Latest news with #ACOSS
Daily Mail
24-06-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Simple question renters are too afraid to ask their landlord: 'It is unacceptable'
Almost 70 per cent of tenants are too afraid to ask their landlords for repairs over fears their rents will be increased, according to a new survey. The University of New South Wales (UNSW) and the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) surveyed 1,019 private renters. It found that 69 per cent feared that asking for repairs on their property would lead to a rent increase. Some 56 per cent were concerned it would lead to an eviction, while 52 per cent thought it would lead them to be blacklisted from further property rentals. Renters who were unemployed, living with a disability or had a low level of education were among the most worried about being evicted. Among the most common complaints about rental properties were problems with pests and structural issues. Thirty-one per cent of tenants faced pests like cockroaches and ants, 24 per cent dealt with leaks or flooding, 21 per cent had hot water problems, and 18 per cent reported bathroom mould. The report highlighted a 47 per cent rent surge over the past five years and urged national limits on price increases. ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie AO said the survey showed the major failures of the Australian housing market. 'It is completely unacceptable that people in the private rental market are nervous about asking for essential repairs because they fear a rent increase or eviction notice,' Dr Goldie said. 'Everyone deserves to be able to live in secure homes without the constant fear of losing their home.' Dr Goldie called on state and federal governments to cap rent increases, abolish no-grounds evictions and boost social housing in order to create more housing security. Mission Australia CEO Sharon Callister said it showed the crisis in Australia's rental market was getting worse, and having major social impacts. 'It makes clear that urgent reform is needed to ensure homes are safe, secure and genuinely affordable, so that people and families can put down roots, have stability and certainty, and thrive in their communities,' she said. On a Reddit thread discussing the report, some Aussies shared their stories of problems they've had with their rentals. 'The goal is to fly so under the radar that your landlord forgets about their property altogether, any hint of movement and before you know it you'll be funding their next P&O cruise,' one said. 'Forget rent increases, I'm always more concerned about not getting a lease renewal. I can wear a rent increase but the costs of having to find a new rental extend beyond just monetary expenditure,' a second added. Last month it was revealed the Albanese government is set to fall short of its own housing target of 1.2million homes by 2029 by around 250,000. Housing Minister Clare O'Neil came under fire earlier this week for a social media post where she and ACT Labor MPs bragged about building just 17 social homes in Canberra in seven months. 'We're here in Canberra visiting some brand spanking new homes, what do you reckon Chris?' O'Neil said in a TikTok on Friday. In an awkward game of catch, she tossed the phone to Chris Steel, ACT Minister for Planning and Sustainable Development, who then turned the camera on himself. 'Pretty good, 17 class C adaptable homes for new residents,' said a grinning Steel. He then threw the phone to Labor MP David Smith, who added: 'A great example of two Labor governments working together and taking pressure off housing right here in Bean'. 'And the good news is we're just getting started,' O'Neil said after Smith had tossed the phone back to her. 'This is 17 out of 55,000 social and affordable homes that our government is going to deliver to Australians over the coming few years.'
SBS Australia
23-06-2025
- Politics
- SBS Australia
Iran retaliates, with attacks on US bases in the Middle East
Iran has retaliated against the United States, launching missile attacks at U-S military bases in Qatar and Iraq. Qatar says it has successfully intercepted the missiles fired at the Al Udeid Air Base, and there have been no casualties. The Ain Al Assad base in western Iraq has also been targeted. Iran claims the number of missiles it fired at the base in Qatar matches the number of bombs the U-S dropped on its nuclear sites over the weekend. A spokesman for the Iranian armed forces, Colonel Iman Tajik, says the strikes are designed to send an unequivocal message to the world. (Farsi, then translated* "The message of the decisive action by the sons of the nation in the Armed Forces is clear and direct to the White House and its allies: The Islamic Republic of Iran, relying on Almighty God and the steadfast support of its devout and proud people, will not leave any act of aggression against its territorial integrity, sovereignty, or national security unanswered under any circumstances." The Australian Council of Social Services says around one in eight Australian adults, and one in six children, are now living below the poverty line. That's around 3.3 