Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 663

Noel Whittaker’s take on the budget

On May 12, Treasurer Jim Chalmers handed down one of the most unpopular budgets in Australia's history. He claimed the Budget was about fixing intergenerational inequality and making housing more affordable for first-home buyers. Tell him he's dreaming.

For starters, the term "intergenerational inequality" is a social construct dreamed up by Labor to create a whole new class of victims they can encourage to vote for them. Yes, young people have challenges, as young people always have, but so do older Australians.

As for affordable housing, it's fast becoming a pipe dream. Even the Budget papers forecast housing prices will rise by 4% over the next year. A tax cut worth roughly $50 a week for younger workers is hardly going to help much when mortgage repayments keep climbing as interest rates rise. There also seems to be an assumption that the best way to increase housing supply is to make investing in residential property by individuals as unattractive as possible. Clearly, they've never heard the adage: "Money flows to where it's treated best."

Talk to any builder, and they'll tell you they're overworked, prices are going sky-high, and they can't get staff. Furthermore, they're held down by a web of red tape and bureaucracy. Just this week, a builder told me he had a block of apartments all set to go, but couldn't get the plan registered until the Brisbane City Council lodged their landscaping certificate. Can you believe it took the Brisbane City Council 12 weeks to lodge a simple certificate? That was 12 weeks of wasted time, which he said cost him over $200,000 in delayed settlements.

I can't see building prices dropping in this environment.

Capital gains tax

They claim the changes have been grandfathered, but in my view they are only partly grandfathered. Suppose you own a property now worth $800,000 that you bought 10 years ago for $400,000. You will get the 50% CGT discount if you sell the property by 30 June 2027. But if you sell after that date, two sets of rules will apply. A case study may make this clearer.

This example is from the Budget papers, but the numbers have been rounded to make it easier to understand. Jane buys a property on 1 July 2022 for $800,000. She sells it on 1 July 2032 for $1.6 million. Using what the department calls “ATO tools”, she discovers the asset was worth $1,131,400 on 30 June 2027, when the transition came into effect.

The difference between that value and her original cost price is $331,400, which reduces to $165,700 after applying the 50% discount. She then subtracts the 30 June 2027 value of $1,131,400 from the selling price of $1.6 million. This gives her a gain of $468,600 from 1 July 2027 until the property was sold on 1 July 2032. After indexation from 1 July 2027 until the sale date, the adjusted gain would be $320,000.

The total taxable gain is then the sum of $165,700 and $320,000, giving a taxable capital gain of $485,700, which would be added to her taxable income in the year of sale. The tax payable would depend on her other income, but if we keep it simple and apply the top marginal rate of 47%, the total CGT bill would be about $228,279.

Under the old rules, her gain would have been $800,000, which, after the 50% discount, would have reduced to $400,000. Tax at 47% on that amount would have been $188,000, which is about $40,000 less than under the proposed new rules.

I appreciate this is complex, which is why it is so important to get expert advice if you are even thinking about selling a CGT asset. They're summarized in this table to help you understand how it works.

Special treatment for pensioners: The $1 pension loophole

The Budget exempts anyone receiving even one dollar of "income support" from the new CGT rules. That includes pensioner couples with $1.054 million in assets who get a few dollars a fortnight in pension. They keep the full 50% CGT discount. No questions asked.

These same couples can earn $90,000 a year from work without losing a cent of pension. A single renter with no assets is treated in the harshest way imaginable.

Meanwhile, meet Jenny. She's 67, rents for $400 a week, and has no assets apart from a few dollars in the bank. She gets the full single age pension of $30,654 plus rent assistance of $5,616, giving her a total income of $36,254 a year. She considers a job paying $45,000. Sounds good, right?

Here's what actually happens. Once her income exceeds $218 a fortnight, she loses 50 cents of pension for every extra dollar earned. The Work Bonus gives her some temporary relief in year one, but after that it's gone. Her $45,000 salary costs her $13,780 in lost pension. Add $10,516 in tax, and the combined hit is $24,296. She's working full-time for an extra $20,704. That's an effective marginal tax rate of 54%. No-one else in Australia pays tax at that rate.

But a couple with over a million dollars in assets? They can earn $90,000 with zero impact on their pension—and now they're protected from CGT changes too.

The system protects the wealthy and punishes the poor. This Budget just made it worse.

The Trust tax bombshell

From 1 July 2028, family trusts will be hit with a flat 30% tax rate. The impact is brutal.

Bob and Mary run a small business through their family trust. They net $180,000 a year and distribute $60,000 to each of them, plus another $60,000 to their daughter Elizabeth. Tax on these distributions is about $9,000 each – a total of $27,000 a year.

The way around this is to ensure the trust has no income itself, and the money is distributed to the beneficiaries in a different way.

This is just one simple example, but it does show the importance of anyone with a family trust working closely with their accountant to optimize their taxation position before these changes take effect.

The death tax

There’s been plenty of media speculation about a possible death tax. Much of it appears to relate to potential changes to testamentary trusts, but that remains a grey area and experts are still waiting for details. But there is already a form of death tax effectively locked in: Division 296, the proposed tax on super balances above $3 million.

Take Jack and Jill. They each have $2.5 million in super, so neither is affected because both are under the threshold. Then Jack dies and his super passes to Jill, pushing her balance to $5 million and leaving her $2 million above the threshold and potentially exposed to Division 296 tax.

A death tax by stealth.

