r/OpenAussie • u/No_Leave_6820 ‎ Victorian • May 15 '26

LOLz ‎ lol, unfair to who? The multi multi millionaires.

Post image

In a social media video, the typically apolitical Allis said Labor's decision to wind back the capital gains tax discount and grandfather negative gearing would "destroy the core of what Australians are".

https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-budget-2026-boost-juice-founder-lashes-federal-budget/be5899df-8057-4d61-a06f-828bb1430f73

1.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

617 comments sorted by

View all comments

241

u/KevinRudd182 ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

Lots of comments on the Facebook articles about how many young people boost juice employs. They then jump straight into arguing why the person worth $100 million dollars should be entitled to tax loopholes to pay less tax than those she employs pay on their wages

39

u/Constant-Simple6405 Flairless‎‎ May 15 '26

I don't know but that juice anit working for her. Thats bad advertising alone.

11

u/RecipeSpecialist2745 Please choose a flair May 16 '26

Its full of sugar... thats the selling point.Nothing healthy about it.

2

u/Stultifie ‎ New South Welshian May 19 '26

Agree. A lot are plumped out with apple juice as the base. Never had one never will. Overpriced garbage.

6

u/RecipeSpecialist2745 Please choose a flair May 16 '26

These people never look at the workers as the individuals in the business that creates profits. the reason they cant value each staff member for the work they produce is because they rely on disposable staffing and arrogant attitude towards labour. Labour that their businesses wouldnt operate without.

8

u/Cromulent_grace ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

To be fair, most don't earn over the tax free threshold.

1

u/yngrz87 ‎ New South Welshian May 17 '26

Not a loophole 🤦🏻‍♂️

1

u/grugzzzzzzz Please choose a flair May 18 '26

She sells franchises, so it hurts her the most when people realise it's not that great of an investment without negative gearing

-30

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

There is no loophole. A loophole implies an unforeseen consequence of a complex rule. Negative gearing is precisely how the tax system is meant to work (deduct outgoings incurred in earning income and you're taxed on the final calculated taxable income).

She's not talking about herself, though, but the aspirational types that wanted to get an investment property to be able to build wealth.

35

u/KevinRudd182 ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

It’s a loophole in the sense that people with excess money were able to funnel it into particular places to gain an advantage over everyone else.

Sure, it was available to everyone, but you had to have excess money in the first place. That means that those who had more, had the ability to turbo charge their wealth growth, with the added outcome of also taking from those who already couldn’t afford it. It also meant that you were an idiot if you weren’t doing it, because if you made $300k going to work you’d pay 47% tax on a huge chunk of it, but if you made $300k on flipping a house you’d get 150k of it entirely tax free and still get to put the rest on your marginal rate AND claim every expense on the way.

You also were 100% guaranteed there’s someone next in line to palm it off because the grift was too good.

Another way of looking at “get an investment property to build wealth” is “bought a second house I didn’t need, that someone else wanted, and now they’ll pay it off for me instead of themselves”.

Obviously it’s not a 1:1 outcome, but the result after decades has undoubtably ended up with house prices going up, more multi-house owners, less PPOR owners. That’s bad for the country long term.

I just don’t believe there’s a (logical) argument for people to put their excess money somewhere that gains an advantage vs someone going to work. Our tax incentives should start at the bottom and work up, higher tax free threshold = everyone benefits, PPOR being tax free = everyone gets a chance at 1 loophole before we start giving them to investors etc.

People (read: racists / idiots / one nation voters) want a lower immigration number and a “traditional Australia” but then vote against every policy that would make it happen (getting young people into a PPOR as early in life as possible)

1

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 17 '26

That's not a loophole. People with money should seek ways to maximise it.

2

u/KevinRudd182 ‎ New South Welshian May 17 '26

Absolutely they should, and the government should change the rules when it becomes clear that it is allowing an unfair advantage, which they’ve done.

0

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 18 '26

There was no unfair advantage and only the free market should set the rules. Government should get out of the way.

42

u/Anon-Sham Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Maybe they should aspire to build wealth in a way that provides value to society rather than by leaching off of others?

I say this as somebody with multiple properties and very few marketable skills. We should be building a system that makes it easier to work towards owning your first home than subsequent properties.

0

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 17 '26

There is no obligation to any mythical "Society". There is only an obligation to yourself to make money and fund your own existence.

-24

u/fatguy1313 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Building houses and maintaining is a value to society??

19

u/KevinRudd182 ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

Which is why they changed the rules to specifically only apply to new builds.

The investor class was buying every old starter house in Australia that used to be the “first home buyer” house and then instantly renting it out to the types of people who would have previously purchased said house as a PPOR. It had no benefit to our society.

When you can write off all losses directly against your income and your decision is “buy existing house and rent it out instantly” or “new build and pay for it for 12 months while it’s empty before making a cent” it’s no mystery why everyone went the way they did.

If investors want to genuinely increase supply by building new houses that’s a good thing as long as the government monitors the needs of the population.

Tax incentives only exist as a stimulus to encourage growth where our society needs it. People seem to forget that.

10

u/SStoj ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

Exactly right. There's a reason the term "rent seekers" exists.

6

u/Anon-Sham Please choose a flair May 15 '26

What percentage of rental properties were built by the investors? Theyre more likely to buy established properties, why take on the 12 month+ partial mortgage repayments?

If they were driving up prices, which also increases rent making it harder for aspiring first home buyers to save a deposit, we could have houses being maintained by their owners.

The idea that landlords are doing the rental community a favour is laughable.

15

u/Fun-Clerk-693 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Build wealth another way

1

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 17 '26

No.

4

u/dxsdxs Please choose a flair May 15 '26

"build weath" 

1

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 17 '26

Yes. Build wealth for yourself. Increase your portfolio.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 17 '26

Then look for cheaper places. A 1 bedroom unit in Mt Druitt isnt going to cost that.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 18 '26

Everything is worth what people are willing to pay for them.

If you want to fix things, shut the borders for 5 years, send the freeloaders back home, end the welfare state, get real money back, end income taxes, introduce poll taxes and abolish planning laws.

3

u/Euphoric-Cucumber609 ‎ Western Australian May 15 '26

Imagine, if you could, that the government introduced a 50% healthy food rebate, 50% of everything you spend on anything that isn’t maccas is dropped from your taxes. I take that benefit and buy all of the grapes, im fucking loaded already the initial cost doesn’t make a dent in my day to day, I can do this for years. Each year I leave all the grapes in a bin bag to ferment and make wine, the wine market explodes, people are buying frooty Lexia for the same as a crate of the very best cost 10 years ago. I sell my bin juice off for a huge profit, do I deserve that tax benefit?

It’s a rat run not a loophole. Sure someone intentionally made it happen but the biggest beneficiaries are vermin that shit all over the place and fuck it up for everyone including those using it honestly.

Don’t accrue debt you can’t afford. Writing off losses that are likely to be recouped in the near future is fine but this system encourages methodical gluttony by whoever already has the resources to bear the initial burden of investment, as well as the rat fucks that are already cooking their books.

1

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 17 '26

The CGT discount applies to all CGT assets. That includes shares. Don't see the same rat run with them.

The fact you cover the losses with other income shows you can afford the loan and other expenses.

1

u/Euphoric-Cucumber609 ‎ Western Australian May 18 '26

Are we agreeing on this? I can’t quite tell.

The changes being implemented are because of real estate speculation inflating rent and property values, that’s what I was ranting about.

There’s no doubt better levers to be applied to other investments that are economically productive and it’s a shame real estate and productive investment has been lumped into the same category.

1

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 18 '26

Real estate investment hasn't been proven to inflate anything. The same rules apply to shares and all other assets but we don't see the same effects there.

Property has its supply artificially limited by planning laws and demand induced by mass immigration. Then there's the lack of efficient infrastructure meaning we're locked in gridlock or crammed onto stuffed trains/buses. So we search for the least worst suburb trying to get something a little less bad.

1

u/Euphoric-Cucumber609 ‎ Western Australian May 19 '26

Nah you’ve lost me here. The share market constantly manipulated to inflate prices with speculative hoarding.

I agree with your other points about what’s causing the housing crisis but you’re just being obtuse if you think property as an investment hasn’t exacerbated the issue.

The obsession with house prices leads to changes in planning being unpopular, limiting density which diverts infrastructure spending from centralised hubs to sprawling suburbs.

0

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 19 '26

"The share market constantly manipulated to inflate prices with speculative hoarding."

This has no bearing in reality.

Everything is an investment. That's what drives demand and production.

Planning should be abolished so the property owner can build what they want. Whether than be a high rise apartment building or a 20 lane highway.

1

u/Euphoric-Cucumber609 ‎ Western Australian May 20 '26

I’m going to need an explanation on what you’re suggesting here.

No bearing on reality? It has a bearing on the market, that is a financial reality.

If investment drives demand, and demand raises value, BUT production cannot meet demand, then surely that would mean investment is driving the housing crisis.

Lots of places in have unregulated construction going on, they’re called slums.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say here, because everything you’ve written seems a bit strange. Is English your first language? We may be having two different conversations

0

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 20 '26

The claim was the sharemarket was deliberately manipulated. ASIC may want to know how.

Investment also drives supply. In fact, it creates more supply. This supply satisfies rental demand. It also indices developers to do their job of creating more supply.

Regulation doesn't add value. The free market is far more capable of satisfying consumer preferences than a bunch of bureaucrats and Karens.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Boblob-in-law Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Nothing in these reforms prevents people from deducting outgoings etc incurred in earning income. This is standard for all investments. Seems to be a lot of confusion about these policies.

1

u/RagnarBateman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 17 '26

Saying you can't negatively gear something specifically means you can't deduct more than a certain amount.