Search results

Modelling has shown that if this unrealised gains tax on super over $3 mil is implemented, $94.5 billion would be removed from the Australian economy and $155 billion of superannuation savings would be redirected into tax-free structures such as principal places of residence, exacerbating the...

I doubt it. Two thirds of the nation didn't want Labor returned.

Super tax and farmers tax are definitely NOT separate issues. Many family farms are held in super funds that will be impacted by this insane unrealised gains tax. As for giving Albo a mandate - only about 1/3rd of the nation voted for him and he imported a lot of votes to rig the election. Most...

Wait for the damage and see if it's ''right wing rhetoric''. I assure you it is not. This dangerous tax will do massive harm to the economy. It has done in France, Norway, Sweden and Germany. All of those countries had to scrap it due to the economic harm Expert modelling shows that $94.5...

They would claw back a lot more, make the system much fairer, avoid setting a dangerous precedent with a very insidious tax, and avoid major economic damage that is threatening if they simply adopted the Henry proposal from 15 years ago. Change the tax on super from a flat 15% to 15% reduction...

And that is totally irrelevant to the issue - which is whether or not completely changing the tax system to make it okay to tax income that doesn't exist is acceptable. And it isn't, no matter who is targeted. Because it sets a very dangerous precedent and introduces a fundamental unfairness...

You are missing the point entirely. This type of tax is patently unfair and dangerous. It's not about who will pay. It's about the type of tax and the precedent it sets. And there are much fairer and better ways to make the system fairer. Ken Henry suggested the obvious solution to inequities...

Why set a new type of tax that sets a dangerous precedent and does nothing to address the huge cost of superannuation tax concessions and the gross inequity of a system that gives huge concessions to high income earners and minimal benefit to low income earners? Fifteen years ago, Ken Henry...

Hopefully removed, because it is the most evil and dangerous tax ever contemplated, and it will do major harm to the economy. It was removed quickly after being introduced in Sweden and Germany, because it became clear very quickly that it was doing major harm. It caused a huge economic...

People who have $3 million aren't worried. They are moving their investments. And in doing so, they will hurt the economy and make all Australians poorer. And you, along with every other citizen, will pay for this insidious and evil tax

Lack of indexation is a flaw, but it's not the major problem.The major problem is the whole concept of taxing unrealised gains - gains that never actually happened that and might never materialise as real money. Where do we go next? Tax the wages you might earn in 2035? Tax the increased value...

And what about farmers who hold their family farm in a super fund? Businesses who have their business in a super fund? And your statement about cash is ridiculous. People should not and do not hold hundreds of thousands in a super fund in cash just to pay a tax on paper gains that might never...

Then try feeling sorry for the farmers and businesses sent bankrupt, the renters whose rent skyrockets, the people who lose their jobs when investment moves overseas... This isn't as simple as some want to make it. It will have devastating effects on the economy. And it's fundamentally wrong...

You are letting envy cloud your judgement, or else you don't understand what unrealised means. It doesn't matter how asset-rich someone is, taxing them on money they don't have and might never have is wrong. By all means, tax profits. Tax income. Tax capital gain. But do not tax theoretical...

Sorry, but it's not relevant how may people have $3 m+. What is relevant is that this type of tax is insidious and very unfair and it will have hideous flow-on effects to the whole economy, thus causing hurt to everyone. The fuss is about it being on UNREALISED gains - a tax on money you didn't...

I wouldn't pay for the wedding. I would discourage it. But I certainly would not suggest they live together either. Commitment is as essential in a healthy relationship as trust. Living together means postponing commitment, and that's not a healthy way to start any relationship, much less as a...

A universal pension might cost more, but the savings in administration costs would be massive. Add the tax revenue, and the benefits of not having aged people living in severe poverty and unable to afford good food and proper medical care (which leads to heavier reliance on doctors and hospitals...

Labor politicians admitted openly on Q&A last night that a blatantly dishonest ad - peddling a pack of lies - won them the election. They admitted the claim of Dutton spending $600 billion on nuclear was total rubbish. They made up the figure. It had no substance. And they admitted there was...

That is total rubbish. Did you not watch Q&A last night? Labor politicians openly admitted they lied in their ads, very successfully, with a fake cost for nuclear that had no substance and with outright lies about Dutton cutting Medicare. It was all lies. And you fell for it! Don't feel bad. So...

I agree that super shouldn't be a place to hide wealth and avoid taxes. That's sadly how it was set up originally, and it has served the wealthy very well. That needs to change. But the question we need to ask is how do we change it without hurting the economy. Taxing unrealised gains is going...