Fears super tax rise for rich will whack housing market
A bid to increase taxes on wealthy Australians' superannuation has been paved with good intentions, but there are warnings it may create unfair outcomes.
The federal government is hoping to pass a bill to impose a 15 per cent tax on super balances higher than $3 million, which would affect about one in every 200 savers, according to the Australia Institute.
Some have complained it would force Australians to move their assets, such as small businesses and farms, out of their super.
Independent economist Saul Eslake does not have much sympathy for them.
"That's not what bloody super is for," Mr Eslake told AAP.
"Super has become a vehicle for rich people to avoid tax and it's become a subsidy for bequests, not retirement income.
"I support the government's objective ... however, I think the government is going about it the wrong way."
The bill would tax unrealised gains, which is the growth in the value of an investment before it is sold.
Mr Eslake branded it "unfair", as it means people would be taxed even if they had not earned income.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers insists calculating unrealised gains is not unique and says no one has proposed a better way of making this calculation after almost three years of consultation.
Some have called the proposal a tax on wealth. Mr Eslake is not opposed to this, but questions why it is being imposed on superannuation and not on housing.
"This will encourage people - particularly rich people - to put more money into owner-occupied housing, which is completely exempt from tax," he said.
"It's enough of a tax shelter as it is."
The government's decision not to index the $3 million threshold has also been a sore spot for critics.
While the proposal may only affect 0.5 per cent of Australian savers, the lack of indexation means many more could be taxed in the coming years.
Dr Chalmers anticipates the government could raise the threshold in the future.
The superannuation tax was first proposed in 2023 and could be one of Labor's first bills to pass after its landslide election win.
"Just because they've got a mandate, doesn't mean it's right," Mr Eslake said.
The economist has suggested that anyone with more than a certain amount - say $3 million - in their super should not get any concessions on future contributions and would have to pay the marginal tax rate on contributions and income generated.
Alternatively, super contributions and earnings could be taxed at a person's marginal rate minus 15 percentage points rather than a flat 15 per cent, meaning those in the top tax rate would pay 30 per cent, Mr Eslake proposed.
Liberal senator Andrew Bragg acknowledged steps to improve the tax system were worth consideration, but warned Labor's bill would "destroy superannuation as the preferred savings vehicle in Australia, particularly for millennials and Gen Zs".
A bid to increase taxes on wealthy Australians' superannuation has been paved with good intentions, but there are warnings it may create unfair outcomes.
The federal government is hoping to pass a bill to impose a 15 per cent tax on super balances higher than $3 million, which would affect about one in every 200 savers, according to the Australia Institute.
Some have complained it would force Australians to move their assets, such as small businesses and farms, out of their super.
Independent economist Saul Eslake does not have much sympathy for them.
"That's not what bloody super is for," Mr Eslake told AAP.
"Super has become a vehicle for rich people to avoid tax and it's become a subsidy for bequests, not retirement income.
"I support the government's objective ... however, I think the government is going about it the wrong way."
The bill would tax unrealised gains, which is the growth in the value of an investment before it is sold.
Mr Eslake branded it "unfair", as it means people would be taxed even if they had not earned income.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers insists calculating unrealised gains is not unique and says no one has proposed a better way of making this calculation after almost three years of consultation.
Some have called the proposal a tax on wealth. Mr Eslake is not opposed to this, but questions why it is being imposed on superannuation and not on housing.
"This will encourage people - particularly rich people - to put more money into owner-occupied housing, which is completely exempt from tax," he said.
"It's enough of a tax shelter as it is."
The government's decision not to index the $3 million threshold has also been a sore spot for critics.
While the proposal may only affect 0.5 per cent of Australian savers, the lack of indexation means many more could be taxed in the coming years.
Dr Chalmers anticipates the government could raise the threshold in the future.
The superannuation tax was first proposed in 2023 and could be one of Labor's first bills to pass after its landslide election win.
"Just because they've got a mandate, doesn't mean it's right," Mr Eslake said.
The economist has suggested that anyone with more than a certain amount - say $3 million - in their super should not get any concessions on future contributions and would have to pay the marginal tax rate on contributions and income generated.
Alternatively, super contributions and earnings could be taxed at a person's marginal rate minus 15 percentage points rather than a flat 15 per cent, meaning those in the top tax rate would pay 30 per cent, Mr Eslake proposed.
Liberal senator Andrew Bragg acknowledged steps to improve the tax system were worth consideration, but warned Labor's bill would "destroy superannuation as the preferred savings vehicle in Australia, particularly for millennials and Gen Zs".
A bid to increase taxes on wealthy Australians' superannuation has been paved with good intentions, but there are warnings it may create unfair outcomes.
The federal government is hoping to pass a bill to impose a 15 per cent tax on super balances higher than $3 million, which would affect about one in every 200 savers, according to the Australia Institute.
Some have complained it would force Australians to move their assets, such as small businesses and farms, out of their super.
Independent economist Saul Eslake does not have much sympathy for them.
"That's not what bloody super is for," Mr Eslake told AAP.
"Super has become a vehicle for rich people to avoid tax and it's become a subsidy for bequests, not retirement income.
