June 18, 2025 • 30 mins
The controversial $3 million superannuation tax has sparked fierce (if not overblown) debate across Australia, with important questions about fairness, implementation challenges, and political accountability taking centre stage.
Targeting roughly 80,000 Australians (0.5% of the population) with super balances exceeding $3 million, this policy increases their tax rate from 15% to 30%. While Michael argues it affects only the wealthy, he admits there are several flaws that shouldn't be ignored.
First is the issue of taxing unrealised gains. Property investments within super funds could trigger substantial tax bills without generating actual cash flow to cover them. Joe asks, where does this money come from? Must investors liquidate assets or pay from personal accounts?
Even more troubling is the blatant exemption of federal politicians and defence force members from this tax increase. This "rules for thee, not for me" approach fundamentally undermines the policy's credibility and is something both the guys agree on.
The absence of indexation represents another serious flaw. Without automatic adjustment for inflation, this threshold will gradually capture more Australians as asset values naturally increase over time. However, Michael argues that the ceiling is still so high that it is unlikely to capture many average Australians while also highlighting the unlikelihood of a future government not adjusting the indexation rate.
Meanwhile, multinational corporations continue paying minimal tax on Australian resources they later sell back to us at premium prices. The government's willingness to target retirement savings while signing 40-year contracts with companies paying as little as 0.015% of profits in tax raises profound questions about priorities and fairness.
Want to learn more about protecting your financial future amid changing tax policies? Subscribe to The Finance Show and join the conversation about creating true economic equity in Australia.
Follow us for more property news and mortgage advice!
▸Website - https://itssimple.com.au
▸Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/itssimplefinance/
▸Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/itssimplefinance/
▸LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/itssimple/
DISCLAIMER This podcast contains general financial information only. That means the information does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Because of that, you should consider if the information is appropriate to you and your needs before acting on it.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
There are some genuine, genuine issues with
this policy.
How do we make money inAustralia if, all of a sudden,
we are now being forced to paythis extra tax?
Speaker 2 (00:09):
The $3 million super tax.
There are two big issues thatare genuinely a problem.
One is that there's no plannedindexing, that it relies on
governments having actual policy.
Two all federal politicians areexempt from this.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
And three, it's the tax on the unrealized gains.
So this is the problem that Ihave.
Government provided this andnow everyone in Australia gets
punished, but the members of thefederal parliament, all those
in the army.
So it's either hey, go be partof our defense force or get into
politics so you can become apart of tax avoidance.
(00:45):
With the implementation of anew tax, people can't prepare
themselves for this new tax tocome in place.
How am I supposed to pay that?
Do I get a director's penaltynotice sent to me by the ATO?
A superannuation was createdfor retirement purposes.
Why are we punishing people forpreparing for retirement?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Welcome to the Finance Show with Joe.
He's Joe, I'm Michael, andtoday we're talking about the $3
million super scandal.
I'm not going to assume thateveryone knows what the hell
this is, so let me just run downsome facts and figures.
Facts and figures time withMichael New segment New segment.
My favorite segment, facts andfigures.
Okay, so the $3 million supertax.
So those with $3 million intheir super will be taxed 30% on
(01:32):
that figure.
Now that is up from an already15% tax.
So this will directly impact0.5% of individuals in Australia
.
That equates to about 80,000people.
So wealthy families of at least$50 million in net wealth.
Of this, 0.5% of individuals inAustralia, that equates to
about 80,000 people.
So wealthy families of at least$50 million in net wealth.
Of this, 0.5%, 85% are over theage of 60.
Now put things into perspective.
The average super balances formen and women between 60 and 64
(01:55):
right now is $402,000 and$318,000 respectively.
Now there is some controversywith this One, obviously,
because it's a tax.
People don't like paying moretax, that's a given.
But the big two, in my opinionand I do think this is an issue
because, generally speaking,just to get the biases out of
the way I generally think thisis fine and I think it's being
(02:18):
overblown.
But there are two big issuesthat are genuinely problem.
One is that there's no plannedindexing of this.
That could be genuinely problem.
One is that there's no plannedindexing of this.
That could be a problem.
It makes the assumption that itrelies on a government to make
actual policy over the next 10years, or whatever the hell it
is that actually changes it.
And two is that all federalpoliticians are exempt from this
(02:42):
.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
And three, it's the tax on the unrealized gains.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Oh, yes, yes, yes, it's on paper gains, right.
Yeah yeah, yeah.
So those are some actualquestion marks that need to be
talked about, which we'll getinto.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Okay, I'm just.
This is going to be an episodethat's heavily geared towards my
disdain for this new policy,and it is not because I don't
agree with all policies andeverything's wrong.
There are some genuine issueswith this policy, and I'm going
(03:21):
to start with the first the taxon the unrealized gains.
You are taxing people onprofits that haven't eventuated
how that tax is administered orhow that tax is accounted for.
Are you being taxed from yoursuperannuation, as in the money
(03:43):
that goes into yoursuperannuation regularly?
Is the tax supposed to be paidfrom that account, or is the tax
going to be paid from yourpersonal accounts?
I don't know what.
I don't know.
I'm not an accountant, nor hasthis policy been released.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
No, no, this is not law.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
So, for example, let's say Michael has his
superannuation.
Michael made a lot of money,okay, and he's got, you know, $4
million in his superannuation.
It grew from 3 million to $4million in one year because he
bought some land somewhere thatgot subdivided and now all of a
sudden he's made X amount ofcash.
(04:20):
Man, that'd be sweet.
No continue sorry man, that'dbe sweet.
No, continue sorry.
When a tax bill is sent out, doyou have to pay 30% tax from
your personal name, or is itcoming from the superannuation
balance?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
From what I understand, it's from your
self-managed super fund and it'sonly on every dollar above $3
million.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Okay, so between that $3 and $4 million, there's
still a million dollars of gainand means 30 tax, that is going
to be three hundred thousanddollars yet again.
Is it billed to you or is itbilled to the super fund?
Who is it billed to?
So, without clarification ofwhere this money is going to be
coming from, like, who isactually responsible for this
(05:00):
money?
Is it the self-managed superfund itself, or is it Michael
Lozano, the guarantor?
Whoever it is, there still hasto be $300,000 put aside.
Now, not every gain is going tobe $300,000.
Not every single person isgoing to be responsible for that
amount of money.
And, yes, I do agree with you,there are levels to this that
(05:22):
are overblown, yeah, yeah.
However, with our clarificationand with an implementation of a
new tax, people can't preparethemselves for this new tax to
come in place.
Yeah, so if, for example, Idon't have that excess surplus
of cash in my superannuationokay, and that's where the tax
(05:43):
is coming from and my super ishit with you know, oh, you now
owe us $100,000, $250,000.
My superannuation behaves as afund that you know focuses on
asset and producing growth.
