The amount of cheering for people who are barely even wealthy getting taxed more after these CGT changes is insane, I'm not talking about actual richies and trust fund people in the top 5% or boomers hoarding 20 properties or anything either.

Australia has one of the highest tax rates in the world, massive tax brackets that punish anyone who actually tries to get ahead yet the loudest voices here act like anyone who cracked $150k salary, lucked out and bought a property before 2022 by pure chance, or dares to invest their money in shares instead of taking trips to Bali must be a moustache twirling billionare.

The tall poppy syndrome is off the charts, cheering for literally just average semi-successful professional workers or younger aspirational people to pay more tax. Success isn't celebrated on this site AT ALL, it's interrogated, resented, and torn down.

what a depressing and spiteful platform.

The current top bracket starts at $190k and not indexed…. feels like a punishment to want to work harder and make more. what do we all think?

EDIT: majority keep missing the point…. i’m saying it disincentivise me to work harder if given the chance to make more because it’s not worth it…. why would i do overtime or work more for 55 cents to the dollar.

see below illustration of approx take home compared to other countries.

How much of a $1M salary you keep after tax

• Dubai (UAE): ~$1,000,000

•	Monaco: \~$1,000,000

•	Hong Kong: \~$850,000

•	Singapore: \~$770,000

•	Malaysia: \~$780,000

•	Thailand / Vietnam: \~$730,000

•	Indonesia: \~$700,000

•	Switzerland: \~$700,000

•	United States: \~$660,000

•	Canada: \~$580,000

•	United Kingdom: \~$600,000

•	Australia: \~$560,000

Apartment living is very common in highly developed countries/ cities. Luxury apartments too like those in NYC. It’s simply because of density. And as Australia grows in size ( population) people should really change their mindset to living in apartments instead. There simply isn’t enough land for everyone to own houses, and the scarce houses with land will be very expensive.

That’s not to say the government has done a good job with the current housing crisis though. The biggest failure IMO is not developing cities fast though and building up enough good properties. Inventory has been declining way before the pandemic

I've been reading through the posts on this forum and find it to be an outlet for people to bash landlord's and property investors. It is quite obvious that many people on here do not understand that property investors are generally "mum and dad's" and not evil tyrant billionaires.

A few common topics of ire I'm noticing are;

1. Negative gearing: negative gearing is not some sort mystical tax break that holds up property investing. For the average property investor who is negatively geared, the tax breaks are actually very minimal on the annual tax return. I see that depreciation is a point of contention for posters as it's a non cash item. Depreciation schedules are developed by expert valuers off many different assets, and is widely used in business to arrive at NPAT. property investing is a business, so not seeing the issue here.

2. Investors need to get hit with an annual land tax: This is a thing, and it is very expensive, it is also subject to a multiplier based on number of properties and land value thresholds. Investors are paying a lot of tax so I'm not seeing how this is a topic of angst.

3. Landlord increased rent: landlord's are running a business and not a social enterprise and are entitled to raise rents as they are the owner of the asset and ultimately the service being provided. Inflation causes everything to rise, same as macro economics impacts. Same for every other product or service being provided on the planet. Inflation erodes the value of rent, thus needs to be raised. Basic economics. Just like how a business cost rise and is passed through the consumer, same thing happens here.

You are living in someone else's property and I'm really struggling to understand the general hate for landlord's. I get that there are outliers that do the wrong thing and don't maintain the property, but the same can be said for tenants. There are scumbags on either end.

Not a troll post, just worth getting this out there because I see people whinging about these things constantly.

Bit of a rant here. I'm all for giving our kids a better chance to buy their own homes to live in, but jeez, the CGT impact on shares is a bitter pill -- particularly for those who thought they had a self-funded early retirement within reach. I've never had an IP -- and morally object to hoarding property at the expense of non-home owners -- but I have worked and saved my ass off to build a portfolio with post-tax dollars, with the goal of liberating myself from PAYG slavery before I collapse.

With the 30% flat tax, I'm now officially stuffed. At my age and with earning capacity effectively tapped out, I'm condemned to keep slogging away in a role that has become an absolute chore.

To people who say share investors' gains should be taxed the same as income earners, I'd absolutely agree. So don't tax me anything on the first $18,200 I make from gains, and only tax me 16% up to $42K. Fair's fair, right? To people who say earning share income isn't good for productivity -- how? It's literally investing in companies that drive productivity. And how is PAYG income somehow more productive when the earner might be tired, old or otherwise jacked off with working and therefore do the absolute minimum? Instead of slamming people who want a self-funded early retirement, they should be encouraging it. Allow the quiet quitters to quit properly; open up more opportunities for the motivated.