million people. It comes as the Salvation Army has released new research about just how dire things are for the people it helps. In a survey of 3,500 people it supports, more than one-third said they can only wash with cold water, and 43 per cent say they cannot afford toilet paper, menstrual products, or soap. The cost of living crisis is also affecting children's education, with 34 per cent of people saying their children have missed school as they cannot afford either the petrol to drive them there, or the relevant public transport fares. The New South Wales government is trumpeting more spending on essential services in the state budget. Treasurer Daniel Mookhey will today hand down the budget, his third. He says his government has reduced the state's gross debt by more than nine billion dollars since they took office in 2023, freeing up more money to spend on essential services. This budget will allocated around nine billion dollars over four years on public school infrastructure, largely focused on growing suburban communities. There will be 700 million allocated to the new Bankstown Hospital in Sydney's west, and 270 million dollars for various aspects of the justice system, including police technology, courts, and public spaces. The biggest cohort of First Nations graduates from a single degree have been celebrated at Monash University in Melbourne. The Master of Indigenous Business Leadership, now in its fifth year, is co-designed and led by Indigenous business leaders, Elders and academics. This year's graduating class includes 17 students from more than 20 communities across the country. Kaley Nicholson, a 2025 graduate with family lines throughout Victoria and into New South Wales, says she is excited about embracing First Nations knowledge. "There is nothing more self-determined or self-determining than having your own business. You make every decision, the success and failure of that business really rests on your shoulders. And so that's an incredibly daunting thing to think about, but also it's so freeing." In tennis, Aussie Daria Katsakina's miserable build-up to Wimbledon has continued, with a defeat in the first round of the Eastbourne tournament, which she won last year. Australia's top-ranked female player, ranked number 11 in the world, has lost to New Zealander Lulu Sun, 7-5, 2-6, 6-3 on the English south coast. The windy conditions played havoc with Katsakina's high ball toss, contributing to her serving 11 double faults. There's been better news, however, for Queensland teenager Maya Joint. She's upset Tunisian Ons Jabeur in round one, 7-5, 6-2. Jabeur has made three major finals in her career.
News.com.au
23-06-2025
- General
- News.com.au
Reality of renting in Australia: Roaches, mould, fear of eviction and rent hikes
Twenty per cent of Australian rentals have mouldy bathrooms, a new survey has found. Research from the Australian Council of Social Service and the University of NSW has found on top of the mouldy bathrooms, some 70 per cent of tenants are too scared to ask for repair work for fear of copping a rent increase. 'This report validates what renters across Australia already know. Despite extensive rental laws on paper, this report exposes the stark gap between legislation and reality for Australian renters,' National Association of Renters' Organisations spokesman Leo Patterson Ross said. 'Weak oversight of rental costs, property standards and industry practices have denied renters the benefits of a safe, stable and healthy home.' The social services council and university surveyed 1019 people who rent in the private sector across the country. The survey found 73 per cent of renters had a rent increase in the past year; a third of renters said a 5 per cent hike would make it difficult to cover rent. About one-in-three rental houses had cockroaches or ants, a quarter had leaks or flooding and 18 per cent had mould in the bathroom. Tenants fear that asking for repairs to be done can lead to rent hikes (68 per cent) or evictions (56 per cent). Social services council chief executive, Cassandra Goldia, said the housing market was failing. 'It is completely unacceptable that people in the private rental market are nervous about asking for essential repairs because they fear a rent increase or eviction notice,' Dr Goldie said. 'Everyone deserves to be able to live in secure homes without the constant fear of losing their home. 'We urge state and federal governments to work together to cap rent increases, abolish no-grounds evictions and boost social housing to ensure people on low incomes have safe, secure and affordable homes.' The university, social services council, National Shelter and the National Association of Renters' have identified five points to address concerns stemming from the report. First, legislated national limits on the amount and frequency of rent increases. No-grounds evictions and further renter protections are the second point the group says need to be addressed. Funding boosts to tenant advice services, raising income support and Jobseeker payments and finally a boost to the number of social houses are on the group's to-do list.
