Based on a $600,000 investment property benchmark, this analysis systematically quantifies the crossover impact of property appreciation rates (3% / 5% / 7%) and CGT discount policies (50% / 25% / abolished), compared against unleveraged stock/ETF investments with equivalent capital.
All scenarios share the following assumptions, amounts in AUD.
购买价格
Purchase Price
$600,000
首付 (20%)
Deposit (20%)
$120,000
贷款 IO @ 6%
Loan IO @ 6%
$480,000
年息 $28,800
Annual interest $28,800
购置成本
Purchase Costs
~$25,000
印花税+律师+检验
Stamp+Legal+Inspection
总初始资本
Total Initial Capital
$145,000
首付+购置成本
Deposit + costs
租金回报率
Rental Yield
4.5% p.a.
年租金 $27,000
Annual rent $27,000
租金增长
Rent Growth
3.0% p.a.
持有期其他支出
Holding Costs
租金×30%
Rent×30%
管理/保险/Council
Mgmt/Insurance/Council
房产增值 CAGR
Property CAGR
3% / 5% / 7%
三种情景
Three scenarios
出售成本
Selling Costs
2.5%
中介佣金+营销
Agent + marketing
通货膨胀
Inflation
3.0% p.a.
持有期边际税率
Marginal Tax Rate
37%
负扣税抵扣税率
For negative gearing
股票/ETF 起始资金
Stock/ETF Capital
$145,000
同等资本，无杠杆
Equal capital, no leverage
股票年化增值
Stock CAGR
10.0% CAGR
纯资本增值，CGT 50%
Capital gains, CGT 50%
税率体系
Tax System
2024-25
含 Medicare 2%
Incl. Medicare 2%
持有期间现金流Holding Period Cashflow每年税后现金流 = (租金净收入 − 贷款利息) × 0.63（37%边际税率适用于负扣税亏损抵减）。约第16年租金收入超过利息，负扣税转正扣税，仍以37%计算。
累计税后现金流出：5年 −$27,504 ｜ 10年 −$44,938 ｜ 20年 −$42,939Annual after-tax cashflow = (Net rental income − Loan interest) × 0.63 (37% marginal rate applies to negative gearing deductions). Around year 16, rental income exceeds interest, converting negative to positive gearing, still calculated at 37%.
Cumulative after-tax cashflow: 5yr −$27,504 ｜ 10yr −$44,938 ｜ 20yr −$42,939
📈 股票 / ETF 专项假设
📈 Stock / ETF Specific Assumptions
资产类型
Asset Type
宽基股票 ETF
Broad Market ETF
例：VAS、VGS、A200
e.g. VAS, VGS, A200
初始投入
Initial Investment
$145,000
与房产初始资本相同
Same as property capital
杠杆
Leverage
无（现金买入）
None (cash purchase)
不使用 Margin Loan
No margin loan
年化增值（CAGR）
Annual Growth (CAGR)
10.0% p.a.
总回报中资本增值部分
Capital gains component
年度分红/派息
Annual Dividends
$0
假设全收益为资本增值
All returns as capital gains
管理费（MER）
Management Fee (MER)
~0.07%–0.20%
已内含于10%净增值假设中
Embedded in 10% assumption
交易成本
Transaction Costs
忽略不计
Negligible
买入/卖出佣金极低
Very low brokerage
持有期间追加投入
Additional Contributions
$0
一次性买入，全程持有
Lump sum, buy and hold
CGT折扣适用
CGT Discount
50%
持有 >12个月，现行制度
Held >12 months, current
税务处理
Tax Treatment
个人持有
Individual ownership
适用个人累进税率
Personal progressive rates
⚠️ 关于ETF 10%年化假设的说明⚠️ Note on ETF 10% Annual Return Assumption澳股（ASX 200）历史长期总回报约9–10%，全球股票（MSCI World）历史约10–11%（含分红再投）。本模型将10%全部视为资本增值（不拆分分红），以简化CGT计算。若实际ETF含4%分红、6%增值，则分红部分每年需按全额计入应税收入（无CGT折扣优惠），实际税后总回报将低于本模型估算——这意味着本文对股票的税后收益存在轻微高估，房产相对优势在实操中可能更明显。Australian equities (ASX 200) historically return ~9-10% total, global equities (MSCI World) ~10-11% (dividends reinvested). This model treats the full 10% as capital gains (no dividend split) to simplify CGT calculation. If the actual ETF contains 4% dividends and 6% capital gains, the dividend portion is taxed at full marginal rate annually (no CGT discount), meaning actual after-tax total return would be lower than modeled—this implies our analysis slightly overestimates stock after-tax returns, making property's relative advantage potentially stronger in practice.
