Commenting on the story: A Labor leader, a Lib rebel and a land tax agitator walk into a bar…

Interesting article. Perhaps the Liberal party is yet to understand the ramifications of what it has done with its toxic land tax changes.

I am shocked that John Darley ultimately capitulated.

I vote in Steven Marshall’s electorate, but next time he will not get my vote – solely for his treachery in introducing a higher land tax regime, and pursuing the appalling aggregation provisions, allowing government to look through perfectly legal ownership structures.

Whilst I will never vote Labor, I will certainly not be giving Steven my vote. – Colin Gaetjens

Maintain the rage.

The new land tax is one of the most unjust bits of statute law change I have witnessed .

Ordinary hard working people have been hit with an exorbitant and unaffordable land tax, whilst the big end of town have been given a discount on land tax.

This is the very opposite to the way tax is traditionally applied.

The justification given has been that seven one million dollar properties is the same or has the same value as one $7m property. Hint: oils ain’t oils.

The “critical mass” and economy of one $7m property is obviously greater e.g., the  neighbourhood shopping centre or city high rise office building.

The economies of single large urban sites far outweighs the seven one million dollar properties, accumulated over a very long period with debt and providing very low returns in comparison.

Very few ordinary savers and investors would have accumulated seven individual properties each with a land value of $1.0m, so they are not so land rich yet they are the ones to carry the land tax burden.

This will not have a  good economic or social outcome and will badly reflect on the State and Commonwealth Liberal governments who govern with cowardly ambush methods (Just ask the arts community).

This is just not good government demanded by our Constitutions. – Sam Christodoulou

Commenting on the story: Art Gallery bequests, payroll tax among “windfalls” behind $289m budget surplus

I really don’t understand how a gift to the Art Gallery supports the Government’s budget.

Surely the Gallery won’t receive less funds from Government because someone has left a bequest?

Surely the bequest can only be spent on specified aspects of AGSA’s work?

It seems like the Government is bragging about its budget success which is caused by a windfall, not by Government decisions. – Nathalie Wooldridge

Commenting on the story: Crows set to release park lands HQ plan

What rubbish! Council appears to be running down our beautiful Aquatic Centre in the hope that the public will accept the Crows setting up their HQ in the park lands.

Words like “ageing” and “rundown” don’t describe the swimming centre, with the beautiful children’s pool and slide that took ages to rebuild and redesign, and the main swimming pool that is in perfect condition after a renovation in recent years.

Hot tubs, sauna, and gym are popular assets.

This selling off of public parklands and public facilities like the Aquatic Centre has to stop.

The only comparable public swimming centre catering for all ages is at Marion, owned and funded by the State Government, Marion Council and the Federal Government.

The State Government should chip in to make sure swimmers have equal rights to sports facilities as do wealthy football teams like the Crows. – Margaret Dodd

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.