Andy Darroch

I think it's a nice, easy to picture number in your mind.

And then, yeah, I would be surprised if it includes assets like shares.

Personally, I haven't seen anything to that degree.

And I think the government's acutely aware they don't want to come out with too big a surprise.

So that would be my opinion.

But this will be something that will dominate headlines for the next three to four weeks.

As I say, bring on the leaks.

So this is one that I did read somewhat recently.

And so I'd say that this is a highly esoteric field, like niche, if you will.

And then the only other thing I'd say is at a headline figure, the actual taxes that would be liable, my guess would be in the low single digit thousands kind of thing.

Unless you've got north of $10 million in your super account and

as I understand that this assumes that the super fund made a profit during that year.

So again, this would be unique to an SMSF where they are responsible for their own.

So if this were, if someone does have more than $3 million in their superannuation account and it's, you know, they're doing their estate planning, they can make arrangements to preempt this.

So you could have conditions or clauses or something to that effect that,

The executives or the legal personal representative of the estate itself wouldn't be liable for a bill if indeed their person's super balance went to, say, a spouse or something like that, but they opted to, you know, install their children or something similar as the benefits balance.

So the short answer is, as I understand it, it's theoretically possible.

I'd say you've probably got a higher chance of playing in the Australian cricket team than it actually happening to you.

I hope it happens to all of us because it means we've got magnificent superbalances.

But I'd also say it's one of these things that it is like a if, but, maybe, oh, my goodness.