Select property growth rate to view after-tax net returns across 1-25 year holding periods for each scenario. ETF reference line is fixed (10% CAGR, CGT 50% discount).
房产增值率：Property Growth:
房产 CGT 50%（现行）Property CGT 50% (Current)
房产 CGT 25%Property CGT 25%
房产 无CGT折扣Property No CGT Discount
ETF 10% 无杠杆 CGT 50%ETF 10% Unleveraged CGT 50%
04 — 政策冲击量化
04 — POLICY IMPACT QUANTIFICATION
CGT折扣削减的损失金额与比例
Loss Amount and Percentage from CGT Discount Reduction
下表展示对比当前50%折扣基准，各增值率下削减折扣造成的净收益损失。
The table below shows net return losses caused by discount reduction at each growth rate, compared to the current 50% discount baseline.
房产增值 3% CAGR
Property Growth 3% CAGR
变化
Change
损失金额
Loss Amount
损失%
Loss %
— 持有 5 年 —— 5 Years —
50%→25%
−$2,791
−11.9%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$6,687
−28.4%
— 持有 10 年 —— 10 Years —
50%→25%
−$13,942
−14.2%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$29,659
−30.3%
— 持有 20 年 —— 20 Years —
50%→25%
−$50,711
−16.0%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$101,419
−32.0%
房产增值 5% CAGRProperty Growth 5% CAGR
变化
Change
损失金额
Loss Amount
损失%
Loss %
— 持有 5 年 —— 5 Years —
50%→25%
−$10,490
−12.7%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$21,054
−25.5%
— 持有 10 年 —— 10 Years —
50%→25%
−$37,246
−15.9%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$75,774
−32.4%
— 持有 20 年 —— 20 Years —
50%→25%
−$108,943
−15.7%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$217,887
−31.3%
房产增值 7% CAGRProperty Growth 7% CAGR
变化
Change
损失金额
Loss Amount
损失%
Loss %
— 持有 5 年 —— 5 Years —
50%→25%
−$18,059
−12.6%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$37,120
−25.8%
— 持有 10 年 —— 10 Years —
50%→25%
−$61,780
−16.0%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$123,560
−32.0%
— 持有 20 年 —— 20 Years —
50%→25%
−$192,554
−15.5%
50%→无折扣50%→No discount
−$385,109
−31.1%
⚠️ 7%增值率下取消CGT折扣的极端影响⚠️ Extreme Impact of CGT Discount Abolition at 7% Growth持有20年的7%增值房产，若CGT折扣被取消，净收益从$1,240,049降至$854,940——损失$385,109（−31%），这笔损失本身已相当于一套低端澳洲投资房的首付。For a 7% growth property held for 20 years, if CGT discount is abolished, net returns drop from $1,240,049 to $854,940—a loss of $385,109 (−31%), equivalent to a deposit on an entry-level Australian investment property.
📐 结构性规律：损失比例高度稳定📐 Structural Pattern: Highly Stable Loss Percentages无论房产增值率是3%、5%还是7%，CGT折扣变化造成的净收益损失比例都高度集中：
• 50%→25%折扣：持有5年损失约12%，10-20年损失约15-16%
• 50%→无折扣：持有5年损失约25-28%，10-20年损失约30-32%
这说明CGT折扣的价值与增值率无关——它是一个相对稳定的"政策税率加成"。Regardless of whether property growth is 3%, 5%, or 7%, the net return loss percentages from CGT discount changes are highly concentrated:
• 50%→25% discount: ~12% loss at 5 years, ~15-16% at 10-20 years
• 50%→No discount: ~25-28% loss at 5 years, ~30-32% at 10-20 years
This indicates CGT discount value is independent of growth rate—it's a relatively stable "policy tax multiplier".
