swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻

🇦🇺 rose gold 💳

$MERY $PACK $CRO $LTC $DOGE

For entertainment only, not financial advice.

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@cryptocom_AU

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@GeoffWilsonWAM @ausgov We need another inquiry

[Geoff Wilson @GeoffWilsonWAM]

🚨 Spot on.
This Senate “inquiry” into @ausgov CGT changes looks like a complete farce. They’ve banned real experts and investors from giving oral testimony, while stacking the room with partisan cheerleaders and generalists who don’t understand the technical damage.
This isn’t consultation, it’s a rigged rubber stamp for economic vandalism.
The Governments attack on aspiration, productive investment, startups, retirees and charities must be stopped. Scrap the CGT hike. Australia deserves better.
#AxeTheCGTHike #AspirationMatters

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@AusExplained Due to some weird personal circumstances I pay both private health, and still get whacked by the Medicare levy surcharge. It's fucked.

[Chris Brycki @chrisbrycki]

What's the point of a Senate inquiry if you only invite partisan supporters of the policy and generalists who don't understand the technical issues, while excluding the people who've actually done the analysis?

People like @GeoffWilsonWAM, @DerekFranc90653 and former Treasury official and CGT expert Geoff Francis have spent countless hours analysing these proposals, yet apparently their expertise isn't wanted.

I've had five opinion articles published on these tax changes, covering the impact on startups, innovation, shareholders, investor behaviour, young savers trying to buy a home and the broader economy.

Stockspot works with more than 20,000 investors and we've quantified the diversification penalty these changes create for everyday Australians using real world portfolio examples.

Yet we're excluded from appearing, and our submission hasn't even been published on the inquiry website.

Surely a proper inquiry should hear from people with different perspectives and subject matter expertise?

If you're only inviting people to sing the praises of the policy, it's not really an inquiry... it's the town hall meeting for the Springfield Monorail.

Why bother with hearings at all? Just get the like minded think tanks together to sing "Monorail" and call it a day!

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@chrisbrycki @GeoffWilsonWAM @DerekFranc90653 @mcranston1 @ajamesbragg @AlboMP @JEChalmers @AngusTaylorMP @PaulineHansonOz My submission is not their either

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@DerekFranc90653 @AusBTCIndBody @AlboMP @AustralianLabor @PaulineHansonOz @OMGTheMess @_Checkmatey_ @cjoye Thanks, this was my submission to the enquiry :)

https://t.co/qfQrcnIAMh

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

Did mine:

The specific harm: as at today's date, I cannot calculate what I will owe. My liability under the proposed rules depends on the market value of my asset on 1 July 2027 — a date that has not yet occurred. I am a long-term holder of multiple volatile assets acquired well before the proposed commencement (10+ years). For assets of this kind, that single day's price could fall anywhere across a very wide range, and my tax bill moves with it. Under the current rules I can calculate my position with certainty using the 50% discount. Under the proposed rules I cannot plan, budget, or make a rational disposal decision, because the figure that determines my tax is set by one day of market movement I neither control nor can foresee.

This is the core problem: the snapshot mechanism makes the tax liability arbitrary. Two people who acquired similar assets at the same time could face materially different tax outcomes solely because of where the market happened to sit on 1 July 2027. That difference reflects nothing about the real gain or the holder's circumstances — only the luck of one day's volatility.

My request: that pre-2027 assets be fully grandfathered, retaining the existing 50% discount, rather than receiving partial protection tied to a snapshot valuation. Full grandfathering removes the arbitrary valuation-date problem entirely for assets already held, while leaving the government free to apply the new regime to assets acquired after commencement.

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

1/5 As a regular Aussie who bought Bitcoin over 10 years ago when everyone laughed at me, I've held through the crashes and the doubt. Now Labor is changing the CGT rules mid-game with their July 2027 snapshot date.

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@DerekFranc90653 https://t.co/hkHwalSXoH

If you could mention something about this that would be good :)

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

1/5 As a regular Aussie who bought Bitcoin over 10 years ago when everyone laughed at me, I've held through the crashes and the doubt. Now Labor is changing the CGT rules mid-game with their July 2027 snapshot date.

[Aussie Bitcoiner @crowthevegan]

This is an Australian member of parliament. These people are the reason One Nation is surging. They think doubling the tax on us is the answer. They’re genuinely stupid people who have never held a private sector job and have no idea how money works.

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@OMGTheMess In the membrane

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@coinbureau

[AFKdata @AFKdata]

Prototypes getting better 🔥🔥🔥

On track for September still,

Notifications on 🔔

[sttockdog @Sttokdog]

Albanese changed his position and Australians are now losing their shit about Capital Gains Tax. It's over for Labor. Call an election.