 

Noel Whittaker is the author of Making Money Made Simple and numerous other books on personal finance. His advice is general in nature and readers should seek their own professional advice before making any financial decisions. Email: [email protected].

 

  •   20 May 2026
  • 64
  •      
  •   
64 Comments
margaret gillett
May 21, 2026

Hear Hear I have participated in building wealth simply . No trusts etc I have enough and I am happy to pay tax. I have had friends and family set up complicated finances and are no better off they just pay for lawyers and accountants to avoid tax. Compounding and spending less than you earn will still work. At last someone with the guts to make change.

25
OldbutSane
May 21, 2026

I tend to agree, although I do think that the 30% minimum tax on CGT is a little unfair on those who do not receive any Government assistance and have low incomes.

The changes to discretionary trusts are long overdue.

27
Rod in Oz
May 21, 2026

Well said Chris S; I agree with you. Thank-you.
Too much greed and selfishness around.

11
Alex
May 21, 2026

The problem is that this government try to fix an issue by tinkering with taxation system only, even though the issue itself is not necessarily caused by taxation. The "fundamental" issue with housing affordability is the imbalance between demand and supply, which are impacted by many factors beyond just tax treatment.

Speculating (or accusing) the writer to be "one of those influential voices preventing more substantial reforms to our tax system" is rather low. For any individual who is "happy for the pendulum to swing back the other way" like yourself, there is another one who is completely unhappy with it - the irony is that many of the unhappy individuals happen to be the ones that Labor claim to be trying to help with this so called tax reform, as shown by the backlash they received to date from small business owners / aspiring property owners.

26
Robert
May 31, 2026

There are also so many angry young people who feel the gate has been shut on them. They are the people Labor is supposedly trying to help. The housing problem is simple supply and demand. No one likes to hear it but we need to decrease demand, and we all know how. The supply side is throttled because new land release and development is constrained by councils and state governments. Although the Federal Government might have little direct control over this matter, they can definitely use a "carrot and stick" approach to states and councils to accelerate land rezoning and development. In summary as pointed out the builders are at full capacity; we must start with reduced demand to allow builders to catch up.

Roger
May 21, 2026

Whatever happened to the Financial Advisor's mantra?: 'Never invest in an asset class solely for its taxation benefit'
...Crickets

9
GG
May 21, 2026

Two things in his argument that are wrong? The first is that you see Noel has acknowledged that genuine tax reform is difficult. Can’t see how that is a flaw in Noel’s commentary.
Then the second flaw is you don’t like a before and after scenario. What do you think people want to see - some flag waving for the Government changes? People want to see how the changes will affect them. Full stop.
So Chris S, not sure that your arguments do anything but throw doubt on Noel’s opinion.
Not that helpful Chris S.

27
James#
May 22, 2026

"genuine tax reform"

You're joking right? The only person that thinks this is genuine tax reform is the self-glorifying Jim Chalmers!

Real tax reform would reduce income taxes (even Keating says more than 39% is theft), index the marginal tax brackets (the top tax rate cuts in way too low. Properly indexed should be not the of $270,000) and raise consumption taxes!

The deceitful ruse is that the changes proposed in the budget will significantly make housing more affordable. Rubbish! The primary determinants of housing affordability are supply and interest rates. Supply depends on building rates and immigration. Low building rates and high immigration are the biggest problem.

Persistent high inflation (much of it home grown) leads to higher interest rates, reducing borrowing capacity and the high inflation leads to much higher construction costs in both labour and materials. The circa 40% building/development cost attributable to governmental fees and charges doesn't help much either!

Labor's budget changes to both CGT and negative gearing are a naked tax grab under the thin guise of intergenerational equity mumbo jumbo that may at best alter the housing crisis a minuscule amount at the margins.

Big hat, no cattle !

46
Peter S
May 22, 2026

Hey Chris, I'm failing to see how providing a clear example and explaining the outcomes is a diatribe. In today's Australian, Henry Ergas has written an in-depth piece going back to Keating in the 80's to now. Covers the great Liberal and Labor treasurers, their legacy and compares to what we're grappling with now.

16
James
May 24, 2026

The changes hit young people hard re shares and CGT. Meanwhile re housing, the government continues to grow the uber driver migration program.

9
Jim
May 24, 2026

Well said Chris S. It’s frightening to me just how many greedy people are happy to accumulate wealth via generous tax minimisation arrangements and then whinge when the generous rules are changed. Society is better when all people contribute rather than the wealthy being able to accumulate more via tax avoidance and minimisation. I fully support this overdue reform.

5
Vonblake
May 25, 2026

Jim its critical that we don't compound an existing issue with a fix that is counterproductive. As James has noted the $80B tax benefit for Treasury is not going to wage earners rather redirected to hiring more public servants and funding the runaway NDIS. It's also hard to understand why a few here are labelling playing by the rules as "greed". We all want a more efficient system, but this reform will (and BTW already is) having the opposite effect.

5
John P
May 27, 2026

Have to agree Chris. Noel’s you are doing a great job but think in this instance your response is a bit lopsided. Those that can afford too, well we just need to pay more.

4
Pat
May 28, 2026

Not a fan of this mob, not a fan of my usual group either. Definitely not a fan of Pauline and forget about the rest.

That said, this budget is not the bogey man many are making it out to be. Yes, tax reform means there are winners and losers, the losers in the reform are upset, the winners aren't. I'm mildly upset. The 30% flat tax will be sacrificed and moved to marginal tax rate as a concession is my big bold prediction.

