There’s a story doing the rounds this week about Illinois Governor JB Pritzker moving to suspend tax incentives for data centres. He’s pausing new applications through the state’s commerce department after the legislature sat on its hands instead of putting guardrails around AI-specific facilities. It’s not a full revocation, just a pause on processing. Incremental. Cautious. Very much the kind of move that gets called “a start” by people who are trying to be generous.

There’s a particular kind of media week where the volume of the coverage is inversely proportional to how much the average person is actually affected. This was one of those weeks.

Labor’s proposal to increase tax on the top one per cent. Specifically, about $400,000 more over a lifetime for those earners. The coverage has been wall to wall. The op-eds have been breathless. You’d think they’d announced a forced organ harvest program.

The discussion around tax reform has been heating up lately, and frankly, it’s about bloody time. When you hear that 91 people earning over a million dollars paid absolutely zero income tax last financial year, something’s clearly broken in the system. Not bent - broken.

What really gets my goat isn’t necessarily that these ultra-wealthy individuals are breaking the law. Most aren’t. They’re just playing a game where the rules are so skewed in their favour that the rest of us are left wondering how we ended up with such a wonky system in the first place. It’s like watching someone win at Monopoly because they convinced everyone else that collecting $200 for passing Go only applies to properties they don’t own.

The property investment debate has reared its head again, and frankly, it’s about time. The Parliamentary Budget Office recently dropped some numbers that have got everyone talking: 80% of capital gains tax discount benefits flow to the top 10% of earners, while 60% of negative gearing benefits go to the top 20%. When you put it like that, it’s pretty stark, isn’t it?

What’s fascinating is watching the responses unfold online. There’s this persistent narrative that any changes to negative gearing would devastate mum-and-dad investors, but the reality seems far more nuanced. One user made an excellent point about how properties naturally become more positively geared over time, meaning established investors with multiple properties would largely be unaffected by changes. It’s really the high-income earners buying expensive coastal properties with terrible rental yields who’d feel the pinch – and honestly, that doesn’t sound like such a tragedy.

Been scrolling through some discussions about the incoming administration’s plan to axe the IRS Direct File program, and honestly, it’s got me pretty wound up. Here we have a rare example of government actually making life easier for ordinary people, and what happens? It gets killed off faster than you can say “corporate lobbying.”

For those who missed it, Direct File was this brilliant little program that let people with simple tax situations file their returns directly through the IRS website - completely free. No third-party software, no hidden fees, no upselling to premium versions. Just a straightforward government service that worked exactly as advertised. Revolutionary stuff, apparently.

I’ve been following the debate around Jim Chalmers’s proposed superannuation reforms with fascination, particularly the story about farmers supposedly “scrambling for answers” when faced with the prospect of paying more tax on their multi-million dollar super balances. The more I dig into this, the more it becomes clear we’re witnessing the death throes of what can only be described as a spectacular tax rort.

Let’s cut through the noise here. The ABC story features a farming family with a combined super balance of $5.5 million who are upset they might have to pay an extra $120,000 in tax annually. But here’s the kicker - if they’re paying $120,000 in tax, they’re making over a million dollars a year through their super fund. And they’re complaining about this?

The recent collapse of the Albanese government’s proposed superannuation tax reform for balances over $3 million highlights a persistent problem in Australian policy making: the inability to design sustainable, long-term financial solutions that can withstand public scrutiny.

Standing at my local cafe in Brunswick this morning, listening to fellow patrons discuss the news, it struck me how the debate around this policy proposal missed the mark entirely. The fundamental issue wasn’t about targeting wealthy superannuants - most reasonable people agree that super shouldn’t be a tax haven for the extremely wealthy. Rather, the policy’s fatal flaw lay in its implementation.