Super tax based on ideology won’t stand up to legal challenge
The more one thinks about the Chalmers tax, the more untenable it becomes (“Super cash grab breeds mistrust”, Editorial, 29/5).
The tax on unrealised capital gains on superannuation balances above $3m is grounded in socialist soak-the-rich ideology and riddled with logical inconsistencies that are unlikely to stand up in a court of law. The tax is targeted at wealthy people who can easily afford to challenge it on legal grounds.
The logical inconsistencies are overwhelming in themselves, including potential double taxation (Letters, 29/5).
It is not a tax on property (the fundamental pillar of all taxation) but on valuers’ opined estimates of property.
To be accepted as valuations of standing in a court, the valuers must be recognised by the court as experts and tax officials are not expert valuers per se.
Money itself is exempt from CGT, as decided by a magistrate recently regarding cryptocurrency, so how can paper money be subject to CGT, when real money is not?
Peter R. Tredenick, Laidley, Qld
There was a time when paying taxes meant that we were gainfully employed and were thus contributing to the defence of our country.
It was a part of other necessities of nation-building.
Now, we are paying exorbitant taxes that are destroying vast landscapes of our continent, the destruction of which will never cease, as a consequence of big Australia.
More and more taxes will be required in order to achieve this unachievable nightmare.
John Bicknell, Bargo, NSW
Allow me to speculate on a future extension of the notion of unrealised gains by an overspending, cash-strapped government.
Your future tax return will assess your tax for the previous year, then index an estimate of the following year’s notional “unrealised” earnings and apply a forward-looking tax for the next year. Immoral, unprincipled, of course, but if the current one progresses, nothing can stop this further fantasy.
Michael Saul, Scarborough, Qld
On unrealised capital gains I don’t know which school of economics Jim Chalmers went to, but a profit is not a profit till it’s in your pocket.
Scott McElroy, Carlton, Vic
Bad to worse for Libs
Greg Sheridan has nailed it (“The Liberal Party’s bad position just got even worse”, 29/5). Sussan Ley has without doubt demonstrated she hasn’t the foggiest idea what she is doing.
Ley’s front desk line-up is another gift to Labor in helping it get a third and maybe fourth term. We might as well scrub question time because this bunch of lightweights may be contributing next to nothing to debate.
Ley has failed to use what talent she has available to her or the experience of seasoned performers with a level of toughness that will be vital in holding to account a government that has a huge mandate.
If we thought the Coalition was in trouble a week ago, it has just got much worse. I, for one, thought Ley could handle the job but I was wrong.
John George, Terrigal, NSW
Michael Sexton is pretty much spot-on when he suggests that the Coalition could see itself out of power for nine years (“Shifting attitudes will make Liberals’ return harder”, 29/5).
Add the mooted plan for four-year terms and it may be longer. I cannot for the life of me see any sense of urgency in various recent shadow ministry appointments.
They smell of factionalism and revenge. At the age of 77, I am afraid that I will never again see a federal Coalition government and Victoria is not looking at all promising in its quest for victory at the next election. Coalition supporters must be asking themselves: How did it all come to this?
Peter D. Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic
Defence dwarfed
Hope is not a strategy. And when it comes to defence, don’t say we weren’t warned. Mike Hughes and Marc Ablong are right (“Nation can’t wait until the 2030s to shore up defence”, 29/5).
Australia’s strategic reality is increasingly dire, yet we act like we’ve got decades to respond. If I had to pick one of Snow White’s seven dwarfs to symbolise our defence posture, it’d be Sleepy – or maybe Dopey.
This isn’t a swipe at frontline troops or the genuinely committed. But defence is choked by bureaucracy. Reforms are too often cosmetic. Without the US in a fight for our survival, we’d be obliterated. And even that alliance isn’t guaranteed.
I’ve sat in US global war roundtables where, when stretched, their focus shifted home. We are politically naive if we don’t grasp that. The path forward is not easy, but it’s clear. Reform the bureaucracy physically and attitudinally so it’s on a war footing, back our frontline personnel, and treat defence of Australia like the priority it truly is.
Peter Clay, Griffith, ACT
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout