We've just had the Economic Reform Roundtable, which begged comparisons with the summits of Hawke, and even the Australia 2020 summit of Kevin Rudd. My first take out from it is that we live in an age of pygmies. This roundtable, compared to the others, lacked ambition. No one came to it with any grand ideas. Rather there were a few twee tweaks, the most bizarre of which came from the Productivity Commission which proposed to cut company tax by inventing a new type of tax and increasing the tax burden on larger, more productive, companies.

This is probably a result of the Lotus Land, she'll be right mate, approach of the government. We live in a world where our biggest trade partner is our biggest security risk, and is threatening to start an Indo-Pacific War over an independent nation - Taiwan. At the same time our way of life would be unaffordable without the royalties we make from selling iron ore and coal to them. Yet that would stop immediately.

Then there is immigration which has pushed home ownership out of the reach of a whole generation and will be difficult and painful to reverse.

And the energy transition, which has accelerated the decline in our manufacturing sector.

None of these threats were even mentioned in the framing of the conference, let alone tackled. Instead the lack of outcome or progress was obscured by word salads seeking to reinvent the word productivity so it means something else.

At least they did decide to tax EVs for their road usage - one minor and completely insufficient policy, but a good one.

I suggest that posters take a look at last Friday's ‘TheOtherSide’, with Graham participating, for an excellent summary of a ‘summit’ in which the two main problems - government overspending, and mass immigration of the Third World - were not mentioned.

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it”. (Ronald Reagan)

WTF?

There was more in it then taxing EVs.

“It’s been a very productive three days,” Bran Black, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, said".

"Business groups praised the “constructive” roundtable process, and said they were ready to continue to work with the government to progress the priorities identified by the treasurer".

"Andrew McKellar, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said, “we want to see the government developing an ambitious agenda for reform that will drive productivity and economic growth in the years ahead.

They’ve taken a very consultative approach to this. We appreciate that, and we want to continue forward in the spirit that we’ve had in the past three days".

One thing that resonated with me was "Change could focus on intergenerational fairness in the system, incentivising business investment rules to promote growth and making the system simpler".

The concept of "intergenerational fairness" carries a lot more weight than the "who'll think of the children?" meaningless trope pushed by right-wing virtual signallers.

I don't hear much talk about intergenerational fairness from the "I've got mine" mob suckling on the public teat.

That should have read "right wing virtue signallers".

WTF is right to point out there was more substance than Graham suggested.

"Intergenerational fairness," simplification, and investment incentives aren’t just froth, and the fact that the BCA and ACCI are still leaning in suggests they saw something worth pursuing.

But the lack of boldness remains.

Intergenerational fairness sounds promising, yet unless the hard levers - negative gearing, CGT discounts, planning bottlenecks, even immigration settings - are touched, it risks staying a slogan rather than becoming policy.

And this is where the age of misinformation bites. The moment a government proposes trimming investor tax breaks or recalibrating migration, you can almost script the headlines:

"Labor declares war on mums and dads" - Sky News
"Housing Tax Grab: Treasurer eyes family homes" - The Australian
"Migration freeze to wreck economy, experts warn" - AFR op-ed, sponsored by the Property Council

Faced with that kind of outrage cycle, it’s safer to redefine productivity in word salads than to actually move the dial.

So yes, there was some substance, but bold reform is rationed now that every proposal is instantly weaponised, then further distorted in right-wing echo chambers.

Commentator Nick Cater describes Jim Chalmers as a “deformer” rather than the reformer that Jim thinks himself to be, as he makes a grab for Australians’ retirement savings, and indicates that taxes will rise.

Anything but cutting the government's own spending is on the cards.

“Labor is engaging in age-war politics”, handing student debt onto taxpayers, and hammering ‘rich’ older people, who have what they have because they have earned it.

Cater claims that there is no evidence that the ‘poor bubbas’ face any more obstacles than previous generations have or that the “selfish behaviour” of older people exists. And the taxes paid by people under 30 have dropped from 26% to around 10%, while those in the 60-69 age group have more than doubled since 1980.

