Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Australians Money Puzzle podcast. I'm
Speaker 1: James Kirby. Welcome aboard everybody.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The government's planned supertax, you would know, is going to
Speaker 1: hit property investors' hardest, of course, because unlike share investors,
Speaker 1: property owners can't quickly rearrange their finances at short notice.
Speaker 1: But in recent days we've had reliable reports the tax
Speaker 1: is now being actively reconsidered in Canberra. There's a chance
Speaker 1: it may be delayed or even dropped entirely. Before the
Speaker 1: speculation became public, I spoke to Orditor Naz Randira. She's
Speaker 1: one of the leading voices against this new tax, and
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone else has spelled out the utter
Speaker 1: debacled that's on the cards if the government goes ahead
Speaker 1: as planned.
Speaker 2: Hey Naz, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: James, very happy to have you on the show. I
Speaker 1: talked quite regularly to Nas and in fact she was
Speaker 1: one of the key people apart from you. There are
Speaker 1: usual suspects obviously in this debate around super tax, but
Speaker 1: one of the sort of new voices that came through
Speaker 1: on super tax and what was wrong with this tax
Speaker 1: in its way of taxing on realized gains was Naswandaria,
Speaker 1: and she actually was the person, the first person in
Speaker 1: the whole economy really to point out how frank dividends,
Speaker 1: for instance, would be affected. And then people started to
Speaker 1: really open up and say, well what else would be affected? Well,
Speaker 1: inheritance would be affected, all sorts of things would be
Speaker 1: affected by the new super tax. So it seems to
Speaker 1: me now, Nas that super tax, which was sort of
Speaker 1: like a big shock a year ago, that's it's established,
Speaker 1: it's going to happen. It's going to happen as the
Speaker 1: Treasurer said it would happen, and we can take a
Speaker 1: deeper look at that in a moment. But what do
Speaker 1: you think it's it leads to? What is it if
Speaker 1: we see it as a stepping stone or a signal
Speaker 1: of what might come down the line, what do you
Speaker 1: think it would lead to.
Speaker 2: Well, as a typical of an Albanesia government, spending is
Speaker 2: on the rise with no accountability. In my view, you
Speaker 2: should expect in not so distant future and inheritance tax,
Speaker 2: possibly a reduction in abolition of fifty percent of the
Speaker 2: GSC discount on capital gains, reintroduction of the policy to
Speaker 2: abandon franking creditory funds. And what I've been screaming about
Speaker 2: and all my fears are coming through is if allowed
Speaker 2: to get their way very soon. I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 2: that something you like did two ninety six will then
Speaker 2: apply to private investors and other structures outside of superannuation.
Speaker 1: Yes, so we'll just bring it into for the listeners.
Speaker 1: You might explain what you have always compared. It's not
Speaker 1: so much their tax per se, but the nature of
Speaker 1: the tax. So your theory has been that if the
Speaker 1: government gets the super tax up and running, which is
Speaker 1: called division two ninety six, then the idea or the
Speaker 1: concept of a paper gains tax is set and then
Speaker 1: they could widen they could apply that more widely. And
Speaker 1: if they were to do that, where would be the
Speaker 1: Where do you think would it would be the first step?
Speaker 2: I think it will actually first step would go to
Speaker 2: other structures, family trusts, private companies, private investors. I wouldn't
Speaker 2: be surprised. I read an article the other day and
Speaker 2: we'd said, you know, talking about these larger homes, and
Speaker 2: what stops the government from saying, oh, your residential home
Speaker 2: over three million dollars, you now start paying unrealized and
Speaker 2: given to the Greens. They'd make that threshold to too.
Speaker 2: It's not that you cannot collect these tax in any
Speaker 2: other form. You know, you, if you wanted, you could
Speaker 2: just increase the tax on contributions by say, from fifteen
Speaker 2: percent to seventeen percent. You could start taxing pensions a
Speaker 2: bit if you wanted. But now they don't want to
Speaker 2: look at any other model. There is a message behind it.
Speaker 2: They want to get unrealized and it's unprecedented. It's absolutely unprecedented.
Speaker 2: They want to get unrealized tax into the tax regime
Speaker 2: in some form of the other and then look going here,
Speaker 2: this is what we've been doing in this structure, so
Speaker 2: why not in this structure.
