In addition to an intergenerational housing pitch, Labor is also preparing to make a full-throated argument that "the 1 per cent" should pay more.Or as Bill Shorten put it in a well-timed media appearance: "Why is it that a plumber, a nurse, a journalist, a lawyer, a teacher, a doctor pay higher rates of tax when they go to work every day than someone who just sits on a pile of assets?"If you think talk of "the 1 per cent" sounds like something too left of field for the typically dry, bureaucratic language of federal budgets, you're in for a surprise.Canvassing the changes not just to negative gearing and capital gains, but also discretionary trusts, the budget papers declare: "The cumulative tax benefits of these arrangements have overwhelmingly flowed to those with very high lifetime incomes."Reinforcing the point is a graph for the ages, showing just how overwhelmingly In some quarters, that figure is already being dismissed as window dressing, and others are pointing to the government's admission that the tax policies in isolation will reduce supply by 35,000 houses.Chalmers has bridled at that description