'Not right': Australia urged to wind back tax breaks
As the federal government seeks ways to reinvigorate the nation's languishing productivity, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has urged it to reform the tax system and make housing affordable.
Tax concessions like negative gearing, which allows investors to claim deductions on losses, and the capital gains tax discount, which halves the amount of tax paid by those who sell assets owned for a year or more, have incentivised property investment and tied up capital that could otherwise be invested more productively, according to the union.
"Working people can no longer afford to live near where they work and young people are locked out of the housing market and locked into high rents," ACTU secretary Sally McManus said.
"It's just not right and has to change."
The union has proposed limiting negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to a single investment property, though those tax breaks would be grandfathered for five years on properties that already benefit, giving investors time to adjust.
Independent economist Saul Eslake, who has spent decades advocating for the abolition of negative gearing and the capital gains discount, said the ACTU's proposal was "good policy".
"One of the things about our tax system is it provides enormous incentives for people to invest in residential property - not so much in building more of it but in speculating that its price will go up," he told AAP.
But reforms to property tax concessions have historically been political kryptonite for Labor.
A previous proposal to limit negative gearing contributed to the party's narrow defeat at the 2019 election, which may not come as a surprise given about one in five taxpayers have at least one investment property and about half of them are negatively geared, Australian Taxation Office statistics have found.
While Labor won the May election in a landslide victory, Australian political orthodoxy would suggest the government may not do much with its margin and instead seek to argue for an expansive mandate at the 2028 contest when it will be prepared to take some flack.
"There's a lot of votes at risk," Mr Eslake said.
"But what's the point of having political capital, if you're not prepared to spend it?"
Treasurer Jim Chalmers appears keen to break from the political orthodoxy in pursuit of major tax reforms.
However, this will come at a cost, Mr Eslake said.
Australia's last big tax reform - the introduction of the GST - came during a time when the Howard government had maintained a significant surplus that could be drawn down on to ensure everyone was better off.
The current government is staring down a decade of deficit, which means some people will have to be worse off.
"(But) the government can afford to alienate people who would never vote for it in the first place," Mr Eslake said.
He says this is the implicit attitude behind such Labor policies as its proposal to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent, which will impact about 0.5 per cent of savers.
Dr Chalmers will convene a roundtable later in August that will focus on lifting living standards by improving productivity, building resilience and strengthening the budget.
The union has also urged the government to implement a minimum 25 per cent tax rate for individuals who earn more than $1 million and a cap on the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme for big business to ensure companies cannot claim more than $20 million in those credits.
But the Business Council of Australia has hit back, calling the proposals "ad hoc tax grabs".
"You don't fix Australia's lagging productivity and investment by taxing businesses more and making Australia less competitive," chief executive Bran Black said.
Australian workers could be locked out of home ownership unless property concessions are reined in, but any reform would require careful manoeuvring from the government.
As the federal government seeks ways to reinvigorate the nation's languishing productivity, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has urged it to reform the tax system and make housing affordable.
Tax concessions like negative gearing, which allows investors to claim deductions on losses, and the capital gains tax discount, which halves the amount of tax paid by those who sell assets owned for a year or more, have incentivised property investment and tied up capital that could otherwise be invested more productively, according to the union.
"Working people can no longer afford to live near where they work and young people are locked out of the housing market and locked into high rents," ACTU secretary Sally McManus said.
"It's just not right and has to change."
The union has proposed limiting negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to a single investment property, though those tax breaks would be grandfathered for five years on properties that already benefit, giving investors time to adjust.
Independent economist Saul Eslake, who has spent decades advocating for the abolition of negative gearing and the capital gains discount, said the ACTU's proposal was "good policy".
"One of the things about our tax system is it provides enormous incentives for people to invest in residential property - not so much in building more of it but in speculating that its price will go up," he told AAP.
But reforms to property tax concessions have historically been political kryptonite for Labor.
A previous proposal to limit negative gearing contributed to the party's narrow defeat at the 2019 election, which may not come as a surprise given about one in five taxpayers have at least one investment property and about half of them are negatively geared, Australian Taxation Office statistics have found.
While Labor won the May election in a landslide victory, Australian political orthodoxy would suggest the government may not do much with its margin and instead seek to argue for an expansive mandate at the 2028 contest when it will be prepared to take some flack.
"There's a lot of votes at risk," Mr Eslake said.
"But what's the point of having political capital, if you're not prepared to spend it?"
Treasurer Jim Chalmers appears keen to break from the political orthodoxy in pursuit of major tax reforms.
However, this will come at a cost, Mr Eslake said.
Australia's last big tax reform - the introduction of the GST - came during a time when the Howard government had maintained a significant surplus that could be drawn down on to ensure everyone was better off.
The current government is staring down a decade of deficit, which means some people will have to be worse off.
