He's one of Australia's leading minds on super - and he's got a sensible idea about changing Albo's laws. But do YOU think Jim Chalmers will budge on his flawed tax grab?
Labor needs the Greens' support in the Senate to pass its Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions bill that would see a new 15 per cent tax levied on unrealised gains on balances above $3million.
The Opposition and superannuation groups are opposed to the idea of taxing assets in a self-managed super fund before they are sold, based on the paper or notional value of holdings.
Labor's policy would mark a radical departure from the usual practice of applying the capital gains tax once something has been sold.
Now a leading superannuation expert - Professor Robert Breunig, the director of the Australian National University's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute - has argued the government should consider a change to its proposal.
Prof Breunig said the government should look into allowing the unrealised gains tax to be paid years later, when someone eventually sells an asset.
He likened it to the standard practice of paying undue council rates after a house had been sold.
'If you're going to tax unrealised gains, I think you should be giving people the opportunity to defer paying the tax until they dispose of the property,' he said.
'That would be my preferred policy.'
But Chalmers on Wednesday rebuffed a suggestion Labor would revisit the concept of taxing unrealised gains, even though someone inheriting a self-managed super fund could be left with a new tax liability.
'First of all, we're not changing the policies we took to the election,' he told the National Press Club.
'We've got a mandate for that change... What we're looking for here is an opportunity to build on the progress that we've made, including in the economy as you point out.
'We're looking for, not opportunities to go back on the things that we have got a mandate for, we're looking for new ideas.'
'Inheritance' tax accusations
Labor's tax on super balances above $3million could effectively amount to an inheritance tax, along with a new tax on franking credits - or tax refunds for owning shares in a company that has already paid company tax.
Senator James Paterson, the Opposition's finance spokesman, said the government needed to explain if taxing unrealised gains on super amounted to an inheritance tax by stealth.
'Labor's super tax grab has been on the public record for two years,' he told Daily Mail Australia.
'The Albanese Government should be able to fully explain the implications of their policy, including for people's wills.
'We should not be reliant on independent experts, the media or the Opposition to explain how this policy will work in practice.
'Jim Chalmers must be upfront about how his unrealised capital gains tax interacts with franking credits and inheritance.'
A self-managed super fund can be passed on to a dependent or left to someone in a will.
Professor Breunig said someone inheriting a self-managed super fund with more than $3million, upon the death of a parent, would effectively be paying a new form of inheritance tax with the 15 per cent tax on unrealised gains.
'Yes, sure it is, but that's true of a lot of our taxes - that's true with council rates,' he told Daily Mail Australia.
'It would be an inheritance tax if you were somehow paying back taxes on it - you inherit the liability.'
A self-managed super fund, with a balance above $3million, would be subject to an unrealised gains tax if there was a property in the portfolio, under the government's Division 296 plan.
That would be a departure from existing rules allowing someone to avoid paying the capital gains tax on a property they inherited, outside of a super fund.
Prof Breunig said Treasury would benefit from being able to tax unrealised gains in a super portfolio, catching out those who left property in a self-managed super fund.
'Currently, we have a subsidy in the system that subsidies people passing out wealth to their children and you're kind of removing that subsidy,' he said.
'That is one of the attractions of the unrealised gains tax.'
Future of the tax
The Greens want the $3million threshold lowered to $2million but indexed for inflation.
Prof Breunig said that would mean applying an unrealised gains tax to accounts typically producing an annual annuity, or guaranteed retirement living income, of $100,000.
'Two million's too low - how much money do people need to have a comfortable retirement?' he said.
'Now you're talking about a lifetime income stream that's more like $100,000, which for a lot of people isn't that much relative to how much they made in their lifetime.'
Australian abolished inheritance taxes at a national level in 1979, with all the states getting rid of that tax by 1981.