SBS Australia
23-06-2025
- General
- SBS Australia
'Unacceptable': The question nearly seven in 10 renters fear asking their landlord
Almost seven in 10 private housing tenants worry about asking for repairs in case they face a rent increase. A survey of more than a thousand renters across Australia has also found a third would be unable to afford a 5 per cent increase on what they're currently paying. Half the respondents live in homes that need repairs, and one in 10 need them carried out urgently. Conducted by the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), University of NSW, Sydney-led Poverty and Inequality Partnership, National Shelter and the National Association of Renter Organisations, the study is the 26th published by the advocacy network. — 31 per cent of rental homes have cockroach, ant or other pest problems; — Almost a quarter are leaky; — One in five have issues with hot water, while almost as many feature mouldy bathrooms. Rents have, meanwhile, surged 47 per cent in the past five years amid calls for nationwide rental increase limits. Even so, researchers found 68 per cent of tenants fear asking their landlord to repair their residence would mean increasing the rent, 56 per cent suspect it would result in eviction, and 52 per cent worry they would be placed on a blacklist, preventing them from renting another property. The findings were magnified for tenants in disadvantaged groups, especially the unemployed, poorly educated and disabled persons. "It is completely unacceptable that people in the private rental market are nervous about asking for essential repairs because they fear a rent increase or eviction notice." — Cassandra Goldie, ACOSS CEO "Everyone deserves to be able to live in secure homes without the constant fear of losing their home," Goldie said. "Despite extensive rental laws on paper, it exposes the stark gap between legislation and reality." — Leo Patterson, spokesperson, National Association of Renters' Organisations "Weak oversight of rental costs, property standards and industry practices have denied renters the benefits of a safe, stable and healthy home." The agencies involved in the project are calling for a limit to the amount and frequency of rent increases, improved legal security via the abolition of no-grounds evictions and more funding for tenants' advice services.
The Advertiser
29-05-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
This fuss about taxing megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping
Look, I love comfort as much as the next person. I want fancy Boomer holidays. I also wish to spoil my grandchildren rotten (partly because there is nothing more hilarious than incurring the wrath of my actual children). But the fuss about the new tax on megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping. No one needs to have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Anyone who does, can afford to pay more tax than they already do. And maybe taxing the investment income of super funds at a flat rate of 15 per cent before retirement and zero after retirement isn't doing much to stem the tide of wealth inequality in Australia. Here's what's happening. About two years ago, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a plan to increase the tax rate on super annual earnings for balances exceeding $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. The tax would apply only to the earnings of the amount above $3 million. So it's not like these poor darlings will be slugged for earnings on the whole amount. I asked Miranda Stewart, professor of law at the University of Melbourne Law School, about what she thought of the fuss. As ever, calm and clear in her response. "We aren't banning people from having more than $3 million in super. They can keep it. It's only a slice above the three million," she says. Would she be grumpy if she was in that category? "I would be delighted if I had more than three million in my super fund. I'd be happy. This change would not really make me miserable." The existence of superannuation is a gift from god, aka Paul Keating. It was supposed to improve the budget bottom line by reducing age pension costs. They are projected to fall from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years, compared to the OECD, which is predicted to rise to 10 per cent by 2060. But at a high cost - tax breaks for superannuation cost about $50 billion a year and will soon exceed the cost of the pension. Longtime economics guru Ross Gittins was scathing this week about rich men wanting to stay rich. Fair enough and absolutely right. But what I'm missing from this conversation - entirely - is anyone from the richy riches thinking about others. Where are the richy riches when it comes to those on welfare? Where are they when we talk about raising the rate for those on welfare, for example? Why aren't the wealthy championing the cause of the poor? Or as Cassandra Goldie, longtime CEO of ACOSS, told me this week: "We would welcome a greater level of outrage about the failure to fix the adequacy of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance, which condemns people to live in terrible poverty." Me too. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking we are killing their darlings for the fuss that's gone on. The pamphlet for the wealthy, The Australian Financial Review, has had a field day. In summary, it's just plain cruel to tax the rich. It reminds me of the goings-on before the 2019 election, when Labor took real tax reform to the people and was roundly rejected after a successful scare campaign from the then member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and his family member, Geoff, a fund manager. Stewart tells me I'm being a bit mean - the proposed changes then would have affected more people than the one being suggested now. Still, there is always resistance when people think they have something to lose. Now it turns out the Wilsons have joined forces again to do battle on this proposal. Real tax reform is hard because the people who don't want it are self-interested. We all are, to some extent. But being self-interested to the point where you don't care