"I support the government's objective ... however, I think the government is going about it the wrong way."
The bill would tax unrealised gains, which is the growth in the value of an investment before it is sold.
Mr Eslake branded it "unfair", as it means people would be taxed even if they had not earned income.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers insists calculating unrealised gains is not unique and says no one has proposed a better way of making this calculation after almost three years of consultation.
Some have called the proposal a tax on wealth. Mr Eslake is not opposed to this, but questions why it is being imposed on superannuation and not on housing.
"This will encourage people - particularly rich people - to put more money into owner-occupied housing, which is completely exempt from tax," he said.
"It's enough of a tax shelter as it is."
The government's decision not to index the $3 million threshold has also been a sore spot for critics.
While the proposal may only affect 0.5 per cent of Australian savers, the lack of indexation means many more could be taxed in the coming years.
Dr Chalmers anticipates the government could raise the threshold in the future.
The superannuation tax was first proposed in 2023 and could be one of Labor's first bills to pass after its landslide election win.
"Just because they've got a mandate, doesn't mean it's right," Mr Eslake said.
The economist has suggested that anyone with more than a certain amount - say $3 million - in their super should not get any concessions on future contributions and would have to pay the marginal tax rate on contributions and income generated.
Alternatively, super contributions and earnings could be taxed at a person's marginal rate minus 15 percentage points rather than a flat 15 per cent, meaning those in the top tax rate would pay 30 per cent, Mr Eslake proposed.
Liberal senator Andrew Bragg acknowledged steps to improve the tax system were worth consideration, but warned Labor's bill would "destroy superannuation as the preferred savings vehicle in Australia, particularly for millennials and Gen Zs".
A bid to increase taxes on wealthy Australians' superannuation has been paved with good intentions, but there are warnings it may create unfair outcomes.
The federal government is hoping to pass a bill to impose a 15 per cent tax on super balances higher than $3 million, which would affect about one in every 200 savers, according to the Australia Institute.
Some have complained it would force Australians to move their assets, such as small businesses and farms, out of their super.
Independent economist Saul Eslake does not have much sympathy for them.
"That's not what bloody super is for," Mr Eslake told AAP.
"Super has become a vehicle for rich people to avoid tax and it's become a subsidy for bequests, not retirement income.
"I support the government's objective ... however, I think the government is going about it the wrong way."
The bill would tax unrealised gains, which is the growth in the value of an investment before it is sold.
Mr Eslake branded it "unfair", as it means people would be taxed even if they had not earned income.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers insists calculating unrealised gains is not unique and says no one has proposed a better way of making this calculation after almost three years of consultation.
Some have called the proposal a tax on wealth. Mr Eslake is not opposed to this, but questions why it is being imposed on superannuation and not on housing.
"This will encourage people - particularly rich people - to put more money into owner-occupied housing, which is completely exempt from tax," he said.
"It's enough of a tax shelter as it is."
The government's decision not to index the $3 million threshold has also been a sore spot for critics.
While the proposal may only affect 0.5 per cent of Australian savers, the lack of indexation means many more could be taxed in the coming years.
Dr Chalmers anticipates the government could raise the threshold in the future.
The superannuation tax was first proposed in 2023 and could be one of Labor's first bills to pass after its landslide election win.
"Just because they've got a mandate, doesn't mean it's right," Mr Eslake said.
The economist has suggested that anyone with more than a certain amount - say $3 million - in their super should not get any concessions on future contributions and would have to pay the marginal tax rate on contributions and income generated.
Alternatively, super contributions and earnings could be taxed at a person's marginal rate minus 15 percentage points rather than a flat 15 per cent, meaning those in the top tax rate would pay 30 per cent, Mr Eslake proposed.
