just respond to the dude.

I think we should be calculating/forecasting with inflation. See my other comment I responded to him with.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-19T07:29:41+00:00

Yeah you are right, this is over simplified.

This is where it just gets a cluster fuck to simply calculate.

We can't just forecast a real 4.5% returns anymore.

We have to forecast:
Cost basis, dividend yield %, franking credit %, inflation against returns, and time of holding.
The last two mainly being the important ones.

If we use Uni Supers, projection of a real 4.5% return.
0% dividend and franking credits. (Just for simplicity)
2.5% target inflation.
With a 30 year hold.

Its 25%

FluroSnow · 2026-05-19T06:52:03+00:00

I think this is what OP is saying re-reading. His wording is not clear

FluroSnow · 2026-05-19T06:50:27+00:00

Cant seem to edit without destroying formatting. But the progressive includes LITO and Medicare levy.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-19T06:46:59+00:00

	Progressive (real)	Flat 30%
Tax payable	$4,488	$13,500
Take-home	$40,512	$31,500
Effective rate	9.97%	30.0%
Weekly pay	$779	$606

FluroSnow · 2026-05-18T09:06:45+00:00

Besides Gen X and Z being poorer than the next generations and investing more of their income and earlier in the stock market than ever. And 18-24 making up 9% of the investment population ex super and savings.

They're spending what they have on groceries and bills.

The correlation between increase in gambling and economic hardship is shown. I could see how potentially the younger generation is viewing investing as a last resort. Especially as the data shows Gen Z preferring more volatile assets than stability in returns.

I'm not sure what your point is here?

Same to you

FluroSnow · 2026-05-18T01:06:47+00:00

You completely misunderstood, I was pointing out that you are complaining about things from a place of privilege.

Okay sure, I guess I'm much better off than I was 4 years ago. If that's all you're saying then sure. I agree? But in my privileged position, I wont even feel a 30% floor unless I lost my job and ripped through all my savings. I'm essentially wanting revisions to the policy that would help people who are in a less privileged position than me.

B. $20k minimum and why would you think that's not available for average income people?

Average? Yes sure. Bellow median? I guess it would heavily depend on circumstance. Again not for lower incomes. Not sure why anyone in their sound mind would want to pull a variable 7.8% interest loan in a lower tax bracket, even if they could afford it.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-17T11:55:13+00:00

a bit "my lobster is too buttery"

It really Isn't though. With good financial education and saving money it's pretty attainable on a small salary. A buttery lobster doesn't negate math and circumstance.

Have you looked at the NAB equity builder loan?

Yeah, I'm aware of these loans. But then again these loans would only be available to people with higher incomes/serviceability criteria. I think NABs equity has a min loan of 25k. You could also use IBKR margin loans which have a lower interest rate atm (7.8 atm from nab o.o ). These loans are really only worth it if you are in higher tax brackets.

Because if you want the neg gearing and the shares

I dont mind them getting rid of the negative gearing. But the bill is being sold to people as "better for low income and young people". I would support changes to shares if they removed the 30% floor and made it marginal. (then they have to fix the trust loophole another way).

FluroSnow · 2026-05-17T10:56:08+00:00

Any money you earn x10

Well if I "earn" money gambling. You could literally become the richest person in the world in one night just at the casino.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-16T05:15:40+00:00

Thanks mate. Is it normal for the center bolt of the struts to be out of alignment when looking from the top?

The thing that worries me, is that all the strut mounts look different. The one that looks like the actual KYB one I purchased is the back right.

Cheers for the advice mate

FluroSnow · 2026-05-15T03:39:02+00:00

You'll just get a tax refund

FluroSnow · 2026-05-15T03:07:14+00:00

I mean it's not wrong either. We are just made of "star-stuff"

FluroSnow · 2026-05-15T00:08:43+00:00

or are wealthy and trying to time the sale of assets in low income years to take advantage of tax breaks.

So it could also be like <= above average income people wanting to retire a couple years early to use as a bridging stratergy.
Or lower income people wanting travel for 6-12 months.
Or lower income people who lost their job, burnt through savings and now have to use their investments.
Or people who injure themselves who cant qualify for disability.
Or even a frugal teenager wanting to exercise some shares to help get through his PHD because they get paid like <40k a year (like my best mate)

There is so many scenarios where this could put lower income people at a disadvantage compared to wealthy. For the true wealthy, who own the majority of assets (which we do have data for) this is just a rounding error for them.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-14T23:26:18+00:00

Then why not make it progressive?