If it makes a million dollarsand now I'm hit with this bill.
(06:03):
Okay, how am I supposed to paythat?
Do I get a director's penaltynotice sent to me by the ATO?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
I mean with the assumption.
I mean, if you've got $3million in your super account,
I'm pretty sure you can afford$300,000.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
But it's not $3 million in cash, it's the
valuation of a property, so it'sthe value of the super.
It's not the actual.
It's not the actual cash that'sin it, it's not the cash
balance.
So this is the problem that Ihave how do we make money in
Australia if you know, all of asudden we are now being forced
(06:39):
to pay this extra tax?
Now I know it's not a 0% to 30%increase, it's a 15% to 30%
increase, so it's an extra 15%.
You do have to have that moneyset aside for tax.
But what if in previous yearsyou got your loan based upon the
15% tax rate?
Now you are personally andfiscally responsible for the
(07:03):
gains that are made in there.
Last point before I go into thatOkay, so the tax on unrealized
gains.
Nobody has a crystal ball andnobody knows how much their
property is going to be valuedthe next day.
If there are sudden spikes andyou are not cash prepared, this
(07:29):
can, in essence, fuck you.
I'm not going to excuse myFrench there, but it can because
of the director's penaltynotices and all the other things
that come with tax avoidance.
But you're going to see a lotmore fraud.
Yeah, you're going to seepeople fudging the numbers and
try and decrease their profitmargins, or they're going to try
and decrease the value of theirproperties, paper on paper, so
that they don't have to pay thetax yeah, so the argument has
(07:50):
been that they people.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Argument has been that these high net worth
individuals, they've alreadyagain, like I said, high net
worth.
They've already got a lot ofmoney, so they've already made
their money.
So it's not about trying tomake money, but they're using
super as a way to avoid payingcertain amounts of tax.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
But superannuation was created for retirement
purposes.
Why are we punishing people forpreparing for retirement?
Speaker 2 (08:12):
I mean you're not punishing people.
These people are already loaded.
This is not you and I.
This is not the averageAustralian.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
I know where you're coming from, but this might be
someone that decided I'm goingto put more money into my
superannuation.
They had to think strategically.
These weren't individuals thatwere, oh yeah, we're just going
to go dump money here.
They thought strategicallythroughout the years and they
implemented a system that thegovernment provided.
(08:40):
And this is where my issue is,and it comes to point two.
The government provided this,and now everyone in Australia
gets punished, but the federalconstituent, uh, the, the
federal constitution, the, themembers of the federal uh
parliament or those in the army.
So it's either hey, uh, go bepart of our defense force or get
into politics so you can get up, so you can become a part of
(09:04):
tax avoidance yeah so if anthonyalbanese and I am calling out
the prime minister thought thiswas a fair policy To anyone that
had previously done this, whyis he exempt?
Why are all the members of thatparty exempt?
Also, we do have the people ofthe Liberal government, but why
do we have all these individualsnow exempt to pay that extra
(09:26):
15% because of a job that theyhold?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Oh yeah, no, but this has been the case with
politicians for time immemorial.
It's always rules for thee, notfor me, and that doesn't
literally.
It's just how it's always been,which is shit, and we should
hold them accountable and weshould be mad about that.
Like I said, I think this is anuanced subject, because what I
dislike about the conversationaround this is there's a lot of
(09:51):
stuff in the media complainingit's like this is going to hurt
average Australians.
It's not.
What you can be mad about iswhat you said.
The exemptions, the clarity ofwhere does this bill come from.
Those are things to actually beupset about, but to frame it as
average Australians are goingto be affected by this, I think,
is just straight updisingenuous.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
I'm going to agree with you to a point, and the
point is they haven't indexed it.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Yeah, and this goes to like a probability thing,
right, because obviously so.
Labor won in the landsliderecently, so it generally means
that they'll probably beempowered.
It'll be like a Howardgovernment where we'll go for a
bit or whatever.
So, let's say, the LiberalParty will come back, make a
(10:40):
comeback in late 2020s, early2030s.
At that point, an indexationchange will be introduced, very
likely.
However, it's not guaranteed,is it?
That's the thing.
If it's not already in law nowthat it will be indexed, who's
to say that it?
Well, there's no guarantee thatit will be.
(11:01):
So again, question marks.
It leaves you up to the behestof the government.
Will they change this?
But even so, like I said,average people have about
$400,000 to $300,000 in theirsuper, very clearly not anywhere
near the three million dollarthreshold that there's been
(11:21):
arguments that it's like oh, butwith inflation and wage
increase?
We know for a fact that wageshave not increased with
inflation, so I think it's veryunlikely that people like people
saying, oh, gen z is going tosuffer from this because they're
the ones that are going to copit later, but it's in.
In what world are they going toget $3 million?
Even with inflationary measures, inflationary impacts and
(11:45):
stagnant wage growth.
How are they going to get tothe $3 million if they don't
already have this money, ifthey're already a high net worth
individual?
Basically, what I'm saying is Ithink this whole thing is
overblown.
I'm going to rebuttal.
Go for it, that's the point.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
So you are saying that it's overblown?
I won't disagree.
Okay, it's already 15%, it'sgoing up to 30%.
I'm not going to disagree withyou, because people already pay
taxes from their self-managementfund.
What I don't like is whenLiberal came out with their
housing policy, one of theirpolicies were the super thing
(12:23):
yeah, we will allow first homebuyers to have access to $50,000
from their superannuation.
First home buyers $50,000.
Remember those two numbers?
Okay, To have access to the$50,000 for this graduation to
be able to purchase a property.
People were up in arms aboutthe fact the liberal government
(12:47):
wanted to touch their retirementfund.
How dare they try and getpeople to access their super?
Oh, my God, that's a horriblething to do.
That's people's retirementmoney.
So since 2020, and I posted avideo about this the other day
cash has decreased in valuesignificantly.
Inflation yeah, Because ofinflation.
$50,000 in 2020, if you had$50,000 in the bank account, in
(13:12):
today's money, it's worth about$41,000 or something like that.
That's because of the rate ofinflation.
Yeah, yeah, these are justroundabout numbers.
These are roundabout numbers,right?
Property has increased by 20%or more across the country in
that time.
I think it's 28% the nationalaverage since 2020 to now,
(13:32):
including inflation.
So liberal were giving peopleaccess.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Yeah, that was the plan.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
First home buyers this is my issue.
First home buyers, the Gen Z,that are complaining about this.
Now, they were going to givethem access to say hey guys,
this is going to be a steppingstone for you to be able to get
into the market.
Also, superannuation is yourmoney.
You should be able to do whatyou want with it.
We are giving you theopportunity to be able to
(14:02):
purchase something, because weknow there's a restricted supply
in housing.
Here you go.
No, there were people kickingup a storm about oh, we're
touching people's retirementfunds and everything.
Yet again, rules for thee, notfor me.
So why are we kicking up astorm?
Or why are we angry about thefact that we were going to be
(14:23):
given an opportunity to purchaseour first homes?
Yet we're not as angry aboutindividuals who have built their
wealth through superannuation,who are planning to retire.
We're not getting angry aboutthem losing up to 15% of their
income because of this new taxthat's implemented.
And why are we not holding thegovernment officials accountable
(14:47):
?
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Well, I think the big reason is why people aren't
angry is like, say, you'reaccessing $50,000 for the
deposit which, by the way, I'mnot I'm not, I wasn't really
against this policy, I know youweren't yeah, I think,000 for
the deposit which, by the way,I'm not, I'm not, I wasn't
really against this policyeither, I know you weren't.
Yeah, I think the difference isthe scale.
Right For a younger person,let's say a 30 year old, they've
got a hundred thousand in theirsuper.
(15:10):
I don't think that's the number, but let's just say, for
example, they've got ahundred000 and then they're
accessing $50,000.
That's a lot more money thansomeone with $3 million in super
taking out $50,000, whichobviously they can't do because
they've already built theirwealth and things like that.
It's the perspective of how muchit's relative right.
People aren't mad that thesealready millionaires are losing
(15:33):
a couple hundred thousanddollars because, relatively
speaking, drop in the bucket forthem a couple hundred thousand
dollars because, relativelyspeaking, drop in the bucket for
them.
They are matters when lower uh,lower socioeconomic uh peoples
are being forced into to usetheir retirement funds where
fifty thousand dollars will makemore of a difference.
Again I don't know, with itwith inflation and stuff, how
much that's going to be worth intime, but regardless it's, it
is worth a lot more to thesepeople than someone with $3
(15:57):
million in super and also, Ithink a lot of it is this with
super, again, the $3 millionaccounts, not the average person
is they've already gotten tothat point because they've
already got a lot of money theywouldn't even necessarily need.
Granted, it's probably notliquid money.
I understand that.
But frankly, if you need moneyfor retirement and you own 20
(16:18):
investment properties, fuckingjust sell one.
Okay, you know what I mean.
Like how much more do you need?
Speaker 1 (16:25):
all great points.
They're all great points, um,and you know, raising the taxes
there.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Okay, that's, that's an avenue, that's an avenue, you
can take.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Uh, so why did the labor government excuse
themselves from the tax?
Speaker 2 (16:38):
yeah, that's the dodgy part.
Yeah, no, and I'm in fullagreement with that.
I don't like that part eitherwhy?
Speaker 1 (16:44):
why would they come in and say I don't know, but
we're excused.
Why is you know the?
Why is anthony albanese allowedto keep his extra 15?
Yeah, because he applied for ajob, because he lobbied himself
to get into the Labor Party.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Yeah, and it's all the politicians as well, because
they've all got theirinvestment properties.
They've all got really bigsalaries as well.
For what?
And a lot of people would makethe argument what are they even
doing?
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Exactly.
Well, there's that.
There's the wage increase thatthey will receive.
I think they will receive the9% wage increase.
There's the fact that they getto fly around the country,
private charge whatever theywant whenever they park their
private jets and such.
They get to do all these thingsPeople in government actually
make Make a shit ton.
(17:34):
No, no, no, it's not even.
It's not like small like inAmerica.
In America in particular, youwill see people in government.
They're not on high-incomeproducing jobs, but they get
their money from the lobbyists.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Here in Australia we have stricter lobbying rules.
We still have it though, ofcourse, hence the gambling.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
But they comp everything.
They literally comp everythingonto the government.
So their salary is their salary, but their travel costs
everything.
No, that's a government expense.
I have to drive to Canberra.
No, that's going to cost me$200.
You owe me $200 for that.
One more item.
So they're so worried about you.
Know, we've got to raise taxesin certain parts.
We've got to make sure peoplehave more money.
Yeah, they just signed a 40year.
(18:22):
They signed it up until 2070.
They signed a 40 year uh gascontract with woodside gas a new
one where this company paid0.015 percent of their profit in
taxes.
Oh yeah, punters, politicsgonna love the fact that I'm
talking about this.
One of the pages on Instagram,right, he actually brought a lot
of attention to Ashaya'snational resources being
(18:44):
exported and then resold to us.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Oh, yeah, gas is the prime example, gas is the prime
example.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
So they signed a contract.
It was a new contract for a newgas pipeline, for a new gas
pipeline, so an external marketcould pay less tax for our
resources.
I understand, I understandglobal economics.
I understand that there aresome dangerous people in this
world that will do somedangerous things to make sure
(19:10):
that they can acquire, um,natural resources like this, and
there's episodes of suits,there's episodes of billions.
These people aren't caricatures.
These people exist okay.
Yeah, um, the world is prettyeffed up.
Yeah, I'm looking at a niceplace generally but why are we
so willing to punish australianpeople and sign these new
(19:31):
contracts at the same time tothese multinational corporations
?
Speaker 2 (19:34):
that won't pay us yeah, no, I agree, I agree
entirely.
I agree entirely.
I think, I think, cause youknow a lot of the a lot of the
argument is um, you know, budgetrepair, paying for things like
Medicare and all those kinds ofthings, which is all true, they
will, the money will go towardsthat, but yeah, like you said, a
really easy way to get thatmoney would be to actually tax
corporate, multinationalcorporations effectively.
I agree completely.
(19:55):
And, yeah, neither, neither,neither center party um liberal
or labor are willing to touchthat.
Yep, and that's, that's a damnshame there's probably some.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
There's probably some uh things that are occurring
within you know, the on afederal level that you and I
will never get visibility of ortransparency of.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
What was that?
It was like John Barillaro andGladys as soon as their
political careers were over, allof a sudden they've got jobs at
these big multinationalcorporations.
Why, yeah, it's lobbying, yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
So it might not even be lobbying.
It might be external securitythreats or something.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Whatever the case is they have a relationship with
these large companies.
It should go straight in.
Oh, I finished my mostlysuccessful political careers.
Granted, both ended in scandal,but regardless, they got jobs.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
Well-paying jobs, correct, and now they're allowed
to.
But, mind you, they still getthe government pension, which
has increased in value too?
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Do they really?
Yes, I suppose they would,because you're not on politics
for your whole life.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
So they get the government pension, they get the
tax benefits as well, and thenwe also disregard the fact that
a lot of our money went to thesemultinational corporations.
This is what I hate.
This is what I hate.
You have optional choices forwho you're protecting in
(21:20):
Australia.
Oh no, you know what?
We're not going to protect thepeople that have done their
hardest to build their moneythrough property in Australia.
We're not going to touch them.
Sorry, we're going to go afterthem, but we're not going to go
after these MNCs.
Oh so you hear the Greens allthe time and, yes, they are very
(21:40):
hypocritical in a lot of thestuff that they say, and I don't
think they have a singleeconomic policy that wasn't
written in crayon.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
God it was funny watching them get smashed in the
last election.
God it was funny.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
It was great.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Don't get me wrong, I'm going to let him sit sorry,
like when because adam bannlosing his melbourne seat
fucking hilarious.
I don't the arrogance that theywere like, yeah, we're gonna do
so great in this election,we're gonna do this, that and
the other and just to getfucking the floor wiped with
them like hilarious anyway, theydidn't get a single seat.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
You hear this.
You hear people advocating you.
You want to see them?
Oh no, it should be a fairercountry.
It should be a fairer economy.
This is how you make it fairer,and we're going to finish off
the episode with this yeah, fixthe fucking inefficiencies in
local councils.
Okay, make it fairer that way,because then it won't be driving
prices up so high.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Supply building approvals will actually just go
through.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
And, mind you, there is an inquiry.
There is an inquiry happeningright now, a Senate inquiry, as
to why four councils inAustralia have extreme delays in
approving new dwellings.
So that's the first one.
Okay, not in Australia, inlocal councils around here, I
think it's the Sydney, uh,sydney, cbd, whatever it is.
They're doing an inquiry rightnow as we speak.
(23:05):
Number two, if you are going to, am I on number three.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
I think you're at number three.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Is he on number three ?
No, I'm on number two.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Yeah, okay, sorry, inefficiencies.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
Number two if you're going to keep migration up this
high, bring in individuals forskills that we don't have.
Advertise for fucking Sparkysomewhere in the world.
Yeah, why is my electrician?
Why is the electrician down theroad making $500,000 a year?
Okay, and they're doing itthrough TAFE.
(23:36):
Don't get me wrong, I love myelectricians, but the lawyers in
town are earning a quarter ofthat.
Why, why is that possible?
And then you sorry, I'm on myfucking government rant right
now and I'm so fucking pissedoff about this.
Okay, here's a perfect example.
You're a female?
Okay, you are going to go intoa female dominated industry.
(24:01):
Just a statistic show.
You've got hr as a as a as anindustry.
Okay, hr is dominated 78 byfemales.
Okay, just just, these arestatistics.
You want to fucking cancel?
Go fuck yourselves.
All right, these are statisticsIn Sydney and Melbourne.
Okay, in Sydney and Melbourne,to get into the HR industry, you
(24:23):
need a complete four years ofuni plus an extra couple sets of
qualifications.
Right, there's a chance youmight need a second major in
psychology, just so you canunderstand the human behavior.
Whatever it is, entry-leveljobs are around $80,000.
So you've got a $60,000 hexdebt.
Okay, you can't afford propertyin Sydney or Melbourne Perfect,
you can't afford property there.
And then you have people onlinesaying just fucking move
(24:45):
regional in Sydney and Melbourne, there's no work there.
No, no, no, wait, sydney andMelbourne.
There was 2,000 job openings inHR or you know, allied, not
allied industries, similar roles, okay, some sort of HR role.
Yeah, 2,000 job openings in theyear.
Yeah, in Gosford, in Bathurstand Mildura there were seven.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
So out of the 2,000 jobs, seven were in the regional
.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
No, no, no, no 2,000 was Sydney and Melbourne, yeah,
in the regional house.
No, no, no.
2,000 was Sydney and Melbourne,yeah, in the regional CBDs.
That was seven.
So you might be able to affordon your $80,000 a year salary to
move to Mildura, but you won'tbe able to find the job.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Yeah, that's the big issue, isn't it?
That's been the issue for thewhole time.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
But electricians will be able to make the same amount
of money.
Yeah, so if people want to getup in arms or something, this is
what you can get up in armsabout because, yes, you might be
able to go move regional andyou might be able to afford a
property there, but you mightnot be able to find work.
Yeah, and we are heavilyskewing.
We are heavily skewing thedependence on trades and we're
(25:50):
not bringing them in, we're notinvesting in it.
We're telling people go touniversity, build up your HECS
debt For what?
So you could pray.
The government gives you a 20%off, so you could pray for that.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Look, we've had this issue for a while now.
Where it comes to skilled laboris what we're talking about.
We have a lack of it and TAFEis free, at least in New South
Wales.
I'm sure it's free in australia, but I know it is free in new
south wales and that's notreally driving people to go
towards.
It's not really the cost ofschooling that's stopping people
from joining the trades.
So what is it?
(26:21):
Because we also know, like Ihave plenty of a lot of my mates
are tradies and they make.
They make great money.
I all I mean fuck everyone Iknow who's a tradie makes great
money, especially if they're intheir own business, of course.
Yep.
So how do we make these jobsmore attractive?
And like I don't have an answermaybe, maybe tafe needs a, and
then you know, rebrand, uh, needsome marketing no, hit us up.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Uh, I just think to myself that we as a country, if
we're going to bring in skilledmigrants, bring in the skills
that we actually need.
Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, butthat's something we have a huge
demand for Fewer engineers andIT peoples.
Last point Stop punishing theeveryday Australian for rules
(27:06):
that you created okay, for rulesthat you created and letting
multinational corporations gougeour natural resources and then
sell it back to us for highamounts of money.
I said it earlier $50,000 in2020 is the equivalent of
(27:31):
$41,000.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Just roundabout.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Roundabout numbers.
That is huge and it doesn'tinclude that's just how much
money is.
It doesn't include everythingaround it.
It doesn't include housing,going like.
There's so many things that areinvolved.
So please, for the love of God,don't tax Australians more and
(27:56):
then give handouts tomultinational corporations owned
by private equity firms inAmerica because they gave you
some money for your campaign.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Basically, what we're saying is Don't lie to us.
Tax the multinationals.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Yeah, tax the multinationals fairly, it's just
simple as that.
Last point if you're going tointroduce a new tax, don't leave
yourself exempt from it.
Take some fuckingaccountability for yourself.
Take some fuckingaccountability and say, hey,
guess what, I'm implementingthis new tax, I'm taxing myself.
Don't sit there and sugarcoatit and say, oh no, we're
(28:34):
Australianralian federalgovernment.
We have the same um, you knowqualifications as australian
defense force.
No, you don't you.
I saw a video the other day.
The guy copies speeches frommichael bay for fucking wall
street or whatever that moviewas called.
I can't remember his bloodyname.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Um, oh, michael sheen , uh, no, michael douglas
michael douglas.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
there is a full video of word for word.
Oh, the greed is good speech.
Albo copies his speech word forword and that guy is getting
15% more in his super than youwill indexed in 30 years.
Why?
Because he's in power.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
Basically, hold politicians accountable and be
angry about it, and don't drawpolitical lines where your
biases lie either, becausethey're not exempt you know what
that was?
A really good summary, that'swhat I'm here for, yeah, I think
he just saved my ass a littlebit, didn't he and if you're
interested in investing in yoursuit and with that we shall
(29:32):
leave you.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
Obviously, this was a heated episode for me and I am
passionate about givingindividuals the opportunity to
better themselves.
I never like it when there isobvious favoritism or corruption
shown by people in power justor just just general inequality
(29:57):
yeah it is because we make rules, we get to do it's.
it is not fair and I cannot waitto see what is actually
proposed in this bill and howthey're going to implement it
because, I highlighted itearlier, you are going to have
people who have money in theirsuper fund, who invested
strategically, thought,intelligently, trusted advisors,
(30:21):
that might be hit with a youknow, new tax bill of 150 grand
200 grand that they have to payright now.
Anyways, thank you all forlistening, sorry for yelling,
and catch us on the next episodeof the Finance Show with Jeff.
Um, sorry feeling and uh, catchus on the next episode of the
finance show.
There are some genuine, genuine issues with
this policy.
How do we make money inAustralia if, all of a sudden,
we are now being forced to paythis extra tax?
Speaker 2 (00:09):
The $3 million super tax.
There are two big issues thatare genuinely a problem.
One is that there's no plannedindexing, that it relies on
governments having actual policy.
Two all federal politicians areexempt from this.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
And three, it's the tax on the unrealized gains.
So this is the problem that Ihave.
Government provided this andnow everyone in Australia gets
punished, but the members of thefederal parliament, all those
in the army.
So it's either hey, go be partof our defense force or get into
politics so you can become apart of tax avoidance.
(00:45):
With the implementation of anew tax, people can't prepare
themselves for this new tax tocome in place.
How am I supposed to pay that?
Do I get a director's penaltynotice sent to me by the ATO?
A superannuation was createdfor retirement purposes.
Why are we punishing people forpreparing for retirement?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Welcome to the Finance Show with Joe.
He's Joe, I'm Michael, andtoday we're talking about the $3
million super scandal.
I'm not going to assume thateveryone knows what the hell
this is, so let me just run downsome facts and figures.
Facts and figures time withMichael New segment New segment.
My favorite segment, facts andfigures.
Okay, so the $3 million supertax.
So those with $3 million intheir super will be taxed 30% on
(01:32):
that figure.
Now that is up from an already15% tax.
So this will directly impact0.5% of individuals in Australia
.
That equates to about 80,000people.
So wealthy families of at least$50 million in net wealth.
Of this, 0.5% of individuals inAustralia, that equates to
about 80,000 people.
So wealthy families of at least$50 million in net wealth.
Of this, 0.5%, 85% are over theage of 60.
Now put things into perspective.
The average super balances formen and women between 60 and 64
(01:55):
right now is $402,000 and$318,000 respectively.
Now there is some controversywith this One, obviously,
because it's a tax.
People don't like paying moretax, that's a given.
But the big two, in my opinionand I do think this is an issue
because, generally speaking,just to get the biases out of
the way I generally think thisis fine and I think it's being
(02:18):
overblown.
But there are two big issuesthat are genuinely problem.
One is that there's no plannedindexing of this.
That could be genuinely problem.
One is that there's no plannedindexing of this.
That could be a problem.
It makes the assumption that itrelies on a government to make
actual policy over the next 10years, or whatever the hell it
is that actually changes it.
And two is that all federalpoliticians are exempt from this
(02:42):
.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
And three, it's the tax on the unrealized gains.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Oh, yes, yes, yes, it's on paper gains, right.
Yeah yeah, yeah.
So those are some actualquestion marks that need to be
talked about, which we'll getinto.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Okay, I'm just.
This is going to be an episodethat's heavily geared towards my
disdain for this new policy,and it is not because I don't
agree with all policies andeverything's wrong.
There are some genuine issueswith this policy, and I'm going
(03:21):
to start with the first the taxon the unrealized gains.
You are taxing people onprofits that haven't eventuated
how that tax is administered orhow that tax is accounted for.
Are you being taxed from yoursuperannuation, as in the money
(03:43):
that goes into yoursuperannuation regularly?
Is the tax supposed to be paidfrom that account, or is the tax
going to be paid from yourpersonal accounts?
I don't know what.
I don't know.
I'm not an accountant, nor hasthis policy been released.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
No, no, this is not law.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
So, for example, let's say Michael has his
superannuation.
Michael made a lot of money,okay, and he's got, you know, $4
million in his superannuation.
It grew from 3 million to $4million in one year because he
bought some land somewhere thatgot subdivided and now all of a
sudden he's made X amount ofcash.
(04:20):
Man, that'd be sweet.
No continue sorry man, that'dbe sweet.
No, continue sorry.
When a tax bill is sent out, doyou have to pay 30% tax from
your personal name, or is itcoming from the superannuation
balance?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
From what I understand, it's from your
self-managed super fund and it'sonly on every dollar above $3
million.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Okay, so between that $3 and $4 million, there's
still a million dollars of gainand means 30 tax, that is going
to be three hundred thousanddollars yet again.
Is it billed to you or is itbilled to the super fund?
Who is it billed to?
So, without clarification ofwhere this money is going to be
coming from, like, who isactually responsible for this
(05:00):
money?
Is it the self-managed superfund itself, or is it Michael
Lozano, the guarantor?
Whoever it is, there still hasto be $300,000 put aside.
Now, not every gain is going tobe $300,000.
Not every single person isgoing to be responsible for that
amount of money.
And, yes, I do agree with you,there are levels to this that
(05:22):
are overblown, yeah, yeah.
However, with our clarificationand with an implementation of a
new tax, people can't preparethemselves for this new tax to
come in place.
Yeah, so if, for example, Idon't have that excess surplus
of cash in my superannuationokay, and that's where the tax
(05:43):
is coming from and my super ishit with you know, oh, you now
owe us $100,000, $250,000.
My superannuation behaves as afund that you know focuses on
asset and producing growth.
If it makes a million dollarsand now I'm hit with this bill.
(06:03):
Okay, how am I supposed to paythat?
Do I get a director's penaltynotice sent to me by the ATO?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
I mean with the assumption.
I mean, if you've got $3million in your super account,
I'm pretty sure you can afford$300,000.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
But it's not $3 million in cash, it's the
valuation of a property, so it'sthe value of the super.
It's not the actual.
It's not the actual cash that'sin it, it's not the cash
balance.
So this is the problem that Ihave how do we make money in
Australia if you know, all of asudden we are now being forced
(06:39):
to pay this extra tax?
Now I know it's not a 0% to 30%increase, it's a 15% to 30%
increase, so it's an extra 15%.
You do have to have that moneyset aside for tax.
But what if in previous yearsyou got your loan based upon the
15% tax rate?
Now you are personally andfiscally responsible for the
(07:03):
gains that are made in there.
Last point before I go into thatOkay, so the tax on unrealized
gains.
Nobody has a crystal ball andnobody knows how much their
property is going to be valuedthe next day.
If there are sudden spikes andyou are not cash prepared, this
(07:29):
can, in essence, fuck you.
I'm not going to excuse myFrench there, but it can because
of the director's penaltynotices and all the other things
that come with tax avoidance.
But you're going to see a lotmore fraud.
Yeah, you're going to seepeople fudging the numbers and
try and decrease their profitmargins, or they're going to try
and decrease the value of theirproperties, paper on paper, so
that they don't have to pay thetax yeah, so the argument has
(07:50):
been that they people.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Argument has been that these high net worth
individuals, they've alreadyagain, like I said, high net
worth.
They've already got a lot ofmoney, so they've already made
their money.
So it's not about trying tomake money, but they're using
super as a way to avoid payingcertain amounts of tax.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
But superannuation was created for retirement
purposes.
Why are we punishing people forpreparing for retirement?
Speaker 2 (08:12):
I mean you're not punishing people.
These people are already loaded.
This is not you and I.
This is not the averageAustralian.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
I know where you're coming from, but this might be
someone that decided I'm goingto put more money into my
superannuation.
They had to think strategically.
These weren't individuals thatwere, oh yeah, we're just going
to go dump money here.
They thought strategicallythroughout the years and they
implemented a system that thegovernment provided.
(08:40):
And this is where my issue is,and it comes to point two.
The government provided this,and now everyone in Australia
gets punished, but the federalconstituent, uh, the, the
federal constitution, the, themembers of the federal uh
parliament or those in the army.
So it's either hey, uh, go bepart of our defense force or get
into politics so you can get up, so you can become a part of
(09:04):
tax avoidance yeah so if anthonyalbanese and I am calling out
the prime minister thought thiswas a fair policy To anyone that
had previously done this, whyis he exempt?
Why are all the members of thatparty exempt?
Also, we do have the people ofthe Liberal government, but why
do we have all these individualsnow exempt to pay that extra
(09:26):
15% because of a job that theyhold?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Oh yeah, no, but this has been the case with
politicians for time immemorial.
It's always rules for thee, notfor me, and that doesn't
literally.
It's just how it's always been,which is shit, and we should
hold them accountable and weshould be mad about that.
Like I said, I think this is anuanced subject, because what I
dislike about the conversationaround this is there's a lot of
(09:51):
stuff in the media complainingit's like this is going to hurt
average Australians.
It's not.
What you can be mad about iswhat you said.
The exemptions, the clarity ofwhere does this bill come from.
Those are things to actually beupset about, but to frame it as
average Australians are goingto be affected by this, I think,
is just straight updisingenuous.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
I'm going to agree with you to a point, and the
point is they haven't indexed it.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Yeah, and this goes to like a probability thing,
right, because obviously so.
Labor won in the landsliderecently, so it generally means
that they'll probably beempowered.
It'll be like a Howardgovernment where we'll go for a
bit or whatever.
So, let's say, the LiberalParty will come back, make a
(10:40):
comeback in late 2020s, early2030s.
At that point, an indexationchange will be introduced, very
likely.
However, it's not guaranteed,is it?
That's the thing.
If it's not already in law nowthat it will be indexed, who's
to say that it?
Well, there's no guarantee thatit will be.
(11:01):
So again, question marks.
It leaves you up to the behestof the government.
Will they change this?
But even so, like I said,average people have about
$400,000 to $300,000 in theirsuper, very clearly not anywhere
near the three million dollarthreshold that there's been
(11:21):
arguments that it's like oh, butwith inflation and wage
increase?
We know for a fact that wageshave not increased with
inflation, so I think it's veryunlikely that people like people
saying, oh, gen z is going tosuffer from this because they're
the ones that are going to copit later, but it's in.
In what world are they going toget $3 million?
Even with inflationary measures, inflationary impacts and
(11:45):
stagnant wage growth.
How are they going to get tothe $3 million if they don't
already have this money, ifthey're already a high net worth
individual?
Basically, what I'm saying is Ithink this whole thing is
overblown.
I'm going to rebuttal.
Go for it, that's the point.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
So you are saying that it's overblown?
I won't disagree.
Okay, it's already 15%, it'sgoing up to 30%.
I'm not going to disagree withyou, because people already pay
taxes from their self-managementfund.
What I don't like is whenLiberal came out with their
housing policy, one of theirpolicies were the super thing
(12:23):
yeah, we will allow first homebuyers to have access to $50,000
from their superannuation.
First home buyers $50,000.
Remember those two numbers?
Okay, To have access to the$50,000 for this graduation to
be able to purchase a property.
People were up in arms aboutthe fact the liberal government
(12:47):
wanted to touch their retirementfund.
How dare they try and getpeople to access their super?
Oh, my God, that's a horriblething to do.
That's people's retirementmoney.
So since 2020, and I posted avideo about this the other day
cash has decreased in valuesignificantly.
Inflation yeah, Because ofinflation.
$50,000 in 2020, if you had$50,000 in the bank account, in
(13:12):
today's money, it's worth about$41,000 or something like that.
That's because of the rate ofinflation.
Yeah, yeah, these are justroundabout numbers.
These are roundabout numbers,right?
Property has increased by 20%or more across the country in
that time.
I think it's 28% the nationalaverage since 2020 to now,
(13:32):
including inflation.
So liberal were giving peopleaccess.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Yeah, that was the plan.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
First home buyers this is my issue.
First home buyers, the Gen Z,that are complaining about this.
Now, they were going to givethem access to say hey guys,
this is going to be a steppingstone for you to be able to get
into the market.
Also, superannuation is yourmoney.
You should be able to do whatyou want with it.
We are giving you theopportunity to be able to
(14:02):
purchase something, because weknow there's a restricted supply
in housing.
Here you go.
No, there were people kickingup a storm about oh, we're
touching people's retirementfunds and everything.
Yet again, rules for thee, notfor me.
So why are we kicking up astorm?
Or why are we angry about thefact that we were going to be
(14:23):
given an opportunity to purchaseour first homes?
Yet we're not as angry aboutindividuals who have built their
wealth through superannuation,who are planning to retire.
We're not getting angry aboutthem losing up to 15% of their
income because of this new taxthat's implemented.
And why are we not holding thegovernment officials accountable
(14:47):
?
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Well, I think the big reason is why people aren't
angry is like, say, you'reaccessing $50,000 for the
deposit which, by the way, I'mnot I'm not, I wasn't really
against this policy, I know youweren't yeah, I think,000 for
the deposit which, by the way,I'm not, I'm not, I wasn't
really against this policyeither, I know you weren't.
Yeah, I think the difference isthe scale.
Right For a younger person,let's say a 30 year old, they've
got a hundred thousand in theirsuper.
