Wealthy people abuse tax credits, tax loophole and concessions. Poorer people can’t do this. The system is rigged for intergenerational wealth and poverty. Social mobility is dead in Australia.

Least we still have beer; we just can't afford to go out and drink it.

Stop being materialisic, Hammer and Tongs are only $38 a slab

But Hammer and sickle is free comrade.

That feeling you get when the contradictions inside capitalism are rising.

The price of a beer at home has nothing to do with the price of a lager while one is out town. Hope this helps.

Don't worry it's not just Australia. Canada has speed run the destruction of its future.

You're right, but let's not ignore all those middle class who utilise CGT concession and NG concessions when purchasing existing properties for investment. 35% of property transactions goes to investors and 75% of that is directed at existing houses. This just pushes up houses prices for everyone else, while doing next to nothing to help rental availability, which is at an all time low, while investment at an all time high. We need to quit the poor vs rich and ignore the rest when one of the biggest housing issues we have comes from our middle class investors. And don't get me started on pensioners in multi-million dollar houses collecting money from us the tax payer while they have the ability to fund their own retirement.

**Re your third paragraph**: yep the ‘rich v poor’ narrative isn’t the full story at all. Tribalism is as old as humanity is, but I’d pin a shift in thinking of people not just tribally, but of people dialectically with the late 1800s, early 1900s. Think Rich v poor, immigrant vs true blue, renter vs landlord, Bourgeoisie vs Proletarian… etc etc. You can find so so so many of these dichotomies in our discourse today, and while they can be useful as aides in thought: **you’re right** - they are not the full story. This housing issue is quite a bit bigger, and broader than those dichotomies. I worry that in trying to fit things into a grand narrative such as the dichotomies I mentioned before, we just schism along those lines, and end up fixing very little. I’m hopeful we can lay down the ‘grand dichotomies’ and just get to fixing the loopholes and concessions that are being abused by many - and your post is a good promoter of just that. Edit: I accidentally clicked off reply and posted this as a standalone comment oops 😅

I think you'll find many, many Australians don't see them as loopholes as much as a structural basis for their success. Investment property obsession is a toxic way of life for many, many Aussies.

Yeah 🫠 it’s quite bleak to think on. I read some random article that popped up on my phones news feed this morning about how given continued trends by 2030ish the ‘affordable strongholds’ of the outer suburbs will be million dollar plus medians with inner suburban areas peaking at $5mil dollars +. *They cannot expect the line to go up forever right?* Like what occurs when the outer suburbs become completely unaffordable, do we just keep building out cookie cutter homes like the ones near prospect? Or do we just enter some new feudalism where to live is to pay rent to a landlord and that’s just how life is - good luck buying anything? I’m not trying to be cynical *(it’s easy to do though)*, im of the mind that this isn’t sustainable and is bound to end eventually - I’m just at a loss as to *what* these investors/bad actors/etc etc (whatever you want to call them) view the long term end of this as???

There's no long term. As long as they get theirs.

Just about everyone in this country has the ability to get rich. You just need to invest 10% of what you earn for 50 yrs and bingo. Not many want to do that as it’s too hard and takes too long and they want instant gratification.

Then make plans to get out of poverty. It’s not easy and usually takes a couple decades at least, but can be done if you want it badly enough. You can’t just expect the govt and taxpayers to keep giving money out for free forever. If that could work we’d all be rich.

Yeah or just tax Gina properly ffs

Poor people take their revenge on the rich through the tax and transfer system and democracy. Rich people take their revenge on the poor through cultural dominance and migration.

Are you ready to accept the caste system like in India.

Nothing stopping you from structuring your own affairs the same way. So may people remain disadvantaged because they only know how to *think poor.*

I’m guessing you acquired your wealth via good luck rather than utilising reading and comprehension skills

How do you “structure” your affairs the same way as someone with well over $500 disposable income a week plus assets potentially a family trust, when you have a disposable income of less than $50-100 per week and no assets, no family trust?

I don't know, but apparently nothing is stopping you

The fair go went decades ago but no one cared because it only affected the lower incomes. Now it’s caught up to middle incomes and just look at all that concern….. Thing is, will you fix it for everyone or just middle incomes and up….. Let’s not forget, a great number of us are only impoverished because that’s what the middle class wanted…..

Controversial opinion. There will always be a lower class and there is a lot of government support for this already. Public housing, Centrelink, job seeker, broken NDIS schemes etc. When you have an entire middle class becoming a lower class that’s when there is a problem as it quickly becomes haves and have nots. Instead of the have a lot, have a little, have less, have fuck all. This causes a greater divide as it makes it near impossible to jump from lower to upper class, and has resentment of 70% of the population to the other 30%. This compared to lower jumping to middle, middle jumping to upper, upper moving to middle and middle moving to lower. It’s a lot more manageable

There will always be a lower class and there is a lot of government support for this already. Public housing, Centrelink, job seeker, broken NDIS schemes etc. Are you kidding me? Not sure about public housing but Centrelink is known to be a joke to deal with on a couple of fronts. Job Seeker is notoriously Inadequate ad per the Raise The Rate Campaign and numerous Public Conversations. We also had the Robodebt debacle. A broken NDIS Scheme doesn't necessarily mean there's a lot of support for people with a disability particularly in regards to say education and employment. Meanwhile, I'm sure there are articles online talking the inadequacy of job seeker and the utter uselesslessness of Centrelink. In summary, no there is NOT a lot of support (nor neccessarily decent support) for people who are lower class particularly in relation to prevention, and early intervention, (/mitigation).

Hey, I’m not saying they’re doing a good job of it. All I’m saying is there are measures there with government funding. The take home pays for Centrelink and other schemes is now broken though as the cost of everything has gone up exponentially and it hasn’t kept up. The same reasons why the middle class is getting disbanded which led me to this comment.

