Don Cash

V2 is live at albonomics.com You can now compare taxes across: 🇦🇺 Australia 🇺🇸 Florida 🇺🇸 New York 🇬🇧 UK 🇩🇪 Germany 🇯🇵 Japan 🇮🇩 Indonesia 🇨🇦 Ontario 🇸🇬 Singapore 🇳🇿 New Zealand 🇸🇪 Sweden Australia is still one of the highest taxed countries in the world.

@DerekFranc90653 @jason_king72 Investing within a comoany entity might be the way to go

@DCash64939 @jason_king72 Yes, it's an abosolute bitch. Tax rate will differ for everyone. By basically the higher proportion of total portfolio where CG doesn't beat inflation, the higher will be your effective marginal tax rate. And its always above personel tax rate.

To be clear: i'm a 35 year practicing economist. 1 st class Masters Degree, Director Economic Research UBS for 7 years; won the 1993 ASX prize for the best University Masters Thesis. The Treasury figures for CGT ARE WRONG. You pay 50% MORE CGT TAX than they are claiming.

@DerekFranc90653 @jason_king72 I am going to get ChatGPT to python model my portfolio. Fuck I hate Australian complexity. I don’t want to have to think about this shit…

@DCash64939 @jason_king72 That's the Calc; Pretty easy for anyone with maths to figure out; huge stuff up by Treasury, underestaimted tax paid by 50%.

@DerekFranc90653 @jason_king72 Ok I understand your point now. Thank you for making people aware of this.

@DCash64939 @jason_king72 Its 1999 system, you can't adjust up by inflation to create a loss, means you can deduct nominal losses against real gains, BUT NOT REAL LOSSES AGAINST REAL gains. Do the maths yourself, on the Traesury 6 pager. Assume 50% give you all the gains, and 50% give 0, Tax up massively.

Are you assuming the new regime taxes each share separately? My read is that gains/losses are still aggregated as “net capital gains”; the issue is more specific: low-return nominal gains may add to the 30% minimum-tax base even if they get little/no indexed real gain. Is that what you mean?

@jason_king72 The more different shares you hold, the more likley you are to be screwed over by new regime. As if any of them underperform inflation, you lose, and your effective tax rate on CGs goes up!

@2020digging But super is compulsory. Just make it completely compulsory. You won't need lower tax rates to attract savings then. And once your super replaces levels sufficient to replace the pension, you no longer have to pay into super. Very simple.

@DCash64939 The reduced tax incentives in super provides an incentive to save for your retirement. It saves the govt & taxpayers more in the long run than paying out the pension. It has been distorted by very wealthy people using it as a tax dodge - which Labor has curtailed to some extent.

#afternoonbriefing CGT is paid at the sale of an asset? Most businesses would operate for decades, & after making a living, a profit & providing material benefits for society along the way, paying CGT is likely the last thing that would’ve prevented that business starting up.

@slandermepls Or it is just another way of saying 40% of the market rents

@DCash64939 Hmm, that sounds really bad. It's an allocation of huge amounts of capital to investments that don't do anything, don't produce anything. It would be better for everyone if that's curtailed.

Okay, so what do you actually want? Lower taxes or a lower federal budget deficit? Because Australia currently runs about a 1% of GDP deficit whilst the US is at about 6%.

"Investors had a 39.7 per cent share of housing finance commitments nationally, worth $43 billion, in the December quarter 2025, Australian Bureau of Statistics data analysed by Cotality shows, close to the highest share in nine years.". So 40% of the housing market now has a 20% hit in borrowing capacity.

@DCash64939 It only reduces borrowing capacity for people investing in existing properties. They can park their capital somewhere else, where it can actually be productive. Continually giving tax breaks on existing houses is a poor allocation of potentially productive capital.

@slandermepls And we had no CGT prior to 1985 so don't blame this on Howard introducing a 'discount' on CGT in the 1990s.

Actually what is going to happen is that house prices will crash, bad debts in the banking system will rise, banks will cut back lending, we will have a recession, tax revenue will go down, unemployment will go up. Governments including a Labor government will panic and reverse the changes but it will be too late. Why? Because removing negative gearing, which we have had since the early 1900s, reduces borrowing capacity which directly affects how much people can pay for a house. Which sounds nice except a lot of young people bought a house with a 5% deposit.

@Batman2242 @LiberalAus @AustralianLabor "And so, the Coalition will fight like hell to prevent Labor’s toxic taxes from becoming law. But if they do, I commit that a Coalition government I lead will repeal them." liberal.org.au/2026/05/14/bud…

I find it interesting that the @LiberalAus are out talking about how bad @AustralianLabor new rules are for everyone. BUT I DON'T HEAR THEM SAY THEY WILL REPEAL THESE BAD RULES.

@slandermepls No just, cut spending and cut taxes. To be responsible cut spending first, pay down debt, then cut taxes.

@DCash64939 The US has comparable expenditure, and has fucked up its tax base. All of this is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

@DavidBassanese Or just have the same flat CGT for all assets for companies and individuals including in super.

Treasury argues without similar treat of CGT across all assets "an investor could access the CGT discount for an investment property by purchasing it through a company and later sell the company.” Why not just ban company purchases or change CGT treatment in these cases?

Japan (lhs) and Switzerland (rhs) are polar opposites. Japan's yields keep rising, but the Yen falls anyway. Switzerland's yields go lower and lower, but the Franc just strengthens. Difference is public debt. Switzerland is at 40% of GDP. Japan at 200%... robinjbrooks.substack.com/p/liz-truss-bo…

@sportzacct @ClareONeilMP We had no CGT prior to 1985. If you are going to mention the 'discount' being introduced you should mention there was no CGT prior to1985.

Housing is a complex and difficult problem that's been building for 40 years. The idea that you can solve it quickly and easily - it's just disingenous. But we’re focused on a comprehensive approach that is tackling the problem from every single angle.

@DrDemography @almclachlan1 No the immigration minister should be blamed.

Migrants shouldn’t be blamed for Australia’s economic and policy problems says @almclachlan1. Hear hear! abc.net.au/news/2026-05-1…

@AshPolitik There was no CGT prior to 1985. How do you explain that period?

In one chart the budget is validated

Might be true but it is irrelevant for housing costs. More people in a given area has two effects: (1) bids up the value of land; (2) increases construction costs as higher density housing has higher m2 construction costs. The combination of higher land costs and higher construction costs means higher dwelling prices. This is despite the number of new dwelling growing in line with population. This is basic economics and a disgrace if any economist doesn't immediately realise this. This is ECO 101.

@TimS1622124804 @TheAusInstitute What is the Real Supply Story™️

People are upset that @TheAusInstitute has noted that the number of homes has grown faster than the population over the past decade. But it is true.