(15:10):
I don't think that's the number, but let's just say, for
example, they've got ahundred000 and then they're
accessing $50,000.
That's a lot more money thansomeone with $3 million in super
taking out $50,000, whichobviously they can't do because
they've already built theirwealth and things like that.
It's the perspective of how muchit's relative right.
People aren't mad that thesealready millionaires are losing
(15:33):
a couple hundred thousanddollars because, relatively
speaking, drop in the bucket forthem a couple hundred thousand
dollars because, relativelyspeaking, drop in the bucket for
them.
They are matters when lower uh,lower socioeconomic uh peoples
are being forced into to usetheir retirement funds where
fifty thousand dollars will makemore of a difference.
Again I don't know, with itwith inflation and stuff, how
much that's going to be worth intime, but regardless it's, it
is worth a lot more to thesepeople than someone with $3
(15:57):
million in super and also, Ithink a lot of it is this with
super, again, the $3 millionaccounts, not the average person
is they've already gotten tothat point because they've
already got a lot of money theywouldn't even necessarily need.
Granted, it's probably notliquid money.
I understand that.
But frankly, if you need moneyfor retirement and you own 20
(16:18):
investment properties, fuckingjust sell one.
Okay, you know what I mean.
Like how much more do you need?
Speaker 1 (16:25):
all great points.
They're all great points, um,and you know, raising the taxes
there.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Okay, that's, that's an avenue, that's an avenue, you
can take.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Uh, so why did the labor government excuse
themselves from the tax?
Speaker 2 (16:38):
yeah, that's the dodgy part.
Yeah, no, and I'm in fullagreement with that.
I don't like that part eitherwhy?
Speaker 1 (16:44):
why would they come in and say I don't know, but
we're excused.
Why is you know the?
Why is anthony albanese allowedto keep his extra 15?
Yeah, because he applied for ajob, because he lobbied himself
to get into the Labor Party.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Yeah, and it's all the politicians as well, because
they've all got theirinvestment properties.
They've all got really bigsalaries as well.
For what?
And a lot of people would makethe argument what are they even
doing?
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Exactly.
Well, there's that.
There's the wage increase thatthey will receive.
I think they will receive the9% wage increase.
There's the fact that they getto fly around the country,
private charge whatever theywant whenever they park their
private jets and such.
They get to do all these thingsPeople in government actually
make Make a shit ton.
(17:34):
No, no, no, it's not even.
It's not like small like inAmerica.
In America in particular, youwill see people in government.
They're not on high-incomeproducing jobs, but they get
their money from the lobbyists.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Here in Australia we have stricter lobbying rules.
We still have it though, ofcourse, hence the gambling.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
But they comp everything.
They literally comp everythingonto the government.
So their salary is their salary, but their travel costs
everything.
No, that's a government expense.
I have to drive to Canberra.
No, that's going to cost me$200.
You owe me $200 for that.
One more item.
So they're so worried about you.
Know, we've got to raise taxesin certain parts.
We've got to make sure peoplehave more money.
Yeah, they just signed a 40year.
(18:22):
They signed it up until 2070.
They signed a 40 year uh gascontract with woodside gas a new
one where this company paid0.015 percent of their profit in
taxes.
Oh yeah, punters, politicsgonna love the fact that I'm
talking about this.
One of the pages on Instagram,right, he actually brought a lot
of attention to Ashaya'snational resources being
(18:44):
exported and then resold to us.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Oh, yeah, gas is the prime example, gas is the prime
example.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
So they signed a contract.
It was a new contract for a newgas pipeline, for a new gas
pipeline, so an external marketcould pay less tax for our
resources.
I understand, I understandglobal economics.
I understand that there aresome dangerous people in this
world that will do somedangerous things to make sure
(19:10):
that they can acquire, um,natural resources like this, and
there's episodes of suits,there's episodes of billions.
These people aren't caricatures.
These people exist okay.
Yeah, um, the world is prettyeffed up.
Yeah, I'm looking at a niceplace generally but why are we
so willing to punish australianpeople and sign these new
(19:31):
contracts at the same time tothese multinational corporations
?
Speaker 2 (19:34):
that won't pay us yeah, no, I agree, I agree
entirely.
I agree entirely.
I think, I think, cause youknow a lot of the a lot of the
argument is um, you know, budgetrepair, paying for things like
Medicare and all those kinds ofthings, which is all true, they
will, the money will go towardsthat, but yeah, like you said, a
really easy way to get thatmoney would be to actually tax
corporate, multinationalcorporations effectively.
I agree completely.
(19:55):
And, yeah, neither, neither,neither center party um liberal
or labor are willing to touchthat.
Yep, and that's, that's a damnshame there's probably some.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
There's probably some uh things that are occurring
within you know, the on afederal level that you and I
will never get visibility of ortransparency of.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
What was that?
It was like John Barillaro andGladys as soon as their
political careers were over, allof a sudden they've got jobs at
these big multinationalcorporations.
Why, yeah, it's lobbying, yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
So it might not even be lobbying.
It might be external securitythreats or something.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Whatever the case is they have a relationship with
these large companies.
It should go straight in.
Oh, I finished my mostlysuccessful political careers.
Granted, both ended in scandal,but regardless, they got jobs.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
Well-paying jobs, correct, and now they're allowed
to.
But, mind you, they still getthe government pension, which
has increased in value too?
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Do they really?
Yes, I suppose they would,because you're not on politics
for your whole life.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
So they get the government pension, they get the
tax benefits as well, and thenwe also disregard the fact that
a lot of our money went to thesemultinational corporations.
This is what I hate.
This is what I hate.
You have optional choices forwho you're protecting in
(21:20):
Australia.
Oh no, you know what?
We're not going to protect thepeople that have done their
hardest to build their moneythrough property in Australia.
We're not going to touch them.
Sorry, we're going to go afterthem, but we're not going to go
after these MNCs.
Oh so you hear the Greens allthe time and, yes, they are very
(21:40):
hypocritical in a lot of thestuff that they say, and I don't
think they have a singleeconomic policy that wasn't
written in crayon.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
God it was funny watching them get smashed in the
last election.
God it was funny.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
It was great.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Don't get me wrong, I'm going to let him sit sorry,
like when because adam bannlosing his melbourne seat
fucking hilarious.
I don't the arrogance that theywere like, yeah, we're gonna do
so great in this election,we're gonna do this, that and
the other and just to getfucking the floor wiped with
them like hilarious anyway, theydidn't get a single seat.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
You hear this.
You hear people advocating you.
You want to see them?
Oh no, it should be a fairercountry.
It should be a fairer economy.
This is how you make it fairer,and we're going to finish off
the episode with this yeah, fixthe fucking inefficiencies in
local councils.
Okay, make it fairer that way,because then it won't be driving
prices up so high.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Supply building approvals will actually just go
through.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
And, mind you, there is an inquiry.