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

Did mine:

The specific harm: as at today's date, I cannot calculate what I will owe. My liability under the proposed rules depends on the market value of my asset on 1 July 2027 — a date that has not yet occurred. I am a long-term holder of multiple volatile assets acquired well before the proposed commencement (10+ years). For assets of this kind, that single day's price could fall anywhere across a very wide range, and my tax bill moves with it. Under the current rules I can calculate my position with certainty using the 50% discount. Under the proposed rules I cannot plan, budget, or make a rational disposal decision, because the figure that determines my tax is set by one day of market movement I neither control nor can foresee.

This is the core problem: the snapshot mechanism makes the tax liability arbitrary. Two people who acquired similar assets at the same time could face materially different tax outcomes solely because of where the market happened to sit on 1 July 2027. That difference reflects nothing about the real gain or the holder's circumstances — only the luck of one day's volatility.

My request: that pre-2027 assets be fully grandfathered, retaining the existing 50% discount, rather than receiving partial protection tied to a snapshot valuation. Full grandfathering removes the arbitrary valuation-date problem entirely for assets already held, while leaving the government free to apply the new regime to assets acquired after commencement.

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@AusBTCIndBody I also hate indexation but wanted to stick to one issue.

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

The specific harm: as at today's date, I cannot calculate what I will owe. My liability under the proposed rules depends on the market value of my asset on 1 July 2027 — a date that has not yet occurred. I am a long-term holder of multiple volatile assets acquired well before the proposed commencement (10+ years). For assets of this kind, that single day's price could fall anywhere across a very wide range, and my tax bill moves with it. Under the current rules I can calculate my position with certainty using the 50% discount. Under the proposed rules I cannot plan, budget, or make a rational disposal decision, because the figure that determines my tax is set by one day of market movement I neither control nor can foresee.

This is the core problem: the snapshot mechanism makes the tax liability arbitrary. Two people who acquired similar assets at the same time could face materially different tax outcomes solely because of where the market happened to sit on 1 July 2027. That difference reflects nothing about the real gain or the holder's circumstances — only the luck of one day's volatility.

My request: that pre-2027 assets be fully grandfathered, retaining the existing 50% discount, rather than receiving partial protection tied to a snapshot valuation. Full grandfathering removes the arbitrary valuation-date problem entirely for assets already held, while leaving the government free to apply the new regime to assets acquired after commencement.

[Moz @onslowshipping]

If, like me, you are appalled at some of the changes to Aus tax settings that are set to become law, please make a submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. Submissions close on the 9th. https://t.co/XnBRAtKQvu

The first page of my submission is attached in the image below. I have confined myself to the CGT changes, and only to their application to assets outside of residential property. I don't think the gov is going to back down on any of it, but that seems like the area where the insane consequences of the changes are most obvious.

Full submission at https://t.co/X3FgRi2xhs

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

@onslowshipping Note I also think indexation sucks, but had to stick to the one issue I hate the most

[swordfish6975.cro 🇦🇺 👻 @_swordfish6975]

I sent in mine:

The specific harm: as at today's date, I cannot calculate what I will owe. My liability under the proposed rules depends on the market value of my asset on 1 July 2027 — a date that has not yet occurred. I am a long-term holder of multiple volatile assets acquired well before the proposed commencement (10+ years). For assets of this kind, that single day's price could fall anywhere across a very wide range, and my tax bill moves with it. Under the current rules I can calculate my position with certainty using the 50% discount. Under the proposed rules I cannot plan, budget, or make a rational disposal decision, because the figure that determines my tax is set by one day of market movement I neither control nor can foresee.

This is the core problem: the snapshot mechanism makes the tax liability arbitrary. Two people who acquired similar assets at the same time could face materially different tax outcomes solely because of where the market happened to sit on 1 July 2027. That difference reflects nothing about the real gain or the holder's circumstances — only the luck of one day's volatility.

My request: that pre-2027 assets be fully grandfathered, retaining the existing 50% discount, rather than receiving partial protection tied to a snapshot valuation. Full grandfathering removes the arbitrary valuation-date problem entirely for assets already held, while leaving the government free to apply the new regime to assets acquired after commencement.

[Australian Bitcoin Industry Body @AusBTCIndBody]

If you have strong opinions about the CGT changes, there are six days left to make a submission to the Senate Committee inquiry - anyone can do so - individuals, organisations, or businesses.

There is no restriction to industry bodies.

Submissions may take the form of a letter, paper or report, and may contain facts, opinions, arguments, and recommendations.

https://t.co/L5GIbDqF8Z