A few points on Noel's article (usually a big fan but not this time):

"There also seems to be an assumption that the best way to increase housing supply is to make investing in residential property by individuals as unattractive as possible."
The policy actively encourages investment in new housing, which is supply, while discouraging investing in current houses. This should drive more money towards new supply for the generous tax benefits.

"As for affordable housing, it's fast becoming a pipe dream."
10% drop this year in Sydney, so only back to 2025 prices, but its a start.

A comment on houseing as an investment, not from the point of the investor, but as an economic assets. Existing housing as a producer of economic output is a poor investment. The only economic benefit beyond what it would achieve for an owner occupier is work for a real estate agent. For some there may be general handyman work (mowing etc) but all other aspects are the same.

Lastly a famous quote:
If you change nothing, then nothing changes.

4
Jim Bonham
May 21, 2026

A bizarre feature of the new tax is the 30% minimum tax on CGT. The budget explainer "Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Reform" justifies this by saying it “reduces the benefit of taxpayers deferring capital gains realisation to years where their marginal tax rates are low”.
That's a rather surprising attack on the concept of progressive income tax scales. Technically, the statement is sort of true: the 30% minimum rate is definitely an extra burden on anyone realising a modest gain when their other taxable income is low – but that applies regardless of their tax rate at the time they bought the asset – they might not have had much income then, either. The unstated implication that this is punishment for those scheming property tycoons, or that it might influence their behaviour, is just nonsense.
For a start, the maximum effect of the 30% minimum occurs for someone (entitled to SAPTO) with a real capital gain of $36k, and no other taxable income. In that case it adds about $11k to the tax that would otherwise be payable under the new regime. For younger folk, the maximum tax effect is about $9k, for a real gain of $47,000.
No-one selling real estate is going to be influenced by the possibility of an extra $11k tax. The weather on auction day will be more important.
The people that the minimum CGT rate will really affect are those with a low taxable income and modest capital gains. For example: a retiree who doesn't quite qualify for an age pension; a student earning a small income part time and investing it assiduously; a young parent taking time off from the workforce while the kids are little, who owns a share portfolio jointly with their partner. For these people a thousand or two extra cash is material, and they are people you would expect Labor to protect, not exploit.

You really have to wonder what is going on?

47
Lawrence
May 22, 2026

Yes, I was somewhat perplexed by that. Coincidentally my financial situation is eerily similar to Jack’s. The example used in the budget papers. I’m a recent involuntary self funded retiree. Last year I paid CGT on my modest capital gains at my marginal tax rate of 16%. There is a good reason why I only paid marginal tax of 16% - I don’t have a lot of income, about $35k a year and had to sell assets that I’ve been holding for 20 years to cover the shortfall between my income and my expenses. Clearly, I’m not the rich capitalist fat cat that Mr. Chalmers thinks he is penalising.

In future I will be paying the minimum cgt tax of 30% if Mr. Chalmers gets his way. I do not need to run my numbers through a complex stochastic calculator to know that I’d be better off selling the assets I had saved to self fund my retirement, spending most of it (likely on an extension to my house) to get me to a position so I pass the Age Pension means test and live off the taxpayer for the rest of my life.

Is this the sort of behaviour the Government is trying to encourage?

28
Jim Bonham
May 22, 2026

I just want to correct a couple of technical points, which have no impact on the broader conclusions.

Firstly, the comparison of tax calculated with a minimum 30% rate for real gains versus the conventional calculation needs to be done before allowing for the Medicare levy, SAPTO or any other tax offsets. They're not relevant to the difference, as they are calculated from the total taxable income which is the same in each case.

Secondly, the maximum effect (if there is no other taxable income) is $9,200 based on 2025-26 tax rates, and it occurs when the real gain is between $45k and $135k, the range covered by the 30% tax bracket. Beyond that, the effect peters out to zero for real gains above $225k.

I should also point that that Tony Dillon and I (see his article in this edition) have different views about the mechanics of this calculation, but in either case the fundamental point above remains: the 30% minimum tax rate has an immaterial effect on the people at whom it is supposedly directed (sellers of real estate).

4
NGS
May 27, 2026

One thing that hasn't received much/any coverage in this discussion is CGT on collectables, including pre-1985 collectables. My understanding is that acquiring a collectable includes buying, inheriting and receiving as a gift.
Collectables include (according to the ATO website) any item acquired with a value of >$500:
•artwork
•jewellery
•antiques
•coins or medallions
•rare folios, manuscripts or books
•postage stamps or first day covers
NOTE: the $500 has not been indexed for 30 years.

My partner and I are 75 year old low income earners (me $25821, my partner $30412) who are eligible for SAPTO. We receive no income support from the Government and do not hold CSHCs. We have a SMSF which, when we pay for our impending transition to a retirement village, will be worth about $4 million so I am not crying poor, but it seems to me that the new CGT rules are (I struggle to find the word but onerous, bizarre and crazy are three words that I can think of).

