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.