Liberal senator Andrew Bragg acknowledged steps to improve the tax system were worth consideration, but warned Labor's bill would "destroy superannuation as the preferred savings vehicle in Australia, particularly for millennials and Gen Zs".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Premier stands by stadium as early state election looms
A defiant Jeremy Rockliff has vowed to fight and win an early Tasmanian election, after political brinkmanship with Opposition Leader Dean Winter spiralled in parliament and produced a shock snap poll. It's not yet clear when the election will fall, with Mr Rockliff seeking to convene parliament next week to pass an emergency budget bill. Also caught up in the chaos is the billion-dollar Hobart waterfront stadium, and by extension the Tasmania Devils AFL team. After two days of lengthy debate, Mr Rockliff lost a no-confidence motion in parliament on Thursday, which by convention demands his resignation. Before the vote, he told Mr Winter, the Labor leader, that should the vote succeed, he would seek an election - just 15 months after the last state poll. "Be that on Mr Winter's head. This has been a selfish grab for power," he said on Thursday morning. Pointing to last month's budget - which forecast big deficits and ballooning debt beyond $10 billion - Mr Winter chose to stand behind his motion, unmoved by either public advocacy or behind-closed-doors efforts to talk him down. "Tasmanians were aghast at the state of the budget," Mr Winter said. "I can't stand by and let this premier ruin this state and so Tasmanian Labor needs to stand up." The vote passed 18-17, with Labor, the Greens and three independents backing the motion, including a casting vote by Labor veteran Michelle O'Byrne as speaker. Shell-shocked, Mr Rockliff then took the floor to deliver an emotion-laden speech. "This is a very sad day for Tasmania," he said. "It's a sad day because I put a lot of line, a lot on the line, for this parliament." He said he fought off internal opponents to both stand by the stadium, and to get electoral reform over the line. "I've been advised by all the hard-heads in my party not to go down that track. Why? Because it's bad for votes," he said. "Well, I've always said 'stuff votes'. "I've said it when I moved for the 35-seat house of parliament, and I'll say it for the stadium for as long as I damn well live, because I believe in it." He apologised for the botched rollout of new Spirit of Tasmania ferries and acknowledged economic challenges - but said he was up for the fight. "And you might get rid of me, mate," he said, directly to Mr Winter, "but I tell you what, they're coming for you as well, because you will always be known as a wrecker." While there will be plenty of time for campaigning in the upcoming poll, the dominant reaction among Tasmanians appears to be shock. Among those flabbergasted by the sharp escalation of politicking was former premier Will Hodgman. "An implausibly stupid decision on so many levels," the two-time election winner posted on social media. "Politically reckless, and seriously damaging to Tasmania's reputation." Brad Stansfield, a member of Mr Hodgman's staff and long-term Liberal campaigner, who now runs a PR company, said the political environment would be toxic for Mr Rockliff. "If we do end up at the point where there is an election, just to be brutally frank, the Liberals would be annihilated," he told the FontCast.
West Australian
2 hours ago
- West Australian
Premier stands by stadium as early state election looms
A defiant Jeremy Rockliff has vowed to fight and win an early Tasmanian election, after political brinkmanship with Opposition Leader Dean Winter spiralled in parliament and produced a shock snap poll. It's not yet clear when the election will fall, with Mr Rockliff seeking to convene parliament next week to pass an emergency budget bill. Also caught up in the chaos is the billion-dollar Hobart waterfront stadium, and by extension the Tasmania Devils AFL team. After two days of lengthy debate, Mr Rockliff lost a no-confidence motion in parliament on Thursday, which by convention demands his resignation. Before the vote, he told Mr Winter, the Labor leader, that should the vote succeed, he would seek an election - just 15 months after the last state poll. "Be that on Mr Winter's head. This has been a selfish grab for power," he said on Thursday morning. Pointing to last month's budget - which forecast big deficits and ballooning debt beyond $10 billion - Mr Winter chose to stand behind his motion, unmoved by either public advocacy or behind-closed-doors efforts to talk him down. "Tasmanians were aghast at the state of the budget," Mr Winter said. "I can't stand by and let this premier ruin this state and so Tasmanian Labor needs to stand up." The vote passed 18-17, with Labor, the Greens and three independents backing the motion, including a casting vote by Labor veteran Michelle O'Byrne as speaker. Shell-shocked, Mr Rockliff then took the floor to deliver an emotion-laden speech. "This is a very sad day for Tasmania," he said. "It's a sad day because I put a lot of line, a lot on the line, for this parliament." He said he fought off internal opponents to both stand by the stadium, and to get electoral reform over the line. "I've been advised by all the hard-heads in my party not to go down that track. Why? Because it's bad for votes," he said. "Well, I've always said 'stuff votes'. "I've said it when I moved for the 35-seat house of parliament, and I'll say it for the stadium for as long as I damn well live, because I believe in it." He apologised for the botched rollout of new Spirit of Tasmania ferries and acknowledged economic challenges - but said he was up for the fight. "And you might get rid of me, mate," he said, directly to Mr Winter, "but I tell you what, they're coming for you as well, because you will always be known as a wrecker." While there will be plenty of time for campaigning in the upcoming poll, the dominant reaction among Tasmanians appears to be shock. Among those flabbergasted by the sharp escalation of politicking was former premier Will Hodgman. "An implausibly stupid decision on so many levels," the two-time election winner posted on social media. "Politically reckless, and seriously damaging to Tasmania's reputation." Brad Stansfield, a member of Mr Hodgman's staff and long-term Liberal campaigner, who now runs a PR company, said the political environment would be toxic for Mr Rockliff. "If we do end up at the point where there is an election, just to be brutally frank, the Liberals would be annihilated," he told the FontCast.
The Age
6 hours ago
- The Age
Elevate Kiosk
This venue is a finalist in the market stall category in Good Food's Essential Sydney Cafes and Bakeries of 2025. Essential Sydney Cafes and Bakeries of 2025: Best Market Stall See all stories. Previous SlideNext Slide Cafe$$$$ This is the transient outpost of Seven Hills cafe Elevate Specialty Coffee, where baristas are serious about Australian-roasted single origins. It's parked among the mirrored glass office blocks of Blacktown's CBD, offering workers a welcome alternative to the national chains dominating the nearby shopping centre. Sandwiches (like the pickle-heavy, pastrami-packed Reuben) are toasted to order and most pastries are made in-house. Good to know: After a mid-afternoon snack? Chances are you might get a discount.
