The world's gone topsy turvy as the GREENS become voice of reason (!) on super - as a rift festers between two of Australia's most powerful men: PVO
Who would have thought that the Greens could become the voice of reason in the current superannuation tax debate?
But with negotiations between the Labor government and the opposition breaking down before they even started - courtesy of the intransigence of Treasurer Jim Chalmers - it is the Greens who have indicted a willingness to try and compromise to find common ground.
Labor's starting position is that it hopes to tax super holdings above $3m at a 30 per cent rate, including unrealised gains.
So earnings on balances over that sum will get taxed, as will the super assets themselves if they rise in value - even if you don't sell them.
That is the taxing of paper profits - the clear worst design feature in what Labor is proposing to do.
The Greens want the threshold lowered to $2m instead of $3m. But unlike Labor they are open to both indexing the rate at which the tax will be applied and discussing at least a partial removal of taxing unrealised gains.
The Greens have expressed concerns at illiquid assets (think property) being taxed, because people aren't able to sell down their holdings to pay such a tax.
If the Greens come to realise that you can't differentiate between liquid (think cash, shares) and illiquid assets when it comes to apply an unrealised gains tax, then we are in business.
A reasonable compromise might be possible.
That leaves the Greens still at the negotiating table but, at this stage at least, not the Labor party. Why? Because the Treasurer just doesn't get it.
Chalmers simply can't get his non-economist head around the deficiencies of the policy as it currently stands. Even though the Greens can.
What does that say about this Labor government?
While some people won't like the idea that a 30 per cent tax on super earning can start to apply from a $2m threshold rather than a $3m one, that's hardly unreasonable in the world of most Australians.
Especially if it is indexed, as Greens have expressed a willingness to embrace.
Given the tax rates working-age income earners pay, 30 per cent on earnings on super assets above $2m isn't exactly a socialism panacea of a policy.
With an ageing population it's part of the tough medicine the budget needs, especially if governments keep spending money they don't have rather than embarking on root and branch budget repairs.
The opposition appears to be fundamentally opposed to lowering the threshold from $3m to $2m, but it's hard not to think that's an example of them being in the pocket of wealthy Australians who have for too long used their super balances as a means of legal tax avoidance.
If Labor was more reasonable it would see opportunity in the Greens coming to the negotiation table.
It might have little choice - despite Chalmers' refusal to accept a compromise - because without the support of the Greens or the opposition there is next to no chance of the super tax hikes passing the senate.
Even after Albo's embrace of defecting Greens senator Dorinda Cox, who has been welcomed into the Labor fold despite the PM previously chastising Senator Fatima Payman for walking away from Labor after she was elected at the 2022 election.
In Albo's myopic world view it's wrong for an elected Labor senator to do that - she should have resigned her seat according to the PM - but it's absolutely fine for a Green senator to do the same if it benefits the Labor Party.
Yes it's contradictory and hypocritical, but don't let such inconsistencies prevent you from accepting Albo's explanation that it's reasonable and fine.
The weird thing is Labor get little value from the defection. It doesn't chance the fact that the Greens control the senate balance of power.
It doesn't make the passage of the super laws, without compromise, any easier. And there are a host of other downsides to accepting Cox into Labor's ranks, including her past anti-Labor rhetoric and accusations of bullying the PM says have been resolved but others aren't so certain about.
With the Greens breaking from tradition and extending the hand of compromise to Labor, Albo now has a choice: stand by his stubborn treasurer who doesn't want to compromise the existing poor drafting of the super bills.
Or overrule his subordinate and come to the table to negotiate an outcome that delivers more revenue without the design flaws currently being picked apart by experts.
It could be a pivotal moment in the relationship between the PM and his Treasurer. It seems likely the opposition will use the new super taxes as a wedge political issue come the next election.
If Labor sticks to its guns and somehow gets the laws past in their current format anyway, by using its election mandate to force others to acquiesce, the Opposition will have significant ammunition.
If a genuine compromise with the Greens does happen, we've already seem senior opposition frontbenchers in the media attacking the 'Labor Greens Coalition', in the hope that doing so takes some shine off of the new government.
This recent development has energised the PM to return to the negotiation table with the Coalition, defying the hopes and dreams of his treasurer.
We now know Chalmers doesn't at all see eye-to-eye with Albo when it comes to compromising with the Coalition. Animosity between the pair will only rise if a deal gets done, brokered by a PM without the support of his minister responsible for super and tax.
