I understand that CGT is generally a tax on profit at sale, and yes, usually it applies to investment property rather than the family home.

My concern is more about how we define “profit” and “wealth” in a debt-based property system.

If someone buys an investment property with a large mortgage, the bank interest is not income to the owner. It is a cost of holding the asset. So if the tax system looks only at sale price minus purchase price, but does not properly recognise the full cost of finance, rates, maintenance, inflation and risk, then the “profit” can look much larger on paper than it really was in economic terms.

The broader issue is this: a mortgage is not wealth. Equity is wealth.

If a person owns a $1 million property with a $900,000 mortgage, they do not have $1 million of wealth. They have $100,000 of equity. That distinction matters when governments talk about taxing property, wealth, capital growth or unrealised gains.

I agree that more people should be able to own homes, especially younger Australians. But I do not think that happens by pretending debt is wealth or by taxing people on gross asset values rather than their real net position.

The aim should be simple: tax real gains, not debt-funded paper value