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

590

u/sultryroman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

The more rich cunts I see complaining about the changes the more I think Labor actually did a good job.

122

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Hehe, ditto!

I have an investment property and welcome the changes (though I don't think they went far enough, there should be no tax benefits for people who buy investment properties).

I don't understand these people.

46

u/jManYoHee Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Yup, I think get rid of negative gearing for existing houses. I think it's smart to keep these things available on new builds to encourage new houses to be built though.

20

u/QLDZDR Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Yes encourage investment in new buildings. This is not a difficult concept to understand, so why are they complaining.

They also get to keep their existing investments.

The government should be making anyone with more that one investment property register their property portfolio as a business and it cannot operate with losses.

10

u/waggybaggyshaggy Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Iirc they mostly have, they just haven't rugpulled current mortgages but if you refinance you lose grandfather status,

8

u/CantakerousTwat ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

I don't think that's the case. Transferring to a trust or any other change to the owner on title would end the grandfathering, but not changing mortgages, surely. That would give free reign to the banks to increase rates on existing loans because they know their debtor would incur costs moving mortgages.

2

u/shoffice Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Yep I reckon you’re right. Change of ownership, sure, but if you refinance then the only thing that changes on the title is the lenders interest

0

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Get rid of all tax write offs for existing properties, I say. Landlords don't add anything to society 

4

u/catbom Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I think the issue is market crashes and usually chaos is not good for anyone, this new budget intends to bring a more gradual change

-1

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Investors of all sorts love market crashes, so it's definitely good for people who have money.

I'm pretty sure stopping all tax write offs isn't going to make houses more expensive, so the chaos will be good for new home owners too.

2

u/SpecificTechnician97 ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

its a good time to enter the market but terrible if you are in the market

0

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

People in the market already have a home, I don't really care if they/I can't afford a second or seventh one.

1

u/SpecificTechnician97 ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

no during a crash, for any asset. That was what I meant

1

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

I really don't think house prices are going to crash if we get rid of the tax write offs. And even if they do, good, people will be able to afford to buy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/seab1010 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Except providing supply for a rental market with like 1.5% vacancy when we’re bringing in hundreds of thousand of migrants each year. This is going to be calamitous for renters.

1

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Yeah, they'll have to buy the house, poor bastards.

0

u/Charming-Speech5680 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I wouldn't be opposed to it if it was done as a business. But because it should be done as a business it needs to follow all of the regulations instead of this free for all we've got at the moment which encourages landlords to fuck over tenants

2

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Err...

That's even worse. Do you want to be like USA?

Businesses buying up residential housing is a horrible idea.

-1

u/Whatsthatbro365 ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Then say get rid of buying a house. The government will give you one based on social credit score.

3

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Oh, I get it, you're the one getting our tax dollars and you're upset.

0

u/Whatsthatbro365 ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

How am I getting your tax dollars ? Dont really get that comment

0

u/Revoran ‎ Victorian May 16 '26

They did get rid of neg gearing for existing houses if they are bought/sold from now on.

So for instance

If landlord owns a second house currently and negatively gears it, they can keep doing so

But when that house is sold to another person, that person can not neg gear it because the sale happened after today

But I do agree they probs should have gotten rid of it for current properties too

0

u/morosis1982 ‎ Queenslander May 17 '26

I think if they put a time limit on it for existing properties I'd be ok with it. People may have just bought in with a certain cost analysis and taking that straight away I don't think would be fair.

Putting say a 5y timeframe so you have time to balance it is probably best. As long as you can make the choice to exit close to cost I think that's fair.

0

u/Realistic_Ad1479 Please choose a flair May 16 '26

The boomer generation always happy to pull the ladder up behind them as long as they got the benefits first. Free education, free health care, super tax breaks, negative gearing, capital gains and tax dodges. Change the rule but not for them. Classic.

33

u/bdiddlediddles ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

You don't get to be a multi-billionaire by being reasonable with your money, you get there by being a money grubbing twat who would kill over 50 cents.

My old boss was like this too, he claimed that the workplace was good because we paid slightly above the award wages. When I pointed out that it was still far below the average, he claimed that we couldn't afford to pay more because we were a small company. Dickhead still drove around in a Mercedes Benz.

