Again, incorrect. Under the new laws you have to get valuations of your investments as of the first of July 2027, and that value is then used going forward to determine how much tax will be applied under the new laws when/if the capital gains are realised.
It’s the same as what you have to do when you change a house from a primary place of residence to an investment property. If you bought it for $300k and lived in it for 10 years and then rented it out, you only pay capital gains on the amount over what it was worth after 10 years of ownership. So if it was worth $600k after 10 years, and you then rented it for 3 years and sell it for $800k, you only pay capital gains tax on $200k ($800k-$600k).
On your very first sentence - there are gains, they’re just unrealised. The government wants to tax those too, and in fact we’re going to try push that tax through as well, but realised that would be the single worst decision any government could make.
Unfair to change the rules after people have started playing? Absolutely - but that’s what Labor have done, because they’re crooks.
I’d say a lot of them have downvoted based on what sounds like a fervent defence of something most of us are happy to see be taxed or removed.
None of what you say sounds like bad news to me. I’d say there’s probably a lot of others who think the same thing, and are behind this centrist workers party with this part of the budget.
I have no problem with other parts outside housing being reviewed and amended, but these tax concessions should never have been applied to housing in the first place. Labor is doing the right thing by removing them.
Labor were soft. Had it been ‘me’, the grandfathering would have been limited to five years and there would have been investment property ownership limits brought in by 2030 as well.
Why would anyone want the CGT discount removed from shares and other non-housing investments though? Those affect renters too. It’s just another tax grab on money that the government has no right to tax.
I’m fine with removing the discount on housing, but there’s no justifiable reason to remove it from everything else. If it’s about housing like they said, why does it apply to shares?
They’ve also done nothing to address the actual biggest issue - supply and demand. Nothing to increase supply, nothing to decrease demand.
How does CGT on shares and non housing investments affect renters?
Supply and demand are the confected excuses. We have plenty of available dwellings and the issue is access for low income earners (well any earner below middle class in some parts of the country) and that’s been created by these tax concessions and removal of public supply to those who don’t qualify for bank approval.
Like I said before, I’m happy with inquiry on shares and non housing investments. I don’t care if moneymakers want to make more money, just not on crucial services like housing, health and energy.
We don’t though, not in the areas that people want/need to live. Most people can’t just pack up their life and move 5 hours away because there are a lot more empty shitbox houses out in the sticks.
How does CGT on shares and non housing investments affect renters?
Are you asking me, or was that your attempt to explain how it does?
Yeah we do. That’s easily looked up and found as well. In the needed areas too. Some are left vacant by investors.
The problem is access.
Are you…
Well, kind of, because they don’t really. Housing policy isn’t dependent on taxing investments elsewhere. If it’s anything like you offered trying to explain racism don’t bother.
Show us then. Show me the thousands of vacant homes in inner city brisbane/melbourne/sydney.
Well, kind of, because they don’t really.
My point was that they don’t, yet the government removed the CGT discount on shares and non housing investments while saying it was to help with house prices. They lied, as they always do.
If it’s anything like you offered trying to explain racism don’t bother.
I’m assuming you’re the person that doesn’t understand that making fun of identity politics and their love of stereotypes isn’t racism?
Again, incorrect. Under the new laws you have to get valuations of your investments as of the first of July 2027, and that value is then used going forward to determine how much tax will be applied under the new laws when/if the capital gains are realised.
It’s the same as what you have to do when you change a house from a primary place of residence to an investment property. If you bought it for $300k and lived in it for 10 years and then rented it out, you only pay capital gains on the amount over what it was worth after 10 years of ownership. So if it was worth $600k after 10 years, and you then rented it for 3 years and sell it for $800k, you only pay capital gains tax on $200k ($800k-$600k).
On your very first sentence - there are gains, they’re just unrealised. The government wants to tax those too, and in fact we’re going to try push that tax through as well, but realised that would be the single worst decision any government could make.
Unfair to change the rules after people have started playing? Absolutely - but that’s what Labor have done, because they’re crooks.
https://www.financedirectory.net.au/blog/property-valuations-for-july-2027-cgt
Did all you downvoters really not know this?
I’d say a lot of them have downvoted based on what sounds like a fervent defence of something most of us are happy to see be taxed or removed.
None of what you say sounds like bad news to me. I’d say there’s probably a lot of others who think the same thing, and are behind this centrist workers party with this part of the budget.
I have no problem with other parts outside housing being reviewed and amended, but these tax concessions should never have been applied to housing in the first place. Labor is doing the right thing by removing them.
Labor were soft. Had it been ‘me’, the grandfathering would have been limited to five years and there would have been investment property ownership limits brought in by 2030 as well.
Why would anyone want the CGT discount removed from shares and other non-housing investments though? Those affect renters too. It’s just another tax grab on money that the government has no right to tax.
I’m fine with removing the discount on housing, but there’s no justifiable reason to remove it from everything else. If it’s about housing like they said, why does it apply to shares?
They’ve also done nothing to address the actual biggest issue - supply and demand. Nothing to increase supply, nothing to decrease demand.
How does CGT on shares and non housing investments affect renters?
Supply and demand are the confected excuses. We have plenty of available dwellings and the issue is access for low income earners (well any earner below middle class in some parts of the country) and that’s been created by these tax concessions and removal of public supply to those who don’t qualify for bank approval.
Like I said before, I’m happy with inquiry on shares and non housing investments. I don’t care if moneymakers want to make more money, just not on crucial services like housing, health and energy.
We don’t though, not in the areas that people want/need to live. Most people can’t just pack up their life and move 5 hours away because there are a lot more empty shitbox houses out in the sticks.
Are you asking me, or was that your attempt to explain how it does?
Yeah we do. That’s easily looked up and found as well. In the needed areas too. Some are left vacant by investors.
The problem is access.
Well, kind of, because they don’t really. Housing policy isn’t dependent on taxing investments elsewhere. If it’s anything like you offered trying to explain racism don’t bother.
Show us then. Show me the thousands of vacant homes in inner city brisbane/melbourne/sydney.
My point was that they don’t, yet the government removed the CGT discount on shares and non housing investments while saying it was to help with house prices. They lied, as they always do.
I’m assuming you’re the person that doesn’t understand that making fun of identity politics and their love of stereotypes isn’t racism?