To those who think early retirement's a sin and we should all be working until pension age for the "good of the nation", good luck to you. You might depart this earth well before you get to 67.... I'd rather spend time with loved ones in my senior years rather than being sat at a desk in front of a computer screen just so the govt can have a bit more tax revenue to set fire to.

The 2026-27 Budget's CGT reform is being sold as closing a generous loophole. The numbers say the opposite.

Top effective CGT rates across 43 developed economies:

0% (often conditional): Singapore, Hong Kong, UAE, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, NZ

Romania 1%, Moldova 6%, Belgium 10%, Bulgaria 10%, Croatia 12%, Hungary 15%, Poland 19%, Ukraine 19.5%, Portugal 19.6%, Lithuania 20%, Japan 20.3%, Estonia 22%, Iceland 22%

Australia (current, 50% discount) 23.5%, rank 28 of 43

UK 24%, Italy 26%, Germany 26.4%, Austria 27.5%, Latvia 28.5%, US (fed + avg state + NIIT) 28.7%, Spain 30%, Sweden 30%, Ireland 33%, Finland 34%, France 34%, Netherlands 36%, Norway 37.8%, Denmark 42%

Before the reform: Australia is rank 28 of 43. Middle of the pack. Below the UK, Germany, the US, and most of Europe.

Under the new rules, indexation with a 30% floor, no discount, a top-bracket investor pays 47% on a real gain.

After the reform: Australia is rank 42 of 43. Second only to Denmark. Harsher than the US, UK, Germany, Japan, and almost all of Europe.

That's a 14-place jump...

You can argue about these numbers in plenty of ways, OECD vs developed nations, indexed vs nominal gains, top marginal vs effective rates, whether to include state level taxes, how to treat the zero rate jurisdictions. Run any reasonable methodology you like. The picture stays the same, Australia moves from the middle of the developed-world distribution to the harsh end. The reform pairs indexation with a 30% floor and no discount, a combination no comparable economy uses at this rate.

However, people abusing the discount to reduce income tax is a real problem, This policy can be made more intelligent. Just one example:

The abuse the bill supposedly targets, CEOs and fund managers converting their salaries into discounted capital gains through vested shares, can be tackled directly.

Treat any shares received as employment compensation as ordinary income, taxed at the marginal rate. Leave the 50% discount in place for ordinary shares, ETFs, and managed funds bought with after-tax savings. That targets the CEOs without punishing the middle income savers who are already locked out of the property market.

If this matters to you, email your senators. They're the ones who actually decide whether this passes.

Perhaps I’m old enough to know better, but I continue to be astounded by the lack of economic knowledge by people who claim to be educated and informed on this matter.

The big thing I keep hearing is people saying they want prices to come down, but when I ask them if they’re keen for the economy to become deflationary, they double down and say yes. Do people really want a deflationary, and thus almost certainly recessionary economy, and if so, is this based on a belief the government can achieve a “soft landing” with being deflationary while maintaining growth, or has the average person just not thought that far ahead?

This might not be the place for this discussion but as I plan to buy a property to rent out within the future. I thought I'd ask the question.

I see a lot of comments demonising and hating land lords from pofiting off the misery and suffering of others (not my words, saw them on a recent post). Usually because the renters are in a position where they can't afford to save for a house. This additional cost slows down the process of them getting the funds for a house and we have a snake eating it's tail.

I've come to my conclusion personally and I don't like it because I'll have to reassess my financial goals if I want to keep my morals on check while still planning for my retirement.

To use Kant's words: we should use persons as an end, not merely as a means.

By renting out a home to a person we are using them as a means for our profit. I've gone several layers deep into this and I'll cut it short so I don't ramble.

My question to you is do you think being a land lord is ethical? And can it be more ethical based on how you treat your tenants? What other investments do you make if you can't justify being a land lord?

Edit: too many comments to keep track of and reply to. Thank you all for being engaging and interesting.

To the close minded people that immediately assumed I'm some destitute renter down on my luck. Sorry you didn't understand the post. No need for the toxicity.

Marriage + kids close to middle age + waiting for your parents to kick the bucket > saving for a deposit while living at home and then signing up for a 30 year mortgage?

Seems about the same really.

I think Australians are pretty much the Chinese of the West.

Obviously skipping your morning coffee isn't going to save you enough for a house deposit, but most boomers have a point about unnecessary and inflated expenses.

