Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to the Australians Money Puzzle podcast. I'm
Speaker 1: James Kirby. What is the idea behind your investing? What's
Speaker 1: your longtime idea? When you invest? We're going to assume
Speaker 1: that sooner or later, perhaps already you own your house,
Speaker 1: Perhaps already you have you actually have enough to retire.
Speaker 1: Maybe you don't think you do, but maybe you do.
Speaker 1: So then the thing is, if you have a family,
Speaker 1: your family, how are on earth are they going to
Speaker 1: buy a house? You know, they've just put lending limits
Speaker 1: on home mortgages at six times for the banks for
Speaker 1: twenty percent of their volume six times. No one's buying
Speaker 1: a house at six times in the major cities it's
Speaker 1: eight times, nine times, ten times. Just gives you some
Speaker 1: idea of the cost the younger generation face. We've got
Speaker 1: a lot of issues I want to talk about today,
Speaker 1: but the first thing I want to talk about with
Speaker 1: my guest Will Hamilton, regular on the Show of Hamilton
Speaker 1: were the partners and long term member of the Baron's
Speaker 1: Top one fifty distant in there again of course of late.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to him about a piece he
Speaker 1: did recently on The Australian which sparked a lot of comment.
Speaker 1: It was basically all about the notion of leaving nothing behind,
Speaker 1: or as the Americans like to call it, die with zero.
Speaker 1: That's a book that's been a bestseller over there. How
Speaker 1: are you well?
Speaker 2: Very well, James, Thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 1: I was intrigued with quite a personal piece you did.
Speaker 1: Actually I thought on this, but it is something it's
Speaker 1: kind of a paradox that a lot of people face,
Speaker 1: particularly I think property investors. You know, they are stretching themselves,
Speaker 1: they are negatively gearing. They are they are taking lists,
Speaker 1: they are going through the relatively mundane issues of running
Speaker 1: investment properties, and they're doing it with mixed success, often
Speaker 1: so that they can help their kids buy a house.
Speaker 1: A kind of a circular kind of a provise circular situation.
Speaker 1: So tell me about what this concept and your impressions
Speaker 1: of it.
Speaker 2: It's something we get into discussions with clients a lot,
Speaker 2: and you know where wholesye license and our clients generally
Speaker 2: have their in a fortunate position when we get into
Speaker 2: a state planning and also planning for how they assist children.
Speaker 2: I often there's a bookshop up in the shopping center
Speaker 2: above what we are dimicks. And I always say, on
Speaker 2: the way out, go and buy Bill Perkins, die with zero,
Speaker 2: now is that right?
Speaker 1: You don't really sell them. You didn't put a little
Speaker 1: stack a reception and make a bit of marrid is.
Speaker 2: And it's all relative. It doesn't mean die with zero.
Speaker 2: It's to give away to your children what an amount
Speaker 2: that you can afford. So you know, I had to
Speaker 2: get a little lot of emails people, and thank you
Speaker 2: very much giving me some advice on the article. But
Speaker 2: one is to the extent you can afford it, and
Speaker 2: to help your children, because it's more important to help
Speaker 2: your children while they're in their thirties and forties rather
Speaker 2: than when you die and they're in their sixties, and
Speaker 2: that's when they need it, especially with the housing differential
Speaker 2: when I am just a baby boomer. But when we
Speaker 2: went out there to buy houses and four to five
Speaker 2: times at your income level versus as you rightly said,
Speaker 2: you ten times plus today. And these are issues that
Speaker 2: our children therefore need our assistance to the extent that
Speaker 2: we can provide it. Now, there's only so much you
Speaker 2: can say in nine hundred words. And you know again,
Speaker 2: some people wrote in and one person was a little
Speaker 2: bit emotional with respect to the fact that they'd done
Speaker 2: this and then their children got divorced. So you do
Speaker 2: need to get some advice. And what I'm saying is
Speaker 2: general advice only, but you need to go and talk
Speaker 2: to your financial advisor about this, and then they're going
Speaker 2: to put you in the direction of a family lawyer,
Speaker 2: be it loan agreements, be it financial agreements that you
Speaker 2: may want to consider. And I think that's very important,
Speaker 2: important so that you protect children with the assets that
Speaker 2: they bring into a relationship.
