I think the answer to her puzzlement about why people assumed that they hadn't taken those behavioural responses into account , was that the figures she produced on gross savings seemed to indicate she hadn't. ie There was so little difference between the gross figures without any changes and those that she produced[or at least the PBO produced] , that assumption seemed valid.I would love to know what their total discount was for those behavioural changes .
Exactly which sectors she thinks they will come from. The " individual" one as I mentioned above is interesting, keeping in mind the marginal rate of tax hits 32.5c at 37k.
If she expects 34 billion from SMSF and APRA funds, I hope that is mostly from SMSF's, for the obvious reasons.
I also noticed where you got the fallacy regarding the idea that if people in low tax didn't buy franked divi shares, others would, thus preserving all the revenue .
Depressing that she doesn't understand the mechanisms that would make that view not valid. Some of the revenue would have been better.
As far as effects on behaviour regarding super/social security, she seems to feel that is minute.
This , I think she is very much mistaken about.
Keep in mind that the target for most of the revenue savings is the middle of the 1.6 mill fund range[in her words the over 1.6 mill is not significant], this is a figure disturbingly close to the couples pension assets test limit.
A good proxy for this is the marked increase in advice coming out of the woodwork from "investment advisors" to their clients in this group suggesting this.
As I said you have provided me with weeks of fun analysing all that.