Intergenerational equity is an “intellectually lazy concept” concept abused by the Albanese government, according to Cater.

You almost got it in one John Daysh.

The Australian headline is: "Intergenerational equality" a cover for Labor's savings raid.

the https link contains this gem:dont-be-fooled-the-treasurer-is-eyeing-off-our-retirement-savings/news-story

And right on cue, along comes Nick Cater to show exactly what I meant about boldness being instantly weaponised.

(Thanks, ttbn!)

"Intergenerational fairness" gets raised at a Roundtable as a way of acknowledging that younger Australians face higher housing costs, ballooning HECS debts, and insecure work - and Cater calls it "intellectually lazy."

He reframes any discussion of tilting the balance as "age-war politics" and a "grab" at retirement savings. That’s the script: recast systemic problems as generational envy, and dismiss fairness as class warfare.

But the data tells a different story.

Home ownership among under-40s has collapsed compared to their parents at the same age. The median HECS-HELP debt has doubled in a decade. And the very "selfish behaviour" Cater denies is visible in policy settings that preserve tax breaks for property and super - benefits weighted heavily toward older, wealthier cohorts.

This is exactly why governments tread water in word salads. Because the moment you broach reform, the Cater chorus brands it "lazy" or "envious" - and suddenly the policy debate is buried under culture-war noise.

The guy's an absolute moron.

WTF?

Once again ttbn falls for a simplistic view on taxation without understanding the changing dynamic of Australian society.

The Commonwealth Government' Parliamentary Budget Office goes beyond just giving percentages for changing taxation contributions.

The PBO states: "The share of personal income tax paid by the 30- to 39-year-olds remained relatively stable throughout the 1980s and 1990s but declined from 2000 onwards. These trends reflect both the smaller share of the population in these cohorts and that a larger proportion chose to continue to study in post school education reducing their availability for work".

They continue with: "...older males and females 50 plus have increased their share. In the case of the 60 to 69 cohorts, they have doubled their share. For the 2 oldest cohorts, their share of tax falls around 2008.

The rise in the share of tax burden reflects an increase in workforce participation over the last four decades, largely driven by women.

Since 2017, the pension age has increased from 65 to 67 years, while the superannuation ‘preservation age’ has also increased, from 55 to 60. These changes have contributed to older men and women remaining in the workforce (and paying income tax) for longer".

The increase in preservation age was of course a Liberal Party policy bought in by John Howard.

The intellectually lazy input here is from ttbn who seems unable to understand the analysis of his own source material.

My criticism doesn't stop with the government. The industry organisations are equally culpable. I can remember a time when an industry organisation actually stood up against a government except around the edges.

The intergenerational issue isn't really about generations. What it boils down to is whether self-funded retirees are being taxed appropriately or not. I can't see an argument that says they aren't. They don't pay tax on superannuation withdrawals, but neither do I when I withdraw cash from my savings account. The income in the super account is taxed at the same rate as a younger person's, so that is equal too.

This is an example of conjuring up a non-issue and then proposing a possible solution that will actually make things more ineiquitable.

WTF?

Graham states: "I can remember a time when an industry organisation actually stood up against a government except around the edges".

So it appears that Graham's default position is that industry organisations should stand up against government regardless of the policy. I would suggest that industry and government being constantly opposed to each other would benefit neither. Logic would suggest that this is counter productive.

So it's now a bad thing that government and industry are trying to find common ground? Strange days indeed. It appears that Graham would be happier if industry was critical of the government after the roundtable.

I think that the 'intergenerational issue" is a bit more nuanced than just superannuation.

Contributions to superannuation are taxed. At a lower rate than company tax but I thought the right was gung-ho on lowering taxes.

Only about 55% of income earning Australians are net tax payers. Many get back far more in benefits than they pay in income tax. Some people spend their whole lives being supplemented by net tax payers.

