Australia's new capital gains tax plan was built around housing, but startup investors and founders now have a very different question: who will still take the risk?
Jim Chalmers has put one of Australia's most valuable tax concessions on the table, and the startup sector has noticed quickly. The 2026/27 Federal Budget replaces the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with inflation indexation from July 1, 2027, adds a 30 per cent minimum tax on gains, and limits negative gearing to new builds. The government's target is housing affordability and a fairer tax base. The side effect may be a much more difficult conversation about innovation finance.
This matters because early-stage companies do not run on normal incentives. Founders often accept low salaries because equity carries the upside. Angel investors write cheques into companies where failure is the default outcome. Employees join young firms because share options can make the risk worthwhile. If the tax system takes a larger bite out of the rare wins, the economics of taking that risk changes.
As Forbes Australia reported, founders, venture capital investors and accountants reacted almost immediately to the budget's capital gains overhaul, warning that the reform could weaken startup incentives even though the policy is being sold mainly as a housing measure. That is the tension at the heart of the package. A rule designed to cool property speculation can still land heavily on private company shares, founder exits and long-held startup investments.
The official budget papers say the government will replace the 50 per cent CGT discount with a discount based on inflation and introduce a minimum 30 per cent tax on gains from July 1, 2027. Investors will only pay tax on real capital gains, meaning gains above inflation. The current 50 per cent discount will still be available for investors in new builds, who can choose between that treatment and the new arrangements.
Existing housing investments held before budget night are protected under the negative gearing changes, and established housing bought after budget night will still allow losses to be deducted against residential property income. The change is that those losses will not be deductible against wages and other income. For housing policy, that is a deliberate push away from existing homes and toward new supply.
Startups are not housing. They are usually illiquid, volatile and dependent on concentrated outcomes. A property investor might compare the new tax treatment with rental yields, mortgage rates and future prices. A startup backer compares it with the possibility that most investments return nothing. That difference is why the reform has become a startup-policy issue within a day of budget night.
The government has a reasonable fairness argument. Capital gains concessions have long favoured people who already own assets, while younger workers face higher housing costs and heavier reliance on wages. Productivity Commission chair Danielle Wood had already argued before the budget that any move on property tax benefits should be linked with income tax relief if it is to count as serious reform. The budget does include worker tax relief, including a $250 Working Australians Tax Offset from 2027/28 and previously legislated income tax cuts.
But fairness and productivity are not always the same test. A startup ecosystem depends on enough people believing that upside remains worth the uncertainty. If the policy treats an angel investment in a software company too much like a leveraged bet on an established house, the system may collect more tax from the winners while discouraging some of the bets that produce them.
The next fight is over carve-outs
The most important question now is not whether the reform survives politically. It is whether the government narrows the blast radius before the rules begin in 2027. The consultation with the technology and startup sector will matter because the details will decide whether this is mainly a property reset or a broader tax increase on private risk capital.
Employee share schemes are the obvious place to start. They are not a luxury for early-stage companies. They are a compensation tool for firms that cannot match bank, consulting or big tech salaries. If employees believe the eventual gain from options or shares will be taxed less favourably, the practical value of that offer falls. That could make hiring harder for Australian startups competing with overseas companies that already have deeper pools of capital.
Early-stage investors will make a similar case. Angel investment relies on portfolio logic, where one good exit has to offset several failures. If the tax treatment of the winner becomes materially less attractive, investors may demand better terms, wait for later-stage deals, or put capital into less risky assets. None of those outcomes helps a founder trying to raise a first serious round.
Founder exits are more politically awkward but just as important. Australia often says it wants more global companies built at home. That goal requires founders to believe that staying and scaling in Australia is worth it. If the tax system makes a sale or listing less rewarding than competing jurisdictions, the country risks encouraging the very behaviour it says it wants to avoid: promising companies shifting capital, talent or headquarters elsewhere once they become valuable.
There is another piece in the budget that complicates the story. The government is also increasing support for core research and development from July 1, 2028, including higher offsets for young, fast-growing firms and a higher turnover threshold for the refundable offset. That is a pro-innovation measure. The problem is that R&D support helps companies spend money on development, while capital gains settings influence whether investors and employees believe the upside is worth backing in the first place.
The government now has to hold two ideas together. Australia can reform asset taxation to deal with housing inequality, and it can still protect the incentives that help risky companies form, hire and raise capital. Those goals are not mutually exclusive, but they do require careful drafting.
Watch the exemptions. If employee share schemes, early-stage investors and founder equity receive targeted treatment, the budget may become a property-led tax reform with startup damage contained. If they do not, Australia could discover that a housing affordability package has accidentally made innovation capital more expensive.
Also read: Medicare is giving AI health startups a real payment test • Google is turning Gemini into Android's operating layer • Dessn raises $6 million to make product design happen inside code