Speaker 1: Yes, so, once you've broken the taboo as such of
Speaker 1: having paper gains paper gains taxes in the system, if
Speaker 1: you can do it in super then obviously you can
Speaker 1: do it elsewhere. That's an interesting point, you Mede about
Speaker 1: the pension access. I would have thought that that's actually
Speaker 1: on the cards as well, because quietly, if you like,
Speaker 1: while everyone was distracted over the debate around the supertax,
Speaker 1: the government did actually lift the deeming rates, didn't they
Speaker 1: for the first time in four years? I mean maybe
Speaker 1: that was coming anyway, or do you see it as
Speaker 1: a signal of a wider effort.
Speaker 2: Look, you know we've My point James is we've we've
Speaker 2: had a finite population. Yeah, to a certain extent, you
Speaker 2: can only collect that much of direct tax from a population.
Speaker 2: The government has to look at the indirect tax regime
Speaker 2: like DSD has to look at and this tax is
Speaker 2: a finite tax to a certain extent.
Speaker 1: So when you say this tax, the new supertax is
Speaker 1: a finite taxes because there's only so many people in
Speaker 1: ultimately in the catchment, is it correct?
Speaker 2: And they are older Australians that have accumulated, saved all
Speaker 2: their lives, paid all their taxes and wanted to live
Speaker 2: on a comfortable retirement. Yeah, they are the people so that,
Speaker 2: according to the government, is most impacted by this tax.
Speaker 2: But the average Australian does not realize with the cost
Speaker 2: of living pressures, with inflation, three million dollars is never
Speaker 2: going to be enough in retirement. And this is not
Speaker 2: even indexed.
Speaker 1: You're talking in twenty years time. It's not enough, is
Speaker 1: that what you mean?
Speaker 2: That's right, that's right, It's not going to be enough.
Speaker 2: It is absolutely not going to be enough. And it's
Speaker 2: how this tax is designed. It's how this tax is designed.
Speaker 2: It's an absolute disaster. Why don't we have round tables
Speaker 2: for public spending? Why don't we question that?
Speaker 1: Yes, we let's just have a round table on the
Speaker 1: nature of this tax. So tell me as an order
Speaker 1: ser specificic, you've got a very specific point of view,
Speaker 1: as an order show in terms of it's easy for
Speaker 1: you know, it's easy for political commentators to say, oh,
Speaker 1: this tax is going to be a mess, going to
Speaker 1: be very hard to introduce. But as an orderer, can
Speaker 1: you tell me what are the specific hurdles in introducing
Speaker 1: a new taxon on realized paper gains in super like?
Speaker 1: What does it mean? What will actually happen? Like from
Speaker 1: an icing point of view, what does it mean for you?
Speaker 2: Well, it from an ordering point of view, valuations will
Speaker 2: be the biggest problem. Yeah, and also to see people's retirement,
Speaker 2: how do I put it nowadays? What I see in
Speaker 2: trend I'll give you an example here, a trend on
Speaker 2: a lot of younger generations introducing and getting into cryptocurrency. Yeah,
Speaker 2: some have done really well, some have probably not done
Speaker 2: that well. But let's take for an example, you've invested
Speaker 2: in crypto, you have reached, for example, your three million
Speaker 2: threshold because crypto has gone off over the roof on
Speaker 2: say third dear two. Yeah, your total superbalance has reached
Speaker 2: that threshold. And say first week of August, the market
Speaker 2: crashes and you have to pay the tax.
Speaker 1: You've just received a bill for this sort of paper
Speaker 1: gain on crypto. Let's just be let's make it ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Let's say it's tripled. And then you've received your bill
Speaker 1: in early July and you find that actually the crypto
Speaker 1: has halved.
Speaker 2: Yep, how are you going to pay the tax? How?
Speaker 1: That's what's on pre sidented? Is it? That's the unprecedented
Speaker 1: nature of it. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Ok, And that's just one of the examples, just one
Speaker 2: of the examples. Say, for instance, you've got farmers, farmers
Speaker 2: have their farmland in there. Yeah, you will have valuations.
Speaker 2: This is already a very complex regime. Super annuation is
Speaker 2: a very complex. Yeah, you've added one more layer of complexity.
Speaker 2: And we are still billy dallying about that. He's not
Speaker 2: introducing it this week or next week. He is not
Speaker 2: giving any definitive timeline to the introduction either. Software companies
Speaker 2: have to update their softwares to be able to you know,
Speaker 2: program this calculation. There is a whole industry of advisors
Speaker 2: accountants that will have to re educate. And all he says,
Speaker 2: this tax has been there for two years. It's very
Speaker 2: hard to put advice and it's very hard to put
Speaker 2: legislation into practice if you don't actually legislate and you
Speaker 2: have to give a twelve month period. That's what he promised.