The money in superannuation is invested to increase wealth. Surely having these vast sums of money cycling through the world of investment is a good thing.

I'm happy that I live in a country can supplement the income for about 45% of the population despite being a net tax payer myself. Clearly assisting others less fortunate has been a feature of our country for a long time.

It's now time to help younger Australians in their wealth building ambitions.

It's now time to help younger Australians in their wealth building ambitions.

WTF? - Not Again,
Well, it can't be done by increasing the rewards for non-performers & fleecing those who can least afford to provide more.
Expectations & entitlements have now surpassed the willingness & ability to contribute & this has set a bench mark impossible to work with !
We have no chance to achieve a balance with bought votes !

Indyvidual.

When it comes to taxation who are the "non-performers" and how are they "fleecing" others?

Who has these increased "expectations & entitlements"?

What are these increased "expectations & entitlements"?

Who bought the votes you mentioned?

How were these votes paid for?

Who was paid for their vote?

Thanks WTF, you quoted an obvious typo on my part - "can't" fits better into the sentence than "can". So that's part of the mystery solved. The other part is why you would expect industry organisations to go along with a government that is destroying their industries. There is no ultimate virtue in compromising for the sake of compromising. When you do that with unreasonable people you ultimately reach a reductio absurdum, like the claim that men and women can change to the opposite sex. If you don't call it a small absurdity our in the first place, you'll be having to accept a much larger one in the second.

My point on retirement is that the tax system is neutral between the generations. The older generations are living off accumulated fat, which the younger generation are accumulating so they can do the same thing. The intergenerational argument is a Trojan horse for taxing the fat in order to bribe the younger generation to vote for the government. It also suits the government to add an age war to the gender war.

There is one legitimate gripe the younger generation has, and that is housing. The greatest contributor to the housing crisis is uncontrolled immigration, and government rules and regulations that prevent adequate housing hitting the market. Albanese controls one end of that issue, and the states the other. Rather than tax oldies on what they've already paid tax on, put pressure on governments to fix the underlying problem.

It seems fairly clear that the government intends to use the talkfest as cover for doing what they wanted to do anyway.

It started out as an attempt to find new ways to boost productivity and ended up just being a cornucopia of ideas for tax increases.

Change tax regimes around road funding? Check. But we are assured that it'll be revenue neutral. Anyone who hasn't been comatose for the last 60 years knows that assurance never works.

Go after the great superannuation cash cow? Check.

Go after negative gearing? Check.

And all wrapped up around an "intergenerational fairness" slogan. Who could possibly be opposed to fairness? Therefore all these 'new' proposals are inherently on the side of the angels.

But they go on as though the decline of 'intergenerational fairness' is something that couldn't be foreseen and is caused by factors unknown and quite beyond the scope of government.

Yet its all caused by governmental and societal decisions. Address it by addressing those decisions is a solution that they can't countenance. So back to tax and spend.

So why is there intergenerational unfairness? Well how about if we look at the massive import of people who directly compete for jobs and resources with the 20-40 year old cohort. Would housing be cheaper and affordable if there weren't an extra 400,000 people looking for homes each year?

And then there are societal decisions. We've been telling the youth for decades that the path to prosperity was through higher education. The trades were a path to perpetual pauperism. How about we tell the kids that the trades are one of the few areas AI won't be going after.

/cont

/cont

The best path to generational wealth is marriage. Two people working to raise a family, get a home, build wealth for their and their kids future. But society has waged a war on marriage for 50 years.

And then we tell the kids to despair of the future because we've only got 12 years to save the planet. Why work for a future that doesn't exist?

If the real aim was to resolve intergenerational fairness, there are lots of things that could be done, none of which are being considered. But if the aim is to give cover for a further tax grab, then they'd do exactly what they are planning.

Business should be treating the Albanese government like terrorists are supposed to be treated: no compromise, no negotiation.

All Socialist governments fail when they interfere in the capitalist system, and most of them can't manage any of the very few things governments are required to do. They certainly fail on the economy.