Speaker 1: It's interesting, you know, just that issue of I suppose
Speaker 1: the how it's the house prices, the level of house
Speaker 1: prices that have sparked particular interest in this. It's always
Speaker 1: been around as a concept, but it's got an edge now,
Speaker 1: you know. I was wanted up the old joke about
Speaker 1: how do you buy a house for four hundred thousand
Speaker 1: in Sydney's North Shore? You buy it in nineteen seventy nine,
Speaker 1: you know that's what you're saying, right. I don't know
Speaker 1: how much you paid for your house or I paid
Speaker 1: for mine, but you know the figures are laughed at
Speaker 1: by the people who are buying houses now, So let's
Speaker 1: just keep it on that issue, and this is a
Speaker 1: wider issue obviously, if this could be for any reason,
Speaker 1: but I think obviously the core reason is very compelling.
Speaker 1: You know why, your son or daughter will probably be
Speaker 1: in their late sixties when they get your inheritance. Statistics
Speaker 1: would suggest, and in their late sixties if they're the
Speaker 1: type of people who are active investors, strivers, and they
Speaker 1: listen to a show like this, chances are they've paid
Speaker 1: their house off by then, and there was years where
Speaker 1: they had absolutely nothing, and maybe it wasn't necessary because
Speaker 1: you were accumulating at the same time. Now, the thing
Speaker 1: I'm skeptical about Will is this issue of financial agreements
Speaker 1: and loan agreements and sending people to the lawyers to
Speaker 1: do this, I'm assumed. Tell me why you think this
Speaker 1: is necessary and is it about keeping it literally within bloodlines?
Speaker 1: To be brutal about it.
Speaker 2: I think that depending on the age of a child,
Speaker 2: line agreements something you should consider now whilst the house
Speaker 2: price goes up and as I said, you're protecting what
Speaker 2: they bring in. I think financial agreements are a very
Speaker 2: personal thing, and we've got clients that insist on them,
Speaker 2: and we've got clients that there is no way I
Speaker 2: would ask my children to sign that, So I'm not
Speaker 2: making it. It's a judgmental call, and I'm not making
Speaker 2: a call either way. I think you need to discuss
Speaker 2: it and make a decision based on something that's right
Speaker 2: for you and your family on a lone agreement. I
Speaker 2: think that's a very different matter. That they're not even
Speaker 2: a thousand dollars for a family lawyer to prepare, and
Speaker 2: you can actually provide something which I think is a
Speaker 2: safe thing to.
Speaker 1: Do, but if it's a lot of agreement, you're not
Speaker 1: giving it to them.
Speaker 2: Correct, Well, that's on the depending of the structure that
Speaker 2: it's in and how it's done. That loan can then
Speaker 2: be forgone on your death.
Speaker 1: I see, I see all right, So what is the
Speaker 1: overarching sort of logic of these greens. It's to protect
Speaker 1: your children from unexpected events in the future, such as divorce.
Speaker 1: Am I close?
Speaker 2: Correct? I think what the logic of these And if
Speaker 2: you speak to a family lawyer, they'll say, you can protect
Speaker 2: what you bring into a relationship. You can't protect what
Speaker 2: you create in a relationship. That's openslaver and so it
Speaker 2: should be not saying that's you should protect against that
Speaker 2: you can't. You shouldn't.
Speaker 1: I wonder why people don't do it.
Speaker 2: Well, I think a lot of people don't know about it.
Speaker 2: Thinking of an email that I got from one person.
Speaker 2: It was, you know, as I said, quite emotional about
Speaker 2: that because this is what happened. They gave some money
Speaker 2: and then child got divorced. I was wondering, well, did
Speaker 2: you know about this? And that's why sometimes you should.
Speaker 2: You should go and get advice, and your financial advisor
Speaker 2: discusses that with you, and then push and then put
Speaker 2: will introduce you into a family lawyer that can have
Speaker 2: a further discussion and then not expend financial agreements. That's
Speaker 2: a different matter altogether.
