It’s just income tax isn’t it? Same brackets apply.
It’s just income tax isn’t it? Same brackets apply.
Sorry badly worded/concepted there. Yes it is at the time it’s sold - I meant progressive over period it was held (not calcing it based on it being income for a single period). Brain fart.
Updated in my post
Why not go full Piketty, and just roll out a progressive tax on capital, instead of income?
People in this country generally accept the principle that the well off pay taxes so we can provide good schools, hospitals, etc for everyone and give those who aren’t well off as much of an opportunity as possible.
So long as you’re taxing income, there will be ways around it, especially as those with capital are willing to spend some of it for tax advice on how to get out of paying taxes or minimise their tax bill (I know not everyone does this, but it’s perfectly rational behaviour in a capitalist society).
Piketty suggests we change the way this works, as the world is trending back towards a point where the rich get richer and income from capital or inheritance matters more than income from labour once again, like the Belle Epoque prior to WWI. While we have our home grown arguments around this, the crudest and simplest exampke is when Elon Musk made a huge deal out of selling a number of Tesla shares in order to pay the “largest ever” tax bill, which came to $12 billion, or 10% of the amount his wealth increased that year - meanwhile Tesla paid $0.
The best way to continue to organise a society where those who are well off fund programs that support everyone is a progressive tax on capital assets, rather than incomes. Piketty suggested a threshold for application of around $1.2 million USD, so that would miss most ordinary home owners in Australia.
Shit I’m just thinking what can realistically (in my eyes) be done to make the housing market cool for a couple of decades.
Good luck getting that one past the farmers.
It’s increase supply and tackle vacancy, imo.
I reckon you could run a campaign based on vacancy (Airbnb) at the moment.
This I dont agree with. My kids should get a windfall because i plan it out to make sure they get the windfall. That’s my choice and has nothing to do with my kids. As long as it’s not been gained by nefarious means, there shouldnt be a caveat on something like that.
They wouldn’t be taking all of it.
On a related note - can’t wait for the football to start back up!
And they will get that windfall. Why should they get it tax free, when we accept that all other forms of income are progressively taxed?
Exactly. My super is in good nick and I won’t have a mortgage, so my kids will likely get a windfall when I cark it, but they won’t “deserve” it any more than they neighbours who might not get such a windfall. So tax is the contribution you pay to society for giving you a place to be able to build up and pass on wealth.
Cool and Normal.
Sorry you lost me there.
It was very big about 30 years ago. The stock market was going gang busters. People were borrowing to buy shares which they used as security for the loan and claiming the interest on the loan as a tax deduction.
Surely you remember the term “margin call” made by the banks, when the value of the shares (security) fell below the value of the loan and when interest rates increased.
Many made money, many more got burnt by getting caught when the bubble burst.
Well, article in smh suggesting Albo is preparing for an election battle on housing including CGT and negative gearing.
But on form he’ll run the numbers and then baulk, in the face of an entirely predictable scare campaign
You should get one CGT discount event when you downsize past the age of 60. Otherwise tax the fuck out of property sales if there is a capital gain. Housing as an investment is fucked. Fuck off negative gearing too.
I’m 40 and I’ll be lucky to own a place by the time I’m 45. Even then the bank will own 90% of it.
Yeah, no Govt will have the guts to make a change…. You saw how much flak they copped for changing the Stage 3 tax cuts to something that made more sense.
I saw someone from Libs on ABC breakfast already making a big deal and saying the Govt are liars because they are not fessing up to thinking of a change - even though every Govt should be always considering potential changes to policy.
For what it’s worth, they should restrict negative gearing to only new properties (ie. incentivise supply). I reckon they should cap it at 1 property, with perhaps a concession (more properties allowed) for investments in affordable housing.
A big chunk of it will already have been taxed when the money was earnt. Why is it taxed again because i’m giving it to my kids? The big one should be to close all the bullshit loopholes that allow people from ensuring they don’t pay tax. But if i’ve earnt money that the government has already taken a chunk out of, why should another chunk be taken if i’m giving it to someone else
The 2019 plan was to stop negative gearing and CGT discount on new purchases of existing property - people with arrangements already in place were untouched, and purchases of new builds were unaffected.
So it grandfathers all existing arrangements and encourages investment in new supply - I think that’s a pretty reasonable place to land.
the moment anyone suggests that though, the other side will start spouting bullshit like, “this is just the start” etc
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, there needs to be penalties held against politicians for any obvious lies. Be it claims about the other side or election promises broken without justification. That and they shouldn’t be allowed any private bank accounts or pretty much anything else when they’re working for the government. They should be an open book that can be checked at any single point.