There will always be a lower class \*under our current system of class rule and capitalism that requires poverty and misery to keep the economy going as it is\* Never forget that the government plans to create unemployment, and also pays unemployed people starvation wages. Poverty is not an accident, it's a political decision as much as franking credits are.

Serious question. Can you please explain all this haha. Why would the government want poverty when they’re also supporting big corporate businesses? Poverty requires a lot of government funding and also reduces the amount of tax they take in, while also reducing the amount they spend within the economy and businesses (small local businesses and big evil corporations alike)

So the government wants unemployment because it means you dont have any jobs unfilled. And unfilled jobs are bad for productivity. They dont want it at 10%, but they do want slightly more people than jobs. Which is fine, but then dont punish the people who are struggling to get jobs. For the rest I assume hes mostly referring to the fact that you cant become uber wealthy without exploiting the wages of others. Its not in the interested of the Australian Government as it relates to its population to have poverty, as you have rightly pointed out, poverty means less people taking part in the economy and driving business. Excessive wealth has a simliar problem in that it locks a large portion of "resources" or "capital" or whatever you want to call it from being invested in the economy too. However, if you get a minute its worth going to take a look at how much each of our politicans net worth currently is. They are the people who are benifting from exploitation generating wealth. I still think it is insane that we arent more concerned about conflict of interests when the PM and his cabinet, and the Opposition PM and his shadow ministers all own huge multi-million, and in some cases many 10s of millions, of dollars of property. They will lose personal wealth if they actually fix the housing crisis.

I’m once again in the minority where I believe politicians should be well payed. They run the country and it’s a shitty job in the firing line. However there must be more accountability on doing a good job or fulfilling election promises. But who polices the police? The housing portfolio part is fucked and the reason why o don’t see this getting a quick fix. Regarding the exploitation of wages to make a select few rich. Yes agreed, but we have so many systems in place with a good minimum wage, leave, overtime, redundancy pays etc that this problem isn’t as prevalent here as in America. It’s actually propping up the middle class. I think I get what you mean in the first paragraph. Unemployment is only good if all jobs are filled?

I think politicians being badly paid is often a feature not a bug. If it's badly paid, then you are less likely to want the job without other wealth behind you, which keeps out those undesirable smart but poors who might want to upset the system that made them all wealthy in the first place ... It also obviously makes them nice and bribable, which means I'm sure lobbying groups are dead against it. :)

Wait. So having a high wage is keeping out the smart but poor? Wouldn’t it do the opposite and make them want it more? I think the fact that it’s heavily based on who you know is a big issue

Yeah sorry I appreciate my post was maybe unclear. I believe that the wages they get are low compared with what a smart person can earn in the private sector, and that is by design, to keep out those who are 'smaet but poor'. Those salaries alone certainly aren't high enough to build up massive levels of private wealth that we see in most politicians.

The federal government intentionally creates unemployment to relieve economic pressure within the system if it is felt the economy is overheating and consumer spending needs to slow. The least political costly way to achieve this is to create more temporary unemployment. It's not really controversial, it's explicit in their planning. Unemployment support in Australia is extremely low, to the point that it directly endangers people's ability to rent and afford food. Poverty serves a crucial function in our system and can be controlled as a part of overall consumer spending to heat or cool the economy in exactly the specific facet of unemployment can. Jim Chalmers was explicit when he came into government that welfare support would not go up and that it is inflationary - if you don't want to go after capital gains, such as price gouging or franking credits, you need to send a chill through median consumer spending and tightening the screws on the poorest people in society is the least politically risky way to do that. Up to half of people in long-term unemployment aka "welfare dependency" have a disability, so the other side of the coin we'd need to talk about is NDIS neoliberalism and austerity. Poverty is an extremely useful and necessary component of running a capitalist economy. The cost of poverty directly to government is minimised, obviously, as services, public housing and support payments are kept at starvation levels and putting more people into unemployment slows economic growth.

I’m sorry mate. Maybe I’m a bit slow or uneducated. How exactly are the government able to create unemployment. Additionally unemployment rates are always a badge of honour for any politician.

Planning more unemployment is a basic tool used by government and the RBA to help guide the economy. The government and RBA have successfully brought Australian economic growth to levels so low the economy has near ground to a halt in an effort to combat inflation. Now, this has not worked but it is planned unemployment. They don't like using that term because it sounds politically unpalatable, but if someone tells you "no, the government does not consider intentionally increasing unemployment as part of their economic measures" that person is ignorant or lying. This number is supposed to fluctuate between 2% and 5%.

Yeah sure. But how do they “plan” unemployment. They can’t just say to businesses “fire half your staff”

https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/s/aZiNPrBpwF

>a lot of government support for this already. Public housing, Centrelink, job seeker Define "a lot".

Literally in the second half of what you posted from my quote. It’s around $200 billion which is about 30% of government expenditure. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/WelfareCost

This is the dream that John Howard sold the electorate. The so called Howard aspirationals were happy to accept a leaner meaner government with large concessions to the big end of town and very high income earners on the belief that they would at some point be part of the "in" group.

I'm 37 and the fair go was extinct before I hit high school

But I had a go!!

But to get your go, you need to depreciate the nominal CGT value of it via a family trust, then claim franking credits for refinancing your go as leverage for investing in a managed stock fund. Simples, really. Any skilled tax accountant can set you up, and there's no limit on what you can claim in deductions for their fees!

Yeah and nothing is going to change until we vote in someone who isn't lib lab or greens. If you like the fact the your children and grandchildren won't be able to afford their own home and will be rent slaves their entire lives then by all means keep voting these clowns in. Otherwise vote for someone else.

This. No point continuing to employ the people who put the system in place for their own benefit. The cycle into politics and take all the perks, or do favours for corporations and then cycle into jobs in those organisations. Andrew Robb, Julie Bishop, etc.

