News location:

Canberra Today 6°/9° | Wednesday, May 1, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Time to look at real-time capital gains tax

Treasurer Jim Chalmers…
has brought fairer taxation of capital gains for all Australians a little closer . (AAP Image/Darren England)

Working Australians pay tax in real-time – now the richest Australians making capital gains should, too, says PETER MARTIN.

IN drawing up his plans to more effectively tax large superannuation accounts, Treasurer Jim Chalmers might have stumbled upon a really good idea.

Peter Martin.

If applied more broadly, it could at last tax rich Australians in something like the same way as the rest of us.

The wealthiest Australians are taxed differently from other Australians, because they earn much of their money in a different way.

Most of us get taxed at standard rates on the only income we have: income from working, and interest on savings in bank accounts.

High-wealth Australians make a lot of their money in other ways: from investments in shares and properties. And while the dividends from shares and the rental income from properties are taxed at standard rates, what happens to profits made by selling those shares and properties is anything but standard.

How capital gains are taxed differently

The profits made from buying and selling shares and properties are called “capital gains”. Until 1985, most of them were untaxed.

Sure, a section of the Tax Act said if you made a profit selling an asset after less than a year you would pay tax – but you could avoid that by waiting for more than a year. It also said if you sold something for the purpose of making a profit you could be taxed, but you could avoid that by saying profit wasn’t your purpose.

The capital gains tax, introduced in 1985, changed that.

Income from the profits made from buying and selling shares and properties was taxed as income – but with two important exceptions.

Rewriting one exception to the rules

One of those exceptions was that less of the income would be taxed than for other types of income. At the moment only half of each capital gain is taxed.

(During its unsuccessful 2016 and 2019 election campaigns, Labor promised to halve the discount, meaning 75 per cent of each gain would be taxed.)

The other exception – the one Chalmers is breaking ground by winding back when it is used by super funds – is that the tax is only due when the asset is sold.

This is quite different to the way tax is charged on interest earned in bank accounts. We pay as the interest accumulates, not years or even decades later when the money is withdrawn.

The 2010 Henry Tax Review saw this special treatment as a problem.

A better deal than most Australians get

The Henry Review said collecting tax only on “realisation” (when assets were sold) rather than “accrual” (as they grew in value) encouraged investors to hold on to shares and property to delay paying tax – a response it called “lock-in”.

All the better for the investors if, when they eventually sold, they had retired and were on a much lower tax rate, meaning they would scarcely pay any tax on decades worth of gains.

During financial crises when prices fell, the rules encouraged investors to do the reverse – to sell quickly to realise tax losses, destabilising markets.

Henry would have preferred tax to be collected as the gains accrued, but said back then that wasn’t practical.

While improvements in technology might improve things, in 2010 it was hard to get a good read on changes in the value of buildings or rental properties until they were sold.

Real-time collection has become easier

Not now. Firms such as CoreLogic revalue property daily, and not just in the general sense. If you want to know what has happened to the value of a three-bedroom home with two bathrooms, on a particular size block of land, in a particular street, CoreLogic can tell you.

And real-time values are being used for all sorts of purposes. Pensioners owning rental properties get their value updated annually for the pension assets test. Services Australia doesn’t wait until they are sold to declare they are worth more.

It is the same with council rates. Property values are updated annually, rather than down the track when they change hands. There’s no longer a practical impediment to doing this, and there’s never been a practical impediment to valuing shares. They are valued daily on the stock exchange.

Finally taxing super funds in real time

That’s the simple approach Chalmers has now taken to valuing super fund income for the purpose of imposing the 15 per cent surcharge on high balances, as announced a fortnight ago.

Rather than taxing capital gains only when assets are sold (as will still happen for the bulk of what’s in super accounts), the surcharge will be calculated by applying a 15 per cent tax rate to the increase in the value of the relevant part of each fund. Super funds are already valued quarterly.

Chalmers isn’t talking about doing it more broadly. But what he is doing shows it would be fairly easy.

An option for Australia

Denmark is planning to do it this year, becoming the first country in the world to introduce what it calls the “mark to market” taxation of real estate capital gains.

Adopting the same approach in Australia would create difficulties that would have to be worked through, perhaps by providing loans. Some property owners wouldn’t have enough ready cash to pay an annual capital gains tax, just as some don’t have enough ready cash to pay rates.

But mark to market taxation of real estate capital gains would have benefits.

