M

@Ben_Davison1 Yes - at the very least that discount should apply if funding Australian businesses outside ASX200 This becomes about cost of capital for businesses that can only raise in the domestic market. The less funding those businesses get, the less tax revenue generated in the future

Do we really think that people making $420,000 need a “tax discount”??? I don’t. The changes Labor is proposing will still give them one, albeit smaller, yet the bosses pamphlet, the bosses lobby & Murdoch’s mouthpieces are squealing as though the NKVD has seized their offices!

@MarkoMatvikov We will tax our way to prosperity, this has never gone wrong anywhere else historically

> Comes to office claiming it’s a supply only problem > Imports a million people during a housing shortage > Fails to deliver new supply to meet growing demand > Housing becomes even less available and affordable > Blames tax settings in place for over 2 decades > Raises capital gains tax on all types of investment > Claims this is all about fairness for young people

@BikoKonstantin1 Weather and more importantly, fewer property taxes on investors. You can make a market more affordable by driving out speculators. This wasn’t Melbourne’s intent, their hand was forced by reckless spending, but it’s at least one positive to come out of the mess they’ve made

On what planet is Brisbane $250K more expensive than Melbourne?

@AlanKohler @abcnews We must dispel the myth that property prices can only go one way and if they even give a hint of falling, that policy makers should step in. This only incentivises rent seeking behaviour

My @abcnews column: for the first time, I'm optimistic that housing affordability will improve, but there's a dark side. Young families who bought a house with too much debt hoping, expecting, to build equity and wealth, will be devastated. abc.net.au/news/2026-06-0…

@toy59496 Cap the exemption at the prior-year state median house price (the full price, not just median gain) — more than generous. Tax should reward productive capital flow, not parking it in a single PPOR. This cap is large enough where it’s not going to disincentive selling

@TaxPawspective Disincentivising leakage into foreign stocks that are high growth, incentivising money moving into superannuation which is easier to track and if it’s in the industry funds; can be used off government off balance sheet spending (as they’re proposing with defence)

Currently, the effective tax rate on $[x] as a fully franked dividend or capital gain is practically the same (for a top rate person). The proposed CGT rules now make dividends considerably more attractive. Is disincentivising profit retention and reinvestment a policy aim?

@TMFScottP It can be fine to index mature assets, many can access offshore funding anyway. But a 47% top rate means higher domestic cost of capital (investors price post-tax returns), making it harder for new industries to grow. Equiv startup in a 20% jurisdiction raises proportionally more

@Matthew81334996 But it is capital vs. labour, in the sense that each contributes to the national tax burden. There is no reason, IMO, that the rates for each should be different (but because CGs are earned over multiple years, the cost base should be indexed).

I can only imagine how many noses this has put out of joint on CGT changes. But... he's right. True, many people genuinely fear for the potential impact on innovation. But many from ideology and self-interest. I would change some of the policy, but indexation is fair.

@TMFScottP My argument isn’t capital vs labour, it’s capital vs capital, and how this reform shapes allocation. Labour tax should also be lower than it is. Reform shouldn’t disincentivise growth, which indexation does vs the 50% disc: low growth neutral pre/post, high growth now penalised

@Matthew81334996 I don't think it should, actually. I think tax policy should be set based on a reasonable sharing of the burden of funding government services and payments. I don't think capital should get a rails run, versus labour income.

@TMFScottP Key point just being tax policy should reward productive capital allocation. This doesn’t. It just widens pre vs post-tax return gap, lifting the cost of capital, raising it most for high growth. Counter to the nation’s interest if we want to steer away from obsession w’ resi IPs

@TMFScottP HNW skews older, few allocate heavily to high beta. Even at equiv R:R, preference is lower risk / income replacement (private credit ~8-12%) + index equities (neutral-to-better off) Increasingly pushes SYD into an inheritocracy at the expense of upward mobility & productivity

@MarkDiStef We have some of the most unaffordable housing globally and very high personal income tax rates. This does close the door on many trying to make first generation wealth. Least effects the already wealthy, holding low cap growth assets (ASX200) which will benefit from indexation

The CGT debate I’ve seen on here over the last few weeks gives me the sense that it’s pilling people (sending them insane, obsessed) at a rate not seen since Covid lockdowns.

@RizviAbul Capital market size & tax rates drive investment & new business formation. Comparing a historical period before tax rates effectively double for high growth, low cost base businesses is disingenuous Australia loses many businesses to Asia already, NZ is not the only alternative

In last 3 years, there has been a record net inflow of NZ citizens to OZ. High levels of net inflow of NZ citizens to OZ will continue despite this Murdoch scaremongering.