Graham,

I think typos are part and parcel of posting. Thanks for the clarification.

The Australian National University has published a very comprehensive and quantitative report that goes a long way to explain why younger Australians have a gripe.

This paper shows that the tax and transfer system has become more generous to older Australians in recent decades. Government expenditure targeting older Australians – such as the age pension, aged care and health care – has increased significantly in real, per-person terms over this period. In contrast, net expenditure targeting younger households remains relatively constant.

Trends have significantly changed the nature of the Australian tax and transfer system and the age profile of the final (after taxes and transfers) income distribution. In the first 10 years of the study (1993/94 to 2002/03), Australians aged over 60 had private income equal to 41% of the income of Australians aged 18-60 and average final income equal to 61% of the income of Australians aged 18-60. In the final ten years of the study, the pre-tax income of Australians aged over 60 was 65% of the population aged 18-60, and post-tax income is equal to 95% of their income. This trend is even more notable when Australians over the age of 60 are compared to those aged 18-30.

It's very hard to argue that there is not intergenerational unfairness after consideration of this data.

mhaze,

Your painting of the Roundtable as “cover for tax grabs,” oversimplifies what actually came out of it.

Yes, some revenue ideas were floated, but the most concrete signals were supply-side: pausing new building-code changes that were pushing up construction costs, streamlining approvals to speed up delivery, and drawing in more institutional capital for housing.

That is productivity reform, not just a raid.

The Productivity Commission has been warning for years that Australia’s housing productivity has been going backwards, with fewer completions per worker and longer build times, and urged precisely these kinds of regulatory changes.

“Intergenerational fairness” isn’t just a slogan either. It reflects hard realities:

- home ownership among under-40s has collapsed compared to their parents at the same age;
- student debts ballooned enough to force changes to HELP indexation;
- and younger workers are far more exposed to insecure employment.

These are measurable structural shifts, not political inventions.

Immigration has certainly added pressure - last year’s record intake tightened rental markets sharply - but it’s not the sole driver of unaffordability. Tax concessions like negative gearing and the capital gains discount tilt demand towards investors; cheap credit has repeatedly inflated asset values; and planning bottlenecks keep supply lagging behind demand.

Even if migration were halved, those pressures would still be there.

Nor does the “just get married” line address the economics. Two incomes can help service a mortgage, but they don’t alter the underlying price-to-income ratio that has blown out across all household types.

You can’t marry your way past land scarcity or investor tax breaks.

If you want to criticise the Roundtable, the fair question is whether the government will actually act on the Productivity Commission’s agenda and take on politically sensitive distortions like negative gearing and super concessions.

That would be genuine reform.

What we see instead is every mention of fairness being instantly weaponised as a “raid” or “age war.” As I said before, those headlines keep bold reform buried under word salads.

Got a link for that paper WTF? My suspicion is that they are counting drawing down assets from super as income, which it isn't, but I don't want to jump the gun.

Graham,

Try this link: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/content-centre/research/measuring-changing-size-intergenerational-transfers-australian-tax-and

Certainly higher capital income and superannuation are classified as income for this study and the opportunity to tax that is identified.

A deep dive into this paper would make for an interesting topic in its own right. One of their insights is "To achieve a fiscally sustainable budget over the coming decades, Australia must choose between increasing taxes and reducing government expenses. The consequences of this adjustment should be borne, at least in part, by older Australians. Achieving budget sustainability solely by increasing taxes on Australians of working age (mostly by growing personal income tax revenue through bracket creep) will worsen generational imbalance in the tax and transfer system".

One thing I have considered before is mentioned: "Individuals don’t know how long they are going to live and in the absence of a government pension, would be forced to ‘over save’ to cover expenses in case they live to a very old age. Government funded services targeting older groups (age pension, aged care and health care) is a form of insurance against this longevity risk".

Thanks GY for the thread. Kudos.

“It’s been a very productive three days,” Bran Black, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, said".
Let's ask him about that in twelve months !