I went through our list of assets to find items >$500. Among the items I found were:
•Persian carpets purchased by us around 1980-1983
•a Murano glass figurine possibly purchased for >$500 by my partner's mother in about 1980 and
inherited by him in 2012
•two strands of pearls inherited by my partner in 2012 where the purchase price is unknown but with a valuation in 2019 of >$1000
•a coffee cup purchased by my partner for my 60th birthday for $650
•a bowl purchased by my partner for my 65th for $2000
• quite a few paintings/works of art purchased between 1995-2025 which we always knew would be subject to GST if we were to sell them

I have been through our inventory to find assets that would need to have a valuation at 1/7/27 and came up with potentially 105 items. I will have a choice of getting valuations (at what cost??) or accepting the ATO's proposed suggested valuation (I wonder what that will be, especially for items we've had for 45 years or more?). Most of these items are likely to be loss making with I expect only 8 being in gain making.

The new regime has has the result that I have had to think about the consequences of ANYONE buying or giving a gift worth >$500 that can be classed as a collectable. Jewellery ? Yep, that engagement ring you and/or your partner bought will attract CGT of 30%. That diamond ring you inherited from your mother? Ca-ching. More money for the Government. Hmm. I hope the Treasurer has got his own inventory in order. I had to tell my son that the watch I bought for his 40th was covered under the new (and old) CGT rules.

I expect that >90% of people will ignore the ramifications of the changes because they are not thinking of selling and they will hold on to their assets until they die, but we are 75 (not planning on pegging out yet but you never know) and I don't want to leave this mess for our Executor.

And don't get me started on testamentary trusts! We have one in our wills ($800k for my son and two grandchildren) so not the $10 million some people like to spread about but it was established for asset protection in case of divorce etc NOT tax evasion.

Sorry about the rant.






3
Be Kind
May 21, 2026

I am hopeful that in the process of passing legislation for the budget, the ill-considered 30% minimum tax on CGT will die.

Have a young person in our household with no income successfully investing a small portfolio (savings for a future housing deposit). He is not on any welfare, so the 30% minimum CGT tax rule is cruel to him.

40
Lauchlan Mackinnon
May 21, 2026

I just want to second your point that "... the term "intergenerational inequality" is a social construct dreamed up by Labor" - at least as it applies to intergenerational TAX inequality.

The housing affordability crisis is real generational inequality.
The climate crisis is real generational inequality.

They deserve attention - and the action on negative gearing in the budget is a small step towards addressing the affordability crisis.

But there wasn't any generational tax inequality - everyone got the same tax regime when they got older and had more assets. Until Jim Chalmers and this budget. Now Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z get a different tax regime, less advantageous than the baby boomers had for the last quarter of a century. That's generational tax inequality, thanks to Labor and Jim Chalmers.

29
Phillip Stewart
May 21, 2026

Irrespective of where you sit in relation to the budget tax changes, I find it very difficult to accept a flat 30% tax on the taxable component of capital gains. If they were taxed at marginal rates then there is a degree of equality between income derived from capital and income derived from labour. This is not the case with the proposed changes.

Secondly, I can accept the 30% tax on trust distributions but if, and only if, the 30% tax is refundable in the hands of the recipient beneficiary ie on the basis the income is taxed at marginal rates, not a flat 30%. In other words, in exactly the same way as the existing franking credit system works. This too would provide equality between the taxing of income from this source and income derived from labour.

I know this would never happen, but if things were fair dinkum then there should be an allowance for inflation on the taxation of interest. For instance if a term deposit earns 4% and inflation is 5% then the asset owner is going backwards. Just saying.

18
JoanG
May 22, 2026

Your last point is critical, Phillip. Interest income at 4% with inflation at 5% is indeed a capital loss in anyone's language, and more so when the interest is taxed and the capital loss disallowed. So why is taxation of interest income from cash investments not indexed?

14
Francis H
May 21, 2026

Noel, an excellent article as usual. You acknowledge that young people have challenges as they always have. Very true. When I purchased my first home in 1977 I had to get a loan from my parents to pay the deposit as many young people now have to. Getting a home loan was very difficult due to the laws at the time and very conservative bank managers. Women need not apply was the policy. Those same laws and attitudes today would see very few young property owners.

As for high prices today, the failures of Government over many years to address housing supply played a big part as well as immigration and property tax breaks. State and Local Government delays and charges also add very significantly to new housing costs. Nothing is going to magically change here. It is easier for a Council to charge high fees than to increase rates. The same for State Governments. Noel's example is spot on. Gough Whitlam could have taught Federal Government how to go about addressing housing supply properly.

The big problem with the proposed changes to property taxes is the 30% minimum as Tony Dillon so elegantly illustrates in his article of this edition. It is plainly regressive, everything Labor supposedly opposes. How did Chalmers and Albanese miss this ? It needs to be dumped. And Mr Chalmers needs to learn from past Treasurers that it is sometimes best to ignore your own Department. As Paul Keating did with superannuation.
Talking of Paul Keating, his involvement might be useful. He can advise the Government how to reverse course as he did with negative gearing. And also the cost of destroying trust in Government ( LAW tax cuts ).

17
OJP
May 21, 2026

Aro,
Issue 1 - proposed changes should have been part of the election campaign last year.
Issue 2 - latest budget is about increasing the tax burden with no meaningful attempt to reduce spending.

17
Acton
May 23, 2026

A change of mind or policy is not a lie if it's a well intentioned reaction to a change in facts or circumstances.
But a change of mind and policy is a lie when there has been no change of facts or circumstances.
In the case of these 2026 CGT, negative gearing and trust changes there has been no change of circumstances since before the election.
Housing was unaffordable then and still is, but these major and far reaching tax changes were not put to the electorate for consideration and the electorate never gave this government the mandate to make them.
These major and far reaching tax changes were not put to the electorate for consideration and the electorate never gave this government the mandate to make them.
Experts in finance and business are condemning these changes. Today's Australian Financial Review editorial: "These changes were picked apart by investment and tax experts who say the government is out of touch with reality." Another AFR headline: "A drive-by shooting on nation's prosperity".
The worst thing for the electorate is that these tax changes, due to the business inexperience or ignorance of tax revenue focussed Treasury officials who advised Chambers will negatively impact on Gen Z investors, aspiring home buyers, mortgage payers (if interest rates rise from inflationary government growth), property and share investors, businesses, tech companies, mining exploration, mortgage payers, retirees, and the beneficiaries of family trusts. And probably many more, if not all of us.
This budget was conceived on a lie and delivered in a cloak of deception.
Those who support these tax changes have the morality, ethics and wisdom of Pinnochio.

15
Sean Corbett
May 21, 2026

To answer Jim Bonham's final question, what is really going on is actually quite simple to explain at a political and societal and behavioural level.

The explanation is that Labor, as well as the Treasury, both understand that Labor needs to "exploit", not "protect", the poor because the gap between Labor's spending and the tax revenue Labor receives is simply too large to plug by taxing the few and diminishing number of the rich and that it is therefore necessary for Labor to get more tax from the large and growing number of the poor.

The other point to note is that Labor's spending, particularly on welfare and "cost of living" relief, is precisely what has led to the few and diminishing number of the rich by discouraging people from saving and investing to grow their wealth and has also led to the large and growing number of the poor by encouraging people to join their ranks because of Labor's spending on welfare and "cost of living" relief.

In other words, it is Labor itself that has intentionally created the few and diminishing number of the rich, as well as those who consider themselves comfortably well off or at least just comfortable, who are not traditional Labor voters, and has also created the large and growing number of the poor, who are traditional Labor voters.

That has been “achieved” through Labor's policies aimed at ensuring "intergenerational fairness" and their policies aimed at ensuring that "no one is left behind", which are policies that Labor has followed in order to favour and grow their own voting base and discourage those who don't vote for them so that Labor can remain in power.

Unfortunately, eventually Labor's policies become a self-reinforcing doom loop where "intergenerational fairness" is in reality achieved through ensuring that every generation is counted as being among the poor and that "no one is left behind" because they can't become poorer than anyone else.

That is the point Labor's policies appear to have reached now, hence why they had to resort to releasing the latest budget.

14
GeorgeB
May 27, 2026

"intergenerational fairness is in reality achieved through ensuring that every generation is counted as being among the poor”

Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe in the late 20th Century precisely because it succeeded too well in its goal of making everyone equal (ie. subsistence poor with the exception of the party elite which squandered what remained of each country’s wealth). God help us all if this is the playbook that our socialist government is intent on following.

3
Geoff
May 21, 2026

I'd like someone to explain to me how a non-property asset, say a parcel of shares, owned for several years before 1Jul 27 and sold some years after 1 Jul 27 will be CGT assessed. I understand, the theory, I think, and the value of the shares at 1 Jul 27 is easily worked out, but it seems that the total amount of assessable CG depends hugely on the value on a particular day - 1 Jul 27, leading to different outcomes depending upon that value, which is a bit of a nonsense as the overall gain remains the same.

Imagine a parcel of shares worth $10,000 back in, say, 2020 which at 1 Jul 27 have dropped to a value of $5,000. Eventually a year or so later they appreciate for whatever reason and are sold by the long suffering investor for $10,000. There has been no capital gain, yet it seems the investor will have to calculate a loss for the first section and then a gain from an inflation-indexed capital base for the second section. I don't know how that calculation would pan out, without setting a sale date and the amount of CPI adjustment, but it seems a lot of work for something that hasn't actually made any money.

And if you think it can't happen, make me an offer for my TLS shares, please...

Maybe I have this all wrong - happy to be educated as to how this particular scenario would pan out.

12
John
May 21, 2026

Good point Geoff. I hadn't picked up on what is an unrealised value at 30/6/2027, which will of course have an effect on income for the later period using 30/6/2027 as the new cost base. However, hard to manipulate the value of shares on the final trading day of the year against all other manipulaters on that day. Also need a good forecast of future inflation to know if you want a higher or lower value at 30/6/2027.

1
Andrew
May 21, 2026

Sadly Noel your political alliance is all to naked in your rhetoric

11
GeorgeB
May 22, 2026

But your criticism also shows naked political alliance, does it not?

19
James#
May 22, 2026

Exactly! Quod erat demonstrandum (Q.E.D.), Bada boom bada bing or voilà!

7
Peter S
May 23, 2026

When you can't argue the facts, go for the person, politics or anything just to deflect - Is that right George?

3
GeorgeB
May 23, 2026

"When you can't argue the facts, go for the person, politics or anything just to deflect "

Way back in high school debating we learned that an "ad hominem" attack is a logical fallacy where you respond to an opponent’s argument by attacking their character, motives, or personal traits instead of the actual issue. Its still the go to tactic!

9
Graham W
May 21, 2026

My wife and I are in our late seventies and moved our financial assets from a SMSF to a Family Trust. The income was tax free in the SMSF and so were the pension payments. The SMSF got a refund for the franking credits. But the tax and reorganisation needed when one of us dies as a super fund beneficiary is really difficult. So moving to the Trust, our income is the same ,but taxable to us when distributed from the trust. The trust is not a vehicle to split income just a far better way to estate plan when we pass on. With SAPTO amd LITO ,we would pay little tax and benefit from the franking credits. Taxing the Trust at 30 % of it's income is an abomination and terrible legislation. The 30 % tax is not refundable and the franking credits only available to reduce the 30 % tax.
All we are trying to do is make it easier to manage our affairs and for our family to look after our finances if we lose capacity . I estimate that we will be markedly worse off than we are if this legislation is passed. I suppose we can pay ourselves interest on our beneficiary accounts to reduce the trust's taxable income to nil. We could then claim tax offsets against our interest income. However what happens to a trust with no taxable income, but has franking credits? Seems to be a goldmine for the accountants.

7
David
May 21, 2026

Graham, I sympathise with your situation. My wife and I are slightly older that you and still have our SMSF, but I have been wondering when to pack it in to avoid the death taxes that would otherwise accrue. Clearly putting the residual in a trust has been a disaster for you. I wish to provide a legacy for my 2 young adult grandchildren, neither of whom are working full time yet. I have to work out how not to leave them any capital gain liability, so that they are not hit with 30% tax at least until their own regular tax rate is 30% or above. That could take a while to happen, with the unemployment rate increasing now.

Graham W
May 22, 2026

Thanks David. Re the legacy one answer is Insurance Bonds, they are taxed at 30% but can be tax free when redeemed by them and growth investment opportunities available. I am spending a fair bit this year to make our house multiple use to accommodate a child with no home. Will probably pass on a similar amount to our other child and qualify for the pension in five years. A good incentive to keep healthy ???

GeorgeB
May 22, 2026

"without investment to provide the buildings and equipment for the job, there is no employment and no income"

This the hard reality that has undone many a socialist movement in the past. Its then a long road back to prosperity if at all.

7
John Wilson
May 21, 2026

I don't disagree with the change from 50% discount to indexation, but suggest there should be small addition to the CPI when indexing the cost base: that would provide some incentive to invest which Australia needs.
As well, the proposed indexation does not take us back to the Keating: that also provided for averaging of capital gains over 5 years to smooth out lumpy capital gains. As I recall, that also applied to primary industry where farmers have good and bad years. Without smoothing under our "progressive" tax scale, there is more income in the good years that is in in high rate tax brackets. Keating was a saint compared to the current lot!

6
Chris
May 22, 2026

Typical Labor!!! All smoke and mirrors and no real substance in their policies..you work all your life to provide for your retirement which means when you get there you hopefully do not have to rely on pensions etc and subsequently like myself do not impose a burden on the welfare state so that those more needy are looked after.What annoys me is that it seems like the ATO and the government is penalising me for providing for myself in old age and will not stop until they get back from me as much as they can before I die!!! I wish my late parents had not taught me to work hard and save in my earlier lifetime.Their thoughts on these traits might be different these days if they could see how us boomers are being treated in our final years!!! Shares??? I'm selling ASAP!!!

6
Aro
May 21, 2026

reading the comments from here and other publications one gets the opinion that no one should be penalised by any taxation changes. If this is the case then no tax reform is possible as someone will be adversely affected by the changes. So the question is does the Australian public or electorate want tax reform, if so , some will gain and some will lose.

4
Allan
May 22, 2026

I think people are more concerned with seeing a bit of intellectual rigour applied to policy formulation, with logical and coherent explanations provided for such, and which make a strong and defensible case for the merits of the change.

This is even more relevant when changes are made which were explicitly ruled out before citizens cast their votes at the last election.

11
GeorgeB
May 22, 2026

"changes are made which were explicitly ruled out before citizens cast their votes at the last election"

Since the government has seen fit to "change their position" in the May budget the same privilege should now be afforded to the electorate and an election called before the "changed position" is implemented.

5
Aro
May 24, 2026

If this is the case then In future elections, all political parties will give no promises only intentions. This means the public will have no idea what the politicians will do when elected as they can put forward very attractive propositions which they have no intention of providing as they were not a promise.
Then there is the possibility of nothing being done to remedy any problems as no party promised to do anything.

2
James#
May 27, 2026

"The objectives set out by the government around addressing generational inequity and also the inequity between how we tax the profit from the sale of investments versus other income should be given praise."

Really? I'm no expert but this bloke is - Geoff Francis (ex Treasury official) from The AFR 26 May 2026:

"Tax reform, at least the way an economist should think about it, involves shifting the weight from inefficient taxes to efficient ones. The tax changes in this budget fail that test and will worsen Australia’s economic performance.

The budget tax changes were built on the false premise that savings or investment income should be taxed at the same rate as labour income. The budget documentation dresses this up as taxing “assets” more, presumably because that tested better with focus groups than taxing people’s savings and investments harder, or taxing “sweat equity” in the case of small business.

This messaging harks back to class warfare, with the government trying to create a distinction between those who earn income from labour versus those who earn from investments, with some intergenerational equity identity politics thrown in. Most Australians start their working lives relying on labour income, build their wealth during their working lives and become reliant on savings income in retirement.

The economic literature has moved on from the thinking of the 1950s and ’60s where the dominant belief was that all income should be taxed the same. Since then, most of the thinking has been that savings/investment income should be taxed more lightly than labour.

People save from after-tax income, that is, the money that remains after they have been taxed on their labour. Tax savings too heavily and it distorts in favour of consuming now instead of saving for the future.

Investment involves risk. Investment supports economic growth, better-paid jobs and can lead to innovation, but can also involve losing capital. The tax system treats this asymmetrically by taxing successful investments but not compensating for losses when investments fail. There is survivor bias when we see a successful business that we think pays too little tax, as we do not observe the businesses that fail along the way, with owners wearing the full losses and not being able to pass a share to the government.

At least some of the return on investment is just an inflationary gain rather than real profit.

That is why every major tax review overseas since the 1980s and Australia’s Henry Review recommended some concessional treatment for investment income.

Even if you believe labour and savings/investment income should face the same tax rates, the tax changes announced in the budget don’t do that – the design of the measures leads to over taxation.

The return to the Hawke Keating, asset-by-asset approach to inflation indexing for CGT ends up overtaxing, as real inflationary losses from one investment cannot be offset against gains on another. This means that any diversified portfolio of shares or ETFs where some assets return less than inflation ends up being overtaxed compared to the rates on labour income. The over-taxation increases with investment risk. This was a known problem with the Hawke-Keating approach. No other country in the world taxes capital gains this way.

........

The extra revenue raised from the overall budget tax changes has not been recycled into cutting inefficient taxes but more spending and debt, worsening intergenerational equity. The modest tax cut given as a lump sum via WATO provides no incentive to work more and will be swallowed by bracket creep."

4
Carl S
May 21, 2026

Making changes to taxation is hard. I still think the changes to super pension income circa 2007 changed the game. Imagine if this weren’t the case. Any change is a chance for us to see what changes it causes and hopefully show us the right way to go. Labour here has showed spirit with this budget . I’m curious to see what the results are….

3
Jack
May 22, 2026

This budget distinguishes salary income which is earned against investment income which is unearned. It slugs investment income harder than salary income in order to redistribute the economic pie between workers and Tories.

But without investment to provide the buildings and equipment for the job, there is no employment and no income. The key to employment growth and productivity is investment.

To promote growth, the tax system needs to encourage investment in businesses, productivity and employment. This budget will kill off investment and shrink the economy and salary and wages earners will suffer because the pie, that the government is so keen to redistribute, will be smaller.

11
Alex
May 25, 2026

@Jack, agree with your comments on the expected impact of the proposed change under this budget to investment and the economy (and in turn to salary/wage). Investment and jobs are highly interrelated - one cannot exist without the other.

Labor's view that investment income is "unearned" is extremely misguided IMO - the investor "earns" the income from putting up their capital / assets at risks (in setting up businesses / ventures) instead of by selling their time/labour like wage earners.

4
Martin
May 24, 2026

They can’t call it “reform” if it’s not neutral on the overall tax take. Reform is such an overused adjective for changes in Govt policy. Tax reform is about restructuring taxes to lift efficiency, reduce complexity, shift incentives to help productivity and growth and create a bigger economic pie. Changing rules to lift overall tax take because they can’t control spending is not reform. They should have reduced incentives for negative gearing by cutting reliance on income taxes, lifting GST, and introducing an inheritance tax to take something back from the boomers after they stopped caring about their tax rates.

Having said that, I’ve never understood why people have been allowed to use trusts to avoid paying the same level of income taxes that ordinary people pay. In Noel’s example lucky Elizabeth wasn’t even running the business, mum and dad just gave her money while dodging tax that a normal wage earner could not do.

3
Dick MacKerras
May 29, 2026

Can anyone set out for me the objective characteristics of "intergenerational inequity"?

Can anyone provide a rational argument that explains why accumulating wealth through hard word and saving for 50 years is unfair compared to the circumstances of a person who has been in the workforce for only 5 years and may prefer consumption over saving?

3
Dudley
May 30, 2026


'Can anyone set out for me the objective characteristics of "intergenerational inequity"?':

When you are young, you have time and energy but no money.
When you are an adult, you have money and energy but no time because you are busy chasing life.
When you become old, you have money and time but no energy.

1
GeorgeB
May 30, 2026

So by the time we are ready to "shuffle off this mortal coil" we will each have experienced two phases of life when we have time, two when we have energy and two more when we have money. So arguably so inequity in the long run, perhaps just the illusion of inequity.

1
K
May 21, 2026

It is NOT true that "They keep the full 50% CGT discount. No questions asked.” $1 of pension income DOES NOT puts you back in the old 50% discount regime - it provides exemption from the minimum 50% rate.

2
K
May 21, 2026

*minimum 30% rate (not 50%)

3
Ian Ross
May 23, 2026

I doubt if these proposed taxation changes will have a big impact on capital city house prices over the longer term without policies to substantially increase supply.
Here is an alternative :
1. Increase the GST to the current average level for an OECD country of around 19%
2. Stop buying expensive and redundant nuclear submarines.
3. Try again to increase taxes from the super profitable miners who dig up our backyards to enrich themselves. Not saying we shouldn't mine our resources, but they belong to the people, so pay accordingly.

2
Alex
May 25, 2026

#1 - Agree that there's an opportunity to increase the GST. It would be a political suicide, though - no surprise no political party has the guts to touch this.

#2 - I'd say stop wasteful spending in general (not just on submarines). The level of spending by this Labor government at state and federal levels in the last few years is just ridiculous - e.g. from $300K machete bin in Victoria to $400M divisive referendum that do not solve any issues.