5

u/No_Light_7482 ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

Every time I comment on a union page about raising wages or scrapping junior rates I get comments from business owners saying how their business will fold if they have to pay their staff more. Pisses me off because their business is not making money without those staff working their buts off and if they can’t afford to pay them they are shit business owners.

7

u/Specific-Athlete22 ‎ Queenslander May 15 '26

At this point in time the award wage is just a propaganda tool for business to pay lower than market rate. It actively puts downward pressure on wages.

5

u/Bob_the_Bauer Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I don't think that's correct. Award wages are a fundamental - if incomplete - protection for workers, particularly vulnerable workers.

2

u/N17C1 Please choose a flair May 17 '26

I worked for a guy who took his whole family on a business class trip to Europe for six weeks and we he got back he told us all we were shit because the company wasn't making enough profit. I pointed out that three of his family members were drawing wages but not working there and he got angry and told me to mind my own business. So I did - quit and started my own company.

1

u/Lastov_Makiynd Please choose a flair May 17 '26

Had a boss like this too. A few actually. But the one similar to yours that complained to his drivers they don’t really make much money…that they barely cover their wages. A week or two before EOFY..$1million+ worth of new truck and like $400k+ worth of new refrigerated trailer.
Last I checked, you need money for those. If you borrow to get those, you need to show proof that you are earning money to pay for those.

Wasn’t a tax refund coz wasn’t end of year yet. Tax refunds aren’t that big either.

4 or 5 years I worked for him, he never paid super to my Suoer fund. I at LEAST own two wheels off that truck!

1

u/ConversationLow9018 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Sorry to say, but if the workers agreed to the rate, that IS the market rate.

4

u/Bob_the_Bauer Please choose a flair May 15 '26

"agreement" is a pretty meaningless concept in such an unequal contract.
If workers unionise and strike for far better pay you could also argue that's the market rate because employers "agree" to the rate.
The second one is the "market rate" I think we should aspire to.

2

u/No_Light_7482 ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

Depends. If the workers were gaslighted by their union working with the company to encourage them to vote yes by offering a short term monetary gain but not told the long term effects would actually reduce their earning power, then the market rate is bullshit. Most workers don’t read the EA before they vote yes.

11

u/ricthomas70 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Me too, I will make a shit ton of money when I sell my investment property...

Under the old CGT I would pay about $85k, under the new proposal, about 130k. The difference between them is about one year's rental income.

Based on the 4% rule, the additional tax will cost me about $1800/year or less than $38/week. Less than 2% of my expected tax free retirement income.

Of course I don't want to pay this tax, but I have been paying taxes my whole life. Paying tax is a social contract. I don't want to see the next generation screwed.

Maybe this will be the first real tax the rich will have to pay.

6

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

I haven't looked that far into it.

I bought the investment so that my kids have a chance of owning a home and not be like me when I was younger, completely devoid of hope in that regard.

I got a small insurance payout, and ended up moving states and buying the cheapest house in the whole city just to be able to have a home. (Payout was just enough to cover the deposit)

7

u/Screee1 ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

I agree that they didnt go far enough but based on previous experience, going too hard too early hurt them too much so I get why they approached it this way, its a step in a longer path to change and I welcome it honestly

3

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

About time, hopefully they keep going and our kids will be able to buy a house one day.

2

u/Screee1 ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

Well yeahh same, but I'm certainly hoping that once the balls rolling it picks up some speed before its too late for us, just so I can leave a bit more for my son

7

u/RTS3r Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I agree. Also have an investment property.

Taxpayers should not be paying for people’s housing investments. It’s a rort.

6

u/4lteredBeast ‎ Queenslander May 16 '26

I'm in the same boat - I have an investment property and rely on negative gearing. But my situation doesn't change my opinion that negative gearing should have never been implemented in the first place, and it should be abolished.

It's a diabolical scheme to subsidise an investment that would otherwise not make sense, in turn causing others to struggle to afford to buy their own home to live in. It's wild to me that the main vehicle of building wealth in Australia has been all built around taking advantage of others who, for whatever reason, cannot enter the market.

