Anirban Mahanti

@ellymelly The climate conferences are serious folks, right. Why don’t they organize their meetings online & cut down their carbon footprint? Same with Bowen. He could reduce his carbon footprint by taking fewer flights. The hypocrisy is just unreal.

Chris Bowen - more than $1 million spend flying around to climate conferences. And we're supposed to believe that we're being taxed to 'pay for roads and stuff'. This is such a load of crock.

From a treasurer looking to create “fairness” this is just diabolical. Real world portfolios are lucky to have 50-60% winners, especially for growth investors. If they don’t inflation adjust the losses, growth investing is simply untenable. This will impact small & mid caps on the ASX the hardest and will make raising capital on the ASX extremely challenging.

Under the proposed CGT changes, the effective tax rate on a direct share portfolio could rise from 44% to 70% because inflation adjusted losses can’t offset gains unless shares fall in nominal dollar terms. That means portfolios with a few big winners and lots of average performers (which is how most real world portfolios behave), get hit hardest. The result is that direct share investing becomes much less attractive than ETFs and pooled investment structures for most Australians, far more so than Treasury’s modelling appears to assume. blog.stockspot.com.au/why-the-propos… Credit @DerekFranc90653 @Johnkehoe23 who discovered this impact due to stock return dispersion.

@ryu_tay Utter incompetence on part of the Treasurer. And they keep lying! There are ways to solve for the housing issue but that starts with solving the demand side of the equation alongside some levers to spot residential property speculation.

All they have to do is exclude all businesses and share market from the change and it will be so widely supported. But they chose to go hard and keep bluffing without any bloody sense 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

@AvidCommentator If the losses were indexed and if carried forward also indexed then at least it is an even playing field. Losses being counted in nominal terms & gains post on inflation adjustment means anything outside of a diversified ETF just has a very high post tax bar.

@AvidCommentator The highly paid folks forgot to their homework. That’s the charitable view. If they understood the ins and outs of this, then they can bid goodbye to capital raises on the ASX.

"Under another example, an investor buys shares in Coles and Woolworths, with one outperforming inflation and the other underperforming inflation. The overall real return is zero after inflation, but the investor would pay tax on the winning stock" This just keeps getting worse

Here is the article John Keogh just released in the AFR. Can i ask you all to spread the word. Many hands make light work. afr.com/policy/tax-and…

This is diabolical. It will destroy growth investing and retail investors would have to give up on higher risk shares. It would also make raising money in the ASX very very difficult. It almost seems like the people devising these rules have never themselves invested in risk assets.

I did not realise they were taxing gross rather than net gains… AFR: Investors with diversified share portfolios making a mix of gains and losses compared to inflation could face tax rates of more than 100 per cent on real gains, due to the Albanese government not compensating investors for underperforming stocks. A former senior Treasury tax official and a hedge fund manager both warned that people with a diversified portfolio of shares could face tax rates 50 per cent higher than Treasury calculated… Chalmers’ office and Treasury were contacted for comment on Thursday about whether real losses would be indexed to inflation. Under another example, an investor buys shares in Coles and Woolworths, with one outperforming inflation and the other underperforming inflation. The overall real return is zero after inflation, but the investor would pay tax on the winning stock. If an investor instead bought an ETF of supermarkets with the same overall result, they would pay no tax. afr.com/policy/tax-and…

Oh this is a good example. Under the new rules, the dispersion of returns matter as indexation only applies to the asset gaining in value. Basically this makes growth investing very difficult! For your two scenarios, assuming a person on the top 47% bracket, for identical pre-tax returns, the post-tax outcome is diabolically different. 😂 Per the old rules, the tax payable for both cases is $23,500. But per the new rule, the ETF results in a tax of $30,836 whereas your small cap portfolio results in a tax of $43,767. 😂@OwenRask @GeoffWilsonWAM

Labor are Punishing Investing in Innovation and taking risk. Assume 3% inflation over 10 years. 100k ETF → 200k: taxable gain = 65.6k 5 × 20k small caps: 4 go to zero & 1 → 200k taxable gain = 93k Current -50% CGT system both pay tax on the same gain = 50k

@clairlemon One would think the treasurer & his advisors would do the basic homework right!