@jsmith_dev @Potstirrer111 Yes yields must rise, but that doesn’t mean rent must rise in dollar terms Absent a change in tenant wages and rental vacancy; property price in investor concentrated catchments likely falls more than rent rises (%) Reduced borrowing capacity of new investors will drive this

@Potstirrer111 Negative gearing is a subsidy, reducing the tax expense of the real estate investor’s other income allowing them to use and offer lower rents to increase demand and occupancy. Removing NG offset eliminates the cross-subsidy and means each property must cashflow on rent alone.

Property Investors in their final stage of grief. Trying to organise collusion to punish renters in a housing crisis. We really don’t hate these people enough.

@RennickGBR Do you believe Australian government has the sophistication to Co-invest in the equity of these projects? There are a few State and Fed Gov funds that primarily provide debt investment (NAIF, NRF) which obviously has an end date for sharing in economic reward of these projects

The taxation regime of gas and oil exploration in this country is not understood which has led to an enormous amount of misinformation. Here are the facts: 1. Oil and gas companies pay 30 cents tax on their profits just like every other company in Australia. That means that Australians already have 30% ownership. 2. Oil and gas companies pay a super profit tax on their profits known as the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. The PRRT has collected very little revenue to date for two reasons a) there has been an enormous amount of capital invested in getting these projects up resulting in large depreciation offsets and b) the gas was foolishly sold forward at very cheap prices when the projects were given the go ahead. A lot of these contracts will roll off over the next decade resulting in larger profits and a larger tax for taxpayers. 3. 70-80% of gas and oil exploration in Australia is unsuccessful. Offshore gas exploration is not a multi million dollar business- it’s a multi billion dollar business. The idea that taxpayers should fund 30% of offshore oil and gas exploration is absurd. The last person to come up with that idea was Gough Whitlam. Needless to say no banks would lend against such a proposition. Peoplefirstparty.au has always had a policy to abolish the PRRT and replace it with a 5-10% royalty on Sales. Combined with the 30% company tax that will guarantee that Australians share in over 40% of the profits of any offshore oil and gas project. That’s an excellent return given taxpayers incur no risk. I’ve done up a table in comments showing the share Australians will receive based on operating profit margin before tax. David Pocock, the Greens and One Nation are all wrong on this. The formers 25% export tax will wipe out most of the profits made eliminating the incentive to further explore for gas. One Nation offering to fund 30% of exploration costs for mostly foreign owned companies will expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in subsidies with no guarantee of return. Australia desperately needs sensible economic reform. Unfortunately none of the parties in Canberra have a clue how to make this happen.

@AvidCommentator How does he not understand new dwelling completions do not mean net increase in supply of housing, nor to they mean new rentals? Both of which are relevant to migration given 80% of new migrants rent and a OO knockdown rebuild counts as a new dwelling

I thoroughly disagree. Migration must be controlled by a government accountable to the people at the ballot box. We have already seen what disregarding the will of the people on migration has done, the rise of Reform, One Nation, AFD and others. And this is only Chapter 1.

@AlanKohler @abcnews 80% of new migrants rent, compared to ~30% of the general population Migration has a disproportionate impact on the rental market Applying 2.4 / household against new dwelling does not adjust for availability of rental stock

This week's column for @abcnews in which I explain why Angus Taylor's immigration/housing policy would not result in a cut to immigration and suggest that migration should be run by an independent body like the Reserve Bank. abc.net.au/news/2026-05-2…

@angelar68197975 Their policy on income splitting for wage earners would be very helpful, one of the most powerful things that can be done to take pressure off families without yet another government payment being made

I’m sorry to say this, but everyone who intends voting for One Nation is a bloody idiot She doesn’t have one policy that will help Her policies are spurious, divisive, corrosive ineffective All they do is feed her insatiable appetite for power & money

@TMFScottP No doubt Teals pandering to Gen X obsession with climate change will continue to be effective, despite AU emissions being globally irrelevant These voters used to vote greens “for the environment”, advocated renewables with no consideration of relative cost or AU competitiveness

The people in the centre and on the left dismissing/misunderstanding the rise of One Nation are making the same mistake as those on the right dismissing/criticising the Teals. If you can only see the world through your own lens, you're missing the bigger picture by a *lot*.

@ThoughtsSending There were no income tax cuts what are you talking about, how is it “more fairly” when they pass nothing on (other than $250….)

#auspol The fact is workers income has been taxed too heavily while capital is taxed too lightly. A whole generation has been penalised & housing made unaffordable for most workers. Labor is taxing income earned by workers more fairly. An overdue reform that conservatives hate.