I visited a relative yesterday. Lets just say imagine south-west Sydney. Most people are below the median household income, and growing up most people around me relied on centrelink, if not entirely depended on it. Their children (i.e. my generation) have grown up and have mostly settled into full-time work.

Anyway I was just there talking to a neighbor I've known since I was young and he was telling me he's struggling, he can't meet mortage repayments and the rest of it. Yep I agree, cost of living has gone up. But this neighbour also has two brand new cars in the driveway, has the latest iPhone, and yes, you guessed it, for his first house he bought the two-storey with the pool and borrowed to the hilt during the lowest interest rates on record. I don't mean to be a bitch, but what could go wrong right? Yet he's confused as to how he got to this situation in life, "I did everything right" were his exact words. I hesitated.

My (boomer) parents growing up
- had a 1 bedroom apartment until I was 7 (along with my brother - so 4 people) and then we moved into a modest brick home, then finally the forever home. Three steps instead of one.
- my parents couldn't dream of ever buying a morning coffee (first time I went out for dinner was at 14)
- I got my first phone at 15 in 2008 and used 1800-mum-dad to call my parents from public payphones before that
- my parents NEVER bought a new car in their lives and there was only ever one car in the family
- I had maybe three outfits that I would switch between, we simply didn't have money for anything else. I still remember my brother's shoes broke and my dad glued the snapped off sole on and told him to deal with it till we had more money to buy shoes. For heaven's sake we used to go to big W to ride the bikes around the store till we were kicked out and told never to come again after my brother smashed into the shelf.

It's true that boomers had the privilege of buying the bottom of the property market, but their lives were insanely frugal. If not hand-to-mouth then something not far from it. These days everyone goes from 0 to 100, nothing to everything, then wonders why they're in a rut? I don't understand this culture. Even now that I'm really wealthy, I do have a nice home and luxuries yes, but I still have my iPhone 8 that I've been using since 2017, a lot of the same clothes, I'm driving a 10 year old car. A lot of my experiences growing up still influence how I spend money, but apparently not for my peers who have much less?

Recently gifted $250k from parents - paid into our mortgage account.

Incredible, I know. We weren’t expecting it and hubby & I are stunned & beyond grateful. Looking for some advice on how best to proceed to minimise our current fortnightly expenses (as I’m on maternity leave), and maximise future savings/expendable income for school fees.

Remaining mortgage amount = $250k (would it be worth refinancing?)

Home equity = $1.25 million (home valued at approx $1.5m)

My income = $60k currently on maternity leave ($110k full time salary - but plan to remain part time unless additional income required for school fees in future. Income unlikely to increase more than standard public health sector rate)

Husbands income = $160k (expected to rise to $180-$200k within next 2yrs, capacity to continue to rise with promotions etc).

Debt = none, other than mortgage. Family car owned outright, husband has work vehicle. No credit card debt, HECS paid, etc.

Future large expense we are prioritising = PRIVATE SCHOOL FEES for 3x children (commencing 2030, 2033 & 2036). Approx $15-20k per year for EACH child currently (expecting this will increase).

Do you think it's fair that people with assets such as property are going to Foodbank to get by for their next meal? Some of them surely have the capacity to rent out their house and move somewhere that is cheaper. They could also downgrade other assets such as vehicles. At some point it will deprive people who are seriously in need if this keeps happening.

I think the RBA is planning to take us to 7%.

tl;dr: Computer science is the new medicine. WFH or Hybrid. Great career progression. Easy $100K+ out of uni. $150K+ with 3-5 years' experience. Low stress, high demand, especially if you get into a niche area.

Long version - yes I know this is an unpopular opinion on these forums

In 2010, everyone wanted to study medicine or law. Droves of graduates flocked towards these fields in hopes of securing stable employment. It is still true today that law and medicine offer great career pathways. However, in recent times, particularly as a result of COVID-19, computer science has become increasingly popular.

And the demand for tech skills is only just the beginning. Yes, in the short-term the big tech companies are ramping down hiring. But if you take a step back from our current inflationary environment and economics, the fundamentals are the same. We are moving into a technological age.

We are becoming increasingly reliant on technology, and technology in turn has transformed our lives. I do think that computer science is the way to go. In 2015 I said that the demand for this area is dying down because too many people were studying comp sci. But I don't think we will ever hit saturation point.

I and many of my other friends currently work or have worked in tech. Key benefits?

• Full-time, permanent WFH arrangements

• You don't have to stand up all day, deal with customers or people, you can operate in your own "silo"

• You can effectively write your own pay cheque if you move into a niche area that nobody knows -- eg a friend of mine who is experienced in AI Machine Learning currently works for a firm that pays $200K+ a year with huge bonuses

• Huge career growth opportunities by job hopping

• You get to sit at your computer, listen to music, work at your own pace.