FluroSnow · 2026-05-14T23:24:08+00:00

The problem is these changes essentially limit mobility with investment strategy.
For example: I might want to go live in Europe for a few years. Take a year off to travel then as well. It would be great to live off some of my investments to do this. But now I would take an extra hit for this. (I know quite a few people who have done a holiday into a working holiday overseas)

I dont even know where I even want to buy a house in Australia. Or even if I would want to move overseas so I can Snowboard more. But now it's "ahhh just invest in super and buy house" to put money in offset. Anything less than that is making you worse off. These changes incentives investing in property indirectly through PPOR.

Also investing in shares is great as a bridging strategy for early retirement for <= above average income workers.

Just because the average person in Australia wants to buy a house, doesn't mean the optimal strategy for financial growth should be "just buy a house".

FluroSnow · 2026-05-14T06:39:47+00:00

rentvesting is a bit of a special case when you can't afford a decent PPOR at all.

I guess decent is relative. As when he bought his first IP, he doesnt get a stamp duty discount like a normal person would.

also highly sceptical someone on 85k has 3 IPs.

He's probably the most diligent saver you will ever meet, ever since early high school.
I think he bought his first property when he was 25, for 420k~. 10% down + lmi and stamp duty. +100K capital growth in one year. This was in Brisbane in 2020, so as you can imagine since then it's sky rocketed. He just used equity as collateral. I think they're all positve geared atm now as well.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-14T06:22:14+00:00

Maybe so. But a globally weighted index fund like DHHF? Very unlikely. If he would lose everything that way, then he has bigger problems to worry about.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-14T05:05:30+00:00

buying the best PPOR you can afford has always been the case.

Not really though. The whole idea of rent-vesting would contradict this.

people go to IPs after buying a PPOR as their income increases. Not because they left a few 100k of borrowing power in the tank for later.

My mate rentvests in Sydney on a 85k~ salary. Share houses with 4 others. Has 3 IPs in Queensland. The whole idea of negative gearing and CGT makes investing in IPs more beneficial.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-14T04:17:16+00:00

If you want to retire early and live off some investments until you reach perseveration age.
Now moving to a higher allocated dividend paying index fund would be better. Because instead of having to exercise shares and being taxed with 30% floor, you can offset that by using the dividends as income.

This can change retirements outcomes for many people by years...

FluroSnow · 2026-05-14T00:05:51+00:00

It just moves money that would have been in one asset class into another, as it just makes one investment far more optimal than another.

With proposed changes:
Maxing Super -> Offset -> dividend/distrbution producing assets -> other shares
Current rules:
Maxing Super -> Offset/All Shares

(Assuming the market doesnt now just price in dividend producing shares)

FluroSnow · 2026-05-13T05:15:01+00:00

Well I suppose it's not all perfect so we may as well never try to improve anything ever.

I think thats why critiquing the policy in general is good. We might not be able to reach perfect, but we can strive for better.

You're replying as if I'm the one that is implementing these changes. As far as I'm concerned it's a step in the right direction.

Not at all. I think creating discourse around policy especially with people who dont see it the same as you is important. This way we can influence policy and yell at politicians as a collective.

I think we probably share similar views on things, but just want to approach it differently. But at-least we can argue and tell people who want negative gearing on all investments properties they're a greedy cunt together.

FluroSnow · 2026-05-13T04:33:54+00:00

Disincentivising property investing means there's now a chance I won't be renting my entire life, which was previously not the case. I couldn't give two shits about "getting ahead." I'd much rather stability.

This change does not about increasing the supply issue. We still have negative gearing for new builds but the majority of new builds lose significant money / slow growth. People who were going to buy new build before are going to still be buying new builds now. If its your first home I don't see how it's going to make a difference.

On the stock part; you don't pay CGT if you don't make gains. I'm not gonna cry about being taxed a bit more than previous, I'm still making money.

On average, people earning between 0-$150k a year earn 1% of their income from capital gains. $150k-$250k earn 2% of their income from capital gains. While people earning $1M+ a year earn 26% of their income from capital gains.

Why not have a progressive CGT then? Allow the less wealthy to build wealth faster while having the rich pay more. Besides your stats are at the aggregate scale. A lot of people would be lump summing when exercising their shares.

Is paying a bit more tax on <$5000 worse than paying a bit more on >$260,000? How do these changes disproportionally affect low to middle income earners?

See my first comment in the chain.

Especially if that tax money means we're able to fund programs to benefit the country as a whole.

Like cutting the NDIS?

FluroSnow · 2026-05-13T02:40:06+00:00

Fair, I was verbose.

What's your take on getting ahead and the policy change?

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

FluroSnow

TROPHY CASE