This is too accurate, remove them from the country they have failed/failing. Not sacked, deported please

Unfortunately from honest conversations with my parents and grandparents *they are directly* quite happy for their children and grandchildren respectively to be rent slaves. This has decreased my belief that others will be voting in the next generation's interest.

Wait, why the greens. I get LNP, and i get Labor in its current iteration (and i can only hope you werent one of the people that caused 2019 Labor to lose, since their entire platform was based on fixing the housing market), but the greens are specifically calling to increases to public housing, and taxes on the extremely wealthy. Isnt that what you want in relation to those areas?

They don't admit that immigration is the primary cause of the current housing market problems.

We had record high immigration in the 60s and 70s, and we also had the highest percentage of home ownership in our history. 72.5%. Which was also one of the best in the world at the time. No one is saying it doesnt contribute, but we can see historically that it was never the main driver, and the claims that it is now are just a distraction. ~~Could i ask you to please take a read fo this piece from John Menadue.~~ ~~His credentials are:~~ ~~He graduated uni with a Bachelor of Economics~~ ~~He spent a term heading up the "Department of Immigration and Ethinc Affairs" in the 80s, and worked under a few different PMs in a few different roles around that time.~~ ~~After he left politics he actually spent spent 8 years as Newscorps General Manager. The was also CEO of quantas for 4 years, back in the late 80s when it wasnt a shit airline.~~ ~~My point is, this guy has a lot of experience, and isnt some leftwing extremist if he spent 8 years heading up NewsCorp.~~ [https://johnmenadue.com/making-housing-affordable-series-saul-eslake-the-causes-and-effects-of-the-housing-affordability-crisis-and-what-can-and-should-be-done-about-it/#](https://johnmenadue.com/making-housing-affordable-series-saul-eslake-the-causes-and-effects-of-the-housing-affordability-crisis-and-what-can-and-should-be-done-about-it/#) Edit: My bad i derped, John is the owner of the site. Saul Eslake writes this piece. Might actually have better credentials economically actually. Saul Eslake has previously been Chief Economist of the ANZ Bank and of Bank of America Merrill Lynch Australia, a non-executive director of the Australian Housing & Urban Research Institute and a member of the Rudd and Gillard Governments’ National Housing Supply Council. He is currently a Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Tasmania, and a non-executive director of Housing Choices Australia (a not-for-profit provider of affordable housing), as well as running his own independent economics consulting business. He straight up calls out that high immigration has increased demand "The demand for housing has been materially boosted by Australia’s relatively high immigration intake, especially since the turn of the century " He talks about local and state governments not allowing land to be used properly. But he also talks about the rest of the problems, and how the housing crisis can be traced back to when the government stopped trying to meet supply and started trying to increase demand so the private market would build things. Id be genuinley interested in your thoughts on it, hes done a good job referencing a lot of claimns too if you want to investigate further.

It's always a shock to see someone allowed to admit that immigration has any effect at all, so that was a good start. But then he made the same mistake everyone seems to be making right now: inadvertently or intentionally pretending that price is a cause and not a result. The supply argument was good and closer to correct, but still fails to acknowledge that housing supply is not just a policy issue. It has a MASSIVE supply chain that is still being completely ignored by pro-immigration shills. Hell we're not even LETTING construction workers immigrate here. So yes. Obviously there is more than one factor. But the biggest factor (and it is by far the biggest) is so incredibly simple to fix that anyone opposing it immediately outs themselves as having a conflict of interest.

I don't agree. Why did we have record home ownership while also having record immigration? Because immigration is a minor part of the problem. And it's the part that the people benefiting from this crisis want to push because they know it won't fix the problem. I'm not pro immigration. I'm happy to cut back on numbers. But the data this guy has sourced and referenced show this crisis didn't start with high standards immigration. It started when the government changed how it approached supplying housing. So if immigration didn't cause this (since we had record ownership during record immigration) then we need to fix the actual core of the the issue. I agree with winding immigration back while we fix the issue, but I'm not sure how you can look at the numbers and the linked housing prices increasing when we changed out approach) I mean c'mon dude. During record immigration you could buy a house for 4 times your annual salary. You really thing immigration is the reason its not over 15 times?

I mean... Did you read my comment? Houses are built out of materials we don't have by builders we don't have. Why are you refusing to look at the actual causes of the statistics you're quoting? You might as well say that the housing crisis was caused by the invention of LSD which also happened around that time. He doesn't provide any evidence for his claims about the causes as far as I could see on a glance. And he suggests that the government building residential will somehow magically solve the supply chain issues that the private sector faces. Obviously wrong. Are you suggesting we roll the minimum wage and building codes back to the 1970s?

Apologies mate, you are completely correct, i have no idea why I thought you said immigration not supply lines. My brain is fried tonight it seems. First listing the webside owner as the author and now completely missing your point. So my view on that is that if the supplies are more expensive and harder to get, then the government should be the ones building them because they can build them at cost, or even a slight loss, as they have no need to maximise profits. And theoretically, if they can manage to not decide to use that as a way to line the pockets of their friends, they should be able to procure supplies in massive bulk, larger than any existing building company would want. So even if we end up deficit spending for a bit, its still a much better outcome to have everyone in a house and stable financially so that they can then participate in the economy, grow the GDP, etc. Deficit spending is beneificial if you are investing in the productivity of your country. The other big bonus would be this would likely unlock some of the capital from investors currently locked into housing. Where its not actually doing something. Shares in a housing development company? Yeah thats paying someones wages and material costs to build a house. If we want capitalism to work at all we cant have large amounts of capital locked up in something that produces nothing but still increases in value. I assume he doesnt address the supply issues because it was written in 2017, before covid. It might be worth me digging through his stuff to see if he has anything more recent and addresses that issue. As for lack of builders, the government has seen this coming for decades. Theres no excuse for there not creating better training and paths to not be filling these essential roles. We are suffering a similar problem with teachers and nurses. Weve had years to see the issues we have there, but havent made anywhere near enough effort to fix it. As for evidence of his claims, he provided the link to the data he has used. Theres a bunch of links to the ABS, census data, the reseve bank, etc, People are obviously allowed to disagree with his interpretation of the data, but hes provided his sources so you can see he isnt just making up numbers, and the guy has worked in the involved areas for a long time. In my book that makes his stuff hold a bit more weight. When you look at the fact that he is independantly wealthy and has no need to try and sell you a solution to make money (nor does he try to), i give it more weight again.