#3 - These miners operate in a highly cyclical and volatile environment. There are periods in which they make "super" profits, and there are also periods when they make significant losses (which then get carried forward to offset their future taxable income, if they are fortunate enough to survive the downturn). I think it's rather ironic to say that the resources "belong to the people" to justify taxing the miners more considering many people out there are hell bent on stopping the mining of various commodities (e.g. coal, oil, gas, etc.) in the name of environmental sustainability. Not sure how these miners should "pay accordingly" - do you have any objective measures to implement this?

1
Hiker
May 23, 2026

I am Ok with bringing back indexation but would like to know why indexation isn't allowed for the pre-budget assets and why the government wants to punish a long term investor. I bought an unit for $400k about 25 years ago. It's now $850k. If indexation was an option, the indexed cost based would be ($400k + stamp duty + fees)x1..925= approx. $800k. I would have $30k CGT ($850k-800k-fees). Assume i have no other income, the CGT = $30kx 30% = $9k. Now I am stuck with 50% CGT discount and have to pay tax on $200k= ($850-fees)-(400k+stamp duty +fees). I have to pay min. CGT of $60k ($210x30%) even though I have made no real gain!

You either allow indexation or you don't. You don't cherry pick the scenario so you can collect more taxes, greedy Labour.

2
Ross L
May 24, 2026

It's a Labor government my friend, Australia's version of socialism, what do you expect.

4
Alex S
May 23, 2026

Sorry, Noel. I'm all dried out from weeping for poor Jill and her tax on the earnings on $5m of super over $3m. 15% of 10% of $2m per annum. $30,000. That must really cut into her plans for a new beamer.

1
Ian L
May 23, 2026

I get your message, but that goes to the point - is it really going to raise much extra revenue or do anything to the housing market.

Kym
May 21, 2026

In the example, the trust withholds 30% and pays to beneficiary. The beneficiary can use it to offset their tax but not get a refund. A distribution of $60k would place the beneficiary in the 32% tax bracket

David Mc
May 24, 2026

The objectives set out by the government around addressing generational inequity and also the inequity between how we tax the profit from the sale of investments versus other income should be given praise. The frustration is that what they delivered does none of this. The main investment income for older generations is income from superannuation which remains of the table. Further, grandfathering existing unrealised gains simply locks in the generation gap. Further, the complex rules from the Shorten area simply make them ill received from everyone. To make it worse, the scenario is that the like decade has delivered record gains we will unlikely see again which will be taxed favourably, and the future returns in a high inflationary environment could well end being taxed less. So generationally unfair, ridiculously complicated, and potentially will derive less tax revenue, at least from the boomers!

Hazard
May 31, 2026

Hey Noel,

I'm confused:
"These same couples can earn $90,000 a year from work without losing a cent of pension."

Can you please break down the mechanisms that give such a result?

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

The lesser-known effects of changed property taxes

3 ways to defuse intergenerational anger

Inflation BIG picture: Boomers got lucky, next Gen not so much

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The ultimate superannuation EOFY checklist 2026

Here is a checklist of 28 important issues you should address before June 30 to ensure your SMSF or other super fund is in order and that you are making the most of the strategies available.

Noel Whittaker’s take on the budget

Marketed as a fix for inequality and housing affordability, the latest budget instead delivers a tangle of tax changes that leave everyday Australians worse off.

Australia has no death duties. Technically.

Australia may not levy formal death duties, but a growing web of tax measures is quietly shaping what wealth passes between generations. Now, the 2026 budget adds another layer.

Lithium's rally is real this time – but no-one trusts it

The lithium rally mirrors the early-2010s tech stock surge, with demand set to double by 2030. Supply has been slow to respond, creating a market deficit for future tech like humanoid robotics and solid-state batteries.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 662 with weekend update

The debate over the budget is increasingly shaped by frustration and perceptions of unfairness, rather than clear-eyed assessment of policy outcomes.

Two months into retirement

A retirement researcher's take on retirement and her focus on each of her six resource buckets to stay engaged during the transition and beyond.

Latest Updates

Are the government’s CGT changes better for young investors?

New CGT rules promise fairness, but could young investors lose out? A practical scenario reveals how changes impact deposit goals, investment choices, and long-term wealth building for the next generation.

Retirement

How to minimise tax with a will

Inheritance tax implications in Australia may surprise some, as poor estate planning without proper wills or trusts can lead to costly tax bills and delays for beneficiaries.

Investment strategies

AI can’t pick winning funds, but it can help you avoid losers

Machine learning has been touted a game changer investment management. But a new study overturns claims that AI can generate positive alpha in mutual funds. Here are some practical takeaways for investors.

Investment strategies

Inflation BIG picture: Boomers got lucky, next Gen not so much

A 150-year view shows inflation's upward bias, driven by shifting monetary regimes and war stocks. This marks an end to the low-inflation boom that enriched boomers and ushers in a higher-inflation era for younger investors.

Planning

Tax deductibility of financial advice improves affordability

A shrinking adviser workforce and rising costs are squeezing access to financial advice, just as demand surges. Expanded tax deductibility offers a modest but meaningful boost to affordability.

Retirement

Retirement in reality – 3 months in

A reflection on travel mishaps, smart decision-making, time pressures and rebuilding health habits. Three months in, here's how to navigate the surprising realities of life after work.

Taxation

Calculating the business cost of Australia’s new 'productivity tax'

Amid a national productivity crisis, new economic analysis finds the tax changes in the 2026 Federal Budget create Australia’s first-ever by design 'Productivity Tax', where young people will pay the biggest price.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.