GOOD. TWO LEGS BETTER

By Paul Zanetti

Anthony Albanese didn’t just climb the ladder. He closed the gate behind him.

Albanese claims he’s tackling “intergenerational inequity.”

But to many Australians, it looks less like fairness and more like a massive tax grab dressed up as compassion.

While wrapping himself in the language of helping young Australians, he is reaching deeper into their pockets to fund a bigger government and his vision for Australia’s future.

There is something disturbingly unfair about building your own wealth under one set of rules, then changing those rules once you’ve made it to the top.

That is the contradiction confronting Anthony Albanese.

The Prime Minister built his own financial future in an Australia that rewarded aspiration.

It was an Australia that encouraged ordinary Australians to save, invest and build wealth through property.

Negative gearing, the 50 per cent Capital Gains Tax discount and decades of stable investment settings weren’t loopholes - they were deliberate policies designed to encourage Australians to create wealth and provide housing.

Anthony Albanese benefited from those policies.

Now, after climbing the property ladder himself, his Government is making that climb steeper for the generations coming behind him.

Young Australians are being told these changes are “for their own good.”

Many are beginning to ask whether they’re being asked to accept fewer opportunities than the very politicians making that argument enjoyed themselves.

An Australia where governments wanted ordinary Australians to invest, build wealth and create financial security through property.

Negative gearing existed. The 50 per cent Capital Gains Tax discount existed.

Australians were encouraged to take risks, invest wisely and provide rental housing.

Those policies weren’t secret loopholes - they were deliberate government policies designed to reward investment and expand housing.

Anthony Albanese benefited from them.

Now, after reaching the top of the property ladder himself, landing at his $4.3m beach top mansion, ‘Copacabana’ his government is making it harder for younger Australians to climb the same ladder.

That is the contradiction millions of Australians can clearly see.

Before the election, Labor repeatedly promised there would be no changes to negative gearing or capital gains tax.

When journalists persisted, Albanese’s response became infamous; embedded in political folklore.

“For the 50th time, how hard is it?”

Australians thought the answer was simple - no changes.

Then came the election. Then came the policy reversal.

“We changed our position.”

What duplicity. What a betrayal of young Australians.

Labor now says restricting those concessions is about helping young Australians buy homes.

But where’s the evidence?

Australia’s housing crisis wasn’t created because there were too many investors. It was created because Australia stopped building enough homes.

You can’t tax your way out of a housing shortage.

Labor has chosen to make investing less attractive while asking Australians to believe this will somehow produce more housing.

Many respected economists are unconvinced.

AMP’s Chief Economist, Dr Shane Oliver, captured the mood perfectly when he said many younger Australians believe older politicians have “pulled up the ladder—they got the benefit of it but deny it for younger people.”

That sentence should haunt this government, because it cuts through every carefully crafted media release.

Anthony Albanese didn’t become financially secure under the system he is creating today. He became financially secure under the system he is dismantling.

Fairness isn’t measured by speeches. It’s measured by whether today’s young Australians have the same opportunities previous generations enjoyed. According to analysis reported by The Australian, Labor’s new capital gains tax changes are expected to hit younger Australians particularly hard.

Young professionals investing in shares, exchange-traded funds or cryptocurrency could face dramatically higher tax bills than under the previous system.

Students working part-time could find themselves paying capital gains tax they would previously have avoided. Young Australians saving for a home deposit may lose thousands of dollars more in tax simply because the rules have changed.

Meanwhile, many older Australians have already accumulated their wealth. Many can move assets into the concessional superannuation system. Many already own their homes. Many already own investment properties.

As Dr Oliver observed, the people supposedly being helped may become the people carrying the biggest burden. Such a bitter irony.

Australia already imposes one of the highest top marginal income tax rates in the developed world, applying at a relatively low income threshold. Dr Oliver has questioned whether that discourages productivity and investment. Yet instead of tackling the structural causes of the housing shortage—planning delays, infrastructure bottlenecks and insufficient housing supply, the Government has chosen another tax change.

Governments love slogans, but reality is always more complicated.

Which brings me to George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

The revolution begins with noble promises.

The animals are told by the pigs on the farm they are creating a fairer society.

Complex ideas are reduced to one simple slogan:

“Four legs good, two legs bad.”

The slogan is repeated so often that questioning it becomes impossible.

The slogan replaces thought. It replaces debate. It replaces evidence. It is the playbook for today’s socialist governments.

“Intergenerational Equity” = “Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad.”

By the end of the novel, the pigs have become everything they claimed to oppose.

They evict the farmer from the farmhouse, and take over the farm.

The pigs become the elites - they start to walk on two legs. They dress like the humans.

They socialise with the old ruling class.

And, with breathtaking hypocrisy, the slogan quietly changes:

“Four legs good, two legs better” = “We’ve changed our position.”

Nothing magical happened. Only the interests of those in power changed.

That is Orwell’s timeless warning.

Political leaders often speak the language of fairness while governing in ways that entrench their own advantages.

Australians should never stop asking whether the rules being written today are rules their authors themselves had to live by.

Anthony Albanese achieved the Australian dream, and good on him.

The question is why that dream should now become harder for the next generation.

Every Australian should have the same opportunity to build wealth through hard work, disciplined saving and sensible investment.

Not because success should be guaranteed.

But because opportunity should never depend on whether you were born before or after the politicians decided to change the rules.

If governments genuinely want to restore the Australian dream, they should build more homes, remove barriers to supply, and expand opportunity.

They should not congratulate themselves for making the climb steeper after they have already reached the top.

(If you have teenage or adult children, encourage them to read this. Many younger Australians voted Labor-Green believing they were supporting policies that would make it easier to build a future. They’ll ultimately decide for themselves whether the outcomes match those expectations. Millennials and Gen Z will bear the greatest burden of the Albanese–Chalmers tax changes, along with servicing Australia’s growing national debt for decades to come. You reap what you sow.).