Policy Forum: The Australian Experience with Preferential Capital Gains Tax Treatment—Possible Lessons for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares the preferential tax treatment of capital gains in Australia and in Canada, with a view to determining whether there are any lessons from the Australian experience that may be of relevance to Canada. The tax treatment of capital gains is similar in the two jurisdictions in that both apply a 50 percent inclusion rate or the equivalent. Several aspects of the taxation of capital gains in Australia might be considered cautionary from the Canadian perspective. The Australian experience indicates that winning support for an increase in the capital gains inclusion rate can prove difficult, as demonstrated by the unsuccessful proposal by the Australian Labor Party, during the 2019 federal election campaign, to effectively raise the inclusion rate to 75 percent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".