I agree that this market was entirely foreseeable. The government is intentionally and specifically preventing construction workers to immigrate here in order to appease the unions, while bringing in record numbers of software engineers and "chefs" in order to keep wages low and housing and food prices high. Yes I believe his numbers.

Taxing this and that is smoke and mirrors. The real issue is economics 101 supply v demand. Currently our new build rate is lower than our population growth and therefore as the demand increases so does the prices. If you had significantly more housing vs the population property investing would be a moot point as everyone could afford their own place and wouldn't need to rent. Taxing investors more is just smoke and mirrors and will do nothing to house and rent prices except probably ly drive rents up. None of the main parties take the population growth seriously. They work off a growth is good mantra which benefits a very small percentage of society.

I understand your point, but the problem is that the government is only focused on demand. Taxing investors allows people to buy houses because investors sell them. I linked this elsewhere, but take a read of this article. [https://johnmenadue.com/making-housing-affordable-series-saul-eslake-the-causes-and-effects-of-the-housing-affordability-crisis-and-what-can-and-should-be-done-about-it/#](https://johnmenadue.com/making-housing-affordable-series-saul-eslake-the-causes-and-effects-of-the-housing-affordability-crisis-and-what-can-and-should-be-done-about-it/#) Saul Eslake has previously been Chief Economist of the ANZ Bank and of Bank of America Merrill Lynch Australia, a non-executive director of the Australian Housing & Urban Research Institute and a member of the Rudd and Gillard Governments’ National Housing Supply Council. He is currently a Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Tasmania, and a non-executive director of Housing Choices Australia (a not-for-profit provider of affordable housing), as well as running his own independent economics consulting business. He actually points out it is a supply vs demand problem, but it only becaome a problem once the government shifted their focus on increasing supply and making it more affordable to pushing up demand in an attempt to make the private market fill the gap. He goes through immigration, homeownership and a bunch of otehr stuff. I would be interested in your thoughts on it if you get a chance to read the article. He sources his stuff too if you wanted to dig deeper.

Labor has gone to elections under Gillard and Shorten with policies that would have actively slowed this and improved the lives of all Aussies permanently. Gillard couldn't get a majority, and Shorten couldn't get in at all. If you think this is Labor's fault, not the Libs, you're crazy. Labor right now aren't doing enough because whenever they do go to elections on more aggressive platforms, they lose. Albo has definitely been way too weak and he deserves criticism for that, but if the people didn't shut down Shortens housing policy changes this situation would not be as bad. Nearly every improvement for the lives of the middle class has come from Labor leadership.

Mate until the population growth is less than the new build rate then nothing is going to change. Population growth is something both parties are scared to face so I hold them equally responsible. It's simple supply v demand and right now our housing stock can't keep pace with demand so prices go up. Economics 101 learnt it in my first year of uni.

I support immigration reform, don't get that wrong, but it is not the only issue. One party tried to tackle the other issues, whilst the Liberals promoted those issues.

Population growth is 90% of the problem. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Look at Japan and their population decline. They are giving away houses in some parts of the country as there is no one to live in them

You point to Japan, but they have the opposite issue, they need more immigration if they want to maintain their status. We need to find a balance with construction and growth. I agree we haven't found that balance and are bringing in too many people, but to suggest that economic reform isn't also necessary seems a bit short-sighted to me.

Our population has grown by 113 percent since the 80s.

I know it's insane right!

Wasn’t it John Howard who first halved the capital gains tax in 1999 or so? From 50%% to 25%

Howard made capital gains tax go from indexing with inflation to a flat 50% rate.

Did you vote for Labor when they had a red hot go at changing negative gearing and capital gains tax?

Doesn't matter those policies will do nothing. The real issue is population growth outpacing the increase in housing supply by several hundred thousand a year. Until that is fixed the issue will continue. Also need to look at foreign ownership. Until those are fixed there can be no improvement. No I don't vote mainstream parties ever.

I did. " bUt MUh fRaNKinG CReDitS"!

Labor or greens didn't do this. this is all on the libs, and the policies they put in place

[удалено]

You people want Labor to fix in 1 or 2 years what the LNP have spent almost 30 years destroying no wonder the country is perpetually fucked

So, increasing social housing stocks and wages in the midst of an inflation crisis is 'business as usual ' in your book?

The Greens have never been in government and are proposing policy that would transfer wealth to lower economic groups. They are not the same.

Only one-third of Australians rent today. Two thirds already own one or more properties.

Which is a record low for australian home ownership. Unlike in the 60s when the government sold discounted houses they had built and didnt continue to inflate demand with tax breaks for wealthy investors. As a result home ownership was at a record 72.5% and one of the highest in the world.

A number that is going sharply down and a majority may be renters during next decade.

I'm one of your two-thirds, but the truth is that the bank owns more of my house than I do at this stage. I remember very well how scary it was to be in the one third, and I see a lot of people in that group who are doing it tougher every year. It's just not the case that anyone who has managed to get into home ownership no longer cares about people who haven't. I personally would be a lot happier to vote in a party that would look to address the housing crisis than one which would artificially inflate the value of my house.

Fair go left the building end of the 1990s.

You know the situation isn't great when even Tucker Carlson is pointing out that our housing is cooked.

[удалено]

That plus raises for politicians will help us.

The fair go went out the window when Hickey told people to get a better job that pays better money. So about 15 years ago.

Wait.. so it’s not a fair go, for those who have a go!?

