Negative Gearing and the CGT Discount: What Every Australian Property Investor Needs to Know

If you've spent more than five minutes on Australian property Twitter, you've seen the argument.

"Negative gearing is a rort for the rich."
"Scrap negative gearing and watch prices crash."
"Touch negative gearing and watch rental supply vanish."

Everyone has an opinion. Very few people can actually explain how it works.

So let's fix that. Here's what negative gearing actually is, how the CGT discount fits in, what the government is considering changing in 2026, and what it all means for you — whether you own investment property or you're just trying to understand why policy decisions affect the price of your future home.

No jargon without explanation. No political spin. Just the mechanics and the data.

Negative gearing is not a special tax loophole. It's not a scheme. It's an accounting outcome.

Here's how it works:

You buy an investment property. That property earns rental income. That property also costs you money — mortgage interest, council rates, insurance, property management fees, maintenance, depreciation.

If your total costs exceed your rental income, the property is "negatively geared." You're making a loss.

The Australian tax system allows you to deduct that loss against your other income — typically your salary. So if your investment property loses $10,000 in a year, and you earn $120,000 from your job, the ATO treats your taxable income as $110,000.

If you're on a 37% marginal tax rate, that $10,000 deduction saves you $3,700 in tax.

That's it. That's the whole thing.

The property is costing you money to hold, but the tax system softens the blow. The investor is betting that the property's capital growth over time will more than compensate for the annual holding losses.

Important: Negative gearing isn't unique to property. You can negatively gear shares, businesses, or any income-producing investment. If your costs exceed your income, you can deduct the loss. Property just happens to be where most Australians encounter it because mortgages are large and rental yields in capital cities are often low relative to holding costs.

The Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount is the other half of the equation — and arguably the more powerful one.

When you sell an investment property at a profit, you pay capital gains tax on the profit. But if you've held the property for more than 12 months, you only pay tax on half the gain. That's the 50% CGT discount.

Example: You buy a property for $600,000 and sell it five years later for $800,000. Your capital gain is $200,000. But because you held it for more than 12 months, only $100,000 gets added to your taxable income.

If you're on a 37% marginal rate, you pay $37,000 in CGT instead of $74,000. The discount saved you $37,000.How They Work Together

This is the part most people miss — and the part that makes negative gearing politically contentious.

Here's the combined playbook:

1. Buy an investment property that's negatively geared (costs more to hold than it earns in rent)
2. Claim the annual losses against your salary income, reducing your tax bill each year
3. Hold the property for 5, 10, 15 years while it appreciates in value
4. Sell the property and pay CGT on only 50% of the gain

The annual tax deductions subsidise the holding costs. The CGT discount reduces the tax on the eventual profit. Together, they make it financially viable to hold a property that loses money every year — because the capital gain at the end (taxed at half rate) is where the real return lives.

This is why critics call it a wealth-building strategy for higher-income earners. Someone on a 45% marginal rate gets more value from the annual deductions and pays the same discounted CGT rate as everyone else. Someone on a lower marginal rate gets less benefit from the deductions and may not be able to afford the negative cash flow in the first place.

The data reflects this: ATO statistics consistently show that the majority of negatively geared investors earn above-average incomes. That said, a significant number of negatively geared properties are held by people earning between $80,000 and $180,000 — hardly "the rich" by Sydney or Melbourne standards.

This is the part that's live right now.

In early 2026, Treasurer Jim Chalmers confirmed the government is modelling targeted reforms to negative gearing ahead of the federal budget. The detail that's leaked: Treasury is considering a cap that would limit negative gearing deductions to a maximum of two investment properties per person.

Let's be clear about what this means and what it doesn't.

What it likely means:

If you own one or two investment properties, nothing changes for you. If you own three or more, you may lose the ability to claim negative gearing deductions on properties beyond the first two. The CGT discount may or may not be adjusted alongside (some proposals have suggested reducing it from 50% to 25%, but nothing confirmed).

What it doesn't mean:

Negative gearing is not being "abolished." Existing properties may be grandfathered (this was the approach Labor proposed in 2019). The exact design of the cap — and whether it applies retrospectively or only to new purchases — hasn't been finalised.

What happened last time this was proposed: In 2019, Labor went to the election promising to restrict negative gearing to new-build properties only and halve the CGT discount from 50% to 25%. They lost the election. The policy was widely credited as a contributing factor — rightly or wrongly, it spooked property-owning voters.

The 2026 version is more cautious. A two-property cap is a much softer intervention than the 2019 proposal. It targets portfolio investors (people with 3+ properties) rather than the median investor.The Arguments — Both Sides, Honestly

The case for restricting negative gearing:

Tax concessions on investment property cost the federal budget an estimated $20+ billion per year. That money could be redirected to social housing, rent assistance, or first-home buyer support. Negative gearing incentivises demand (more investors competing for existing properties) without directly increasing supply. Restricting it could reduce competition for entry-level homes, benefiting first-home buyers.

The case for keeping it:

Removing or restricting negative gearing could reduce the incentive for private investors to supply rental properties. Australia already has a rental crisis — vacancy rates below 2% nationally. If investors exit the market, rental supply tightens further and rents increase. The 2019 proposal spooked the market and Labor lost — suggesting voters don't want this policy touched. And the revenue impact may be smaller than expected if investors restructure their holdings.

The honest answer: Both sides have valid points. The actual impact depends entirely on the design of the policy — which we don't have yet. Broad generalisations about "prices crashing" or "rents skyrocketing" are premature until we see the legislation.

If you own one or two investment properties: The proposed changes likely won't affect you at all. Keep doing what you're doing. Monitor the legislation when it drops.

If you own three or more: Start modelling scenarios. What does your cash flow look like if you can't claim negative gearing deductions on your third, fourth, or fifth property? Do the numbers still work? Would you consider consolidating into fewer, higher-quality assets?

If you're a first-home buyer watching from the sidelines: Any restriction on investor demand is theoretically good for you, but don't bet on a policy change that hasn't been legislated. Focus on what you can control — savings rate, borrowing capacity, location research.

If you're considering your first investment property: The two-property cap, if implemented, still leaves room for most people to negatively gear. The fundamentals of property investment haven't changed — it's about cash flow, location, and time horizon. Tax concessions are a tailwind, not the engine.

Negative gearing and the CGT discount are not complicated. They're just poorly explained.

Together, they allow investors to offset annual losses against income and pay reduced tax on eventual gains. They're powerful — and disproportionately beneficial to higher-income earners. That's why they're politically contentious.

The 2026 proposed reforms are more targeted than previous attempts. A two-property cap would affect portfolio investors, not the average mum-and-dad landlord. But the devil is in the detail, and the detail isn't public yet.

Whatever happens, the smart move is the same as always: understand the mechanics, model the scenarios, and don't make investment decisions based on policy that hasn't been legislated.

Subject To Finance tracks housing policy, RBA decisions, and their impact on property markets every week. Subscribe free at subject-to-finance.beehiiv.com — the property news that actually matters, in your inbox every Sunday.

Disclaimer: This article is general information only and does not constitute financial advice. Consult a qualified financial adviser or tax professional before making investment decisions.