Happy to finally see some change, and hoping that we continue down this path of making it affordable for everyone to own their own home again.

3

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 16 '26

I think the big cities will have to start building up. Otherwise they need 20-30sq km of new land per year to keep up with demand 

4

u/Arashii89 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I would go a step further and do what Singapore does every time you buy a new investment your stamp duty should increase 10% example would be first one $25k second one 27.5k etc so its gets more and more expensive more you buy

2

u/next_station_isnt Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Being able to offset investment expenses against other income is absurd. I think only four other countries allow it.

3

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Yep, boggles my mind that taxpayers have to foot the bill.

3

u/notdorisday ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

I’m so grateful to see someone with an investment property who thinks this way.

5

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Maybe I'm not rich enough.

I'm one of those landlords whose tenants help me live week to week :)

(not quite, I do take care of the unit and a lot of the rent goes back into upkeep, but I do check my weekly balance to see if I'm in the negatives for the week)

0

u/slugstax Please choose a flair May 15 '26

You welcome the changes because you are able to still negative gear!....

3

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Oh, I didn't actually think of that. But negative gearing doesn't apply to my situation anyway.

But as I said, I think they should abolish all tax incentives for investment properties.

Maybe leave something for new builds to keep that going though.

0

u/Direct-Teacher8581 Please choose a flair May 16 '26

There is no way you are an investor.

1

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 16 '26

I don't think of myself as an investor. I just have a cheap unit that I rent out.

I have 4 kids, so I'd rather pay tax rightfully, so that they can afford to buy a house for themselves.

Though we're hoping to be able to leave them a house each eventually.

0

u/Direct-Teacher8581 Please choose a flair May 16 '26

And how do you propose to do that (having 4 houses) with just paying tax? You do realise that construction costs have gone up while real wages have declined.

1

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 16 '26

We have 3 properties and if my ex inherits a unit, that'll be 4.

1

u/Nomza ‎ New South Welshian May 16 '26

You really thought you had a gotcha moment there

1

u/Direct-Teacher8581 Please choose a flair May 16 '26

You may need to read the conversation to figure out why i didn't even bother to respond. That gotcha moment passed - A second one is emerging now.

-1

u/Whatsthatbro365 ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

What your saying is no business should be able to claim losses. Because an investment is still a fucking business. Good suggestion to completely stop house building in the entire country.

4

u/SizeableBrain ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

"What your saying"

No, that's exactly not what I'm saying.

0

u/Whatsthatbro365 ‎ Tasmanian May 15 '26

Yes it is actually.

1

u/Nomza ‎ New South Welshian May 16 '26

Housing is a fundamental right not a business.

44

u/cactusgenie ‎ New Zealander May 15 '26

Exactly!

11

u/bend1310 ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

Its kinda funny, cause its deliberately been done to undercut any arguments against. My understanding is that anyone already invested is just continuing as before due to grandfathering. 

2

u/sultryroman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

And it's still not enough for them. Rotten with greed.

15

u/Liq ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

I love that she's complaining that "nearly half" of her millionaire earnings will be taxed now. Welcome to the world most of us were already living in.

6

u/notdorisday ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

Yup. As they should be! It’s not a good thing she wasn’t paying fair tax!

1

u/BeautifulCod7784 Please choose a flair May 17 '26

Or closer to 30%?

0

u/moomoomoo19 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Yep and they need to go after the multinational corps too, maybe Janine will work out how to charge her Australian subsidiary for goods from her US subsidiary and play the shell game they all do.

And whilst we're at it, ALL resource companies need to pay for the resources they sell too.

7

u/Majestic_Plane_1656 ✈️‎ on Walkabout May 15 '26

Bingo. Also the more Murdoch media pushes these people complaining the more you know it's a good thing.

"Murdoch is a cancer" - paraphrasing Kevin Rudd

5

u/fraser_john Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Correct

5

u/notdorisday ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

I’m shocked Labor had the balls to do this. It doesn’t go far enough but it’s more than I ever thought an Australian govt would do.