whether some people eat or die, that's shocking to me. MORE JENNA PRICE: For years now, the Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning to raise the rate of payments made to those in need. So I asked the ACOSS team about their response to the complaints made by the uberwealthy. The proposed tax change would very modestly slow the accumulation of riches that would otherwise flow to already wealthy men. Is that me being sexist? By no means. ACOSS tells me that the people with those huge balances are pretty much all men. Also, tax breaks for super cost $50 billion a year, almost as much as the age pension. I'd prefer more of that $50 billion to be in favour of all those payments which help people lead lives that aren't crushed by hunger, freaked out by rental payments. As Goldie says: "This is a modest measure that barely touches the sides of some of the most inequitable and outrageous tax breaks in this country, egregiously generous tax breaks for people who will never need to rely on the age pension." Forgive me if you know this, but superannuation is a tax shelter. You pay less tax on superannuation than you do on normal earnings. Previous Coalition governments allowed Armaguard (OK, maybe not them specifically) truckloads of money to be deposited into super accounts. That's now been stopped, fortunately. Surprisingly, it was the Morrison government that ended the lurk. I'm not exactly sure how people get to be rich. What I do know is that some of them do not exhibit traits such as kindness or generosity (unless it's to a charity of their choice where they can bask in reflected glory). I'm also not sure how we can make the best tax policy in this country and maybe this proposed reform is just tinkering at the edges. But according to Gittins and a whole bunch of others, just 80,000 people will be impacted by these changes. They can live with it. Look, I love comfort as much as the next person. I want fancy Boomer holidays. I also wish to spoil my grandchildren rotten (partly because there is nothing more hilarious than incurring the wrath of my actual children). But the fuss about the new tax on megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping. No one needs to have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Anyone who does, can afford to pay more tax than they already do. And maybe taxing the investment income of super funds at a flat rate of 15 per cent before retirement and zero after retirement isn't doing much to stem the tide of wealth inequality in Australia. Here's what's happening. About two years ago, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a plan to increase the tax rate on super annual earnings for balances exceeding $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. The tax would apply only to the earnings of the amount above $3 million. So it's not like these poor darlings will be slugged for earnings on the whole amount. I asked Miranda Stewart, professor of law at the University of Melbourne Law School, about what she thought of the fuss. As ever, calm and clear in her response. "We aren't banning people from having more than $3 million in super. They can keep it. It's only a slice above the three million," she says. Would she be grumpy if she was in that category? "I would be delighted if I had more than three million in my super fund. I'd be happy. This change would not really make me miserable." The existence of superannuation is a gift from god, aka Paul Keating. It was supposed to improve the budget bottom line by reducing age pension costs. They are projected to fall from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years, compared to the OECD, which is predicted to rise to 10 per cent by 2060. But at a high cost - tax breaks for superannuation cost about $50 billion a year and will soon exceed the cost of the pension. Longtime economics guru Ross Gittins was scathing this week about rich men wanting to stay rich. Fair enough and absolutely right. But what I'm missing from this conversation - entirely - is anyone from the richy riches thinking about others. Where are the richy riches when it comes to those on welfare? Where are they when we talk about raising the rate for those on welfare, for example? Why aren't the wealthy championing the cause of the poor? Or as Cassandra Goldie, longtime CEO of ACOSS, told me this week: "We would welcome a greater level of outrage about the failure to fix the adequacy of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance, which condemns people to live in terrible poverty." Me too. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking we are killing their darlings for the fuss that's gone on. The pamphlet for the wealthy, The Australian Financial Review, has had a field day. In summary, it's just plain cruel to tax the rich. It reminds me of the goings-on before the 2019 election, when Labor took real tax reform to the people and was roundly rejected after a successful scare campaign from the then member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and his family member, Geoff, a fund manager. Stewart tells me I'm being a bit mean - the proposed changes then would have affected more people than the one being suggested now. Still, there is always resistance when people think they have something to lose. Now it turns out the Wilsons have joined forces again to do battle on this proposal. Real tax reform is hard because the people who don't want it are self-interested. We all are, to some extent. But being self-interested to the point where you don't care whether some people eat or die, that's shocking to me. MORE JENNA PRICE: For years now, the Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning to raise the rate of payments made to those in need. So I asked the ACOSS team about their response to the complaints made by the uberwealthy. The proposed tax change would very modestly slow the accumulation of riches that would otherwise flow to already wealthy men. Is that me being sexist? By no means. ACOSS tells me that the people with those huge balances are pretty much all men. Also, tax breaks for super cost $50 billion a year, almost as much as the age pension. I'd