Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm
Speaker 1: James Kirby. Welcome aboard everybody. It's been a long time
Speaker 1: since any government moved to change wealth taxes, but this
Speaker 1: week at the Economic Summit in Canberra, I think we
Speaker 1: may be looking at a serious redrafting of investment rules
Speaker 1: as we know them. We've got a lot to talk about.
Speaker 1: My guest today is Will Hamilton of Hamilton Wealth Partners.
Speaker 2: How are you well, very well, Thank you very much
Speaker 2: for having me.
Speaker 1: It's good to have you on. You know, I had
Speaker 1: an idea to put you on because I know that
Speaker 1: you're very politically alert as well as being a financial advisor,
Speaker 1: and you will be across what's happening at the summit.
Speaker 1: But to my surprise, but it's also a very interesting signal.
Speaker 1: I think just this week, in the middle of the summit,
Speaker 1: barely receiving any wide attention, of course, the government did
Speaker 1: something very interesting. They lifted the deeming rates. The deeming
Speaker 1: rates are the rates, of course, at which the government
Speaker 1: deems you are making on your investments in the control
Speaker 1: pension access, and by lifting the deeming rates, they tighten
Speaker 1: pension access. It's a move I see, and I've actually
Speaker 1: sort of mentioned many times I thought it was coming
Speaker 1: because it hasn't been changed since twenty twenty one. Scott
Speaker 1: Morrison was in power when it was in and I
Speaker 1: think it is one of the first steps if you like,
Speaker 1: that this government is taking to tighten up both wealth
Speaker 1: taxes and pension access, which are very much actually more
Speaker 1: or less the same thing because they all basically work
Speaker 1: out as wealth tax you've been watching the summit, tell
Speaker 1: me what in terms of the risk that there will
Speaker 1: be more taxes, wealth taxes in particular coming down the line,
Speaker 1: where are you coming from? What do you think?
Speaker 3: Well, I've been saying for a little while that I
Speaker 3: don't think it'll be increases in taxes, but it will
Speaker 3: be decreases in.
Speaker 2: Tax breaks, so to speak.
Speaker 3: So cutting the CGT discount from fifty percent to twenty
Speaker 3: five percent, you know, playing potentially with negative gearing. So
Speaker 3: it's those things where people get a break, and it's
Speaker 3: even when you look at the performance tests where they've
Speaker 3: been playing with that. I've read a book called Abundance,
Speaker 3: which is Jim Charmer's favorite book. Now I read it
Speaker 3: so I can understand where the government's coming from on things.
Speaker 3: It's actually a really good book and it's a very
Speaker 3: interesting reading. And the thing is with these concessions, it's
Speaker 3: the top taxpayers that naturally benefit from this, the lower
Speaker 3: taxpayers don't, So this is where they're coming from this
Speaker 3: and also with the performance test, it's about providing supply
Speaker 3: because of the doubling of the price of the income
Speaker 3: required to buy house and over the last twenty years.
Speaker 1: So you see them coming in with a we're changing
Speaker 1: the terms and tightening the terms rather than headline grabbing,
Speaker 1: you know, brutal straight up web taxes. So interesting, isn't
Speaker 1: it that the deeming race, as I say, hasn't changed
Speaker 1: since Scott Morrison was in power the budget, which was
Speaker 1: the obvious opportunity to do so. Amanda Rishworth, who was
Speaker 1: the minister at the time, said no, we're not changing
Speaker 1: the deeming rate. But this week, this week when they're
Speaker 1: having a summit discussing these sort of things and this
Speaker 1: is on the agenda, they move for the first time
Speaker 1: in over four and a half years on deeming and
Speaker 1: they make it a bit tighter. Is that something of
Speaker 1: a sign of things to come?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: And I think that they're aware also you know, it's
Speaker 3: projected that we're going to get to twenty seven expenditure,
Speaker 3: getting to twenty seven cent of JEDDP, which you know,
Speaker 3: people like Costello I think from memory it was twenty
Speaker 3: two percent. He wouldn't allowed to go above that, say
Speaker 3: in our full five percentage points above that. And I
Speaker 3: know that's projected, it's not where it is. But they've
Speaker 3: got to catail expenditure and the people have got used
Speaker 3: to this middle class welfare so to speak as they
Speaker 3: call it that's come out, especially since COVID and even
Speaker 3: needing to tell that, so that they're going to start
Speaker 3: to do that. And this is the first sign because
Speaker 3: it's two sides of the equation. There's one is revenue
Speaker 3: and the other is expenditure. And I think Governor Low
Speaker 3: I will form a Governor Low of the Reserve Bank,
Speaker 3: very critical as well and outspoken on the extent of
Speaker 3: expenditure of the government, you know, And it makes me
Speaker 3: realize also just some of the things. Having read Abundance,
Speaker 3: and I do recommend that people do read this. It
Speaker 3: helps you see where the government's coming from.