Treasury's advice to Chalmers appears to be based on ATO tax return data. Someone needed to point out the obvious: young people ACCUMULATING shares don't record a capital gain. You only appear in that data when you sell. Of course the numbers are low.

@bowtiedstocks There might be taxes on eating bugs! 😉😂

It’s not just what’s in this Labor budget from a tax perspective that is scary It is the precedent it sets for what else of yours that you’ve built post tax that they might decide to come after next Other ‘sacred cows’ they might look to slaughter: - family home being taxed - death / estate / inheritance taxes - further superannuation taxes - refundability of franking credits They seem intent on doing as they please with our money Under this Labor government you will eat bugs, own nothing and be happy™️

@WhosFibbing Oh the irony. 😂😂😂😂The Greens senator likes to use the office printer and kill trees instead of using cheap online media for publication.

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi billed taxpayers more than $138,000 in just three months, with a striking amount spent on repeated printing and communications expenses. The expenditure records show recurring claims throughout January and February, including multiple $1,000 and $1,125 transactions, alongside clusters of smaller print-related charges lodged only days apart. One stretch in mid-February alone saw several claims stack into the thousands within a matter of days. The timing has drawn scrutiny because the spike overlaps with a series of high-profile pro-Palestine rallies and political appearances involving Faruqi in Sydney and Canberra. Taxpayers are now left wondering what exactly required such an extraordinary volume of printed material and communications spending in such a short period.

@BrisVegasPunter @HectorNonce @IFM_Economist In theory yes. But it might have a wealth effect. People might feel “poorer”. I agree with you it shouldn’t matter but behavioral economics can be weird.

@BleedingEdgeAM @HectorNonce @IFM_Economist The price dropping on your principle place shouldn't worry anyone because if all houses are dropping then if you have to sell the place you are purchasing is also lower. It might worry investor for sure.

If dwelling prices fell 10% nationally we'd fall back to a level seen in early 2025, a fall of 20% would be early 2023, Dwelling prices rose 48% since 2020. So what is the big deal? Unless someone can show me that this near 50% gain brought Australia unmatched prosperity that offsets the societal and economic damage that making household formation so difficult for FHBs why does it matter so much. It would actually be the one thing that unambiguously improves housing affordability. It might also discourage negative gearing and make more space for FHB in the market.

Perhaps but do the owners & investors of these assets support it? I doubt it, which is part of the problem. Personally I don’t have any issue with the valuation of my house dropping by 30% but I have a feeling a 30% drop would result in reverse wealth effect. That’s my guess. That’s why I’m supportive of tying migration volume to new housing builds with a low say 100,000 lower bound. The lower bound would allow migration of required skills & also make the program highly competitive. Just my 2 cents.

@BleedingEdgeAM @IFM_Economist A sustsined covid style immigration ban could do it.

The housing minister shouldn’t be trying to set a put on pricing. Her job should focus on improving housing supply. I don’t understand why they can’t let the market do its thing. We are in this unaffordable scenario largely because of policies that have turned housing into a scheme with no downside.

'Clare O’Neil unable to confirm whether young Australians will plunge into 'negative equity' due to Labor's new laws' The housing minister guaranteeing that prices won't fall would be insane, we are meant to have a market. skynews.com.au/australia-news…

@cat240359 @AvidCommentator Fair argument. Although I think at 150,000 cap the program can be highly competitive & accept basically the best of the best. That’s the win win from a lower cap.

@BleedingEdgeAM @AvidCommentator I would also like a broader mix of countries, each capped to an equal annual number.

I will say one thing for the current Australian migration debate, it is revealing who is debating in good faith. The idea that we are uniquely unable to control migration and run an intake ~2x or more developed world norms in per capita terms is absurd.

@claudedwalker Agree with you Claude. Deterrent to building wealth via non residential assets doesn’t solve the issues. It’s just tax grab and likely hindering the very same people who are priced out of the housing market.