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.