Inflation and CGT: Investors Beware
Inflation and CGT: Investors Beware
Everyone knows that inflation is a government-orchestrated swindle that takes purchasing power from savers and delivers it to the government and its preferred constituency, borrowers. Well, everyone should know this.
But under the current capital gains tax (CGT) rules, it's a swindle of an even higher magnitude. Not only is inflation going to erode your wealth, but you're going to collect a nice big tax bill for the pleasure.
Before 21 September 1999, capital gains were generally taxed at your top marginal tax rate (plus the Medicare levy). The Howard government introduced a 50% capital gain tax (CGT) discount for assets held longer than one year. So, if under the old system you were due to pay a 40% tax on capital gains, under the new system you’d only pay 20%. So far, so good.
But the bit that wasn’t trumpeted in the press release was that they also scrapped indexing. And it’s a biggie. Indexing adjusts for the debilitating effects of inflation on an investment. So under the old system, you got taxed on the real (inflation-adjusted) capital gain, whereas today you get taxed on the nominal gain.
I’m quite concerned about the likelihood of inflation as an after-effect of current initiatives aimed at the global financial crisis. I’m searching for good inflation hedges.
Assume I can find a conservative investment that pays little income but has a value that grows in line with the consumer price index (CPI), an official measure of inflation. If you trust the way the CPI is calculated – and I don’t – then it means one dollar invested in this structure would grow into an amount that buys what $1 buys today, whether we took our money out in two years or 20.
Let’s say that, happy to have my money protected against inflation, I placed $100,000 in this conservative investment for 20 years. And let’s say that, over the following 20 years, inflation averaged 5%. Come 2029, my money has compounded at 5% and the investment is worth $265,330.
If the old tax system was still in operation, the Australian Tax Office would recognise that $100,000 doesn’t buy what it used to. I’d be able to ‘index’ that money, and convert it into 2029 dollars. Following the indexing schedule, they’d say that $1 invested in 2009 equates to $2.6533 because of inflation (1 times 1.05^20). So I’d multiply my original nominal cost base of $100,000 to arrive at a real cost base of $265,330. The ATO would agree that I haven’t made any real capital gain, and I wouldn’t owe any capital gains tax on the investment. It makes sense considering the structure of the investment.
Under the current tax system, though, I’d have to declare a capital gain of $165,330 ($265,330 - $100,000). I then get the privilege of applying the capital gains tax ‘discount’, halving the gain to $82,665 because I’ve held the investment longer than one year. I would then pay tax on this gain at, say, 40% - so I’d owe the ATO $33,066. See the problem? My conservative investment, designed to keep up with inflation, doesn’t achieve its aim. On a post tax basis, my return falls to 4.3%, and in 2029 I cannot buy as much as I could have if I’d spent the money in 2009. Thanks for the tax cut!
If I can do substantially better than inflation, the current system is obviously better than the old. Assume I make an identical (but riskier) investment that successfully grows at twice inflation (a 10% nominal return). It would be worth $672,750 come 2029. Under the old system, I would have paid capital gains tax, at 40%, of $162,968 and achieved a post-tax rate of 8.5% per annum. Under the current system, paying an effective 20% tax rate but with no indexing, I’d pay $114,550 in capital gains tax, for an after tax return of 9.0%.
But the higher inflation gets, the harder it is to beat. Simply keeping up with inflation would be a commendable investing performance if prices start to skyrocket. Even those that don't manage this feat and suffer a decline in their real spending power, though, will see their wealth further eroded thanks to a hefty bill from the tax office.
Custom Search 2

Comments
Good point Steve - I hadn't viewed the situation like that before. But then again, I haven't considered that I'd be content with a return that just keeps pace with inflation. I guess that concept will be put to the test over the next few years!
Sorry Gareth, I forgot to check the author before I posted!
Clean up your portfolio now and get all those lovely tax losses that you can utilise against your tax profits in future years (assuming you have anything left to invest) :-)
Garetrh is correct of course..........if one is keeping the investment for 20 years (hang on, I'm 80 now!).
But surely the assessment on 50% after 12 months is better for investments of 2, 3 or 5 years. Best of all is the capacity to use capital losses and roll them over for future use if one can't use them this year.
By the way what is the current life expectancy for 80 year-olds?
I enjoy your bristles, Gareth.
Chris
Sorry, Garetrh (sic), but even 20 year-olds can make spelling mistakes.
Sorry Gareth.
Chris.
Hi Christopher, it doesn't matter how long you hold the investment for. Under the current system, you are getting taxed on the inflation component of your return. Under the old system, you only got taxed on your gains after taking inflation into account (albeit at a higher rate). Doesn't matter if it's one year or 50, the principle is the same.
Capital gains taxes in general are evil - for the simple reason that those who invest their money (in productive capacity, to make the capitalist economy work) are placing their money at risk, in the expectation of a higher return than say putting it in the bank. Part of the higher return comes with the associated higher risk of just plain losing the money.
So the government is discouraging investing by having capital gains taxes, period. The current system is a cunning ploy to make investor think they get a generous discount, when in fact it's a system for generating revenue. Pure and simple. In terms of MARKETING, its excellent. Make em think they are getting some kind of special treatment, while you screw em. PERFECT !
Anyone that's interested in the triple evils of taxation, inflation and governments, should check out Chris Leithners letters at:
http://www.leithner.com.au/
He's been banging on about this stuff for years. I don't necessarily agree with all he espouses - but he offers a worthwhile perspective, certainly one I'm sure Gareth would simpathise with.
And whatsmoreTII rates several paragraphs worth in their most recent newsletter.
A fairer system is the one in the US where (I think) the gain is rolled over into the next thing you buy, so you don't continually have your investment $ eroded until you finally cash in, or the UK where I believe it is a sliding scale and after 10 years there is no CGT. Of course in those countries CGT applies to your home too, here it doesn't (yet).
There are a few escape routes from the evils of CGT. The first is for anybody and is to have an expensive family home. All gains are tax free - no limits.
The second is to have a small business - various complicated CGT exemptions available on sale/retirement.
The third is to be retired and have your assets in an SMSF - no income tax or CGT - fantastic for those who qualify.
Thanks for putting my thoughts of a decade ago into print, it appeared to me at the time it was a likely tax grab and the advantages of indexing outweighed the advantages of reducing the capital gains tax particularly for conservative long term investors.
My longer term thoughts were then concentrate on superannuation but again it maybe it is just a huge social experiment that the ATO will tax heavily at some future date.
So now I think incorporate investments and defer payout till retired and in lower tax bracket.
PS for Christopher; average life expectancy for an 80 year old is 7 years
Gareth
A well presented reminder of an artful peice of political skullduggery. We should all remember that there are two crimes here - one of commission, and one of ommission. Following time honored political practise, Australian governments rarely ever reverse the bad tax policies of their predecessors.
Russ Hawking
The CGT discount system IS effective for short-tem-ism. Its just that short term is now a year and a day. A decent capital gain in that kind of period and this system works better.
For the buy-and-hold believers, its terrible. And short-term-ism is terrible as well. It's just bad policy.
A far better approach would be indexation WITH the discount as well - a reward for those who put their money at risk.
Imagine the outcry from the various whiners and the social services lobby groups if they idea were floated!
It used to be that you could still opt for indexing instead of CGT on 50% of the gain. Has that been scrapped? Sometimes indexing works out better.
That's true on purchases made prior to 21 September 1999 (although I'm not 100% certain that's still the case). But for stocks purchased after that date, there is no choice. Post 1999 acquisitions get no indexing (but a CGT discount if eligible).
Post new comment