Speaker 2: But I know what he's going to say.
Speaker 1: You had two years, that's right, but we haven't had
Speaker 1: two years because there's no clarity. Do you think he
Speaker 1: might Ultimately a lot of people say, look, you're all
Speaker 1: getting wound up about this. And in the end, the
Speaker 1: government always indexes these measures, But do you think the
Speaker 1: indexing is inevitable or not.
Speaker 2: I don't trust the government to come through with any promises.
Speaker 2: I do not. Even if they say i'll index it,
Speaker 2: you've already brought something which is unrealized. It's payper it.
Speaker 2: It does not serve the purpose. It is a counter
Speaker 2: intuitive tax, it is regressive measure. It's punitive. People have
Speaker 2: not people have done the right thing by saving, they
Speaker 2: have been interested in their retirement and are not relying,
Speaker 2: and let me just get this right. They are going
Speaker 2: to reduce the future spending on aged pensions. If you
Speaker 2: say you will be self funded in your retirement, you
Speaker 2: should be looking at reducing your future spend on aged
Speaker 2: pensions rather than the other way. So it's actually a
Speaker 2: counterintuitive tax. It just doesn't apply to common logic. And
Speaker 2: the frustration I have with this government is they seem
Speaker 2: to make this whole over the past so many years,
Speaker 2: they've made this into a divide and role kind of concept.
Speaker 2: They are either putting the yes and nose in the place.
Speaker 2: Now we've got the older generation and the younger generation
Speaker 2: playing one against the other, saying that it's not going
Speaker 2: to be you know, it's not going to affect that many people.
Speaker 2: It actually is going to affect many people.
Speaker 1: Quite prominent people say back, coming in who heads COmON Bank.
Speaker 1: Chris Cofft, the fund manager now philanthropist, says, look, it's
Speaker 1: such trouble, why don't you just put in a hard
Speaker 1: cap that they would actually accept a hard cap more
Speaker 1: than this unrealized gains. Let's say forget about the unrealized gains.
Speaker 1: Just have a hard cap. Put a number on it,
Speaker 1: three million, four million, and that's it. And if you've
Speaker 1: more than that, take it out of the superannuation system.
Speaker 1: What do you think of that as an alternative? If
Speaker 1: the paper gains is such a problem, what about an
Speaker 1: alternative that removes that issue.
Speaker 2: Look, it would work when it is for there is
Speaker 2: effectively a cap in place. Yeah, there is effectively a cap.
Speaker 1: There is effectively a cap. But it's not a hard cap.
Speaker 2: It's not a hard gap. Yeah, it's a soft gap.
Speaker 2: It's a soft gap. The government is still collecting the tax.
Speaker 2: But if it is a hard gap, you have alternatives.
Speaker 2: And that's what I'm saying, there are better alternatives. The
Speaker 2: hard gap could work, or you get taxed at a
Speaker 2: higher rate if you breach the hard can no problems
Speaker 2: with that, But do not bring unrealized gains into the mix,
Speaker 2: because what will happen is people that can withdraw, and
Speaker 2: that I mean people who are over the retirement age,
Speaker 2: who can withdraw over six day sixty five when you've retired,
Speaker 2: they will with for example, we draw that excess amount. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the government is not going to collect the tax it
Speaker 2: anticipated it's going to collect. Yeah, so what are they
Speaker 2: going to do? What would common sense dictate? They are
Speaker 2: going to do. They are going to follow the trail
Speaker 2: of money into these other structures, and that is the
Speaker 2: risk that.
Speaker 1: They follow it to family trust, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, absolutely give targeting.
Speaker 1: I think that goes without saying that. All right now,
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about from being an
Speaker 1: orderer and about putting this through, how it goes through
Speaker 1: the system. You might just outline to people what they're
Speaker 1: expected to do. I think it would be very useful
Speaker 1: how it works a little by CGT, for instance, how
Speaker 1: you pay the tax. It's a bill that goes to
Speaker 1: you the person. We haven't had much of that in
Speaker 1: super either before. How you can't claim losses, you can
Speaker 1: only carry them forward. I think people have a lot
Speaker 1: to learn on this, so we'll do that in the
Speaker 1: second segment. Back in the moment, Hello and welcome back
Speaker 1: to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm talking to Nasrandaria,
Speaker 1: and I didn't introduce it properly as usual in the
Speaker 1: first segment. What's your operations name?