Speaker 1: I mean, we see just this morning the usual here
Speaker 1: we go again, the annual sort of aspa. They all
Speaker 1: do it.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: How much you should have to you know, be comfortable
Speaker 1: in a retirement, et cetera. And it should be seventy
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year for a couple, and that means
Speaker 1: you need to have well, you certainly want to have
Speaker 1: a million, you know, officially it's something like one point
Speaker 1: six one point seven million, depending on the degree of
Speaker 1: risk of which you take. But the point I'm leading
Speaker 1: to is that at a certain point we clear off
Speaker 1: are at a certain point we say, okay, the house
Speaker 1: is paid off. And many investors once they have a
Speaker 1: certain number, a certain figure in super and maybe they
Speaker 1: keep working so this figure doesn't have to be anything
Speaker 1: as high as these calculators say, and many it listens
Speaker 1: to the show, will have much more than that. But
Speaker 1: I wonder is this concern about not having enough in
Speaker 1: retirement an issue that stops people doing it even if
Speaker 1: they have plenty, because they say, look, if the world collapses,
Speaker 1: there's the markets collapse, If I'm stuck on cash rates,
Speaker 1: if the banks collapse, how am I going to survive?
Speaker 1: All my retirement money is at risk. Yes, you say
Speaker 1: I have a lot, but maybe I don't really have
Speaker 1: a lot because it's all at risk, and so I
Speaker 1: can't hand it over just yet, because I worry still
Speaker 1: that I don't know how much I'm going to cost
Speaker 1: in the fullness of time. And let's say the nightmare
Speaker 1: scenario where a couple are both in some sort of
Speaker 1: elaborate age care with multiple medical bills for years and years,
Speaker 1: whether they could rack up a hell of a lot
Speaker 1: of bills. The point I'm making is do you think
Speaker 1: that's actually stopping people too.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think that it is. As I said, everything's
Speaker 2: relative and it it's personal. So I'm not saying you
Speaker 2: must do this, that you do it to the extent
Speaker 2: you can afford to do it. That's the first thing.
Speaker 2: And I also I think it's generational.
Speaker 1: No tell me about that your concept of it being
Speaker 1: general intergenerational.
Speaker 2: So well, first of all, I write this because I
Speaker 2: I do believes in and there's intergenerational inequality. And you
Speaker 2: said that created discussion through the comment section. A lot
Speaker 2: of people didn't agree on that point.
Speaker 1: Yes, the degree if they were perhaps under thirty.
Speaker 2: Though, yeah, correct, So they didn't agree on intergenerational inequality,
Speaker 2: which I do believe there is. So that's where I'm
Speaker 2: coming from, and that's what I discussed with people. But
Speaker 2: I know my parents. There is no way my parents
Speaker 2: would consider this because of a lot of the points
Speaker 2: you brought up. My mother's in her nineties and she's worried,
Speaker 2: very worried about the cost of age care and her
Speaker 2: own health. And I think that you're at a point
Speaker 2: in time when you can look at this and you
Speaker 2: can look at it objectively. There's other things where there's
Speaker 2: other points in your life when you're focused on other things.
Speaker 2: And as I stress, to the extent that you can
Speaker 2: afford it, And I understand some people can afford to
Speaker 2: a far greater degree than others.
Speaker 1: And I suppose the imperative that drives people to make
Speaker 1: money was in conflict with the different dynamic of giving
Speaker 1: it away in many cases. Whereas will that be relevant
Speaker 1: apart from homebuying?
Speaker 2: Was I said in the article, and this again, I
Speaker 2: believe in it a lot of the things Bill Perkins said,
Speaker 2: But I just want to stress in the book I
Speaker 2: was zero, But I do want to stress in the
Speaker 2: book he's obviously a very wealthy man and that comes
Speaker 2: across so you have to adjust for that. And he's American,
Speaker 2: so we have to bring it into a cultural perspective.
Speaker 2: But I also think the thing on creating experiences to
Speaker 2: again the extent you can afford it. So if you
Speaker 2: can afford to create experiences with children and grandchildren and memories,
Speaker 2: as he says, memories really important. So those experiences lead
Speaker 2: to memories, you know, because the one reality is we're
Speaker 2: not going to be here one day. And I think
Speaker 2: that's I thought that was a really lovely thing, and
Speaker 2: I thought that was it really resonated with me. And
Speaker 2: the other thing is again and some people don't agree
Speaker 2: with private school education as well, and that came back
Speaker 2: in the feedback I got. But if it is important,
Speaker 2: you know, education is you know, there's nothing more in
Speaker 2: a chance life is education, be it secondary education or
Speaker 2: tertiary education. And I know one of our clients is
Speaker 2: very philanthropic in ensuring that those that wouldn't ordinarily be
Speaker 2: able to go to university can and he gives through
Speaker 2: Melbourne University on that and I think he's it's lovely
Speaker 2: what he does.
Speaker 1: So typically this would end up being not it's obviously
Speaker 1: two days anyway for some investors to pay for their
Speaker 1: own children. By the time they get to the position
Speaker 1: we're talking about, their children will have had their school experience,
Speaker 1: whatever that might have been, and however that much that
Speaker 1: might have cast. So we're talking about grandchildren often. And
Speaker 1: it's interesting. We've got a question coming up at the
Speaker 1: breakfromt Sandral exactly about this, but on that one, is
Speaker 1: there any guidance you can give on that you mentioned
Speaker 1: about long agreements with lawyers for buying homes or perhaps
Speaker 1: assisting with the Dan Holmes I am actually, which is
Speaker 1: typically that someone pays ten percent of what the house
Speaker 1: is going to be. How about on the schools on
Speaker 1: the ideas on that.
Speaker 2: One, someone once said to me, if you can find
Speaker 2: an investment that's linked to the CPI of school, phees,
Speaker 2: go for it.
Speaker 1: CPI of school is an illegal zone.
Speaker 2: Because exactly that. So, yeah, it's a friend of mine
Speaker 2: and Sydney and he once said that to me, and
Speaker 2: I always laughed, and I've quoted that often what he said.
Speaker 1: It's more relevant every year.
Speaker 2: So there are bonds or education bonds and things like
Speaker 2: that which you can buy or you can just put
Speaker 2: something away, depending on again, to the extent that you
Speaker 2: can afford it. And that's what these are, the sum
Speaker 2: of things which I think you can consider. I'm not
Speaker 2: saying you should, but you can.
Speaker 1: Just one last thing on this before the break. We've
Speaker 1: had a lot of people on the show skeptical of
Speaker 1: education bonds. I am too, You are too, okay, So
Speaker 1: your point is perhaps to have a saving sphere correct
Speaker 1: that is focused on this issue, but it does not
Speaker 1: necessarily have to be an education bond. And the fint
Speaker 1: I always make on the show folks. Is they called
Speaker 1: education bonds but they are nothing to do with education
Speaker 1: per sale. They are marketed as such, and it's a scheme,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't designed for paying school fees. It has
Speaker 1: been adopted as such, but that was not its core.
Speaker 1: All right, really interesting. I've got some really good questions
Speaker 1: I want to get to and I've kept them for Will,
Speaker 1: who is a regular on the show and a lot
Speaker 1: of our listeners are keen obviously to get items in
Speaker 1: front of him. So back in a moment, Hello, and
Speaker 1: welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. James Kirby
Speaker 1: talking to Will Hamilton as I'm going to do this
Speaker 1: question second into two parts, folks, because there's two different
Speaker 1: themes that i want to pick up on. But just quickly,
Speaker 1: I had a question which came in later actually, and
Speaker 1: it's from Lily who says I can't keep up with
Speaker 1: the number of grants for first home buyers. But I
Speaker 1: see now that the latest grant for shared equity has
Speaker 1: come out, but of course it has been surpassed by
Speaker 1: the first home buyers scheme. At the same time, we've
Speaker 1: seen lending limits imposed by the banks in the same
Speaker 1: area what gives. Yeah, thank you Lily.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So they're putting lending limits exactly on the same people
Speaker 1: who are trying to buy a house, because the ones
Speaker 1: who need to go over five or six times income
Speaker 1: will substantially be made up of first home buyers. And
Speaker 1: then they're rolling out grants a universal first home deposit scheme,
Speaker 1: which is going so hot, folks, it's going so hot
Speaker 1: that the banks are putting over they're doing overtime in
Speaker 1: the departments of the banks trying to fill this out.
Speaker 1: And we're getting a super hot segment of the market,
Speaker 1: which ironically is the exact same market they're throwing the
Speaker 1: grand set.
Speaker 2: What do you think will It's like, look got enough.
Speaker 2: It still exists, but I haven't looked at it. But
Speaker 2: a couple of years ago, the Victorian pite government gave
Speaker 2: stamp duty real life up to six hundred thousand dollars,
Speaker 2: and the minuteure went over six hundred thousand dollars, you
Speaker 2: had to pay the full stamp duty. So thing you
Speaker 2: give when you don't give, And yeah, this is I
Speaker 2: do believe the federal government's latest equity share scheme that's
Speaker 2: absolutely pushed housing prices up. It can't not have the
Speaker 2: way they've structured it up to a million dollars and
Speaker 2: you shared equity. That's with a five percent deposit down.
Speaker 2: That's simple as it was only going to do that.
Speaker 1: But the other thing I worry about too is that
Speaker 1: like it overheats that particular secret action. Not only that,
Speaker 1: but like the whole market gets skewed to that segment,
Speaker 1: to this economic theory of push to price.
Speaker 2: You know that they actually it's misthought. It was a
Speaker 2: thought bubble during the election that they've had to rolla
Speaker 2: leading into the election.
Speaker 1: Hm hm, okay, well, Lily, I hope that's useful to you.
Speaker 1: All those grants are there. And by the way, there's
Speaker 1: also the first Home super Service scheme, which I think
Speaker 1: this government are very keen to to not advertise because
Speaker 1: they don't like it. I don't think they like it all.
Speaker 1: Right now, listen, folks, we got to hear. I want
Speaker 1: you to listen to this very carefully, right because it's
Speaker 1: come up again and again from listeners, and it's about
Speaker 1: super annuation caps and how much you can have and
Speaker 1: at what point various taxes kick in, like the new
Speaker 1: super at the new super tax at fifteen percent above
Speaker 1: three million. But here's David. This is what he says.
Speaker 1: Someone on the show mentioned that, based on current legislation,
Speaker 1: the amount in the pension account can increase tax free
Speaker 1: without limit. I want to know, is he right? If
Speaker 1: I retire at sixty and I transfer two million into
Speaker 1: my pension account, and assuming this balance grows yearly, the
Speaker 1: full amount in the pension account will always be tax free.
Speaker 1: The fifteen percent tax coming in at division two nine
Speaker 1: six does not apply to this the pension amount. Okay,
Speaker 1: just to reiterate, the day you retire, if you have
Speaker 1: up to two million, that once it's in the box, basically,
Speaker 1: once it's in the can inside the supersystem the TBC.
Speaker 1: To be precise, it won't be taxed even if it
Speaker 1: grows to three million, four million, yep? Right or wrong?
Speaker 2: Right? In fact, Thomas asks a question where he answers.
Speaker 2: He answers it in his question itself and that that's interesting,
Speaker 2: And he says, Jim Chalmers, I only talked about division
Speaker 2: two nine six, which is fifteen percent on tesB more
Speaker 2: than three million. The situation of between two and three
Speaker 2: million appears been overinterpreted. So if I have two point
Speaker 2: four million in super phase I transfer two million into
Speaker 2: account based pension at the age of sixty five, I
Speaker 2: will have to leave four hundred into the accumulation phase. Correct,
Speaker 2: that's if you convinced on that. But my two million
Speaker 2: retirement phase can grow to organically, he says two point
Speaker 2: four million, and the earnings is tax free, not fifteen percent. Correct. Correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that's just a final word on that, folks. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's how it works. The fifteen percent tax, the new
Speaker 1: one is on amounts above three million. And so for instance,
Speaker 1: how that might occur is, for instance, if you had
Speaker 1: three million this, if you had four million the day
Speaker 1: you retire, well that only two of that would go
Speaker 1: into that can grow forever and never be taxes. That's right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you got to an accumulation phase and.