There is an inquiry happeningright now, a Senate inquiry, as
to why four councils inAustralia have extreme delays in
approving new dwellings.
So that's the first one.
Okay, not in Australia, inlocal councils around here, I
think it's the Sydney, uh,sydney, cbd, whatever it is.
They're doing an inquiry rightnow as we speak.
(23:05):
Number two, if you are going to, am I on number three.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
I think you're at number three.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Is he on number three ?
No, I'm on number two.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Yeah, okay, sorry, inefficiencies.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
Number two if you're going to keep migration up this
high, bring in individuals forskills that we don't have.
Advertise for fucking Sparkysomewhere in the world.
Yeah, why is my electrician?
Why is the electrician down theroad making $500,000 a year?
Okay, and they're doing itthrough TAFE.
(23:36):
Don't get me wrong, I love myelectricians, but the lawyers in
town are earning a quarter ofthat.
Why, why is that possible?
And then you sorry, I'm on myfucking government rant right
now and I'm so fucking pissedoff about this.
Okay, here's a perfect example.
You're a female?
Okay, you are going to go intoa female dominated industry.
(24:01):
Just a statistic show.
You've got hr as a as a as anindustry.
Okay, hr is dominated 78 byfemales.
Okay, just just, these arestatistics.
You want to fucking cancel?
Go fuck yourselves.
All right, these are statisticsIn Sydney and Melbourne.
Okay, in Sydney and Melbourne,to get into the HR industry, you
(24:23):
need a complete four years ofuni plus an extra couple sets of
qualifications.
Right, there's a chance youmight need a second major in
psychology, just so you canunderstand the human behavior.
Whatever it is, entry-leveljobs are around $80,000.
So you've got a $60,000 hexdebt.
Okay, you can't afford propertyin Sydney or Melbourne Perfect,
you can't afford property there.
And then you have people onlinesaying just fucking move
(24:45):
regional in Sydney and Melbourne, there's no work there.
No, no, no, wait, sydney andMelbourne.
There was 2,000 job openings inHR or you know, allied, not
allied industries, similar roles, okay, some sort of HR role.
Yeah, 2,000 job openings in theyear.
Yeah, in Gosford, in Bathurstand Mildura there were seven.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
So out of the 2,000 jobs, seven were in the regional
.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
No, no, no, no 2,000 was Sydney and Melbourne, yeah,
in the regional house.
No, no, no.
2,000 was Sydney and Melbourne,yeah, in the regional CBDs.
That was seven.
So you might be able to affordon your $80,000 a year salary to
move to Mildura, but you won'tbe able to find the job.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Yeah, that's the big issue, isn't it?
That's been the issue for thewhole time.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
But electricians will be able to make the same amount
of money.
Yeah, so if people want to getup in arms or something, this is
what you can get up in armsabout because, yes, you might be
able to go move regional andyou might be able to afford a
property there, but you mightnot be able to find work.
Yeah, and we are heavilyskewing.
We are heavily skewing thedependence on trades and we're
(25:50):
not bringing them in, we're notinvesting in it.
We're telling people go touniversity, build up your HECS
debt For what?
So you could pray.
The government gives you a 20%off, so you could pray for that.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Look, we've had this issue for a while now.
Where it comes to skilled laboris what we're talking about.
We have a lack of it and TAFEis free, at least in New South
Wales.
I'm sure it's free in australia, but I know it is free in new
south wales and that's notreally driving people to go
towards.
It's not really the cost ofschooling that's stopping people
from joining the trades.
So what is it?
(26:21):
Because we also know, like Ihave plenty of a lot of my mates
are tradies and they make.
They make great money.
I all I mean fuck everyone Iknow who's a tradie makes great
money, especially if they're intheir own business, of course.
Yep.
So how do we make these jobsmore attractive?
And like I don't have an answermaybe, maybe tafe needs a, and
then you know, rebrand, uh, needsome marketing no, hit us up.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Uh, I just think to myself that we as a country, if
we're going to bring in skilledmigrants, bring in the skills
that we actually need.
Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, butthat's something we have a huge
demand for Fewer engineers andIT peoples.
Last point Stop punishing theeveryday Australian for rules
(27:06):
that you created okay, for rulesthat you created and letting
multinational corporations gougeour natural resources and then
sell it back to us for highamounts of money.
I said it earlier $50,000 in2020 is the equivalent of
(27:31):
$41,000.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Just roundabout.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Roundabout numbers.
That is huge and it doesn'tinclude that's just how much
money is.
It doesn't include everythingaround it.
It doesn't include housing,going like.
There's so many things that areinvolved.
So please, for the love of God,don't tax Australians more and
(27:56):
then give handouts tomultinational corporations owned
by private equity firms inAmerica because they gave you
some money for your campaign.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Basically, what we're saying is Don't lie to us.
Tax the multinationals.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Yeah, tax the multinationals fairly, it's just
simple as that.
Last point if you're going tointroduce a new tax, don't leave
yourself exempt from it.
Take some fuckingaccountability for yourself.
Take some fuckingaccountability and say, hey,
guess what, I'm implementingthis new tax, I'm taxing myself.
Don't sit there and sugarcoatit and say, oh no, we're
(28:34):
Australianralian federalgovernment.
We have the same um, you knowqualifications as australian
defense force.
No, you don't you.
I saw a video the other day.
The guy copies speeches frommichael bay for fucking wall
street or whatever that moviewas called.
I can't remember his bloodyname.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Um, oh, michael sheen , uh, no, michael douglas
michael douglas.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
there is a full video of word for word.
Oh, the greed is good speech.
Albo copies his speech word forword and that guy is getting
15% more in his super than youwill indexed in 30 years.
Why?
Because he's in power.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
Basically, hold politicians accountable and be
angry about it, and don't drawpolitical lines where your
biases lie either, becausethey're not exempt you know what
that was?
A really good summary, that'swhat I'm here for, yeah, I think
he just saved my ass a littlebit, didn't he and if you're
interested in investing in yoursuit and with that we shall
(29:32):
leave you.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
Obviously, this was a heated episode for me and I am
passionate about givingindividuals the opportunity to
better themselves.
I never like it when there isobvious favoritism or corruption
shown by people in power justor just just general inequality
(29:57):
yeah it is because we make rules, we get to do it's.
it is not fair and I cannot waitto see what is actually
proposed in this bill and howthey're going to implement it
because, I highlighted itearlier, you are going to have
people who have money in theirsuper fund, who invested
strategically, thought,intelligently, trusted advisors,
(30:21):
that might be hit with a youknow, new tax bill of 150 grand
200 grand that they have to payright now.
Anyways, thank you all forlistening, sorry for yelling,
and catch us on the next episodeof the Finance Show with Jeff.
Um, sorry feeling and uh, catchus on the next episode of the
finance show.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.