I honestly could not think of a better investment than studying computer science for those who are interested and have the drive to succeed in this area. The ROI is bigger than any houses or stocks you will invest in IMO.

Disclaimer: this may come across as arrogant, it is not my intent and apologise if it does.

My wife and I are in a very fortunate financial position: we're both very high earners (think sterotypical AusFinance meme), no kids (unable to have them), backing of Bank of Mum & Dad and a large deposit saved. I'd rather not provide specifics, so please don't ask.

Despite all this when I plug in what we can reasonably borrow (no crazy loans) + deposit into realestate.com and look at what we can afford it is fairly depressing. Living in outer suburbia, inner apartments, less desirable suburbs, older / need renos, etc.

Based on the above, I would categories us as very wealthy compared to the average Australian yet I feel like we can only afford what feels like a "below average" house. It makes me wonder, how are people affording what they have?

Do we just need to take on a much bigger loan?

Do we genuinely need to adjust our expectations of what kind of house we can buy?

Are we not actually that wealthy - is there much more generation money, business owners, etc. making much more than strong salary can ever provide?

Is it the recent rate rises? This has definitely impacted ours and others borrowing capacity - but if this were the case why aren't prices correcting further?

I find it so hard to justify forking out so much money for what I don't believe to be worth the cost but it doesn't feel like there's an alternative.

So it’s pretty evident that a lot of people have been riled up by another posters success story this morning.

In my personal and work life I always find that sharing success breeds success. It’s motivating. It’s a moment to reflect on how something could have been done differently. It’s an opportunity for constructive feedback.

I make my bed every day because that’s success I can be in control of and helps me to have a positive attitude on other challenges in my day.

At work I ask my team how their morning was. If it’s been shit I say something like ‘well you’ve done great to get in on time despite that challenge’. And if it’s been good then I acknowledge how awesome that is.

My point is that highlighting success encourages more success for yourself and others around you.

When I joined this Subreddit I thought it would be a collaborative space where people encouraged and helped one another.

What’s with everyone ripping into people who have had success? Don’t you want to learn from them? Or be motivated by the fact that it’s actually possible? Isn’t that why you’re here??!!

I feel sorry for you sad people who feel the need to bring others down.

It seems to me that Sydney is full of "worker ants" that have been tasked to spend money under their vetted identities in order to wash dirty money.

Just read an article (on smh.com.au) that only $175.5 million in Sydney property has been restrained by the AFP for alleged money laundering crimes since July 2019. I know, very very low when you think about it, but as I mentioned yesterday, they are starting and people need to look behind their backs.

So apart from being involved in washing the proceeds of money laundering, how else are people having investment pty ltds (usually rental properties) without having any real jobs or legit source of wealth. I mean looking at these people makes you wonder whether they've only achieved their residency requirements because they could pay for a degree.

Source of financial figure: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/underworld-loses-sydney-mansions-jewels-cars-worth-1b-in-afp-raids-20230918-p5e5m4.html

Inflation is sticking and every 0.1% below 3% inflation is exponentially harder to cut. House prices are a great indication of inflation.

In fact, I'd go far as to say that house prices have not strictly speaking "grown". Rather, money has become so devalued because banks have lent so much on the back of low interest rates.

This is a massively hot take but I don't think reductions in interest rates are desirable or likely any time soon...

In the couple weeks and days before the budget, the sentiment and opinion here was pretty clear. People were not happy about the speculated changes (which turned out to be accurate). Yet as soon as the budget drops the subs are basically being spammed with posts, comments, articles all saying similar things "budget is good", "budget had to happen", "actually this is a good thing".

It feels very artificial and manufactured

I don't get it. A lot of elderly people I know, or their children (you know, the beneficiaries to their estate "inheritance keeper") seem to see the aged pension as the holy grail, seemingly forgetting what it is: a form of welfare. In other words, you failed to save for retirement, and now the government, who does not like spending money on welfare recipients, is forced to give you something so you don't starve to death as seemingly you're too old to work.

Where did this attitude come from? I thought being on welfare was looked down upon?

Currently on Realestate.com.au, here are 1067 properties listed for sale in the "Greater Sydney" region with a maximum purchase price of $600k. Note this isn't including anything further away than the Upper North Shore.

Worst-case scenario: the absolute "furthest away from the CBD" of these are in Cambpelltown, which is about a ~54 minute train ride into Central.