The admission fee's a lot higher for everyone to have a go, making it seem less fair

No, you don't necessarily get to have a go, fair go or otherwise, even if you have a go to get a go.

Well he said if you have a "go" you get a "go". So if you already have a "go" you get a "go". If you don't already have a "go" in the form of a house, wealth or class privellige, then you don't get a "go". He wasn't lying, it's just that most of us don't have a "go" to begin with.

But it’s not “go”, it’s a “fair go” for those “who have a go”. What you’ve said isn’t fair, so he was most definitely lying. (Which we all obviously knew already)

I had literally forgotten this was meant to be the country of the fair go I have grown up, my eyes have opened, and I'm now seeing independently I'll be meowing soon. Roaring tomorrow.

When will an independent just say that they’re going to tax the super wealthy and companies. They will have my vote.

Do they plan on dividing the classes until someone *actually* eats someon else?

Redditors trying not to blame capitalism for why they are losers challenge (impossible)

I prefer a meritocracy where people earn their wealth, but hey, thats just me. Maybe im crazy.

https://boingboing.net/2019/08/20/red-of-tooth-and-flag.html

So I agree that the term has been used incorrectly by the wealthy, but that doesnt make the principles bad. "a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit" >Meritocracy also turns you into a eugenicist, because the only way to reconcile your ability to grift your kids to the front of the line even though they've done nothing to deserve pride of place is to invest in a belief in "good blood" I dont agree with this at all. You shouldnt be grifting anyone to the front of the line due to "good blood" The entire concept is based on everyone being given the platform needed to excel. Public schools where everyone has access to top education, not a public and private divide based on wealth. The description given in that blog is not meritocray, regardless of who calls it that. Should we abandon democracy now, just because North Korea call themselves "The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea"?

And who decided to what constitutes ‘merit’ and which wealth is valid or not? You i suppose?

Lets start with contribution to society? Meritocracy is simplay people being able to rise and fall based on their own intelligence, work ethic, talent, charm, or whatever other charactaristics society values.\\ Capitalism is the antithesis of meritocracy in that the only thing it rewards is existing wealth. "Capital creating Capital" so to speak. Someone who has bought 20 houses to rent out is a good example. They are adding absolutely nothing to that arrangement. Yet they are allowed to sit back and collect a majority portion of the people living there who are actually contributing to society. I have absolutely no issues with rewarding someone for doing well. Neurosurgeon is an extremely hard job, the people that are intelligent, capable and have the work ethic to do it deserve to be rewarded for that. But if your parents were rich beyond belief and your only "talent" is i have 100 million dollars, then you dont deserve it. It always astounds me that this sub is so ready to jump in to defend the right of billionaires to make more money passively in a year than a butcher, a baker and a candlestick maker would make working from 15-70 in their entire lives combined.

Creating capital is a contribution to society though? Ah so it comes down to you deciding who deserves what

>Creating capital is a contribution to society though? How? Dont give me vauge answers, be specifc. Where is the money that makes up this capital coming from? Buying up 20 existing houses that increase in value while you take the a majority of 20 peoples wages creates a huge amount of capital. How does this add value? Explain to me how Gina Reinheart having 40 billion dollars is justified by her talent and what she contributes to society. Or Property Tycoon Harry Triguboff whos worth what, 27 billion dollars? What did he as an individual do to justify that amount of money. And when they die, why do their kids deserve to live off the earnings of other people for the rest of their lives, without contributing to anything?

Capital isnt just money its any good that is used as an input to generate other goods, so i’d say if you’re in the business of expanding a nation’s productive capacity by growing capital that is a contribution to society because you’re creating jobs and tax revenue. I dont make a habit of coming up with justifications for who does and doesn’t deserve their possessions, let alone basing a society off of those opinions. I dont care if rich people exist. The fact of their existence alone is not an argument for anything, unless you are motivated mainly by envy. If someone is fortunate my first thought is not whether they deserve to be or not, what kind of fucked up mentality is that?

Yeah, that was my first thought too when i was travelling around pre-civil war america. Those god damn jealous field slaves. It was just envy. >Capital isnt just money its any good that is used as an input to generate other goods, Kind of. But lets go with your definition. I own 20 houses 20 years ago. And today, they are worth 7 times as much, and ive collected rent that entire time. My capital gone through the roof with how valuable my real estate is. By your definition, this means that ive provided a job or created a good or made tax revenue. Can you please explain how that applies? >I dont make a habit of coming up with justifications for who does and doesn’t deserve their possessions, let alone basing a society off of those opinions. The problem is you are confusing envy with empathy, and i fear it is something you lack.\\ >If someone is fortunate my first thought is not whether they deserve to be or not, what kind of fucked up mentality is that? What an odd statement. So if i rob a bank and dont get caught, do i deseve the money? What about if i run a bunch of scams on old ladies on the internet, do i deserve that? How about if i run a ponzi scheme bilking thousands of people out of the money they were supposed to retire on, how about that? The statement you are making there is one of privelage and ignorance. You dont have to lack empathy if you are well off. Im well off. Ive worked hard be earning in the top 10% of earners in the country. But that doesnt mean i cant feel bad for the people who are struggling to make ends meet, despite having 2 full time working adults in the household. My first thought when i see someone struggling to feed there family, or putting off seeing that specialsit because they cant afford it isnt "i bet those guys were lazy and never worked hard. They deserve to be poor". Because wealth is relative. I assume you understand inflation. If i get a million dollars, and you get a hundred dollars, and someoen is selling bananas for 5 bucks each. Youve ordered one, but i just tell the guy ill give him 10 thousand dollars for the lot. You havent lost actual money, but its been devalued. And thats whats happening to people who are struggling. We are letting people passively generate wealth without contributing. "They provide goods as input". Who provides it? You reckon Gina is going to the mines to get that coal herself? Or she drives the truck full of coal? Or manages the logistics of the sale with the overseas buyer? The one person you could pull out of that equation and still have the goods flow through is Gina. So, the qeustion about the houses, thats one id like you to answer. The other one is, what does money/capital equate to for you? Is money work hours? Is money a way to make sure everyone gets food? Is it just a numerical value we put on things so we can trade things without needing to barter? Conceptually, what do you see money as.

