Not correct. Any gains made before the changes will be subject to the old rules, but any gains after that will be subject to the new rules.
Basically everyone will have to keep track of what all of their investments were valued at the day the new laws take effect, so when they sell they can claim the 50% discount on that profit, and then calculate the new higher tax amount to pay on the gains after that date.
These new laws are also going to make tax time absolute hell for anyone with more than a few crypto coins and shares.
We’re talking capital gains, there are no gains until the sale is realised
Whatever the rule is, first in first out or last in first out, when the share bought before the 2026-2027 year is sold it is taxed under the old rules, it is only shares bought after the new rules are in force that are affected by the new rules
This is because it is unfair to change the rules that people used to make an investment decision after they made that decision
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 were 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.
Not correct. Any gains made before the changes will be subject to the old rules, but any gains after that will be subject to the new rules.
Basically everyone will have to keep track of what all of their investments were valued at the day the new laws take effect, so when they sell they can claim the 50% discount on that profit, and then calculate the new higher tax amount to pay on the gains after that date.
These new laws are also going to make tax time absolute hell for anyone with more than a few crypto coins and shares.
We’re talking capital gains, there are no gains until the sale is realised
Whatever the rule is, first in first out or last in first out, when the share bought before the 2026-2027 year is sold it is taxed under the old rules, it is only shares bought after the new rules are in force that are affected by the new rules
This is because it is unfair to change the rules that people used to make an investment decision after they made that decision
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 were 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.