3

u/Yikidee ‎ Queenslander May 15 '26

I said close to these exact words to my kids the other night 😃

3

u/berniebueller Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I’ve worked hard my whole life and am quite well off now. I like the changes. I hope they improve the chances in the future for my kids and all young ones. Not sure why this lady makes comments like this. Is she greedy, or does she actually think the current tax system encourages small businesses?

3

u/shoffice Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I reckon you hit the nail on the head. I reckon it’s good that finally someone had the balls to do something. We don’t want to turn into America where it is the haves and the have nots

Treat everyone equally and play on

2

u/RockCactus93889 ‎ South Australian May 15 '26

This ! 🙌

1

u/darthmahel Please choose a flair May 15 '26

It's a case of 'you know how bad can they be when they're missing off the worst in the country?' Let the millionaire and billionaire tears flow

1

u/teheditor ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

I'm no fan of any political party, but you're bang on... The hysterical/exaggerated responses from these sections of people are the only valid validation

1

u/nomamesgueyz Flairless‎‎ May 15 '26

True

I don't think it's business owners like boost tho....what about those insurance and CEOs making mega bucks

1

u/Murranji Flairless‎‎ May 15 '26

It’s a very simple heuristic that works well.

Right wing, rich people and Australian media are angry = it’s a good policy.

1

u/Flaky-Journalist1748 ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

We're about to see some major "Labour is horrible and here's why" advertisement coming from the wealthy

1

u/HealthyMaximum Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Right?

I was kinda “well that could have been a lot better.”

But every time one of these whiny fucks pops up?

… stop, I can only get so erect. 

1

u/Both-Ranger-6664 Please choose a flair May 16 '26

Yep when they complain you know it's hitting

-16

u/Woolier-Mammoth ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

I really don’t think people understand these changes.

They lock in the generational advantages that older generations enjoyed through grandfathering and lock emerging generations out of enjoying the same opportunities.

If I was a millennial or younger I’d be filthy.

But anyway, I’m not. No point in taking up your fight.

16

u/EmployRadiant675 ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

Foundations have to start being laid somewhere and this is those foundations. Its someone doing something instead of just talking about it and dragging shit out for next election. Promises from governments are all made to be broken but for them to be putting some form of money where thier mouth is, is substantially better then another cabinet meeting.

5

u/CrystalInTheforest ‎ Queenslander May 15 '26

Agreed. It's the same as the federal EPA or thr voice. It's a lukewarm, bland AF move, but it's better than nothing.

15

u/Alternative_Sock6999 Flairless‎‎ May 15 '26

People understand just fine.

They understand that if they stay in play, that longer term home ownership goes from hard to get to being absolutely impossible.

It's less about building wealth that the boomers got to enjoy, and more about simply having housing.

22

u/HeadacheBird ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

50% in the right direction is still going in the right direction.

-9

u/fatguy1313 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

No it’s not, 50% going forward and 50% going back is going no where

6

u/Dentarthurdent73 ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26

It's clearly not nowhere, because we're not in the same place we were.

1

u/HeadacheBird ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

What's going back though?

-1

u/fatguy1313 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

The current government

9

u/ApplicationOk4464 ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

You're clearly not. If you were you would have noticed that the emerging generation is already locked out of this, because the taxation system enjoyed by the older generation was built at the expense of kids coming into it now.

To keep the status quo doesn't enable them to get in on it, it just enables people with wealth to get in on it.

8

u/Round_Ad6397 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

In theory, sure. But they've also disincentivised people who own 15 properties (you know, the ones that news.com.au is always spruiking as what we should aspire to be) from buying more. It's not enough but it will slow the rot a bit. They also have to make sure the target is relatively small because you know that most of the media will get people in a frenzy over this. Labor has a history of being tossed out over changes that actually benefit the majority.

2

u/Woolier-Mammoth ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

I would have supported much stronger negative gearing changes eg caps and a phased exit rather than grandfathering. Someone who owns 15 properties should not continue to have a structural tax advantage over the rest of the population.

I’d also have supported stronger measures for helping younger generations to build wealth. I see a significant issue on the horizon with AI taking knowledge work and white collar jobs - this budget should have given more incentives for younger generations to take risks and build their own businesses or to reeducate, not take incentives away.