Speaker 1: The other two well, you can do what you like
Speaker 1: with it. You're probably going to let it fall into
Speaker 1: accumulation because it's it becomes fifteen and that's hard to beat. Okay,
Speaker 1: very interesting. Of course, there are people who also have
Speaker 1: more than two million, and they haven't even retired. They're
Speaker 1: relevant two. So we try to cover all angles here.
Speaker 1: This is easier sometimes, folks, to pin down in in
Speaker 1: print than it is when we're talking. Because it's a print.
Speaker 1: J Obvis is more precise. All right. I have very
Speaker 1: interesting question from Sandra which is on the theme that
Speaker 1: we'll started with, so we'll come back to that one second.
Speaker 1: Hello and welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast.
Speaker 1: James Kirby talking to Will Hamilton. Okay, Will, question from
Speaker 1: Sandro which does kind of correspond or echo some of
Speaker 1: the issues we talked about at the start of the
Speaker 1: show about leaving the extreme version of dying with zero.
Speaker 1: But it's not, of course dying with zero. It's about
Speaker 1: thinking about whether you should help people in your life
Speaker 1: earlier rather than later. Sandro, I want to invest for
Speaker 1: my grandchildren. My initial thoughts are to add approximately two
Speaker 1: thousand per child annually on their birthday into the ASX
Speaker 1: two hundred and etf. I suppose that is or something
Speaker 1: similar and this should compound to something significant in twenty
Speaker 1: years when they go to buy a house. I'm interested
Speaker 1: in some ideas and strategies on how to set this
Speaker 1: up the most cost effective and today who was named
Speaker 1: should be in most tax effective way, et cetera. Any
Speaker 1: information would be much appreciated. Okay, sandral not you say
Speaker 1: you will.
Speaker 2: Yes, So first of all, Sandra, go and talk to
Speaker 2: an accountant. I presume they might to ask you to
Speaker 2: set this up in your name, in the parents' name,
Speaker 2: as in trust for the children. That's the first thing.
Speaker 2: So just otherwise that there is tax at the full
Speaker 2: marginal rate for children, so you might just want to
Speaker 2: get some tax advice on that. First of all. The
Speaker 2: second thing is I wouldn't put it into an Australian ETF.
Speaker 2: I would look as a global equity one. For instance,
Speaker 2: we're now one point six percent of the MSCI aqui
Speaker 2: that is Australia to invest in the other ninety eight
Speaker 2: point four percent not necessarily, just one point six percent
Speaker 2: of global equity markets. And yeah, this strange share market
Speaker 2: is going to close out effectively square this year as
Speaker 2: against global markets because it's the global markets. They've got
Speaker 2: growth in other parts. So that's the second thing I
Speaker 2: would do is just make sure you invest globally rather
Speaker 2: than just domestically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, very good, and of course not advice Candra, just
Speaker 1: to information only, but those global indusies they're easy to
Speaker 1: get to. Just remember, and when we talks about MSCI,
Speaker 1: that's the Morgan, Sandy, Capitol, International, Indicies and a lot
Speaker 1: of the global ets run off that as they should.