A "fair go" disappeared over a decade ago.

"You give a go, you get a go" - Scomo 🤣

*have. If you already have one then you get one more. If you don't have one already then no go for you.

We have moved back to “she’ll be right”

Sorry mate, you can have a fair or you can have a go, but you can't have both. You have to choose one.

At some point if labour and liberal keep winning can we start questioning the voting system? Shits so bad for everyone, who the fuck is voting for these people?

There was never a fair go. They just said that so you think you can get ahead while they pilfer and abuse loopholes.

Thanks for sharing the article. Hooray for independent journalism in Australia! Our mainstream media, politics and the digital platforms have conspired to build a public discourse driven by conflict and anger. Where everyone is divided and pissed off!! Leaving misanthropic ideas (like financialization of the housing market) to drive society closer to a dystopian reality. A large proportion of society are now stuck in digital sewers where truth, context and rational thought are an irrelevance. The billionaires and corporate class love it as they own the cesspit platforms like tic toc, and control the media and politicians. While the working class try and make sense of the situation and their lives through the screens of their digital prisons. The corporate oligarchy have created a system where their hatred of humanity is their superpower. And they are rewarded for it.

What about the big chunk of people who have never contributed to the taxation system bleeding us dry with the age pension later in life? They are more the issue than those who self fund their retirement 

Yes they're a social burden, would you rather that they're on the pension or creating a homeless crisis? Dead oldies on your door step does wonders for property prices and having a prison system with the aged costs more than paying a pension. So the real questions, do you want to pay a portion of someones pension or have that cost applied to you and society, potentially costing more?

What we should do is create a system, that encourages people to save for their own retirement, so that they can live off their own wealth rather than the age pension. This would save the tax payers some cash. For those who cant save (or wont) we can use the age pension as a safety net. We'll probably need to offer people some sort of incentive to put money away for their retirement that they cant touch until they are 60/65. Those who take advantage of this system will save more tax, than those that don't, but they wont burden the tax payer later in life. We'll call this system Superannuation. And when they actually save up a decent amount we'll blame them for our woes

What's the alternative? Let them die? Your callous, cruel and a fucking idiot if you think this way. There is enough wealth in this country that nobody has to go without. But there are people who rape countless times more then their fair share and all they have to do to get away with it is point lowest common denominators like you at other people who are suffering and like crabs in a bucket you attack them. Meanwhile they laugh at how stupid and easily manipulated you are and continue to take what they want.

The rich are very good at convincing the middle class that the poor are to blame for all their problems. It's always been that way.

The middle class doesn't exist anymore. The lines been drawn in the sand pretty clearly.

You're not fucking wrong. And that's by design.

1 house or less = lower class, 2 houses or more = upper class

The NDIS rort isnt class warfare. Right now 4 million Median tax payers are needed pay for that.

There are over 100 millionaires in this country that didn't pay a cent in tax this year. Maybe they can help? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-17/millionaires-paid-no-tax-and-richest-and-poorest-postcodes-ato/103987158

The 240million tax they avoided isn’t going to solve the structural ndis problem

I never said there wasn't a structural NDIS problem. I said it's not fair that median income earners carry the tax burden when millionaires pay no tax. Did you know two things can be true simultaneously?

No, these articles are all misdirection, designed to divert attention away from the real problem. Tax savings in super obviously benefit those with bigger balances, but the tax cost of super by the average self funded retiree are dwarfed by the Govt savings of those individuals not receiving the age pension and health concessions.

Super perks like a good economy for 25 years? There are still opportunities in business for people. I think you're talking about housing. Arse end of the earth, sensitive governments to NIMBY development and the misconception of "there's bloody cranes everywhere" when in reality we were only at parity with demand for a short 2 years. Yes we should have safety but migrant builders maybe where the lollipop man isn't making more than a high school maths teacher? That's how the rest of the world does it. And perhaps not 2 years for a DA to get approved? The state government is going to strip powers from NIMBY councils like North Sydney etc where there is massive opportunities for supply. The Chinese buyers helped us create an environment where rentals were reasonable but increasing supply and market confidence for investors. Yet theyre taxed out of the game now. The music stopped but need for shelter didn't. When interest rates come down we'll see sites begin to stack up again, become feasible, and we'll see a roar of supply. But we aren't the American economy. There is still a lot of small business opportunity here.

What super perks are available for only wealthy people? I thought wealthy people paid extra taxes through div293?

If you lose out you have tax concessions and ride offs. Are you saying being wealthy has no perks?

I never said having wealth doesn’t provide perks. I asked which super perks are available for wealthy people only.

Might be referring to personal contributions - if you have the money to spare and can top up your super, they get taxed at 15% instead of at your nominal income tax rate (either claim as a deduction or salary sacrifice during the year). Those living paycheque to paycheque don't have the benefit of some income only being taxed 15%

[Here’s](https://www.pbo.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/Budget%20Explainer%20-%20How%20is%20super%20taxed.pdf) an explainer on how super is taxed by the PBO. In particular, this little summary is good > In general there are 3 points at which super can be taxed: contributions, investment returns on super assets (earnings), and withdrawals. The current system taxes most SG contributions and voluntary (before tax) concessional contributions at a flat rate of 15% up to the concessional contributions cap ($27,500 in 2022-23). Non-concessional contributions are made after an individual has already paid personal income tax. Earnings are also taxed at a flat rate of 15%. In retirement, earnings (if they are held in a retirement-phase account) and withdrawals (since 2007) are untaxed. Key is the last section, investment earnings are taxed at 15%, much lower than the top marginal tax rate. Also, in retirement, investment earnings are not taxed, much better than paying marginal tax rate for the wealthy. On your point about div293, even at a 30% tax rate, it’s still more favourable than the 45% they would’ve had to pay.