Speaker 1: Yes, because it's like a manifesto basically, and to some extent,
Speaker 1: every government has one, or at least many governments have one,
Speaker 1: and you get an idea of where they're coming from.
Speaker 1: That is a book across written in the US. It's
Speaker 1: a client Eklin.
Speaker 3: Yeah, ezral substitute America for Australia as you read it.
Speaker 1: Well, let's hope it don't substitute it directly. So in
Speaker 1: terms of reading Tea leaves. In terms of politically feasible moves,
Speaker 1: let's look at the two sides we talked about how
Speaker 1: they can. Basically there's the revenue and there's the expenditure.
Speaker 1: We see some things at the summit like NDIS, perhaps
Speaker 1: some structural reform to NDIS. We see the deeming rate
Speaker 1: basically being pinched. Where else do you see? What do
Speaker 1: you see coming down the line you mentioned CGT. Just
Speaker 1: what's your sense of where they'll move.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's going to be on tax breaks,
Speaker 3: which is also about simplifying that the tax system, and
Speaker 3: whereas I also thought on they make grandfather assets that
Speaker 3: you're like Keating did in nineteen eighty five, boom, as
Speaker 3: of tonight, this comes in. But if you're you're prior
Speaker 3: of that your grandfather, you know, there's even talk that
Speaker 3: you'll only be grandfathered for a period like five years,
Speaker 3: So that that's a lot harsher than I thought.
Speaker 1: For instance, explain what you mean there will that said,
Speaker 1: not everyone would understand where you're coming from there about grandfathering.
Speaker 3: So if you have an asset, yeah, so on on
Speaker 3: things like SAG on CGT, they're talk Yeah. For instance,
Speaker 3: they're talking about and fathering assets that you already hold.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The discussion that I've heard is, you know, you'll only
Speaker 3: have a five year break on that, not as in
Speaker 3: tonight at the new rate of a twenty five percent
Speaker 3: discount comes in on assets that you purchase from tomorrow
Speaker 3: and the assets that you hold today are at a
Speaker 3: fifty percent discount. They'll only that that grandfathering will only
Speaker 3: last for a number of years. Now, that's also telling
Speaker 3: you they want that that's a chase for revenue.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, So just to bring listeners into the picture here,
Speaker 1: just in case. The perhaps I suppose the outstanding piece
Speaker 1: of speculation as to what they might do, almost as
Speaker 1: a process of elimination, is that at the moment there's
Speaker 1: the CGT discount, if you have an asset of any description,
Speaker 1: if you hold it for more than a year, then
Speaker 1: the tax that's applicable only it is reduced by fifty percent.
Speaker 1: And the rumor basically is that they'll turn that down
Speaker 1: to twenty five percent. And you're explaining that also, they'll
Speaker 1: only have a limited number of time by which you
Speaker 1: have to by which you can sell the asset and
Speaker 1: not get it with that tax, because that's called grand furthering,
Speaker 1: and they have this sort of safety period. Isn't five
Speaker 1: years enough? Most people get their backt together in five years.
Speaker 3: Oh yes, it's enough. But I think that what I've
Speaker 3: was envisaged in as I said they would do like that.
Speaker 3: It was done in September eighty five with Katine when
Speaker 3: he sort of brought in SGT an asset SGT free
Speaker 3: an acid. Yeah, is now accessible, but no that's not
Speaker 3: the case. So that mains their main business.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yes, I think it's I mean, tell me what
Speaker 1: you think. But it's also interesting if you think about
Speaker 1: what really matters for investors at this summit, and it's
Speaker 1: nothing short of entertaining to look at some of the
Speaker 1: submissions and everything's on the table. I mean, death tax,
Speaker 1: inheritance tax, well tax of European style. I think they
Speaker 1: should all be should be aware that they're all on
Speaker 1: the table and that they are being bounced around basically
Speaker 1: at this time. But in terms of hard data, hard
Speaker 1: facts so far are I thought the most interesting thing
Speaker 1: was that, first of all, Jim Chalmer said, hey, super
Speaker 1: tax is going through us. I've planned. Even Andrew Fraser,
Speaker 1: the former Queensland treasure close friend of the treasure who
Speaker 1: put in a late application if you like, a lead
Speaker 1: submission to the someone and said look there's another way
Speaker 1: to do this and don't do unrealized gains. He got
Speaker 1: shot down basically, and Charmer said, no, we've got our
Speaker 1: plan we're sticking with. So I think hard message from
Speaker 1: the summits is that super taxes going through us planned.
