![\"Prime](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/f0f0ff51d34e00b9d6419b546bb444143ea057a5.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nSpender\u2019s plan would mean property losses could be used only to offset taxable income on other capital investments or be carried forward to tax paid on capital gains when they are sold.<\/p>\n
She said the current tax system acted as an incentive for people to sink money into property, but was a disincentive for someone who wanted to boost their skills or work. Moving to a dual-income system would limit the attractiveness of negative gearing and trusts.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re taxing young people when they aren\u2019t getting high pay, and they\u2019re facing high costs such as buying a home or childcare. It\u2019s actively working against young people,\u201d she told this masthead.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re not incentivising people to be the best that they can be, but how much they can put into property. We can\u2019t keep doing that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Any move on negative gearing would affect many of the residents of Spender\u2019s eastern Sydney electorate of Wentworth, the nation\u2019s wealthiest area.<\/p>\n
It would also prove politically contentious. In the 2022-23 financial year, 1.1 million people made a net loss on their property investment, with a similar number either breaking even or recording a profit. The number of negatively geared investors is expected to grow due to the rise in mortgage interest rates that began in 2023.<\/p>\n
While tax will be a key debating point at the roundtable, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has signalled an assault on red tape across the three days of discussion.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has signalled the government is unlikely to support changes to the GST or property taxes.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen<\/p>\n
The Business Council of Australia will on Friday release new research arguing the huge productivity enhancing benefits from a reduction in regulation.<\/p>\n
Council chief executive Bran Black said over-regulation cost Australia $110 billion per year, making it a \u201ccomplex a country in which to do business\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn Victoria, a caf\u00e9 owner needs 36 separate licences and approvals before they can pour the first coffee, while a tradie on the Gold Coast needs to pay hundreds of dollars in permits just to fix a tap over the NSW border, this is the regulation we need to fix,\u201d Black said.<\/p>\n
The proposed changes including harmonising licensing schemes for tradespeople and getting rid of duplicate state and federal approval processes for houses and energy projects, the latter of which is known to be on the government\u2019s agenda.<\/p>\n
The group, which represents the nation\u2019s largest businesses, also wants trading hours in different states to be made the same, and a quicker rollout of artificial intelligence in the economy.<\/p>\n
Chalmers said the government was keen to cut red tape where it could responsibly do so.<\/p>\n
While Chalmers would receive bipartisan support for reducing regulation, the Coalition on Friday will declare it cannot support any tax hikes.<\/p>\n
In a speech referencing a song from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, shadow treasurer Ted O\u2019Brien will label Chalmers the \u201cCandy Man\u201d and argue the government lacked the will to rein in spending.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is little nutrition in the Candy Man\u2019s treats, for he is making Australians poorer and our economy weaker,\u201d he will say in a speech to the Liberal-aligned Menzies Research Centre.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom recent media reports, it looks like the roundtable has been engineered to rubber stamp a doubling down on Labor\u2019s failed tax and spend strategy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Spender\u2019s proposal and the call for less red tape emerged as the Reserve Bank released research showing that a fall in competition across the economy since the early 2000s had directly contributed to Australia\u2019s slowdown in productivity that is costing every person up to $3000.<\/p>\n
RBA economists Jonathan Hambur and Owen Freestone found that if competition were around the level it was at the turn of the century, overall productivity would be 1 to 3 per cent higher, and the economy up to $80 billion larger due to a better allocation of business resources.<\/p>\n
Loading<\/p>\n
\u201cThis shows that declining competition has been a significant drag on productivity, and therefore GDP and incomes,\u201d they found.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese are important findings. They suggest that declining competition in the Australian economy can account for a significant portion of the slowdown in productivity growth, and therefore growth in incomes and living standards.\u201d<\/p>\n
The authors said the cost of the drop in competition was likely to be higher once the ability of companies to mark up their prices was considered.<\/p>\n