CGT COMPOUNDING
STRESS TEST

A one-page calculator for testing long-horizon Australian capital gains outcomes under the current 50% discount, an illustrative inflation-indexed cost-base scenario, and a no-discount reference case. Sources are Australian government publications only.

Australian sources onlyInteractive scenariosNeutral framingCloudflare deployable

Scenarios

Use the presets, then drag the sliders to see how quickly the headline shifts once you change returns, inflation, holding periods or tax rate.

$10,000
$1,000$500,000
15.0%
1.0%25.0%
50 years
1 years60 years
2.5%
0.0%10.0%
47.0%
0.0%60.0%

Outcome Snapshot

Portfolio value

$10,836,574

Nominal capital gain

$10,826,574

Indexed cost base

$34,371

Extra tax vs current

$2,532,791

Tax Comparison Graph

The graph below compares tax paid and after-tax wealth across the three treatments for the current scenario. It assumes a single realization event and a single marginal tax rate.

Current 50% discount

Tax $2.54MWealth $8.29M
Tax paid$2,544,245
After-tax wealth$8,292,329

Illustrative indexation

Tax $5.08MWealth $5.76M
Tax paid$5,077,036
After-tax wealth$5,759,539

No discount, no indexation

Tax $5.09MWealth $5.75M
Tax paid$5,088,490
After-tax wealth$5,748,084

Headline Readout

Tax under current law

$2.54M

Tax under indexation

$5.08M

Increase vs current

99.5%

Multiple of current tax

2.00x

In this scenario, current-law tax is $2,544,245, versus $5,077,036 under the illustrative indexation treatment.

That is an additional $2,532,791 and roughly 2.00x the tax take.

Important limitation

This page is a sensitivity tool, not a tax ruling. It does not by itself prove any live policy package, age-cohort incidence, capital flight, or business response.

What The Official Data Says

If the claim is that the 50% CGT discount mainly protects young Australians building wealth, the published age and income splits do not support it.

Official distributional facts

Top 10% of income earners

82% of CGT discount tax savings

Top 1% of income earners

59% of CGT discount tax savings

Ages 18 to 34 combined

4% of CGT discount tax savings

Ages 60 and over combined

52% of CGT discount tax savings

Income concentration comes from the PBO's 2025–26 distribution tables. The age split comes from Treasury's TEIS chart data for the CGT discount.

Interpretation

On the published government data, the current discount is overwhelmingly an older and higher-income tax concession, not a concession mainly used by young Australians.

That makes the “this is protecting young Australians trying to get ahead” framing hard to sustain on the official distributional evidence alone.

The harder debate is elsewhere: founder exits, small business treatment, transition design, compliance complexity, and how any replacement regime should distinguish productive long-term investment from pure windfall gains.

Strong argument about who benefits now; weaker argument about every future behavioural effect

Which Claims Matter Most?

This matrix separates the claims that are already well supported by official data from the ones that are important but still need stronger evidence.

Weak Evidence
Strong Evidence
High Policy Importance

Important but unresolved

  • Founder exits and startup treatment under any replacement regime.
  • Small business and farm transition design.
  • Whether capital would shift offshore or into low-productivity assets.

Act on this evidence

  • Top `10%` of income earners receive `82%` of the CGT discount benefit.
  • Top `1%` alone receives `59%`.
  • Ages `18–34` receive `4%`, while ages `60+` receive `52%`.
Lower Policy Importance

Rhetorical overreach

  • Sweeping claims that young Australians are the main direct beneficiaries of the current discount.
  • Confident predictions about investor behaviour without behavioural evidence.

Interesting, but secondary

  • Asset-class splits across property, shares, trusts and other assets.
  • Recipient counts by narrow age bucket.
  • Average effect per recipient, where distributional concentration already tells the main story.

Which Arguments Are Strongest?

Read this as a confidence ladder. The first row is well supported by official data. The last row is where the rhetoric outruns what public government datasets can currently prove.

Well supported by official data

The clearest case is about who benefits from the current CGT discount now: the gains are heavily concentrated at the top of the income distribution, and the policy sits beside a much larger tax preference for owner-occupied housing.

Plausible, but not proven here

It is reasonable to argue that weaker CGT incentives could push some capital toward housing, deposits, or other lower-risk parking spots. But the public data on this page frames that risk; it does not prove investors would respond that way.

Big claim, weak evidence base

Claims about intergenerational betrayal, startup damage, farm and small-business harm, or capital fleeing offshore are much harder to substantiate from public tables alone. Those claims need linked datasets, behavioural evidence, or custom official tabulations.