Speaker 1: What do you think too much? Do you think that's accurate?
Speaker 2: I think so.
Speaker 3: Look everything that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer
Speaker 3: have said, they haven't buckled one little bit on this,
Speaker 3: and you know what I might think, And you have
Speaker 3: others like Andrew Fraser just mentioned on unrealized capital gains
Speaker 3: it's coming.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that's super tax, CGT, YEP, pension access. We've
Speaker 1: got three sort of major items there. Anything else you
Speaker 1: think we should talk before the break in terms.
Speaker 3: Of potentially negative gearing, you could say restrictions on negative gearing.
Speaker 2: Shortened ran on all these things.
Speaker 1: And short And ran on them and he lost an election.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I don't think it's going to be a
Speaker 3: dramatic you know, they allow you to have so many
Speaker 3: properties whatever. But yeah, but again, I think you'll see
Speaker 3: some tightening of those concessions.
Speaker 1: Do you think the public appetize and the context in
Speaker 1: which you could bring in those has changed? In other words,
Speaker 1: when short And tried to bring it in, everyone basically
Speaker 1: jumped up and down. Do you think it's more receptive now?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: I think he tried to do this in twenty nineteen
Speaker 3: from memory pre COVID. We're now post COVID, and I
Speaker 3: think everybody does realize there is an issue, and it's
Speaker 3: an issue. It's with the fact that we're overspending and
Speaker 3: we're not and read there's a shortage of revenue, so
Speaker 3: we need to look at both sides of the balance sheets,
Speaker 3: so to speak. And you know, it's interesting, this isn't
Speaker 3: just an Australian issue. You know, look what Starmer tried
Speaker 3: to do. Correct then the issue is not going to
Speaker 3: be with the people. It actually could be with his
Speaker 3: own bench like Sarma had. When you have a large majority, Yeah,
Speaker 3: sometimes people start flexing their muscles on the back bench.
Speaker 3: And like what Starma was proposing was really towards curbing
Speaker 3: I think it's called pit which is their ndis.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he was just trying to curb the excesses
Speaker 2: in that.
Speaker 1: And they've also tried non dom taxes and they're now
Speaker 1: trying property taxes, aren't they. So it keeps coming. There
Speaker 1: are waves of basically wealth tax efforts in a corresponding
Speaker 1: economy the UK at the same time with interestingly a
Speaker 1: labor government. Okay, we'll take a short break. We'll be
Speaker 1: back in a moment. Lots to talk about. Hello, Welcome
Speaker 1: back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. James Kirby here
Speaker 1: with Will Hamilton, regular guest of Hamilton Wealth Partners. I
Speaker 1: tend to get Will on when I have very tricky,
Speaker 1: urgent issues to talk about. We do the budget together
Speaker 1: each year, and obviously this we have the economic Summit
Speaker 1: just before we talk about what investors are doing ahead,
Speaker 1: if you like, of the potential changes that are coming
Speaker 1: down the line. You mentioned about housing. You mentioned the
Speaker 1: performance tests. I don't know what you think, but I
Speaker 1: thought that was a studied leak from the summit. I
Speaker 1: thought it meant very little in the overall scheme of things.
Speaker 1: The super funds will do what they want to do.
Speaker 1: That they're making some teeny weeny change to the performance
Speaker 1: tests to satisfy the super funds. Well, yeah, you know, okay,
Speaker 1: and maybe they'll build more houses. Yeah, sure, perhaps in
Speaker 1: the in the fullness of time. That's that's always a probability.
Speaker 1: But I think the performance tests are worth having, and
Speaker 1: they may not be perfect, they will never be perfect.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that I think that's almost a
Speaker 1: decoy basically, that performance test stuff. It's arcane virtually. What
Speaker 1: do you maybe, do you think it's more than that?
