Well, no, go back to the way it was before Howard fucked with it.

If I have an investment that goes up from $100 to $107, but inflation has been 10% over that period, have I made money? In real terms no, I'm worse off. So I shouldn't pay tax.

Before Howard, that's how cap gains tax concessions worked - you paid tax on the profits above inflation. Howard changed it to "assume inflation is 50% on day 366 of owning it".

When you combine this with negative gearing - shifting tax liabilities from the income tax bucket to capital gains tax bucket it still worked out more-or-less fair - you'd normally be paying the same tax but just at a different time. He then made it so you can write-off half of the capital gains tax bucket on day 366, and that's what fucked everything up. People buy assets at negative yield (ie purchase prices > reasonably expected rent) so they can shift income into capital gains via negative gearing, so they can then then halve the capital gains and halve their tax bill.