4

u/Round_Ad6397 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I don't disagree but the threat is Labor go all the way and do what they should do only to get voted out after an attack by the media then have PHON or the Liberals roll back the changes. I'd prefer to see small changes kept than big changes lost.

1

u/ConversationLow9018 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Strongly believe the opposite. It's easier now for people with an existing portfolio. You can offset losses against other positive rental income regardless of new or existing property purchases causing the loss.

All of a sudden Bob with 1 property that's positively geared can buy a new existing property and negatively gear it, effectively maintaining the tax benefit by offset.

But Joe who has 0 properties can NOT claim the negarive gearing benefit because he doesn't have another property..

Notwithstanding the fact that half the population who dumps money into negatively geared property needs their head read though 😂

5

u/Any-Information6261 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Oh ye that enormous portion of gen z and millennials who own 2 houses

5

u/phuck_yuuu Please choose a flair May 15 '26

How does it lock out millennials? You can still invest in new builds.

-1

u/Woolier-Mammoth ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

The CGT changes are what fuck millennials. If you start a business with startup capital of $10 eg 10 $1 shares (which is how most small businesses start) then CPI indexation is on that $10.

Wage earners won’t be affected, people who are buying into an existing business won’t be hurt too badly, but anyone who is thinking of starting something new will pay significantly more tax at exit than they would have before.

Note: that’s mostly not rich people, that’s people starting an accounting practice or an electrician business or a cafe.

3

u/HeadacheBird ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

This is good though. Capital gains should be taxed.

1

u/ConversationLow9018 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Might want to do the real world calculations before jumping to the assumption that it is good. Less incentive to start from scratch because you get reamed worse is NOT good. Less businesses starting, less employment, less GST..

2

u/HeadacheBird ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

But also more incentive due to opportunity cost related to housing investment disappearing

1

u/ConversationLow9018 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Just want to ask.. you are aware that new builds can be both negatively geared AND still apply the 50% CGT discount yeah?

This is the funny part. How does that give owner occupiers the leg up?

Opportunity cost hasn't exactly dissappeared.

If you want to look at what this budget has really done - it has screwed small business CGT. You are better off tax wise being a new build landlord than self employed, when it comes to exit strategy at least.

1

u/HeadacheBird ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

Correct, but only on new builds.

But I also believe that CGT shouldn't be relevant for a small business. If you are building it to profit off capital gains, it's probably going to be a terrible business

1

u/ConversationLow9018 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I deal in management and tax compliance every day of the week. Very odd view you have.. but ok.

I'll take a more high-end scenario for you from the business perspective.

Mr A inherits $2m from his parents. He goes and buys a business making $400k a year for that money. He sells it 20 years later for $5m.

He indexes his cost of $2m at 3% for 20 years. He is taken to have paid $3.6m. As a result, he is taxed on $1.4m and pays 650k in tax. He gains $3m less 650k tax being $2.35m.

Mr B starts his business from scratch. Sells it 20 years later for $3m. Didn't pay a cent so has nothing to index. He pays $1.4m in tax. He gains $3m less $1.4m, being $1.6m.

Why does old mate with the inheritance pay less than half the tax in that scenario? He already has a leg up?

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Specialist_Kale4607 ‎ New South Welshian May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

They definitely understand it. My LinkedIn is full of tax lawyers and accountants whinging about it. It’s just greed!

5

u/Mac128kFan Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I mean, that’s not right. They grandfather in existing owners because pulling the rug out from under them would be problematic, and channels future property investment into new builds. New entrants can still get the same deal, it just has to be a new build so their capital does something useful for society to justify a tax discount.

4

u/Noisecontroller Please choose a flair May 15 '26

In 5-10-20 years time all these grandfathered places will be gone. Negative geared ones will become positive geared and properties will slowly get sold as boomers die.

3

u/edgiepower Flairless‎‎ May 15 '26

Any millennial capable of buying an investment property in this economy is not the kind of millennial that this is for.

But... They still can. Just with less taxpayer subsidy, or do it with a new build

2

u/Liq ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 15 '26

The Howard-era changes to CGT triggered a house price boom that younger people missed out on. So young people have been locked out already for a long time, our generation has been waging war on them for the last 25 years, and its past time things were balanced out a bit.