It would make investment properties less attractive, putting downward pressure on prices and making it easier for homeowners to buy. And it would make the tax system fairer by preventing wealthy Australians from postponing tax until their tax rate was low, raising much-needed money.

Following Denmark’s lead is not going to happen in a hurry – if at all. But by moving in that direction, Chalmers has brought fairer taxation of capital gains for all Australians a little closer than before.The Conversation

Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

THE CONVERSATION

THE CONVERSATION

Share this

4 Responses to Time to look at real-time capital gains tax

cbrapsycho says: 18 March 2023 at 11:19 am

This approach which is planned for superannuation interest appears fine until you really think about it by considering the impact of the same approach on shares and property.

When do you acknowledge drops in value? And how do you deal with this issue? There is a significant difference between gains that are realised and those that just exist on paper based on someone’s valuation.

Shares in particular can be highly volatile, so valued high at one time then dropping dramatically in value and even becoming of no value. It hardly seems fair to pay taxes on increases in value (before realisation of the asset) unless you also refund taxes when values drop below the levels at which they were previously taxed. The actual asset has diminished in value, which is quite different from the case with interest earned. Interest earned adds to the asset’s actual value, not just its paper valuation as there’s been an input of funds and it’s that input that is being taxed. It is that actual income that is being taxed, not just a paper increase in value which may be quite inaccurate, not real and not changing the actual value of the asset.

This is also a problem with property rates where property increases in value and rates are paid on the council’s new valuation. This may not be a real addition of value, just a new valuation. When the valule of property decreases rates paid on the higher value are not refunded now that the asset is worth less. Neither are the rates decreased in my experience. They just stay the same until the next increase in value. This approach advantages the local council and disadvantages the owner who pays rates. It can encourage councils to overvalue properties to increase their income.

If equity is the objective here, these issues need to be addressed.

Reply
cbrapsycho says: 18 March 2023 at 12:24 pm

This increased tax is not on the superannuation account, but on the income from it ie the interest. The asset value is just used as an indicator of an asset that attracts significant income that should be taxed at a higher level than lower value assets. Makes sense to me, as the interest is realised as it’s deposited into the account.

Other valuations like changes to some organisation’s valuation of shares and property are not realised assets. When they are, the increase in value or the capital gain is taxed accordingly with income earning property being taxed on the income as it is realised.

The family home is different from an investment property, as it is not an income earning asset until sold at which time another asset is required to provide an alternative roof over one’s head (assuming it is sold by the owner). As it will be bought at today’s prices, there may be a loss in overall money in the bank, or a less significant increase if downsizing, so minimal income is gained from the sale. One assumes that’s the basis of the discrimination between personal homes and investment properties capital gains.

If a family home is sold by those who inherit it, they will pay tax on it as for them it is an injection of significant financial value that they have not earned and been taxed on as income. That makes sense to me.

Reply
G Hollands says: 18 March 2023 at 4:48 pm

Peter, you have been too close to “economists” and your article belies this fact. From an economists view, there is no difference between a $100k salary paid weekly and a $100k increase in asset value during the financial year. Well, out in the ‘real world”, nothing could be further from the truth. Quite frankly, this is a ridiculous assertion, particularly in the light of the recent failures of SVB overseas and PBS here in Australia. The “mark to market” rules killed them both. Reason, the market value might have been right, but, the absence of cash pushed them well and truly into liquidation. Nice try Peter, but your Marxist views fail the test of real world results

Reply
S. Draw, K. Cab. says: 21 March 2023 at 8:25 am

Ah, another “progressive” tax. Theoretical, ivory tower thinking. Academically wonderful, but practically hurtful. Just like taxing you on the notional value of your house, when you don’t generate any value from it. Bugger that.

it’s simple, if a thing makes no income during a reporting period, then that thing shouldn’t be taxed. If by sale the thing becomes an positive asset, then by all means tax it at the full rate, BUT,

Get rid of ALL neg gearing. LOWER the income tax rates and flatten bands to max, say %30. Set consumption tax to 15%. Returns become super simple. Compliance needs goes away as does the behemoth ATO and a bazillion tax agents and tax lawyers, all who are no longer needed. Wealthy then caught in the tax net too.

Thank you.

2c

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Opinion

KEEPING UP THE ACT

Sir Ernest Escargot, Head Snail of the ACT Inactivity Commission, shares a breathless update on the Canberra Institute of Technobabble investigations with KEEPING UP THE ACT.

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews