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.

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?

Something feels eerily familiar about the current market turbulence hitting tech stocks. The headlines trumpet billions in “losses” for Silicon Valley’s elite, but those of us who lived through 2008 know better. From my desk in South Melbourne’s tech corridor, watching the numbers tumble brings back memories of similar “catastrophic losses” that somehow always seem to work out rather well for those at the top.

Let’s be real - when you’re worth tens or hundreds of billions, a 30% dip isn’t keeping you up at night. While regular folks stress about their superannuation taking a hit, these tech titans are likely viewing this as an opportunity rather than a crisis. They’ve got the capital to weather any storm and the resources to capitalize on distressed assets when they become available.

Recent headlines proudly proclaim Australia’s position as second globally for median personal wealth, but these numbers deserve a closer look. The reality beneath the surface tells a more complex story about what true wealth means in our economic landscape.

Looking at property values between comparable cities raises some interesting questions. Take Chicago and Sydney - while a beautiful inner-city home in Chicago might fetch USD 1.6 million, a similar property in Sydney could command AUD 4-5 million. Does this make the Sydney homeowner genuinely wealthier? The GDP per capita between these cities suggests otherwise.

The tech world has taken quite a turn lately, hasn’t it? Meta’s recent announcement about dropping fact-checking, combined with Zuckerberg’s peculiar image transformation and Tim Cook’s political donations, paints a disturbing picture of where we’re heading.

From my desk in Richmond, watching these tech billionaires realign themselves feels like observing the final act of a particularly grim play. Gone are the days when Silicon Valley at least pretended to care about making the world a better place. Now, it’s all about naked power grabs and political maneuvering.

Reading through recent online discussions about retirement and pensions has left me both frustrated and bewildered. There seems to be an endless parade of posts from wealthy retirees seeking advice on how to maintain their pension benefits while sitting on substantial assets. The mental gymnastics some people perform to justify this behaviour is truly remarkable.

Picture this: someone with a million dollars in assets wondering how to keep receiving government benefits. It would be comical if it weren’t so concerning. These aren’t isolated incidents either - they represent a broader mindset that views the pension as an entitlement rather than what it truly is: a social safety net.