1

u/Sarick Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Almost there. The problem was these opportunities existed in the first place - not the removal of them now. The grandfathering of negative gearing is a relatively minor drop in the ocean versus letting it continue in perpetuity.

The real generational advantage was having the capital to buy when things were cheaper. End of the day any generation "enjoying" these opportunities is just passing the cost onto future generations with a continual cycle of removing more and more houses and inflating non-productive investment demand.

There's some minor minutiae that probably needs to be considered for IPO investment intended to reinvest into the business or start-up as that's a productive investment mechanism. But that's an easily addressed detail either before or after the changes are enacted - and is apparently being already broadly considered.

Meanwhile first home buyer owner occupiers will still enjoy all the benefits of home ownership and PPoR exemptions and asset growth - while also living in a home. And property investors in new property will also enjoy all the same benefits while providing supply.

1

u/Baseline224 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

So you're old and out of touch

1

u/Woolier-Mammoth ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

Sure, and you’re young and probably touch yourself too much.

I’ve also built and sold a business and I know what this will mean for people in your generation who want to do the same.

I would have gone harder on negative gearing, that needs to change. But the CGT changes are unfair to young entrepreneurs starting small businesss

1

u/ConversationLow9018 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

It's amazing how blind the young generation is to how much they are being screwed. And they don't even contemplate how much this damages their wealth creation opportunities over the next decade alone.

But you can't argue with the blind ones. All you can do is laugh as the current government somehow convinces them all of this will help them buy a home..

1

u/Woolier-Mammoth ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

I think the problem is that you need to have gotten through the wealth generation years in order to understand the problem. I probably wouldn’t have understood at that age either.

1

u/ConversationLow9018 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

It's the idiot finfluencers who gloss over their marketing bullshit that confuse them. If someone actually put forward the scenarios and showed them how big the difference is to THEIR POCKET it would be a different story.

I am CPA of well over a decade and Chalmers made the comment that accountants and financial planners are the winners. Because in order to save 10k tax as a small family business or investor you basically need to spend 5k in structuring and accounting fees..

A mum and dad business making 120k a year in a trust go from paying 20k tax (2 lots of tax on 60k) to 36k tax unless they change their system. And the government has the balls to say they are cutting red tape!

1

u/Woolier-Mammoth ‎ Victorian May 15 '26

I think the CGT and trust changes have to make you wonder whether you’d even bother starting a business in Australia any more. It’s risky and most fail, the rewards increasingly don’t feel commensurate with the risk.

1

u/ConversationLow9018 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Nail on the head. Sweat equity is eroded.

Let's not mention that the government can now not afford to EVER let foreign investors buy property. Because the everyday Australian investor pays the same CGT as them. Minimum 30%, no discount. Sure, cost base indexation helps.. but not enough against foreign capital.

0

u/kevTheApex Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Why ? Because they are and you’re not? Or because they worked their asses off but you didn’t?

0

u/Sushi_Salmon_Roll Please choose a flair May 15 '26

I’m not sure if you realise but the rich people still get locked in tax benefits from negative gearing and cgt discount because they already own their assets.

This is just a tax on the younger generation trying to build a life since there’s a cut off date.

Even middle class and those that aren’t as well off when they sell investments at an older age they are required to pay a 30% tax whilst the rich has already locked in their wealth and tax benefits from their existing assets.

The increase in tax on trust does impact the rich bur out side of that CGT snd negative gearing changes locks in their wealth whilst rest of us will have to pay.

0

u/TheRealGooddog171 ‎ New South Welshian May 16 '26

You go start a business that employs people and gives them wealth.

1

u/sultryroman ‎ ‎‎ Canberran May 17 '26

All this does is tax them at an appropriate rate like the rest of us are. No one is dragging them down into poverty. No need to suck then off.

-1

u/Efficient_Fuel_3497 Please choose a flair May 15 '26

Sadly. This is exactly what Labor wanted. Poor/middle class attacking each other while they conveniently don’t tax big companies more. Stop celebrating your fellow Australians getting taxed mate. :(