ALP CGT rule changes - Shares and Super, page-113 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by squidd4: ↑

"of course its not what you said squidd....but it is the alternative to care for people with disabilities."

No, this discussion isn't binary.

The options aren't; this exact version of the NDIS, or nothing at all.

What I, and others, are saying, is the current settings of the NDIS are not correct. This is making the scheme cost far too much.

Those settings include who is covered, what expenses/costs are covered, and the mechanics such as provider charges.

It all needs a lot of refining.

Shorten himself said the NDIS has become something it was never intended to be. It was supposed to support the most significantly disabled, not, for example, young kids with very mild forms of autism.

disallowed/politics/federal/sharp-rise-more-than-8-per-cent-of-young-school-children-now-on-ndis-20230519-p5d9rc.html

11% of young boys are on the NDIS? Ridiculous. 11% of young boys are not profoundly disabled. The State & Territory Governments (mostly Labor if you want to be assigning blame), aren't doing their part to support things such as mild autism, and pretty much everyone is being pushed onto the NDIS. They don't need that level of support, along with the costs that come with it.

This isn't a Labor or Lib fight for me, just fix the thing because it's broken.

Tying this into the thread, the structural deficit would not look anywhere near as bad if the NDIS settings were correct. Playing around with CGT discounts and saving a few billion dollars a year is pocket change when these sort of spending blow outs are occurring.

Cheers!

Expand

"this exact version of the NDIS". ... obviously th current settings aren't perfect. everything is able to be improved. but I'm answering posts which say to chop the whole structure down and abandon any assistance to those who need it. and of course its no binary, all or nothing.

yet autism is only one category and diagnostics are truly unclear when looking at individual kids. particularly if the parents are anxious that their child is 'special' or fear worse. and fair enough too that autism presents confusingly in early years. not so long ago a diagnosis couldn't be definitive until around 5 years of age. this has been lowered in practice due to parental anxiety.

there are some who push the envelope wanting to ensure their child gets every bit of help to excel without a diagnosis.

therefore I agree there needs to be more stringent diagnostic criteria for inclusion in the scheme. yet "profoundly" disabled is in what used to be called a 'vegetative state'. virtually zero connection with those outside their own brains. yet experience has shown that even these people can have creative, communicative and intelligent lives once their disabilities are addressed.

when I was a young trainee at a Retardation Hospital in the early 70s a book was published called Annie's Coming Out. it was co-written by a nurse and her 'resident' who had cerebral palsy. it resulted in a global shift in awareness of the locked in nature of many people and led to a revolution in care for people with such disorders.

imo you need to look beyond the headlines in such media that want nothing more than ad revenue from click bait and sensationalist outrage.