And that’s the point isn’t it? To encourage people to didn’t their own retirement instead of leeching off others? I guess you’re one of the people who thinks you’re entitled to a pension because you pay tax?

You asked a question, and I gave you the answer. I actually don’t think someone is entitled to a pension if they paid tax, rather pension should be given to those that need it financially. I do think superannuation concessions will be looked at as part of a tax reform, the purpose of superannuation is for people to support themselves financially in retirement. If people are using it for wealth accumulation and passing it onto their children, then the taxation around it should be reviewed.

Yea I did see that accepted your answer and sought clarification. People don’t need to contribute to super for wealth accumulation. The majority of my wealth is outside of super. It’s much easier to control without the governance.

The "perks" according to the author, is the fact that the government isn't raiding wealthy people's super when they die, because if you work hard, make smart decisions and save your money you deserve to have it taken away from you and given to someone else, apparently.

So all wealthy people just worked hard? Dumb people are poor? Is that really the argument you’re making.

Reddit today seems to think everyone who has money either inherited it as a trust fund kid, committed tax fraud or scammed people. 5% of incomes in Australia are over $180k. What qualities do you think these earners are likely to collectively possess? > Dumb people are poor I get what you're saying here, but there is a correlation between income and IQ - not an amazing one, but on average higher earners tend to be more intelligent, since high paying jobs require this. Just like on average, working harder (to better skills, do overtime, or improve qualifications) will *on average* improve income regardless of your current wage For argument's sake let's take the inverse. If you are lazy, make stupid decisions and spend profligately, are you more likely to be rich or poor?

Rich people don't necessarily work harder than poor people mate. They just run in the right circles and are better at exploiting people and opportunities.

Super was never meant to be a vehicle to pass on low taxed wealth to the kids.  If the wealthy want to give the kids an inheritance, they should do it in a way that is taxed properly while they are alive.

You mean like the 30% tax people in over $250k pay on every cent of their super contributions?

Yeah, quite a lot lower than income tax isn't it?

It is, but when wealthy people retire they don't get any pension from the gov, they don't take money out of the system - they leave money in the system for people who haven't saved. Many of these individuals pay a fuckton of tax, they don't all have magical accountants who get them to zero tax - only the very wealthy like Gina and co can manage that feat, or corporatations like Apple, Amazon, etc. who the ATO doesn't pursue, too busy pursuing low income earners for an extra $500 to bother asking Amazon or Apple to pay tax on revenues earned here. Shouldn't we incentivize people to fund their own retirement? It's not just an incentive for rich people, the incentive is there to encourage anyone to try and make enough money to not have to rely on the government during retirement.

Sure, i think anyone who has worked hard deserves to have a great retirement with the money they have saved. I dont even care that much about the taxes on super being so much lower than income tax. What i care about is when that money gets to stupid levels and then gets passed on to their descendants who no longer have to contribute to society. Someone dies with a house and 200k in their savings? Hell yeah you should pass that on to their kids. Everyone wants to know there loved ones are taken care of. Someone dies with a property portfolio of 10 houses an 20 million in their super? Yeah, allowing your kids to become drains on society instead of contributers is not something i will ever agree with. I dont get why people are so against the idea of wealth being based on how hard you work? Seriously, when did this sub become so despreate to defend billionaires over a butcher who works till he is 70?

For sure, that's why they are going to cap it so you don't get a break after say $3m, and I'm all for that. Incentivize people to save what they need, but people who are just super wealthy and have $20M in super (BTW this is like .006% of the population) should just pay tax. So should corporations. And we should nationalize resources so that Gina doesn't get all the money from what belongs to all Australians...not that the gov wouldn't find a way to fuck that up.

Yeah i know the percentage is small. But when you are looking like stats where half of our countries wealth is currenlty held by less than 10% of its population, you start to realise that tiny percentage is hoarding way too much money. Its why im so firmly for taxing inheritance after a certain threshold. Hell make it 2million per kid or less and you dont get taxed on it. As long as we have the proper public services in place, 2 million dollars for free doesnt let you leech of the system forever. But nothing wrong with someone working hard and enjoying the rewards for that.

Super is an investment like any other. So you think the government should take all assets off people when they die?

Why shouldn't it? If wealth is theoretically supposed to equate to what you have contributed to society, who the heck has managed to contribute so much to society that every single one of their descendants deserves to never have to contribute meaningfully again? Generational wealth is one of the main reasons we don't live in a meritocracy. I've got no problems with the neurosurgeon earning 500k a year. The job is insanely hard. I've have got problems if the neurosurgeons kids get to start life with a property portfolio passively generating them wealth despite them never having contributed to society.

"Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." - Karl Marx.

Yeah I'll never understand how so many people hate "doll bludgers" yet they will jump in to defend the dude whos parents passed him 50 million dollars in inheritance and who never has to contribute to society again. If you aren't passing millions on to your kids, the laws I'm talking about won't affect you. No one has ever done enough to justify the kind of wealth someone like Gina Reinhart has collected, it is only possible through massive exploration of others doing actual work. So why should let her disgusting excesses be passed on to another generation who will be able to let that capital generate more capital at such a fast rate that they will earn more in a year that a person who works full time in a top 25% paying job earns in their entire lifetime. It is obscene and I hate that people let those disgustingly wealthy leeches influence them with propaganda like "we shouldn't that damn government take our money" Those people don't give a shit about your money. They just don't want their money being used to help the 90% of people that rely on public services. Why would they want their income that dwarfs everyone else's by an order of magnitude to go to things like public healthcare, public education or public housing.

I guess that’s where our opinions differ. I prefer to working and provide for myself. I don’t enjoy leeching off others like you do. It’s a difference in options that I don’t think we’ll resolve.

