Lying to the public and hating the rich hailed as masterstrokes

17 Responses to Lying to the public and hating the rich hailed as masterstrokes

1. Rohan says:

   2 March, 2023 at 12:15 pm

   “A government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always relly on the support of Paul” – George Bernard Shaw

   David should change his name by deed poll to Paul.
2. cuckoo says:

   2 March, 2023 at 12:24 pm

   Truly one of the weirdest things (so far) about the Albanese era is the way this bog-standard time-serving ALP hack is now depicted by the legacy media at every turn as some kind of four-dimensional chess-playing genius.
3. Buccaneer says:

   2 March, 2023 at 12:26 pm

   The pretense that having $3million in super makes you rich rather than prudent and that it’s rorting the system rather than something everyone should be aiming for shines a light on the dishonesty of leftist boosting media class
4. Fred says:

   2 March, 2023 at 12:40 pm

   The biggest issue is the non-indexation of the $3 million limit. A couple of decades and that will catch everyone.
5. Rabz says:

   2 March, 2023 at 2:48 pm

   “the bold reforms Teats Peanuthead took to the 2019 election”

   Has any j’ismist asked that rotting political corpse if he regrets “the boldness of the reforms”, given they cost him an unlosable election?

   No, I thought not.
6. NFA says:

   2 March, 2023 at 3:21 pm

   Fred says:
   2 March, 2023 at 12:40 pm

   The biggest issue is the non-indexation of the $3 million limit. A couple of decades and that will catch everyone.

   Given the ‘performance’ of the RBA to date, what will $3 million buy you in 2030?

   Best stock up on wheelbarrows if cash is still legal tender!
7. Buccaneer says:

   2 March, 2023 at 3:30 pm

   No, the biggest issue is that the tax concession was a deliberate incentive to encourage people to lock their money up in super so the funds would be viable. Chalmers is creating an incentive for people to find a way to avoid compulsory super, one which will become more compelling as the lack of indexation makes it bite more people.
8. Christine says:

   2 March, 2023 at 5:59 pm

   “the bold reforms”
   Bowen did say, smugly: “if you don’t like our policies, vote for someone else”

   And now he enjoys power
9. RacerX says:

   2 March, 2023 at 6:33 pm

   Fact is Labor said they wouldn’t change super, so they broke a promise, no surprises there. However, I won’t be losing any sleep over those with over $3m in super losing their tax breaks.
10. Perfidious Albino says:

    2 March, 2023 at 8:47 pm

    They deserve the kicking they’re getting from (almost) all quarters, but in the near term are they not just going to be using this future tax (post 2025) together with some generous assumptions to make the budget outlook appear better than it really is?
11. Morsie says:

    2 March, 2023 at 9:00 pm

    This proposal is basically setting out to torpedo SMSFs.
    Any SMSF with over $3 mill will be taxed on unrealised capital gains.
    It will have to sell shares or real estate to pay the tax.
    This is why the industry funds support the proposal.They will clean up
12. Entropy says:

    2 March, 2023 at 9:56 pm

    The biggest issue is the non-indexation of the $3 million limit. A couple of decades and that will catch everyone.

    That would be the aim. And if takes too long the point can always be lowered. At present it would gain stuff all revenue.
13. C.L. says:

    2 March, 2023 at 10:03 pm

    The biggest issue is the non-indexation of the $3 million limit. A couple of decades and that will catch everyone.

    Well, it will catch a lot of people. That was either deliberate or Jimbo doesn’t understand the basic mathematics at play. My view is that he just doesn’t care. He and Albanese wanted easy honey, thought it was cost-free politically (because rich people) and didn’t bother joining any more than a couple of dots. That modus operandi also sums up the Voice and energy policy. Albanese has never been a details politican – like a Keating or a Costello. He’s just a vibe cowboy.
14. rosie says:

    3 March, 2023 at 5:02 am

    First they came for the people with over 3 million in their super funds.
15. Buccaneer says:

    3 March, 2023 at 6:47 am

    These are longstanding demands from the people on the velvet in the union controlled super fund movement. They want to totally eliminate smsf and would have preferred a ban but will take this as a first step.
16. John Brumble says:

    3 March, 2023 at 10:38 am

    This proposal is basically setting out to torpedo SMSFs.

    This. I’m willing to be that the vast majority of 3m+ holdings are in self managed super at this point.
17. Fred says:

    3 March, 2023 at 10:47 am

    This. I’m willing to be that the vast majority of 3m+ holdings are in self managed super at this point.

    Correct. People with large balances generally have assets that have been in there a long time and have huge unrealised capital gains.

    I’ve worked on SMSFs that have CBA shares purchased when floated for $5.40, now worth $100.

    And then there is CSL shares! SMSFs that bought these back in 90’s would have massive balances. They have gone from a couple of dollars to $300.