prefer more of that $50 billion to be in favour of all those payments which help people lead lives that aren't crushed by hunger, freaked out by rental payments. As Goldie says: "This is a modest measure that barely touches the sides of some of the most inequitable and outrageous tax breaks in this country, egregiously generous tax breaks for people who will never need to rely on the age pension." Forgive me if you know this, but superannuation is a tax shelter. You pay less tax on superannuation than you do on normal earnings. Previous Coalition governments allowed Armaguard (OK, maybe not them specifically) truckloads of money to be deposited into super accounts. That's now been stopped, fortunately. Surprisingly, it was the Morrison government that ended the lurk. I'm not exactly sure how people get to be rich. What I do know is that some of them do not exhibit traits such as kindness or generosity (unless it's to a charity of their choice where they can bask in reflected glory). I'm also not sure how we can make the best tax policy in this country and maybe this proposed reform is just tinkering at the edges. But according to Gittins and a whole bunch of others, just 80,000 people will be impacted by these changes. They can live with it. Look, I love comfort as much as the next person. I want fancy Boomer holidays. I also wish to spoil my grandchildren rotten (partly because there is nothing more hilarious than incurring the wrath of my actual children). But the fuss about the new tax on megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping. No one needs to have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Anyone who does, can afford to pay more tax than they already do. And maybe taxing the investment income of super funds at a flat rate of 15 per cent before retirement and zero after retirement isn't doing much to stem the tide of wealth inequality in Australia. Here's what's happening. About two years ago, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a plan to increase the tax rate on super annual earnings for balances exceeding $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. The tax would apply only to the earnings of the amount above $3 million. So it's not like these poor darlings will be slugged for earnings on the whole amount. I asked Miranda Stewart, professor of law at the University of Melbourne Law School, about what she thought of the fuss. As ever, calm and clear in her response. "We aren't banning people from having more than $3 million in super. They can keep it. It's only a slice above the three million," she says. Would she be grumpy if she was in that category? "I would be delighted if I had more than three million in my super fund. I'd be happy. This change would not really make me miserable." The existence of superannuation is a gift from god, aka Paul Keating. It was supposed to improve the budget bottom line by reducing age pension costs. They are projected to fall from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years, compared to the OECD, which is predicted to rise to 10 per cent by 2060. But at a high cost - tax breaks for superannuation cost about $50 billion a year and will soon exceed the cost of the pension. Longtime economics guru Ross Gittins was scathing this week about rich men wanting to stay rich. Fair enough and absolutely right. But what I'm missing from this conversation - entirely - is anyone from the richy riches thinking about others. Where are the richy riches when it comes to those on welfare? Where are they when we talk about raising the rate for those on welfare, for example? Why aren't the wealthy championing the cause of the poor? Or as Cassandra Goldie, longtime CEO of ACOSS, told me this week: "We would welcome a greater level of outrage about the failure to fix the adequacy of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance, which condemns people to live in terrible poverty." Me too. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking we are killing their darlings for the fuss that's gone on. The pamphlet for the wealthy, The Australian Financial Review, has had a field day. In summary, it's just plain cruel to tax the rich. It reminds me of the goings-on before the 2019 election, when Labor took real tax reform to the people and was roundly rejected after a successful scare campaign from the then member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and his family member, Geoff, a fund manager. Stewart tells me I'm being a bit mean - the proposed changes then would have affected more people than the one being suggested now. Still, there is always resistance when people think they have something to lose. Now it turns out the Wilsons have joined forces again to do battle on this proposal. Real tax reform is hard because the people who don't want it are self-interested. We all are, to some extent. But being self-interested to the point where you don't care whether some people eat or die, that's shocking to me. MORE JENNA PRICE: For years now, the Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning to raise the rate of payments made to those in need. So I asked the ACOSS team about their response to the complaints made by the uberwealthy. The proposed tax change would very modestly slow the accumulation of riches that would otherwise flow to already wealthy men. Is that me being sexist? By no means. ACOSS tells me that the people with those huge balances are pretty much all men. Also, tax breaks for super cost $50 billion a year, almost as much as the age pension. I'd prefer more of that $50 billion to be in favour of all those payments which help people lead lives that aren't crushed by hunger, freaked out by rental payments. As Goldie says: "This is a modest measure that barely touches the sides of some of the most inequitable and outrageous tax breaks in this country, egregiously generous tax breaks for people who will never need to rely on the age pension." Forgive me if you know this, but superannuation is a tax shelter. You pay less tax on superannuation than you do on normal earnings. Previous Coalition governments allowed Armaguard (OK, maybe not them specifically) truckloads of