Is the capital gains tax discount an act of intergenerational ‘bastardry’?

Former Treasury Secretary and chair of the Henry Tax Review, Ken Henry, has described the intergenerational injustice built into Australia’s tax system as an intentional “act of bastardry”. Treasurer Jim Chalmers also seems convinced there is a problem that needs solving and has recently been using the phrase “intergenerational fairness” when talking about the government’s plans for tax reform in the upcoming May budget. This week, a Senate inquiry into the operation of the capital gains tax (CGT) discount handed down its final report. This tax applies to the capital gain when an asset such as a house or shares is held for more than a year. It currently includes a “discount” of 50% on the total gain as an offset for inflation. The committee found the current discount: distorts investment decisions skews housing ownership away from owner-occupiers and towards investors, and has significant implications for wealth inequality — including between generations. So, what impact would reducing the discount have on the housing market?

How the arguments stacked up Tax and Transfer Policy Institute academic Robert Breunig’s evidence to the inquiry was almost as colourful as Henry’s commentary. But rather than framing the problem as intergenerational, Breunig sees it as a divide between the asset-owning class and the rest. We’re heading back to some kind of neo-feudal society where the opportunities that you have in life are determined significantly by the relationship that your parents have with real estate, land and property. The distribution of opinions on CGT reform is telling.

Virtually every substantial submission to the committee advocating for leaving the discount unchanged came from those who directly benefit from the current system. This includes the Property Investment Professionals of Australia, the Property Council, and the Real Estate Institute. Meanwhile, those calling for substantial reform include academics, civil society organisations and unions. The Liberal Party members of the committee drafted a dissenting opinion. They used the same argument Liberal leader Angus Taylor has been making — that reducing the CGT discount will reduce housing supply. Taylor has said: If you tax something more, you get less of it. This is, being generous, an exaggeration. CGT is not a tax on homes, it’s primarily a tax on speculation — buying an asset with the hope of selling it for more than you bought it. The committee reported Australian landlords made a total of $219 million profit on their rental properties in 1999 before the CGT discount was introduced. By 2023, this had turned into a staggering $11 billion loss. This is the direct result of combining negative gearing with the capital gains discount, because losses made on the rental investment are tax deductible. Also, according to the committee, 92% of investor finance flows into established homes rather than new builds. That doesn’t create a single new dwelling. It just inflates the price of existing ones by giving tax-advantaged investors a bidding advantage over first-home buyers. Reducing the incentive to speculate should mean fewer speculators, lower prices, and more houses available to owner-occupiers. Efficiency in the eye of the beholder? Economists are fond of the word “efficiency”, often wielding it as if it were a neutral, scientific benchmark. But in the world of tax policy, the real question is: efficient at doing what? There are legitimate reasons for some form of CGT concession, which was initially introduced to encourage investment in shares. Without one, investors tend to hold assets longer than they should, just to defer their tax bill (what economists call the “lock-in effect”). Part of any nominal gain is simply due to inflation. Prior to 1999, the discount was benchmarked to actual inflation rather than the current flat 50%. The flat 50% discount overcompensated for inflation and created a subsidy for speculation. The system distorts decisions Our current CGT regime is remarkably “efficient” at distorting investment decisions. It incentivises Australians to chase tax-advantaged capital growth rather than productive investment. It is “efficient” at funnelling capital into existing housing stock, resulting in higher prices. And it is “efficient” at concentrating wealth in a handful of leafy, high-income electorates. Taxpayers in Wentworth in Sydney’s east receive nine times the national average benefit of the CGT discount; those in Kooyong (which includes Toorak in Melbourne) receive more than five times. The case for meaningful tax reform But there is no technically correct way to design a tax system. Like all public policy, getting it “right” depends on our collective values. When industry groups defend the discount, they aren’t defending an objective economic truth. They are defending a value set that prioritises asset price speculation over housing stability and affordability for owner-occupiers. Reducing the CGT discount in isolation won’t suddenly make housing affordable in Australia. The interaction with negative gearing of property losses and other issues, such as land tax, public housing and barriers to moving, also need to be considered. But the way we tax capital gains is an important part of the puzzle. Meaningful reform requires us to decide what kind of country we want to be: one where everyone has access to a stable, long-term home, or one where your life’s opportunities are dictated by your parents’ relationship with real estate. Capital gains tax discount ‘skewed’ housing towards investors: Senate inquiry

Warwick Smith is a Research Director at the Centre for Policy Development and a Director of the Castlemaine Institute.