Shorten knows that with Turnbull he is free to set the agenda. Because Turnbull isn't so sure of his own values and consequently is over-willing to please others. Yet Turnbull has the upper hand as PM.

Imagine a LNP leader who is equipped and prepared to (for argument's sake) firmly re-state the values of Australia, while at the same time drawing out the parallels in the values of many cultural groups.

Turnbull has to be positive and eschew the temptation to score easy political points and to leave the catty remarks to the other side. The left is much better at sniping anyhow, with the politics of jealousy for example.

Turnbull can easily come down positively, constructively and firmly on the shared (with other cultures) common values of: family; freedom of thought, conscience and speech for ALL; fruitful work; free and fair markets and free enterprise; fiscal responsibility and accountability; and political ideas and actions that are rooted in a transcendent moral framework.

Even as an orator with the reins of government in his grasp, Turnbull comes across as pleading for love. He desperately needs some instruction on presentation and to allow his speech writers some room, instead of constraining them with 'but what will the ABC think about that..'.

Leoj, my motivation is not driven by jealousy, although I do know a few distant relies who will inherit in excess of 20 million each. Not bad for doing little more than being born lucky. In fact, under my scheme my own children would have to pay some tax.

The whole point is that unless we do some serious sole searching for a better, fairer, tax system, we are simply going to run out of money.

Besides, under my proposal there would be a very small percentage who would actually pay much tax at all, however, for those who leave hundreds of millions, if not billions, it would appear to be a way of generating taxes without effecting the masses, and without depriving those who inherit of what most would consider a very considerable amount, that being $500,000 (tax free) per sibling. With any remaining funds being more than half of the balance in after tax dollars. Not bad I would say.

Removing Ng or doing anything to falsely alter the housing market would be treading on dangerous ground simply because, like it or not, the economy runs on debt secured by the values of housing.

If we effect the values of housing to any real extent, in a negative way, which removing NG most certainly will, then the economy will shrink simply due to reduced borrowings, resulting in reduced spending.

Steely's concerns sheet back entirely to the CGT concession and tax planning surrounding it.

NG existed long before the CGT, so its convoluted Wiki 'definition', laced with with CGT considerations, is on tax planning using NG and not what it actually is (writing off a FY business operating loss against the FY income from paid employment).

NG stands apart from CGT and should be left untouched to leave the focus on the CGT concession. NG simply allows for bigger bets and therefore bigger absolute capital gains. How the gains are taxed is what needs addressing.

I'd explore a difference in CGT treatment between physical and financial assets. The value of a company share is based in the company's earning potential, which may or may not rely on it owning physical assets. I propose CG on physical assets, such as houses, should be indexed for inflation, but not CG on shares.

Costello's largess on super taxation needed some winding back, IMO, and the same is now needed for the CGT concession. Alone, NG is just time-shifting an operating loss and should be left as is because the taxman is no worse off. Steely's example of a retiree minimising tax by realising a capital gain in a year of no income stands aside of NG, and I see no reason why it should be legislated against.