Why Australia's New Capital Gains Tax Is the Best Tax Policy for Crushing the Economy 85%

By Claire Lehmann59%

7/3/2026, 7:01:44 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Burden of Proof, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 53.7% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 1,683 faulty-reasoning hits from 492 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.5% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,405 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.40% of the article peer group.

Recorded on 30 June 2026, Claire Lehmann sat down with Derek Francis— former chief economist at the NSW Parliamentary Budget Office and a fund manager—to discuss a flaw in Treasury's modelling of Australia's new capital gains tax, one that could push effective tax rates on shares as high as 70 percent. 
Listen on 
Apple Podcasts 
Listen on 
Spotify 
Transcript 
Claire Lehmann: Last month, Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered one of Australia's most ambitious and controversial budgets to date. 
It was framed as an attempt to restore intergenerational equity, in light of the fact that house prices have become completely unaffordable for young people across the country. 
To address this, negative gearing on established housing has been scrapped, along with the capital gains tax discount that had been encouraging investment in existing property. 
These changes were widely anticipated and have been welcomed by many Australians, including me. 
However—and this is important—the budget also scrapped the capital gains tax discount for all other asset classes, which means that people who own shares and invest in businesses, the productive economy that creates jobs and innovation, are now being treated as if they were property speculators. 
While there is broad agreement that something had to be done about house prices, nobody was calling for shares and business investment to be taxed more heavily, and the government did not take these changes to an election. 
Joining me today to discuss the impact of these changes on the share market and the broader economy is Derek Francis, former chief economist of the New South Wales Parliamentary Budget Office and a fund manager. 
Hi, Derek. 
Thanks so much for joining me today. 
Jim Chalmers' budget was handed down around six weeks ago and it's still in the news every day. 
Why won't this story go away? 
Derek Francis: Well, the story on the capital gains tax won't go away for a couple of simple reasons. 
The first is he's initiated the highest capital gains tax in the world—a capital gains tax that no other country has ever done. 
That's why it produces the highest tax rates in the world. 
And it's also a capital gains tax that no reputable economist would ever support. 
So Jim Chalmers calls this ambitious tax reform. 
I call it a complete dog's breakfast. 
If you actually had to design a tax to crunch the economy and crunch the risk-taking areas that we want to grow the economy, this is the tax to do it. 
So if Jim thinks this is dying away, if Albo thinks it's dying away, I can assure you it's not. 
This is the start of the kerfuffle about it, not the end. 
It's at best the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. 
CL: Now, you identified a flaw in the modelling handed down by Treasury. 
Can you tell me about that flaw? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.7%Claire Lehmann: 5.3%Quillette: 5.9%Confirmation Bias15.7%This article: 15.0%Claire Lehmann: 1.1%Quillette: 0.6%Anchoring Bias15.0%This article: 7.7%Claire Lehmann: 3.4%Quillette: 3.4%Availability Heuristic7.7%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 1.4%Quillette: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.5%Quillette: 1.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Claire Lehmann: 3.2%Quillette: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias3.9%This article: 23.4%Claire Lehmann: 8.2%Quillette: 7.5%Framing Effect23.4%This article: 9.3%Claire Lehmann: 0.9%Quillette: 0.3%Loss Aversion9.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.8%Quillette: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.1%Quillette: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 1.1%Quillette: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Claire Lehmann: 2.0%Quillette: 1.4%Pessimism Bias12.8%This article: 27.8%Claire Lehmann: 9.0%Quillette: 9.3%Negativity Bias27.8%This article: 2.8%Claire Lehmann: 1.1%Quillette: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.9%Quillette: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.3%Quillette: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 1.0%Quillette: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.4%Quillette: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 1.4%Quillette: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Claire Lehmann: 0.9%Quillette: 1.1%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.1%Quillette: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.1%Quillette: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 9.3%Claire Lehmann: 1.8%Quillette: 2.1%Straw Man9.3%This article: 10.2%Claire Lehmann: 5.5%Quillette: 5.4%Appeal to Authority10.2%This article: 11.8%Claire Lehmann: 3.8%Quillette: 2.9%False Dilemma11.8%This article: 8.7%Claire Lehmann: 1.3%Quillette: 1.3%Slippery Slope8.7%This article: 2.2%Claire Lehmann: 0.2%Quillette: 0.4%Circular Reasoning2.2%This article: 15.2%Claire Lehmann: 12.0%Quillette: 9.1%Hasty Generalization15.2%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.8%Claire Lehmann: 0.7%Quillette: 0.6%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 10.2%Claire Lehmann: 4.9%Quillette: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion10.2%This article: 4.1%Claire Lehmann: 0.6%Quillette: 1.5%Begging the Question4.1%This article: 13.8%Claire Lehmann: 2.9%Quillette: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.8%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.3%Quillette: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 22.2%Claire Lehmann: 1.7%Quillette: 0.7%Burden of Proof22.2%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.9%Quillette: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 1.2%Quillette: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 7.9%Quillette: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 2.8%Claire Lehmann: 0.3%Quillette: 0.3%No True Scotsman2.8%This article: 12.2%Claire Lehmann: 1.2%Quillette: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.2%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.1%Quillette: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.9%Claire Lehmann: 1.8%Quillette: 2.3%Unattributed Quote17.9%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.3%Quillette: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 53.7%Claire Lehmann: 5.0%Quillette: 13.8%Biased Writer Voice53.7%This article: 21.3%Claire Lehmann: 1.6%Quillette: 1.6%Indoctrination21.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Lehmann: 1.3%Quillette: 1.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Claire Lehmann: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.4%

492 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers36%attributed speech315writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageClaire Lehmann • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageDerek Francis • 19 words • 100.0% coverageDerek Francis • 23 words • 100.0% coverageDerek Francis • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDerek Francis • 14 words • 100.0% coverageDerek Francis • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDerek Francis • 7 words • 100.0% coverageDerek Francis • 31 words • 100.0% coverageDerek Francis • 20 words • 100.0% coverageDerek Francis • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDerek Francis • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Derek Francis

100%flagged-word coverage
159 attributed words90% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.6 ptsWriter: 63.5%Derek Francis: 28.9%28.9%Indoctrination-4.0 ptsWriter: 23.5%Derek Francis: 19.5%19.5%Unattributed Quote+7.1 ptsWriter: 16.2%Derek Francis: 23.3%23.3%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Derek Francis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.