Speaker 2: Nas? Your company Reliance Ordering Services.
Speaker 1: Reliance Ordering Servicing out of.
Speaker 2: Perth, Orderiting Services out of course.
Speaker 1: And you were previously in one of the big groups
Speaker 1: weren't you. Who were you with before you went out
Speaker 1: on your own?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was with Austin Young.
Speaker 1: Evil Riston Young. So you are, among other things, you're
Speaker 1: dealing with these issues as both a business owner and
Speaker 1: an order, so of a highly expert view. Just in
Speaker 1: terms of the operation of the new supertax, just to
Speaker 1: explain to listeners, as you say at the point you're
Speaker 1: making in the first segment, is that because it's not
Speaker 1: index folks, that means it doesn't allow for inflation. That
Speaker 1: means very simply. But three million today sounds a lot.
Speaker 1: Three million and ten years time won't be a lot.
Speaker 1: If you think about house prices. For instance, million dollars
Speaker 1: is now an average house price in major cities. If
Speaker 1: you had said that to someone ten years ago, they
Speaker 1: would have found it out landish. So if you don't index,
Speaker 1: and there is no plan to indexes supertax, very large
Speaker 1: numbers of people get caught each year in it. And
Speaker 1: more than that, of course, virtually everybody in the system
Speaker 1: has to be aware of it, and they will make
Speaker 1: plans around it. And as Nas says, what they will
Speaker 1: do is they will maneuver money away from this trap.
Speaker 1: Basic and the government won't collect the tax that they
Speaker 1: were hoping to collect, but in any event they will try.
Speaker 1: So from a practical point of view, valuations, et cetera,
Speaker 1: that's going to be just that is just going to
Speaker 1: be a nightmare, I imagine coming down the line in
Speaker 1: practical terms. So someone says, I've got a private company
Speaker 1: it's going nowhere. I've had it for years, but you
Speaker 1: know on paper it's going up, but I've never made
Speaker 1: any money from it. Or a farm We've no money,
Speaker 1: We've got very little income, but a farm is allegedly
Speaker 1: worth the expert we don't want to sell it, but
Speaker 1: we have to pay tax on it. Is that the
Speaker 1: sort of thing you've been concerned about.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, So we put out a publication to all our
Speaker 2: account and clients and all that saying, this tax is coming. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you need to start preparing for this tax in terms
Speaker 2: of providing you know, comparable appraisals, valuations, making sure you've
Speaker 2: got all you've got your you know, earlier the trustees
Speaker 2: could give us the research that they would have done
Speaker 2: to come up with the value of a particular asset
Speaker 2: that they had, as long as they have given us
Speaker 2: supportable information. Now I've told them going not worth taking
Speaker 2: that that that call. You might as well get a
Speaker 2: professional to do the job for you every year. If
Speaker 2: you've got assets, as you said, you know, a private
Speaker 2: company that's not been doing anything. Look at your investments strategy,
Speaker 2: look at your asset mikes. You know advisors will be advising.
Speaker 2: I'm sure going. Would you put growth assets into a fund?
Speaker 1: That's right? Would you buy a startup in your super
Speaker 1: fund in an SS? Why would you?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's exactly. They don't understand the why their implications
Speaker 2: on the economy. You know, so many super funds invest
Speaker 2: in startups, right, some do brilliantly well, some don't. But
Speaker 2: it is actually funding startups, it is funding innovators, it
Speaker 2: is helping with progress, it is helping with it's investing
Speaker 2: in health education.
Speaker 1: So do you think people will will do less in
Speaker 1: their super funds or is it the case that there
Speaker 1: will actually be that it will crimp super funds, that
Speaker 1: people will actually be less likely to use self managed
Speaker 1: super funds Because this is the hot spot, isn't it.
Speaker 1: This is the area where this tax is going to
Speaker 1: be largely most applicable.
Speaker 2: Look, it's super self Let's talk about self managed superannuation funds.
Speaker 2: The self managed superannuation funds became this popular is because
Speaker 2: of the concept of its ability to control your own
Speaker 2: savings and ability to do and invest what you believed
Speaker 2: would be good for you in retirement or who do
Speaker 2: you serve would serve you in retirement more than the
Speaker 2: larger funds would be able to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, with virtually no limits really yeah from bitcoin
Speaker 1: ut Yeah, because.