money to be deposited into super accounts. That's now been stopped, fortunately. Surprisingly, it was the Morrison government that ended the lurk. I'm not exactly sure how people get to be rich. What I do know is that some of them do not exhibit traits such as kindness or generosity (unless it's to a charity of their choice where they can bask in reflected glory). I'm also not sure how we can make the best tax policy in this country and maybe this proposed reform is just tinkering at the edges. But according to Gittins and a whole bunch of others, just 80,000 people will be impacted by these changes. They can live with it. Look, I love comfort as much as the next person. I want fancy Boomer holidays. I also wish to spoil my grandchildren rotten (partly because there is nothing more hilarious than incurring the wrath of my actual children). But the fuss about the new tax on megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping. No one needs to have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Anyone who does, can afford to pay more tax than they already do. And maybe taxing the investment income of super funds at a flat rate of 15 per cent before retirement and zero after retirement isn't doing much to stem the tide of wealth inequality in Australia. Here's what's happening. About two years ago, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a plan to increase the tax rate on super annual earnings for balances exceeding $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. The tax would apply only to the earnings of the amount above $3 million. So it's not like these poor darlings will be slugged for earnings on the whole amount. I asked Miranda Stewart, professor of law at the University of Melbourne Law School, about what she thought of the fuss. As ever, calm and clear in her response. "We aren't banning people from having more than $3 million in super. They can keep it. It's only a slice above the three million," she says. Would she be grumpy if she was in that category? "I would be delighted if I had more than three million in my super fund. I'd be happy. This change would not really make me miserable." The existence of superannuation is a gift from god, aka Paul Keating. It was supposed to improve the budget bottom line by reducing age pension costs. They are projected to fall from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years, compared to the OECD, which is predicted to rise to 10 per cent by 2060. But at a high cost - tax breaks for superannuation cost about $50 billion a year and will soon exceed the cost of the pension. Longtime economics guru Ross Gittins was scathing this week about rich men wanting to stay rich. Fair enough and absolutely right. But what I'm missing from this conversation - entirely - is anyone from the richy riches thinking about others. Where are the richy riches when it comes to those on welfare? Where are they when we talk about raising the rate for those on welfare, for example? Why aren't the wealthy championing the cause of the poor? Or as Cassandra Goldie, longtime CEO of ACOSS, told me this week: "We would welcome a greater level of outrage about the failure to fix the adequacy of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance, which condemns people to live in terrible poverty." Me too. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking we are killing their darlings for the fuss that's gone on. The pamphlet for the wealthy, The Australian Financial Review, has had a field day. In summary, it's just plain cruel to tax the rich. It reminds me of the goings-on before the 2019 election, when Labor took real tax reform to the people and was roundly rejected after a successful scare campaign from the then member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and his family member, Geoff, a fund manager. Stewart tells me I'm being a bit mean - the proposed changes then would have affected more people than the one being suggested now. Still, there is always resistance when people think they have something to lose. Now it turns out the Wilsons have joined forces again to do battle on this proposal. Real tax reform is hard because the people who don't want it are self-interested. We all are, to some extent. But being self-interested to the point where you don't care whether some people eat or die, that's shocking to me. MORE JENNA PRICE: For years now, the Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning to raise the rate of payments made to those in need. So I asked the ACOSS team about their response to the complaints made by the uberwealthy. The proposed tax change would very modestly slow the accumulation of riches that would otherwise flow to already wealthy men. Is that me being sexist? By no means. ACOSS tells me that the people with those huge balances are pretty much all men. Also, tax breaks for super cost $50 billion a year, almost as much as the age pension. I'd prefer more of that $50 billion to be in favour of all those payments which help people lead lives that aren't crushed by hunger, freaked out by rental payments. As Goldie says: "This is a modest measure that barely touches the sides of some of the most inequitable and outrageous tax breaks in this country, egregiously generous tax breaks for people who will never need to rely on the age pension." Forgive me if you know this, but superannuation is a tax shelter. You pay less tax on superannuation than you do on normal earnings. Previous Coalition governments allowed Armaguard (OK, maybe not them specifically) truckloads of money to be deposited into super accounts. That's now been stopped, fortunately. Surprisingly, it was the Morrison government that ended the lurk. I'm not exactly sure how people get to be rich. What I do know is that some of them do not exhibit traits such as kindness or generosity (unless it's to a charity of their choice where they can bask in reflected glory). I'm also not sure how we can make the best tax policy in this country and maybe this proposed reform is just tinkering at the edges. But according to Gittins and a whole bunch of others, just 80,000 people will be impacted by these changes. They can live with it.