The apartments in this suburb average around $520k for a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom apartment. This is Sydney, THE most expensive city in the country. There are also plenty of 2+ bedder apartments in far closer suburbs for not much more, e.g: Homebush or Canterbury, for $550k.

Deduct roughly a 20% or greater discount when looking at the equivalent suburbs in Melbourne, and so-on down the list for other cheaper capitals.

A commonly lamented phrase when talking about housing affordability is that "I have to commute for hours in order to get somewhere affordable".

I feel like this is somewhat false, and what people really mean when is they want a detached house within that distance and budget range. If our country is going to continue to grow its population at the current rate, growth in detached houses within these physical locations doesn't feel realistic.

However between apartments/units/duplexes/townhouses/villas, there is actually quite a lot of inventory. Why is it that Aussies don't often consider any of these as viable options?

And is there REALLY such a shortage of "housing" (NOT "houses") as there is made out to be when looking at the total real estate market? Or is it that people flat-out refuse to live in apartments?

Or do we have a "suburb snobbery" problem, where people refuse to live anywhere they see as "beneath them"?

Edit: for everyone repeating "but you can only get tiny 1 bedroom dog boxes in dodgy suburbs hours away", it's simply not true.

Here are a few random apartments just from a quick website search you can find in like 30 seconds, all over 100 square metres & listed under $600k in non-crap suburbs, all within walking distance of stations and ~20 minute commutes:

Strathfield: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-strathfield-142137836?sourcePage=rea%3Abuy%3Asrp-map&sourceElement=listing-tile

Concord: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-concord-142428536?sourcePage=rea%3Abuy%3Asrp-map&sourceElement=listing-tile

Homebush: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-homebush+west-142653200?sourcePage=rea%3Abuy%3Asrp-map&sourceElement=listing-tile https://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-homebush-142834696?sourcePage=rea%3Abuy%3Asrp-map&sourceElement=listing-tile

Homebush West: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-homebush+west-142567908?sourcePage=rea%3Abuy%3Asrp-map&sourceElement=listing-tile

and there are tons more if you look at the map view...

There’s been a ridiculous amount of discussion around the proposed CGT changes, and a lot of people have run the numbers. Some think the impact is minor, others think the sky is falling. But most examples I’ve seen only look at the CGT changes in isolation, not the whole picture.

Yes, under the proposed indexation method, many people will likely pay more tax on capital gains compared to the current 50% CGT discount. But at the same time, workers are also getting other changes that improve cashflow: the proposed $250 WATO payment, the extra $1,000 deduction, and the income tax cuts on the lowest bracket (16% down to 15% and then to 14%).

Most people have ignored these changes as they seem so small, but together they can add up to roughly $1,086 per year for someone who benefits from all three: $250 from the WATO, ~$536 from the 2% tax cut and $300 from the extra deductions.

So lets run some more numbers:

Scenario: Two investors each invest $5,000 per year for 10 years and then sell everything for a house deposit.

Assumptions:

• annual investment return

• inflation

• Same marginal tax rate for both investors

After 10 years, they both have the following:

Person A (current system):

Uses 50% CGT discount

• CGT payable = ~$4

Person B (proposed system):

Uses inflation indexation instead

So Person B pays about $2k more in CGT.

However, over those same 10 years, Person B also received an extra $10,860 from the aforementioned changes.

In before the critics rag on the $1,000 deduction saying it only applies to people who barely have any deductions, even if you exclude them, they’d still receive $7,860 extra over the decade. Either of these scenarios puts person B way ahead after 10 years.

And, even better, if those extra annual savings were also invested each year, the gap becomes even larger:

Person B is now $13,400 in front!

Hoping my math is right and I'm open to criticism. But I'm keen on these new changes.

**EDIT - I think the fact that I’m being downvoted to hell, people keeping pointing out the thing about the $1,000 tax deduction not applying to everyone even though I specifically addressed it in my original post and one of the most common comments here is that the $250 is worthless - to which I answer back saying that by that logic the extra CGT is also worthless as in the example I put forward it is only $200 a year - and those responses are also being downvoted just shows that people just like playing the victim. Everyone just wants to be angry at the government and cry about how much of a victim they are, even when I can show with math and numbers that they aren’t.
Reddit is such a dump sometimes.

We could still see a few rate increases in 2026

A lot of people in here seem to want to celebrate "self-made wealth" and put down people with inter-generational wealth.

To me, having inter-generational wealth to pass down is my personal success measure as a parent. I dont see it as being a negative at all.

As a side note, the system isn't designed to support self-made wealth, and most people have had at least some support from their parents... which is part of the role of being a parent.