05 — 房产 vs 股票
05 — PROPERTY vs STOCK
增值率与股票的胜负分界
Growth Rate Breakeven vs Stocks
同等$145,000初始资本，房产（带杠杆）vs 股票/ETF（无杠杆10%）的税后净收益对比：
With equal $145,000 initial capital, after-tax net returns comparison: Property (leveraged) vs Stock/ETF (unleveraged 10%):
持有 5 年5 Years
3% ← 大幅落后股票3% ← Significantly Behind Stocks
$23,545 vs $82,687（房产亏差$59,142）$23,545 vs $82,687 (Property deficit $59,142)
5% ≈ 平手5% ≈ Break Even
$82,674 vs $82,687（近乎一致）$82,674 vs $82,687 (Nearly identical)
7% ✓ 房产领先7% ✓ Property Ahead
$143,799 vs $82,687（领先$61,112）$143,799 vs $82,687 (Ahead $61,112)
持有 10 年10 Years
3% ← 落后股票3% ← Behind Stocks
$97,980 vs $200,762（房产亏差$102,782）$97,980 vs $200,762 (Property deficit $102,782)
5% ✓ 房产领先5% ✓ Property Ahead
$233,958 vs $200,762（领先$33,196）$233,958 vs $200,762 (Ahead $33,196)
7% ✓✓ 房产大幅领先7% ✓✓ Property Significantly Ahead
$386,620 vs $200,762（领先$185,858）$386,620 vs $200,762 (Ahead $185,858)
持有 20 年20 Years
3% ← 落后股票3% ← Behind Stocks
$316,548 vs $664,656（房产亏差$348,108）$316,548 vs $664,656 (Property deficit $348,108)
5% ✓ 房产微幅领先5% ✓ Property Slightly Ahead
$695,685 vs $664,656（领先$31,029）$695,685 vs $664,656 (Ahead $31,029)
7% ✓✓✓ 房产碾压7% ✓✓✓ Property Dominates
$1,240,049 vs $664,656（领先$575,393）$1,240,049 vs $664,656 (Ahead $575,393)
🔑 增值率是决定杠杆房产胜负的核心变量🔑 Growth Rate is the Core Variable Determining Leveraged Property Success5%增值是"平衡点"：5年打平股票，10-20年略胜。3%增值在所有持有期均落后无杠杆股票，这与直觉相违——杠杆并不自动带来超额回报，需要足够的增值率才能覆盖利息成本（6%贷款）和交易成本。5% growth is the "breakeven point": ties with stocks at 5 years, slightly ahead at 10-20 years. 3% growth lags unleveraged stocks across all holding periods, counterintuitively—leverage doesn't automatically deliver excess returns; sufficient appreciation is needed to cover interest costs (6% loan) and transaction costs.
⚠️ 取消CGT折扣后的格局逆转⚠️ Landscape Reversal After CGT Discount Abolition若CGT折扣取消：5%增值房产的优势进一步收窄，10年净收益$158,184 vs 股票$200,762——房产反超为落后。只有7%增值的房产，即便在无折扣情景下，10年($263,060)和20年($854,940)仍保持对股票的优势。If CGT discount abolished: 5% growth property's advantage narrows further, 10-year net returns $158,184 vs stocks $200,762—property falls behind. Only 7% growth property maintains advantage over stocks at 10yr ($263,060) and 20yr ($854,940) even without discount.