Speaker 1: But also keep in mind that what's the number now,
Speaker 1: sixty four percent or so? Oh yeah, it's actually US, yes, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: So you know the fact is you're the majority of
Speaker 1: your money will be on Wall Street, but that varies
Speaker 1: over the year central and there's times for that's been
Speaker 1: an undred and fifty percent, but in recent times it
Speaker 1: has absolutely just mushroomed inside the global markets to some
Speaker 1: extent that reflects a certain dullness in Japan, Australia, even
Speaker 1: that Europe over various years as the US and the
Speaker 1: big tech companies just went through the roof and still
Speaker 1: do with the AI boom. All right. Now, on question
Speaker 1: is from shown but the shau n I wonder could
Speaker 1: you consider doing a segment giving all the accounting maneuvers
Speaker 1: and profit shifting that companies use, why don't governments consider
Speaker 1: replacing corporate tax within universal revenue tax. That way, the
Speaker 1: economic activity that takes place within Australia It's borders will
Speaker 1: be taxed here, not when the company chooses to record
Speaker 1: its profits something I mean, obviously, the sentiment is a
Speaker 1: noble sentiment there shown, and in fact, a lot of
Speaker 1: economists wouldn't have a problem with your concept, And indeed,
Speaker 1: the Productivity Commission has recently put out something similar to that,
Speaker 1: which is a sort of is it a cashflow tax?
Speaker 1: Is that the idea will that they would.
Speaker 2: Yep, that's Look. I think what Sean said has some merit,
Speaker 2: but the reality is that unless you get both sides
Speaker 2: of politics together, we're not going to tackle the inequity
Speaker 2: that there is in a tax system. And one of
Speaker 2: the big things that we need to tackle in this
Speaker 2: tax system is the paya and the hYP percentage of
Speaker 2: total taxation rays through that which is not indexed, unlike
Speaker 2: in some countries, and therefore we have bracket creep as
Speaker 2: well as a major issue. So look, a whole tax system.
Speaker 2: The taxac was written in nineteen thirty six. I think
Speaker 2: that says it all, and both sides of politics should
Speaker 2: get together on a bipartisan basis and tackle this.
Speaker 1: And we're inordinately tax taxing people. Correct, individuals get taxed.
Speaker 1: They carry the whole system, which is of course working individuals.
Speaker 1: That is which brings us back to the very notion
Speaker 1: at the start of the show. About inequity and how
Speaker 1: even inside SUPER like people say, oh super is all
Speaker 1: about you know, it's unfair because of the tax breaks
Speaker 1: for older people. But it's unfair even inside the system
Speaker 1: because the concession of tax breaks for contributing to SUPER
Speaker 1: are they are low and they have moved for years. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the amount you can have gets in mixed all the time,
Speaker 1: not to mention the pension which gets index twice a year.
Speaker 1: So there is plenty of inequity even within SUPER and
Speaker 1: intergeneration in equity at that. But in your case, folks,
Speaker 1: I think if you've been listening to the show today,
Speaker 1: I think there was a really interesting notion there and
Speaker 1: something that's really worth considering. And honestly, even on a
Speaker 1: more pragmatic basi as well, what is the point in
Speaker 1: hanging on to your investment property for three more years
Speaker 1: if the money is supposed to go to your adult
Speaker 1: children who are trying to buy a house. That would
Speaker 1: be at that would be in sort of microcosm, wouldn't
Speaker 1: it really?
Speaker 2: And as I say to people, it's the pleasure of
Speaker 2: giving as well when you can, you know, and want
Speaker 2: to stress if you can afford it, that pleasure of
Speaker 2: helping and giving and saying that reaction and that the
Speaker 2: gratitude from giving, and you know, it was a very
Speaker 2: big discussion. I talked about the fact that intergenerationally, those
Speaker 2: that are of an older generation, this is far more difficult.
Speaker 2: And I actually talked to a woman in the late
Speaker 2: eighties to do this, and I said, look, you've got
Speaker 2: no gratitude personally from it when you're dead, why don't
Speaker 2: you do it now? And as I said in the article,
Speaker 2: some of the grandchildren were in tears and she got
Speaker 2: incredible satisfaction from that.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's interesting, isn't it. As you say, there's no
Speaker 1: point letting them know that you were really okay when
Speaker 1: you're gone. Okay, thank you very much. Well, great show,
Speaker 1: Thank you James, great discussion. As always, I'd like to
Speaker 1: know what you think of that, folks, I really would.
Speaker 1: So let's let's hear from you the money Puzzle at
Speaker 1: the Australian dot com dot au. Talk you soon.