Speaker 2: No, I don't.
Speaker 3: I actually like the performance tests as well. But I
Speaker 3: do think this is about some attempt to try and
Speaker 3: drive supply on housing.
Speaker 2: Again.
Speaker 3: I get back to their book abundance and they've they've
Speaker 3: got to increase the supply and how do they do it?
Speaker 1: And they won't ever get into trouble by trying And
Speaker 1: they do try also, to be fair, they are trying
Speaker 1: all sorts of things from incentives programs, shared equity and
Speaker 1: now trying to get the big super funds, who will
Speaker 1: in the end only do it if they can make
Speaker 1: money out of it. And it's worth pointing out, folks
Speaker 1: that the big super funds or well into the housing market.
Speaker 1: They've build luxury apartments so you can find them all
Speaker 1: over the country, bank rolled by SeaBus, et cetera. It's
Speaker 1: just affordable housing. They don't want to do because they
Speaker 1: can't make money out of it. All right, put that
Speaker 1: to one side. Tell me what in terms of what's
Speaker 1: happened so far, super taxes for sure, changes are coming
Speaker 1: down the line. This is a second term labor government.
Speaker 1: They've got the win behind them, they've got strong ratings,
Speaker 1: they are in a position to do things. What are
Speaker 1: investors doing ahead of this? Is there moves to chake
Speaker 1: money out of super and if there is, for instance,
Speaker 1: where are people putting it? And will it just be
Speaker 1: a chase where they move to family trust and then
Speaker 1: they government move on family trust and then they chase
Speaker 1: them across somewhere else.
Speaker 3: Look, we've seen a few clients want to do this.
Speaker 3: We've said just hold off because there isn't any hurry.
Speaker 3: You still, you know, you've gotten to the end of
Speaker 3: this year and we need to see the legislation and
Speaker 3: we haven't seen the legislation yet, but you know, basically
Speaker 3: not what's coming, but we do. I think it is
Speaker 3: wise when you've got time to wait. But no, Look,
Speaker 3: there are one or two that have panicked, I think
Speaker 3: is probably the right way to put it, and they
Speaker 3: want to get things sort of pre last financial year.
Speaker 3: And yes they are moving things into one is to
Speaker 3: family trust. But will family trust get taxed? They've said
Speaker 3: no new taxes, so you know, we have to therefore
Speaker 3: rely on that that there won't be any new taxes
Speaker 3: in this term. That doesn't mean there won't be in
Speaker 3: the next term of parliament. The other thing is, you know,
Speaker 3: one or two people have sort of where they've got
Speaker 3: excess balance, have been using this to you nonconcessional contributions
Speaker 3: to children and making their members of super funds and
Speaker 3: things like that. So us send them some articles in
Speaker 3: the paper that this is a common strategy we've had.
Speaker 3: You know, we have seen some people want to do that.
Speaker 3: You know, again we caution them because you've got different
Speaker 3: risk profiles for different age groups.
Speaker 1: Just to explain to listeners, that's moving. Traditionally, super funds
Speaker 1: there was a limit on how many people could be
Speaker 1: in them, and it's now six. So people are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: there's just mom and dad so far. Let's open it up.
Speaker 1: Let's put the kids in, adult kids in redistributing inside
Speaker 1: super But you're saying that opens what cand of worms?
Speaker 2: Well, you've got to they're our members, your super fund.
Speaker 3: You've got to me as long as you're doing things
Speaker 3: I think with governance in there, and yeah, there's transparency,
Speaker 3: there's openness, and just remember, you know, make sure everybody's
Speaker 3: in the right risk profile because generally a person who's
Speaker 3: in their thirties they've got thirty ideas until they can
Speaker 3: access super and so they're going to have a different
Speaker 3: risk profile than somebody who's in their sixties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, So mom and dad are they're sort of
Speaker 1: possibly preserving to some extent, and adult children brought into
Speaker 1: the SMSF for the first time because there's a new
Speaker 1: you can now have up to six people, isn't it.
Speaker 1: In smsfs, they could be looking at extremely different where
Speaker 1: they could be looking at growth stocks, they could be
Speaker 1: looking at ethical concerns that weren't on the table perhaps
Speaker 1: twenty years ago. Is that what you're referring to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, there's different needs.
Speaker 3: It's just it's the same as when you get different
Speaker 3: generational changes and people looking at your paths and you're
Speaker 3: in your one age groups wanting to give to more
Speaker 3: environmental causes, whereas the older generations are wanting to give
Speaker 3: to your more health related So you've got to be
Speaker 3: aware of the generational issues you're bringing into yourself. And
Speaker 3: it's super fun when you do that. And you've got
Speaker 3: to make sure that the eypinness and transparency is there.
Speaker 1: Okay, past folks, by the way, are the philanthropic tax
Speaker 1: shelters basically public that are very good and useful but
Speaker 1: for very wealthy people. Really all right, And we have
Speaker 1: had someone on the show in the past if you
Speaker 1: want to have a look at that. One last thing
Speaker 1: will which I thought was really interesting. We've been talking
Speaker 1: on the show about the almost like something under your
Speaker 1: nose basically for people are planning around potential wealth tax changes,
Speaker 1: and that the sort of opportunity that's under everyone's nose
Speaker 1: is that it's all income is tax free up to
Speaker 1: eighteen thousand or so, and so many people don't have
Speaker 1: to have everything in super but I see some suggestions
Speaker 1: that could be closed off too to income that it
Speaker 1: could only be for Saturdy. It wasn't that interesting.
Speaker 2: That was interesting. I sort of looked at them with horror.
Speaker 1: Well, it's like on the show, we've not that we've
Speaker 1: just discovered it, but we have been talking about it,
Speaker 1: and many people have been talking about it, and then
Speaker 1: suddenly you see, oh, there's a couple of submissions saying, hey,
Speaker 1: close that off. That's a escape corridor. So that's what
Speaker 1: do you think is that realistic?
Speaker 2: I don't think that one's realistic.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: Again, I think there could be quite an outcry on
Speaker 2: that one.
Speaker 3: And I think they're going to make decisions where is
Speaker 3: less noise.
Speaker 1: Yes, because they do seem to be in the end
Speaker 1: a relative. How they move is quite conservatively. They bring
Speaker 1: it up, they put it on the table, and then
Speaker 1: they get it through. Well, if they were to be
Speaker 1: re elected again, there was their procedure. They said, well,
Speaker 1: we've put it to an election, We've been elected, so
Speaker 1: we are absolutely given to go ahead, green light to
Speaker 1: do whatever. That's how they did the super tax. Okay,
Speaker 1: well that's a pretty that was a pretty juicy in
Speaker 1: newsworthy session, folks with Will, we're going to now have
Speaker 1: some questions. Some of them are on the summit, but
Speaker 1: we've probably dealt with them. But there's some great questions
Speaker 1: which we'll deal with in a moment. Back in a moment. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. James
Speaker 1: Kirby here with Will Hamilton of Hamilton Wealth Partners. Piece
Speaker 1: of correspondence from Jeremy. Hello from Hobart. I've recently started
Speaker 1: listening to your podcast while writing my indoor trainer and
Speaker 1: I really enjoy the discussions. It makes the cold winter
Speaker 1: garage sessions much more bearable. So thank you, Thank you.
Speaker 1: Jeremy down there in cold Hobart. We're here and Sonny Melbourne,
Speaker 1: our producer Lea is in rain SAWTN, Sydney. Jeremy's just
Speaker 1: asking about the best structures and pros and cons around
Speaker 1: basically for holding family investments. It's a very dark question, Jeremy.
Speaker 1: We won't be able to get to it today, but
Speaker 1: I think it would be worth listening to what Will
Speaker 1: had just been saying at the end of the last
Speaker 1: segment around alternatives. If you like to super that being
Speaker 1: family trust, expansion, family truss, expanding the SMSF out to
Speaker 1: anything up to six people. There are starters if you like,
Speaker 1: we'd come back to that another time if we can.
Speaker 1: None of this is advice, it's information only question from Demien.
Speaker 3: There will yeah, So Damien asks, would you know what
Speaker 3: the final dividend for twenty twenty five is on my
Speaker 3: Vanguard ETF VSO's small caps is at three dollars ninety
Speaker 3: eight per share. It seems extraordinarily high for an ETF
Speaker 3: made up of some one hundred and ninety six separate companies.
Speaker 3: They have a dividend yield of seven point eight eight percent,
Speaker 3: and I can't seem to be able to track down
Speaker 3: where it has come from. So if I was you,
Speaker 3: I would have a chat with Vanguard and find there.