Labor's planned tax doesn't effectively levy a new charge on a superannuation fund balance being transferred to a loved one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Air Canada set to resume flights as cabin crew return to work
Aug 20 (Reuters) - Air Canada is set to resume its flight services on Wednesday, after a nearly four-day strike by its unionized flight attendants left more than 500,000 passengers stranded. "While the restart of our operations will begin immediately, we expect it will take several days before our operations return to normal," the airline said. The flight attendants' union and the airline had on Tuesday reached a tentative deal, but its details have not been disclosed. The union said unpaid work was over. Flight attendants had walked off the job on Saturday after contract talks with the airline collapsed. They had pushed for compensation for duties such as boarding passengers. The airline is yet to reinstate its third-quarter and full-year profit outlook, which were withdrawn due to the strike. The proposed wage hikes at Air Canada would mean up to C$140 million in incremental costs, according to Canaccord Genuity analyst Matthew Lee.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Increased betting tax would be a hurdle that horse racing may not overcome
The Treasury is currently consulting over plans to replace the existing structure of online gambling duties, which is comprised of three bands, to a catch-all Remote Betting and Gaming Duty. At present, there is a 15 per cent duty, but there are grave concerns that the government-induced changes could see it brought into line with the rate of tax on games of chance, such as online casino and slot machines, which is six per cent higher. Economic analysis commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority showed that the sport could lose £66m in income through the levy, media rights and sponsorship because bookmakers would be likely to respond by offering inferior-value prices and reduce budgets for such things as marketing and advertising. Horse racing is a sport that is part of the very fabric of British culture. Its two codes, Flat and National Hunt have been supported by monarchs and other royals for centuries. It also courted Sir Keir Starmer, who last September became the first serving Prime Minister since Sir Winston Churchill to attend the St Leger. Now, similar to one of the PM's current political allies, it has had a change of heart and is taking a more combative approach. Racing draws in more spectators annually than every other sport in the nation, except football. It provides jobs for more than 85,000 people. If betting tax levied on the sport is raised, it's been estimated that 2,752 of those jobs will be lost in the first year alone, and this could become an ever-decreasing cycle. As a show of strength and to underline the gravity of their concerns, the whole of the industry has committed to a one-day strike on 10 September, when racing is scheduled to take place at Carlisle, Kempton Park, Lingfield Park and Uttoxeter. For an industry that has so often taken a 'softly, softly' approach to such matters and wanted to keep respective governments onside, it's akin to throwing away the painstakingly prepared form book and, instead, tossing a coin. Will the 'heads' count in the sport be forced to reduce or will ministers turn 'tails' and elect to preserve the status quo? James Hutchinson, the managing director at Ripon racecourse, is clear on why the sport is right to take such action: 'It's important that we get across this message that the current proposals for this betting duty tax will have an enormous effect on British racing and the income into British racing and therefore the amount of money that it raises in terms of levy and the return therefore to racecourses and the return of prize money to owners and trainers. 'From our point of view as a small independent racecourse, we need to be seen to be a strong industry that can support all of its constituent parts and this potential change is going to put many of those at risk and that's not something we want to see. 'I'm in support of the action that's being taken because by doing so we will hopefully be getting across and extremely strong message to government that we feel very strongly about this and the industry is prepared to go to those sort of lengths to show what it means and the effect it could have if the changes take place.' 'I don't think there's any other sporting industry that could be as dramatically affected by the sort of change that the government is proposing.' James Hutchinson, managing director at Ripon racecourse Isn't this, however, racing people expecting the sport to be treated as a special case purely because of its history? Hutchinson disagrees. 'I don't think it's necessarily a special case other than the fact that it has huge heritage. It's been an important part of the culture and the colour of the nation. 'Over five million people go racing every year and to introduce this huge increase could have a major negative impact on the industry. It could effect the amount of racing, the amount of people going racing and it would be a huge loss to the country. 'I don't think there's any other sporting industry that could be as dramatically affected by the sort of change that the government is proposing.' Those involved in the sport are clear about the financial damage that could be inflicted and are similarly unified in their action, although all four tracks that miss out on racing on that date have been offered an alternative fixture on the calendar by the BHA, by way of compensation for those individual events. The government must act in the best interests of a sport that has given the nation great service since before there was a Prime Minister. It should get this enquiry overturned before the provisional result stands, scrap any plans to increase its tax burden and leave this piece of the fabric of our society unfrayed.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Cry us a river! How the Commonwealth Bank - worth $300BILLION - is secretly trying to fight a push to axe annoying credit card surcharges
Australia's biggest bank has been secretly leading a campaign against plans to ban credit card surcharges. The Commonwealth Bank is so worried about the Reserve Bank's proposals to remove surcharging fees on EFTPOS, Mastercard and Visa cards that it has secretly been co-ordinating a campaign with the banking industry's peak body. A confidential draft letter, obtained by Capital Brief, had CBA - with a $289billion market capitalisation - arguing the Reserve Bank proposal would 'jeopardise' Australia's payments system and hamper innovation. 'The speed at which proposals have been tabled means the proposals themselves are sitting on unsteady data and analysis,' the bank argued in one version of the letter. 'The short time frame of the consultation process has not allowed sufficient alignment between policy objections and likely outcomes.' The letter was addressed to Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Michele Bullock after the RBA last month released a consultation paper arguing debit and credit card surcharges were costing ordinary Australians $1.2billion a year. 'Surcharging is no longer achieving its intended purpose of steering consumers to make more efficient payment choices: avoiding surcharges has become harder as cash usage has declined, businesses are increasingly charging the same surcharge rate across debit and credit and there are significant challenges with enforcing the current surcharging rules,' the RBA said. 'Removing surcharging would make card payments simpler, more transparent and help to increase competition in the card payments system.' The Commonwealth Bank which recently announced a record profit is worried about the Reserve Bank proposals to remove surcharging on EFTPOS, Mastercard and Visa cards The letter was apparently shared with the Australian Banking Association, with submissions to the RBA consultation due by August 26. A Commonwealth Bank spokesman told Capital Brief cutting card fees would deprive Australian banks of a revenue stream that could be invested back into the payments system. 'The net result would be domestic institutions have less to invest as the infrastructure providers in Australia and overseas institutions will have more to harvest,' he said. 'If we have too little funding on one side of the payment system, we're going to find it a lot more difficult to keep up and stay ahead of the rest of the world.' Daily Mail Australia understands the Commonwealth Bank had drafted a letter encompassing the views of banks and payment providers that could convey a position to the Reserve Bank review. The letter is at odds with the Reserve Bank's consultation paper. That concluded that efficiency and competition in Australia's payments system would be encouraged by removing surcharging on all designated debit, prepaid and credit card systems. 'Removing surcharging, combined with reductions in interchange fees and greater transparency of payment costs, would make card payments simpler, more transparent and more efficient for consumers and merchants,' it said.