There is always tension between treasurers and prime ministers. It happened between Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, as well as between John Howard and Peter Costello.
But when a PM and Treasurer put stakes in the ground the way Albo and Chalmers have, which way the ensuing discussions go will certainly leave one of the pair diminished.
Let's wait to see who that is.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
British couple win visa battle after MS deportation fear
A British couple who feared being deported from Australia after one of them was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) say they are "proud" to have been granted permanent Mathers, originally from Cheshire, had previously been told the potential cost of treating her condition for the health services meant a previous application alongside her boyfriend Rob O'Leary had been couple appealed against the decision in 2023 and launched an online petition earlier this year calling for Australia's minister for home affairs to review their recently shared they had been granted a visa after "a nearly four-year-long, emotional road". In their latest post, they said: "We are proud to announce we are Australia's newest Permanent Residents!"They added they were "over the moon" when their MP Allegra Spender told them that Tony Burke, minister for immigration, "personally contacted her to confirm the decision". Ms Mathers and Mr O'Leary, from London, met while backpacking in the country in 2017 and have lived there ever 2020, she was diagnosed with the relapsing-remitting variant of MS, which is a neurological condition with symptoms including muscle stiffness and difficulties in walking and Mathers received treatment in Australia under a reciprocal health agreement with the UK and said her condition had been "well managed" so the couple's requests for permanent residency were rejected in 2023 due to the costs linked to her medical entering Australia must meet certain health requirements, including not having "unduly increasing costs" for the country's publicly-funded healthcare service Medicare. Mr O'Leary said they had offered to pay the medical costs themselves or take out private insurance, adding that "the law is black and white, and the refusal is based on that, it's really hard for us".Their petition, which drew more than 25,000 signatures, called on Australia's minister for home affairs to review their case and look into immigration policies that "unfairly target individuals with well-managed health conditions". Mr O'Leary, who works in the construction trade, and his partner, who is a project manager and DJ, were "not asking for special treatment" but a chance to continue "working hard to contribute to this country in meaningful ways".In their latest post, they thanked supporters and said "there are so many things we've put on hold - just in case we had to leave"."But now, with this door wide open, we feel more focused and excited than ever to build our future in the country we love."Our families are overjoyed and already thinking of planning a trip to celebrate with us." See more Cheshire stories from the BBC and follow BBC North West on X.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Ancient trees are shipped to the UK, then burned – using billions in ‘green' subsidies. Stop this madness now
How green is this? We pay billions of pounds to cut down ancient forests in the US and Canada, ship the wood across the Atlantic in diesel tankers, then burn it in a Yorkshire-based power station. Welcome to the scandal of Drax, where Britain's biggest polluter gets to play climate hero. The reality is that billions in public subsidies has enabled Drax to generate electricity by burning 300m trees. Now the government is trying to force through an extension that would grant Drax an estimated £1.8bn in public subsidies on top of the £11bn it has already pocketed, keeping this circus going until at least 2031. This isn't green energy. The mathematics alone should horrify anyone who cares about value for money or the environment. Burning wood creates 18% more CO2 emissions than coal. Even if you replant every tree Drax destroys, it takes up to a century for new growth to reabsorb the carbon released. We're supposed to reach net zero by 2050, not 2125. Yet through circus-trick accounting, all of Drax's massive emissions magically disappear from Britain's climate ledger. They've simply been wished away – counted as 'zero', while the company becomes our largest single contributor to climate breakdown. Extraordinarily, this scandal unites opposition across the political spectrum. From the Greens to Reform, from the Morning Star to the Daily Telegraph, there's rare consensus that Drax represents everything wrong with our approach to climate policy. The Labour-dominated public accounts committee condemned Drax as a 'white elephant' that's been allowed to 'mark its own homework' while claiming 'billions upon billions' in subsidies. A Lords committee agreed, saying parliament needs to see key documents before approving any more funding. I don't agree with Ed Miliband on everything – we clearly have different views on nuclear power. I respect the energy secretary's commitment to tackling climate crisis, and it is worth noting that the further subsidies are half of what was previously on offer for Drax. But that's exactly why continuing to subsidise Drax at all is so disappointing. When Miliband announced his plans to 'ramp up' biomass burning back in 2009, he was genuinely trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels. But 16 years on, this policy has gone badly astray. What