Speaker 2: You had no control over how the larger funds would invest.
Speaker 2: You had a set plan and you were to follow
Speaker 2: that plan, or follow that scheme, or follow that selection,
Speaker 2: are balanced or aggressive or whatever. Here you had a choice.
Speaker 2: You can put it in down deposits, you can invest
Speaker 2: in chas, you can invest in startups, you can buy property,
Speaker 2: business whatever, business property, I mean business, residential, commercial, whatever.
Speaker 2: But you had control of what you invested in. Right,
Speaker 2: That was the idea. That's why they have done so well.
Speaker 2: Let's not let's get this right.
Speaker 1: Is that jeopardy any fashion by the new text?
Speaker 2: Why wouldn't it be? You tell me how would I
Speaker 2: You just said would people invest in startups? Do people?
Speaker 1: How many people? I mean? Is there is there much
Speaker 1: startup investment in smsfs?
Speaker 2: There would be. There would be. I get to see that,
Speaker 2: I get to see that valuation of that is a nightmare.
Speaker 1: It would be. It would be because obviously it's imaginary
Speaker 1: to the day this company is sold.
Speaker 2: You have people providing loans and advances to you know,
Speaker 2: property developments. We're saying, you know, developed properties, we need
Speaker 2: to build more houses. People will stop providing loans to
Speaker 2: these developers. What are you going to do then? What
Speaker 2: are you going to do? I have not got a
Speaker 2: holistic view. This government has no holistic view.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, I think it's pretty clear where you're
Speaker 1: coming from.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: I think we'll take a break. We've got some questions
Speaker 1: which I think are right hopefully right up Hereally as
Speaker 1: an auditor, you know, I haven't had an order on
Speaker 1: the show before. So much for auditors not having much
Speaker 1: to say. Yes, indeed, all right, we take a break
Speaker 1: back at the moment. Hello, Welcome back to The Australian's
Speaker 1: Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James Kirby Tolkington nas Randaria of
Speaker 1: Reliance Ordering, who operates out of Perth but has become
Speaker 1: something of a national voice on superannuation, particularly the new
Speaker 1: super tax. And it's manny fouls which we have dealt
Speaker 1: with on the show, though it's rarely been articulated quite
Speaker 1: so forcefully as today. Now, Nat, I have a couple
Speaker 1: of very interesting questions here. What is from Chris? Is
Speaker 1: there any rough pension eligibility calculator that you can determine
Speaker 1: if you are in the ballpark for a pension before
Speaker 1: you go through the PTSD inducing as Hugh Robertson would
Speaker 1: put it, experience a full pension application. Yeah, is there?
Speaker 2: Do you know? Yeah? I know exactly where Chris is
Speaker 2: coming from. Well, there is an online tension eligibility calculator
Speaker 2: available on the Center Link website. However, however, the pages
Speaker 2: of form filling are unfortunately necessary. And that's the PTSD
Speaker 2: that he's don't he about? And God help you. If
Speaker 2: you have a family trans or a private company holding investments,
Speaker 2: there are more forms to fill. My suggestion would be
Speaker 2: talk to your accountant, to your financial advisor, make an
Speaker 2: appointment with the Central Link Financial advisor. That is of
Speaker 2: no costs. That is good support available there, and you
Speaker 2: can confirm your minimum eligibility.
Speaker 1: Okay, very good, very good. I'm sure that's useful to you. Chris.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that both the ATO and Central Link do
Speaker 1: actually have advisors available on the phone, and they will
Speaker 1: offer advice something that's probably under appreciated, perhaps by investors generally. Okay, Tony,
Speaker 1: last question. I love the show. We play episodes of
Speaker 1: the Money Puzzle on our drives to the coast. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of hand ringing about the horror of charging
Speaker 1: capital gains tax on unrealized gains in super above three million.
Speaker 1: My understanding is that this is not new in respect
Speaker 1: of other assets in big Super, and I would love
Speaker 1: to have someone on your show to check this. I
Speaker 1: can see why it would be a pain for the
Speaker 1: poor suffering three million plus crowd with houses in their SMSF. Now,
Speaker 1: Tony's been facetious here, but if I am right, the
Speaker 1: histronics about it being unprecedented are overblown. In fact, the
Speaker 1: tax may just be making smsfs line up with the
Speaker 1: current practice in big funds. Am I right? Technically? Is
Speaker 1: he right or not? They do have to The whole
Speaker 1: retirement bonus thing is off the back of them having
Speaker 1: to put aside money for a tax, isn't it.