"(But) the government can afford to alienate people who would never vote for it in the first place," Mr Eslake said.
He says this is the implicit attitude behind such Labor policies as its proposal to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent, which will impact about 0.5 per cent of savers.
Dr Chalmers will convene a roundtable later in August that will focus on lifting living standards by improving productivity, building resilience and strengthening the budget.
The union has also urged the government to implement a minimum 25 per cent tax rate for individuals who earn more than $1 million and a cap on the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme for big business to ensure companies cannot claim more than $20 million in those credits.
But the Business Council of Australia has hit back, calling the proposals "ad hoc tax grabs".
"You don't fix Australia's lagging productivity and investment by taxing businesses more and making Australia less competitive," chief executive Bran Black said.
Australian workers could be locked out of home ownership unless property concessions are reined in, but any reform would require careful manoeuvring from the government.
As the federal government seeks ways to reinvigorate the nation's languishing productivity, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has urged it to reform the tax system and make housing affordable.
Tax concessions like negative gearing, which allows investors to claim deductions on losses, and the capital gains tax discount, which halves the amount of tax paid by those who sell assets owned for a year or more, have incentivised property investment and tied up capital that could otherwise be invested more productively, according to the union.
"Working people can no longer afford to live near where they work and young people are locked out of the housing market and locked into high rents," ACTU secretary Sally McManus said.
"It's just not right and has to change."
The union has proposed limiting negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to a single investment property, though those tax breaks would be grandfathered for five years on properties that already benefit, giving investors time to adjust.
Independent economist Saul Eslake, who has spent decades advocating for the abolition of negative gearing and the capital gains discount, said the ACTU's proposal was "good policy".
"One of the things about our tax system is it provides enormous incentives for people to invest in residential property - not so much in building more of it but in speculating that its price will go up," he told AAP.
But reforms to property tax concessions have historically been political kryptonite for Labor.
A previous proposal to limit negative gearing contributed to the party's narrow defeat at the 2019 election, which may not come as a surprise given about one in five taxpayers have at least one investment property and about half of them are negatively geared, Australian Taxation Office statistics have found.
While Labor won the May election in a landslide victory, Australian political orthodoxy would suggest the government may not do much with its margin and instead seek to argue for an expansive mandate at the 2028 contest when it will be prepared to take some flack.
"There's a lot of votes at risk," Mr Eslake said.
"But what's the point of having political capital, if you're not prepared to spend it?"
Treasurer Jim Chalmers appears keen to break from the political orthodoxy in pursuit of major tax reforms.
However, this will come at a cost, Mr Eslake said.
Australia's last big tax reform - the introduction of the GST - came during a time when the Howard government had maintained a significant surplus that could be drawn down on to ensure everyone was better off.
The current government is staring down a decade of deficit, which means some people will have to be worse off.
"(But) the government can afford to alienate people who would never vote for it in the first place," Mr Eslake said.
He says this is the implicit attitude behind such Labor policies as its proposal to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent, which will impact about 0.5 per cent of savers.
Dr Chalmers will convene a roundtable later in August that will focus on lifting living standards by improving productivity, building resilience and strengthening the budget.
The union has also urged the government to implement a minimum 25 per cent tax rate for individuals who earn more than $1 million and a cap on the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme for big business to ensure companies cannot claim more than $20 million in those credits.
But the Business Council of Australia has hit back, calling the proposals "ad hoc tax grabs".
"You don't fix Australia's lagging productivity and investment by taxing businesses more and making Australia less competitive," chief executive Bran Black said.
Australian workers could be locked out of home ownership unless property concessions are reined in, but any reform would require careful manoeuvring from the government.
As the federal government seeks ways to reinvigorate the nation's languishing productivity, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has urged it to reform the tax system and make housing affordable.
Tax concessions like negative gearing, which allows investors to claim deductions on losses, and the capital gains tax discount, which halves the amount of tax paid by those who sell assets owned for a year or more, have incentivised property investment and tied up capital that could otherwise be invested more productively, according to the union.
"Working people can no longer afford to live near where they work and young people are locked out of the housing market and locked into high rents," ACTU secretary Sally McManus said.
"It's just not right and has to change."
The union has proposed limiting negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to a single investment property, though those tax breaks would be grandfathered for five years on properties that already benefit, giving investors time to adjust.
Independent economist Saul Eslake, who has spent decades advocating for the abolition of negative gearing and the capital gains discount, said the ACTU's proposal was "good policy".
"One of the things about our tax system is it provides enormous incentives for people to invest in residential property - not so much in building more of it but in speculating that its price will go up," he told AAP.
But reforms to property tax concessions have historically been political kryptonite for Labor.
A previous proposal to limit negative gearing contributed to the party's narrow defeat at the 2019 election, which may not come as a surprise given about one in five taxpayers have at least one investment property and about half of them are negatively geared, Australian Taxation Office statistics have found.