was meant to be a bridge to renewable energy is actually making emissions worse. If, on Monday, the House of Lords votes to extend this unabated wood burning for another four years, what is to stop these subsidies being extended again and again? And why should the government deal with a firm as untrustworthy as Drax? Perhaps most damning is what Drax refuses to reveal. After the BBC's devastating Panorama investigation into the company's destruction of Canadian primary forests, Drax asked auditor KPMG to investigate, hoping for a clean bill of health. However, the evidence was so damning that the reports are still being hidden from the public. If Drax has nothing to hide, why not publish these reports? A former top Treasury official turned whistleblower accused it of deliberately concealing unsustainable practices to secure subsidies. The case, now settled, raises questions of dishonesty that should disqualify any company from public funding. The extra billions Drax is seeking could help build enough wind and solar capacity to power millions of homes. It could create permanent jobs in genuine renewable industries, not temporary employment destroying irreplaceable ecosystems. Every pound spent subsidising tree burning is a pound not invested in technologies that could actually deliver net zero. While other countries race ahead with wind, solar and battery storage, we're burning money on the most primitive fuel known to humanity. There's a huge loophole in the government's pledge to stop Drax burning trees from primary forest. Their restrictions on Drax only apply to subsidised electricity supplied to the grid. Drax wants to power private data centres but there is no plan that prevents it from destroying ancient forests to power 21st-century AI searches. That means Drax could be cutting down even more primary forests than it does today. MPs have lost trust in the government's ability to hold Drax to account – the criticism from parliamentary committees has been brutal. The environmental movement didn't fight to establish renewable energy so politicians could facilitate the burning of ancient forests that took millennia to grow. Real climate action means making hard choices, not hiding behind accounting tricks that make our emissions disappear on paper while making them worse in reality. It is time for Labour MPs to speak up; the fight for net zero is hard enough. More subsidies for Drax's wood burning in the name of sustainability is just more fuel on that fire. Dale Vince is a green energy industrialist and campaigner
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
I'm a tax accountant and these are the four biggest mistakes you're making on your returns - and it's costing you money
Australians are forgetting to claim work-related expenses and often select the wrong work from home deduction in their tax returns. That's according to a leading taxation accountant who has singled out the top five errors taxpayers make as tax time approaches on July 1. Belinda Raso from Tax Invest Accounting said taxpayers are missing out on hundreds of dollars by making little mistakes. 'They just rush in and lodge way too early and usually don't claim what they are entitled to,' Ms Raso said. WFH deductions One of the most common tax mistakes involves deductions made for working from home. Ms Raso said people who WFH do not always apply for the maximum deductions they can receive. Work from home expenses can be worked out via two different methods: the fixed rate 'shortcut' method of 70 per cents per hour, or the actual cost method, where they calculate their total expenses. 'It is very important that you work out both methods to ensure that you're getting the largest possible deduction,' she said. 'Another thing that people forget to do is, if they are going by that fixed rate method of 70 cents per hour... they're forgetting to claim everything else, and this includes computer equipment, it includes furniture, it includes software, the list is endless.' Medicare levy surcharge The next mistake Australians often make is incorrectly recording their liability for a Medicare levy surcharge - the additional charge on taxpayers who do not have private health insurance. Ms Raso said that the tax office will change the return if they have proof workers are liable for the levy. Australians forget to work out the most savings-efficient method for determining their claimable work-from-home expenses, Ms Raso warned 'It is up to you to understand when you are and when you're not liable for this,' Ms Raso said. Work related allowances The experienced accountant said some Australians make a huge mistake by failing to claim work-related expenses, such as claiming goods that they use for both personal and work use. 'As an example, one of the most common ones is a computer or laptop,' Ms Raso said. 'You sit there and think, "well, I use this for both personal reasons and for work, I can't claim it then". That's not true. 'Any expense that you're claiming, you can apportion a personal element to it and just claim whatever percentage is for work. It doesn't mean that you can't claim it.' Logbook Her final tip was for Australians who use a personal vehicle for work purposes. She said workers should ensure they are recording their usage accurately in a logbook. 'If you are travelling over 5,000 kilometres for work, for actual work-related travel, you should be keeping a logbook,' Ms Raso said. 'But this is more than just tracking your kilometres in a logbook.' Workers should also keep records of their fuel and oil costs, or odometer readings. They will also need evidence of other car expenses.