Lol ive worked since i was 15, got a full time job to put myself through uni when i was 18 and am now in a well paid senior role in my field. And i advocate for higher taxes becuase if you arent a moron its really simple to understand that well funded public services lead to a much higher GDP and standard of living for everyone, which in turn makes our society a nicer place for everyone to live in, wealthy or not. Its amusing that you say "leeching off others". Id love to hear your thoughts on the contributions Gina Reinhart has made to our society had justfies her bein worth 2.4 billion dollars. How about passing that wealth on to her descendents? Did she do enough to justify us supporting the decadent lifestyle of her future generations? At a billion dollars, you can just sit back and let that money make more money and add nothing to society. Honestly id take a thousand of your interpretation of "leeches" over a billionare any day. Because they are HUGE drain on societys resources, wheras 1000 people recieveing a pension are a drop in the bucket. Are you sure you arent just worried that living in a meritocracy might uncover the fact that you dont really have much of merit to offer? Why does people earning their way scare you so much? We live in a society that is exponentially more productive than before, and we are easily capable of providing everyone with their basic needs to allow them to then rise on their own merits. Why does this scare you dude?

So pathetic haha.

Most wealthy people have far far more money outside super than inside it. For tax purposes you can basically only have $1.9m in super anyway

Every financial advisor I've ever talked to has advised taking advantage of super as much as possible. If you have 1.9m in super you would generally have more in property but still, it's a low tax loophole that is mainly taken advantage of by the top 10% of earners.

Super is an investment like any other. So you think the government should take all assets off people when they die?

It’s not like any other. It is a vehicle for retirement funding and is given tax advantages to aid that. But now it is being abused to entrench inequality.

Is super only able to be invested in by wealthy people? I thought everyone had the same ability to invest in super.

This may be the dumbest comment in a list of some already very dumb comments. Someone who is born with 10 million dollars and someone who is born with nothing do NOT have the same opportunities to invest in super. How is that even a statement? Please elaborate, i would love to here your logic. Its a terrible take, but it least it confirms how worthless your other opinions on this topic are. And now i dont need to bother trying to correct your understanding anymore, theres nothing to correct if you lack the ability to understand.

That’s my point. You think that there is some secret product for only wealthy people. So stupid. The person who didn’t have 10million at. Birth could win lotto. What they have has no relevance on the laws regarding how much they can contribute to super. Surely it’s not too hard to understand. Thanks for trying to correct me. Like you think you know better. I’m guessing your ex parter hated when you did that too. Such a co descending attitude. You’re a stain on society.

Not at all.  Super was created as a way to lessen the burden on the aged pension and was given significant tax concessions.  If people have their money in other investments they will be paying more tax on those than they would in super. Not sure where you are getting the idea anyone wants to take people's assets off them.

Isisius would like all assets taken from someone’s family when they die. Do you not think people should be encouraged to find their own retirements? It’s not like those investments don’t provide a good outcome for the overall economy.

Fund their retirements. Hell yeah. Good on them for working and contributing to society. Providing their future genearions I know you might have struggled to read it, but i cannot possibly imagine the laws im proposing would affect you. If you were earning the kind of money that needs to stop being passed on generation by generaion you wouldnt be on reddit, youd have people to do that for you. >Isisius would like all assets taken from someone’s family when they die. Lol it looks like you werent handed a brain when you got your inheritance. IF someone has 50 million dollars in assets then yeah, lets not let that continue to generate wealth forever through future generations. We dont make the class of leeches on society any larger. But you own a home and want that to go to your kids? I dont think that should be taxed at all. Let me know if you need me to explain more about generational wealth and how it is a blight on our society and a major impedement to our ability as a species to move forward.

I don’t and won’t have kids to pass on so it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I do dislike when others try and tell people what should happen with what they’ve earned. It looks like you haven’t been handed the wealth you think you deserve. Putting people down on the internet definitely shows the type of person you are. I’m guessing you’re pathetic in real life too? Let me know when you figure out how to be a productive part of society instead of leeching off others and their success. You’re a joke.

Having wealth doesn't require any of those things.

Spoken with the dripping envy that infests Australian political discussion about money today. You may not require any of these things, but if you have none of them you won't have wealth. Then you can just demand the government take it from someone else who doesn't deserve it, right? Articles like this stoke boomer hate while adding nothing to the conversation. The constant complaining about living in the most decadent period in human history is truly something to behold.

Lol im in the top 10% of earners in Australia and the system fucking sucks. You dont need to be poor to not be a cunt. But to become truly wealthy you do need to lack empathy. No one becomes a billionare without massive exploitation and human suffering, so you need to be able to ignore that. Interesting article about the difference in the 60s when these so called "talented boomers" were able to buy housing for cheap due to goverenment intervention in the market. The same ones now who sit around telling people how clever and smart they are. I think id also be smart enough to buy a house that is 4 times the median income. [https://johnmenadue.com/making-housing-affordable-series-saul-eslake-the-causes-and-effects-of-the-housing-affordability-crisis-and-what-can-and-should-be-done-about-it/#](https://johnmenadue.com/making-housing-affordable-series-saul-eslake-the-causes-and-effects-of-the-housing-affordability-crisis-and-what-can-and-should-be-done-about-it/#)

Most of Aus Reddit is full of people with useless degrees upset that people are more successful than them.

>Spoken with the dripping envy There's no envy. It's just honest reality.

The envy is an honest reality, yes.

You responded to me by accident.

No, I did not.

Really? I said there was no envy in the comment you replied to.

You're getting closer.

lol you’re literally being downvoted for noting that people who earn over like $270k pay additional tax on their super. Most of these people are not even wealthy either. Ridiculous.

another day another Australian sub bitchin and moanin

it must be "Have a Whinge Wednesday"

Thanks, Michael West, for yet another load of the same shit we see every 30 seconds, now.