Speaker 3: You know, there could be as with ETFs, the rebalancing occurs,
Speaker 3: there could be some capital gains in that. But I
Speaker 3: would have a chat with them and that they will
Speaker 3: be able to give you that transfer, that that degree
Speaker 3: of transparency that you are quire.
Speaker 1: Very good and Damian, we've had questions like this before,
Speaker 1: and often sometimes the mechanics of the ETFs are not
Speaker 1: instantly obvious to the clients who buy the ETFs. You
Speaker 1: know they mirror the stock market. Yes, but not always
Speaker 1: in their dividend flows for instance. That could be due
Speaker 1: to do with the mechanics or the timing, as Will
Speaker 1: has alluded to. Now, the final question is actually this
Speaker 1: is a reprise of a question because I wanted to
Speaker 1: put it to you too, Will. We had it on
Speaker 1: the show the other day that was really interesting. So
Speaker 1: a guy called Drew. He says, I'm forty three and
Speaker 1: every year the level of my earnings means that I
Speaker 1: exceed the concession of super cap, the tax free super
Speaker 1: cap of thirty thousand dollars, and I have to pay
Speaker 1: the extra tax for high earners Division two ninety three,
Speaker 1: and in the future two ninety six is coming down
Speaker 1: the line, and he says, with limitations on super contributions
Speaker 1: and penalties, I would like to explore the idea of
Speaker 1: opting out of compulsory super contributions if your balance is
Speaker 1: high enough, and take that payment as part of your salary.
Speaker 1: With so many restrictions on super going forward, should this
Speaker 1: be an option? So you get to the point now,
Speaker 1: because they haven't changed this tax free pre tax consessional
Speaker 1: cap for years and years, and they keep lifting the
Speaker 1: Super innovation guarantee at twelve percent. That people are, whether
Speaker 1: they like it or not, pushed into this higher tax
Speaker 1: category because of mandatory super's and the same people don't
Speaker 1: need is because by definition they don't need it. I
Speaker 1: think it was like an oversight and what do you
Speaker 1: think that people should be allowed at that level, at
Speaker 1: that level where they're clearly able to look after their
Speaker 1: super do something else with it, rather than fall into
Speaker 1: line with the mandatory rules.
Speaker 3: Look, and it's not just that it's yes, some people
Speaker 3: have what you're led to back concessional contributions if they're
Speaker 3: over the transfer balance cap. There's some there's planning that's
Speaker 3: required around that as well. So yes, I do think
Speaker 3: that it may make sense. The biggest issue for the
Speaker 3: majority of people thought, is getting money into super. That
Speaker 3: doesn't seem it's necessarily an issue that Drew's talking about, but.
Speaker 1: It is the big issue. I mean, you can have
Speaker 1: two million and super pend no tax, but you can't
Speaker 1: put in more than thirty grand a year pre tax.
Speaker 2: Which is so this was all brought in by Kelly Dwyer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, by the Liberal government, and I think it's a
Speaker 3: flaw in the system and the way you get money
Speaker 3: in and some of those limits and therefore bringing in
Speaker 3: division two nine three and then you've got division two
Speaker 3: nine six is three rightly, says I think these are
Speaker 3: this all needs to be redrawn.
Speaker 2: I think yeah.
Speaker 1: And actually one of the submissions, one of the key
Speaker 1: submissions to the Economic Summit suckling back ever son see
Speaker 1: to the economics some much, which we've talked about all
Speaker 1: through from the start, was to lift that concession of
Speaker 1: supercap from thirty grand to fifty. We had a piece
Speaker 1: of that on that submission in the Australian a few
Speaker 1: days ago and I think certainly that would make a
Speaker 1: lot of sense. Very good, very succinct. We got through
Speaker 1: a lot there, Will.
Speaker 2: We did, James, thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for coming on. That was Will
Speaker 1: Hamilton of Hamilton Wellth Partners, which, as you've probably heard,
Speaker 1: is an experience podcast guest. The way he bounced through
Speaker 1: all that terrific. All right, let's have some emails the
Speaker 1: money puzzle at the Australian dot com dot au. Lovely
Speaker 1: to see those questions coming in in streams if you like.
Speaker 1: So we're getting Someone comes in and they ask two
Speaker 1: or three questions at a go, and I love that
Speaker 1: because if you're making the effort to send in a question,
Speaker 1: send in several. Very welcome. Okay, talk to you soon.