While Labor won the May election in a landslide victory, Australian political orthodoxy would suggest the government may not do much with its margin and instead seek to argue for an expansive mandate at the 2028 contest when it will be prepared to take some flack.
"There's a lot of votes at risk," Mr Eslake said.
"But what's the point of having political capital, if you're not prepared to spend it?"
Treasurer Jim Chalmers appears keen to break from the political orthodoxy in pursuit of major tax reforms.
However, this will come at a cost, Mr Eslake said.
Australia's last big tax reform - the introduction of the GST - came during a time when the Howard government had maintained a significant surplus that could be drawn down on to ensure everyone was better off.
The current government is staring down a decade of deficit, which means some people will have to be worse off.
"(But) the government can afford to alienate people who would never vote for it in the first place," Mr Eslake said.
He says this is the implicit attitude behind such Labor policies as its proposal to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent, which will impact about 0.5 per cent of savers.
Dr Chalmers will convene a roundtable later in August that will focus on lifting living standards by improving productivity, building resilience and strengthening the budget.
The union has also urged the government to implement a minimum 25 per cent tax rate for individuals who earn more than $1 million and a cap on the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme for big business to ensure companies cannot claim more than $20 million in those credits.
But the Business Council of Australia has hit back, calling the proposals "ad hoc tax grabs".
"You don't fix Australia's lagging productivity and investment by taxing businesses more and making Australia less competitive," chief executive Bran Black said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Despite worst fears and weather, this was the day Sydney took a stand for humanity
Despite the worst fears of NSW Police and Premier Chris Minns, Sunday's pro-Palestine protest on the Harbour Bridge will be remembered as the day Sydney turned out en masse to plead for humanity. Protesting against a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza has entered the mainstream. There is no other way to explain the reported 90,000 people who braved horrendous wet weather to walk – or, for a large part, stand – to demand an end to a worsening famine in the occupied territory. No one should suggest that the city had turned its back on our Jewish community. Rather, many ordinary Sydneysiders felt strongly enough about the crisis in Gaza that they saw it necessary to join the masses and cross the city's most iconic landmark. Undoubtedly, there would have been bad-faith actors who joined the massive crowd. Equally, the Palestine Action Group, led by serial protester Josh Lees, cannot take all the credit for luring tens of thousands of people into the city, although it could not have happened without them. But the weekly PAG protests through the CBD, which Minns has previously said were a 'huge drain on the public purse' and that police should have the power to shut down, morphed into a show of mass solidarity against the deteriorating disaster in Gaza. Minns did (and will continue to) maintain that despite his earlier comments, which have been viewed by some of his own Labor MPs as anti-protest, he was worried only about the safety of the thousands of people who would descend on the city. He stressed, belatedly, that he was not against people protesting. But he was against shutting down the 'central artery' of Sydney. He stamped his foot and said it could not happen, the police echoing his protestations. Loading The NSW Police Commissioner asked the Supreme Court for a prohibition order to block PAG's application to protest on the bridge. At that stage, 10,000 people were expected to turn up. The police were unsuccessful.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Despite worst fears and weather, this was the day Sydney took a stand for humanity
Despite the worst fears of NSW Police and Premier Chris Minns, Sunday's pro-Palestine protest on the Harbour Bridge will be remembered as the day Sydney turned out en masse to plead for humanity. Protesting against a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza has entered the mainstream. There is no other way to explain the reported 90,000 people who braved horrendous wet weather to walk – or, for a large part, stand – to demand an end to a worsening famine in the occupied territory. No one should suggest that the city had turned its back on our Jewish community. Rather, many ordinary Sydneysiders felt strongly enough about the crisis in Gaza that they saw it necessary to join the masses and cross the city's most iconic landmark. Undoubtedly, there would have been bad-faith actors who joined the massive crowd. Equally, the Palestine Action Group, led by serial protester Josh Lees, cannot take all the credit for luring tens of thousands of people into the city, although it could not have happened without them. But the weekly PAG protests through the CBD, which Minns has previously said were a 'huge drain on the public purse' and that police should have the power to shut down, morphed into a show of mass solidarity against the deteriorating disaster in Gaza. Minns did (and will continue to) maintain that despite his earlier comments, which have been viewed by some of his own Labor MPs as anti-protest, he was worried only about the safety of the thousands of people who would descend on the city. He stressed, belatedly, that he was not against people protesting. But he was against shutting down the 'central artery' of Sydney. He stamped his foot and said it could not happen, the police echoing his protestations. Loading The NSW Police Commissioner asked the Supreme Court for a prohibition order to block PAG's application to protest on the bridge. At that stage, 10,000 people were expected to turn up. The police were unsuccessful.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