06 — 税负分析
06 — TAX BURDEN ANALYSIS
资本利得有效税率
Effective Capital Gains Tax Rates
有效税率 = CGT税款 ÷ 资本利得总额（包含Medicare Levy 2%）
Effective tax rate = CGT liability ÷ Total capital gain (includes Medicare Levy 2%)
增值率
CGT折扣
应税CG (5yr)
有效税率 (5yr)
应税CG (10yr)
有效税率 (10yr)
应税CG (20yr)
有效税率 (20yr)
Growth
CGT Discount
Taxable CG (5yr)
Effective Rate (5yr)
Taxable CG (10yr)
Effective Rate (10yr)
Taxable CG (20yr)
Effective Rate (20yr)
3%
CGT 50%
$26,588
4.0%
$80,596
11.3%
$215,787
16.7%
3%
CGT 25%
$39,881
9.2%
$120,893
20.0%
$323,681
28.4%
3%
无折扣No Discount
$53,175
16.6%
$161,191
29.7%
$431,574
40.2%
5%
CGT 50%
$60,813
9.4%
$163,952
14.9%
$463,590
20.3%
5%
CGT 25%
$91,219
18.0%
$245,928
26.3%
$695,384
32.1%
5%
无折扣No Discount
$121,625
26.7%
$327,904
38.1%
$927,179
43.8%
7%
CGT 50%
$97,746
12.4%
$262,892
17.9%
$819,383
21.7%
7%
CGT 25%
$146,619
21.6%
$394,338
29.7%
$1,229,074
33.5%
7%
无折扣No Discount
$195,492
31.4%
$525,784
41.4%
$1,638,765
45.2%
股票Stock
CGT 50%
$44,262
6.6%
$115,547
13.1%
$415,244
20.0%
🚨 无折扣高增值高持有期：触及边际税率天花板🚨 No Discount + High Growth + Long Hold: Hitting Marginal Rate Ceiling持有20年、7%增值的投资房，若取消CGT折扣，应税收入高达$1,638,765，超出$180K最高税率档，有效税率45.2%——几乎接近个人所得税45%顶档+Medicare 2%的理论上限47%。For a 20-year hold, 7% growth investment property, if CGT discount abolished, taxable income reaches $1,638,765, exceeding the $180K top bracket, with effective rate 45.2%—nearly approaching the theoretical maximum of 45% top income tax + 2% Medicare = 47%.
07 — 真实财富
07 — REAL WEALTH
通胀调整后实际收益（以今日购买力计）
Inflation-Adjusted Real Returns (In Today's Purchasing Power)
1. 增值率是杠杆房产的生命线，6%借贷利率下需至少5%增值才能与股票竞争1. Growth Rate is the Lifeline of Leveraged Property—At Least 5% Needed to Compete with Stocks Under 6% Interest3%增值的房产在任何持有期和CGT情景下均无法跑赢无杠杆10%股票。真正的分水岭在5%增值（平衡点），7%增值才能产生杠杆的真正复利效应。3% growth property cannot outperform unleveraged 10% stocks under any holding period or CGT scenario. The true watershed is 5% growth (breakeven point); 7% growth is needed for leverage's true compounding effect.
2. 取消CGT折扣使低增值房产全面溃败，高增值房产仍然领先但差距大幅收窄2. CGT Discount Abolition Causes Complete Collapse of Low-Growth Property; High-Growth Still Ahead But Gap Narrows Significantly3%增值房产：无折扣后20年净收益$215,129，仅为股票$664,656的32%。7%增值房产：即便无折扣，20年仍以$854,940 vs $664,656领先，但领先幅度从$575K缩小至$190K。3% growth property: 20yr net returns $215,129 without discount, only 32% of stocks' $664,656. 7% growth property: even without discount, 20yr still ahead $854,940 vs $664,656, but lead shrinks from $575K to $190K.
3. CGT损失比例约等于增值率无关常量：约12-16%（25%折扣）和28-32%（无折扣）3. CGT Loss Percentage Approximately Constant Across Growth Rates: ~12-16% (25% Discount) and 28-32% (No Discount)这一规律的含义是：CGT折扣就是一个"附加的资本回报保留率"，无论你赚多赚少，政策变化都按这个比率"切走"你的收益。This pattern means: CGT discount is an "additional capital return retention rate"—regardless of how much you earn, policy changes "cut away" your returns at this ratio.
4. 最优与最差情景差距：持有20年，CGT政策变量单独造成最高$385,109净收益差异4. Best vs Worst Scenario Gap: 20-Year Hold, CGT Policy Alone Creates Up to $385,109 Net Return Difference同一套房产（7%增值）、同样持有20年，仅因CGT折扣政策不同（50% vs 取消），税后净收益相差$385,109——这超过了购买同一套房所需的全部初始资本（$145,000）的2.6倍。Same property (7% growth), same 20-year hold, differing only in CGT discount policy (50% vs abolished), after-tax net returns differ by $385,109—exceeding 2.6× the total initial capital ($145,000) required to purchase the property.
.png){kind=logo}
Research Hub