Speaker 2: So? As I've mentioned, currently there is no regime where
Speaker 2: unrealized tax is paid within the superannuation system. Irrespective of
Speaker 2: whether the fund is large or small. Retail funds do
Speaker 2: not currently pay any unrealized gains tax. In actual fact,
Speaker 2: the unrealized games tax is introduced since unlike smsfs, large
Speaker 2: funds find it complex to separate out the income.
Speaker 1: But can I just don't. The large funds also basically
Speaker 1: put aside money for the risk of having to face taxes,
Speaker 1: and if you then retire and stay with them, they
Speaker 1: give you a bonus, and that bonus is actually the
Speaker 1: money they put aside for the tax that was expected.
Speaker 2: There are there are plans that are available. Yes, there
Speaker 2: are such types of plans. But what I'm saying is
Speaker 2: that is not the unrealized That is not the tax
Speaker 2: on realized.
Speaker 1: Okay, what about land tax.
Speaker 2: It's more of a result. It's like money put aside, James,
Speaker 2: It's not unrealized gains, it's money put us out.
Speaker 1: Some people have written insane. Land tax is unrealized.
Speaker 2: Gains, definitely, and that is where my frustration. I'm coming
Speaker 2: to that point exactly so on the question that unrealized
Speaker 2: gains already exist, there's only two aspects in the Australian
Speaker 2: tax law that unrealized gains existed. Some for one is
Speaker 2: land tax, yeah, and the other one is tax if
Speaker 2: you become a non resident.
Speaker 1: Okay, right, yes, but even there.
Speaker 2: You have a choice. You can eiger pay tax when
Speaker 2: you become a non resident and you won't get tax
Speaker 2: when you sell that You won't get any capital gains
Speaker 2: tax when you sell that asset in the future. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but because you paid the tax on that time you
Speaker 2: became a non resident, or for paying the tax and
Speaker 2: paid capitals gains tax when you eventually sell the asset,
Speaker 2: there is a choice. In this instance, there is no choice.
Speaker 1: Sorry, I'm sorry about land tax. So I mean land tax.
Speaker 1: So it's it's it's on realize gains, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Land tax is something you pay, okay, on the unimproved
Speaker 2: value of the land. And I have written about this
Speaker 2: before the fact that there is already super funds that
Speaker 2: are paying land tax.
Speaker 1: Right yeah. Sure, Now you.
Speaker 2: Have another tax on the existing property for which you
Speaker 2: already paid land tax on. It's on the unimproved value.
Speaker 2: Now you wanted on the improved value.
Speaker 1: So you could you could have two streams of unrealized
Speaker 1: paper gains taxes if you had a property and you
Speaker 1: had lands being paid by your fund over the years,
Speaker 1: and then you would have a new tax on the
Speaker 1: alleged or paper or on realized gain of that property,
Speaker 1: even though you never sold.
Speaker 2: It and it's the same asset and it's.
Speaker 1: The same acid. Okay, I think that is. I think
Speaker 1: we will leave it right there. Nas. That is, I
Speaker 1: think you've managed to capture how daft This new tax
Speaker 1: is at its most extreme, and it's probably a good
Speaker 1: point for people to chew on it and take it
Speaker 1: on board that this is what's coming down the line.
Speaker 1: We're going to need orderers like you, Nas. Thank you
Speaker 1: very much on the show.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks, James. Just want to add one more thing
Speaker 2: for Tony to think about. Really in his question, is
Speaker 2: that the tax in the on index. You know, he
Speaker 2: talks about the poor suffering three million dollar crowd. That
Speaker 2: crowd is going to increase in the next ten to
Speaker 2: fifteen years with cost of living and inflation.
Speaker 1: Yes, that crowd is going to become middle I supposed
Speaker 1: to work is the point I suppose that some would
Speaker 1: make all right, terrific, Thanks a lot for coming on.
Speaker 1: And there's Brandaria of Reliance auditing services. Thanks, let's have
Speaker 1: some more emails. Please love to hear from you the
Speaker 1: Money Puzzle at the Australian dot com dot au. Talk
Speaker 1: to you soon.