logo
Wealthy baby boomer's infuriating question about how Anthony Albanese's new tax will affect his $8MILLION in superannuation

Wealthy baby boomer's infuriating question about how Anthony Albanese's new tax will affect his $8MILLION in superannuation

Daily Mail​6 hours ago

A retiree with an $8million superannuation balance he shares with his wife has publicly asked how to arrange his finances to avoid Labor's proposed super tax hike.
Under Labor's tax plan, Australians with more than $3million in super will pay an additional 15 per cent tax on the portion of their earnings above $3m.
Given only an estimated 80,000 Australians have super balances above the $3m threshold, the new tax would currently affect about 0.05 per cent of the population.
The limited scope and applicability of the tax hike hasn't stopped the country's top-earners from scrambling for advice on how best to shield their account balances.
Enter the anonymous boomer who recently asked Sydney Morning Herald columnist Noel Whittaker whether his $8million Self Managed Super Fund (SMSF), through some eleventh-hour readjustments, could be spared the additional tax.
The frugal fellow explained the facts as follows: the man, aged in his mid-to-late 80's shares the SMSF with his wife, with 58 per cent allocated to his account and 42 per cent to his wife's.
In the 2025/26 financial year, they will both draw the minimum pension of nine per cent, totalling about $333,000.
His first question to Mr Whittaker was: if they sold enough assets to bring the balance below $6million by June 30 next year, would they be exempt from the new tax?
The answer: it depends. The tax is calculated per member, meaning if a single account held more than half the $6million balance, that account would be liable, he said.
Assuming the pensioner reduced his personal super account to $3million on which he earned $400,000 over the next financial year, Mr Whittaker estimated the extra tax would cost him only $7056.
His second question, which answered in the affirmative, concerned whether pension withdrawals affected the relevant balance for tax purposes.
Mr Whittaker clarified that the tax only applies to the portion of a super balance over $3million. So, in his example, a balance of $3.4million would be liable to pay $7056 in tax.
According to ATO data, the average Australian man has a super balance of $182,000 while the average woman has $146,000.
Calculations by the Australia Institute estimate 97 per cent of Australians currently in the workforce will never have $3million in superannuation let alone the roughly $4.64million held personally by the boomer in question.
Sympathies, then, were understandably in short supply among readers of the article.
'Accumulation of huge wealth with huge tax concessions and still not wanting to pay a fair share to fund a more equitable society doesn't seem right,' one user wrote.
'$8millilon and they're whingeing abut paying just a little extra tax,' another user said.
Another reader wrote: '$8million in super... far out! That is more than enough for two people to retire on.
'Super IS NOT an inheritance vehicle to ensure wealth is passed down the generations whilst paying the least amount of tax.'
While few sympathise with the efforts of Australia's wealthiest to avoid the new tax rate, others have called out the fact the $3million threshold is not indexed to inflation.
It's a position shared by the Greens, who Labor will likely have to rely on to secure the bill's passage through parliament given the Coalition's stated opposition.
Economists estimate that, by 2040, a $3million threshold would be worth about $2million in today's dollars, meaning more Aussies will creep into the affected bracket.
AMP economist Diana Mousina has been outspoken in her criticism of the decision not to index the bill, claiming it would eventually affect a wide swathe of earners.
While the figures are widely contested, Ms Mousina calculated the average 22-year-old earning average wages for life would eventually reach the $3million threshold.
'Do you think that the proposed $3million superannuation cap tax won't impact you because the Labor government said it only impacts 0.5 per cent of people now? Think again,' she said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australia to deploy 100 soldiers to help Ukraine in its bloody war against Russian aggression
Australia to deploy 100 soldiers to help Ukraine in its bloody war against Russian aggression

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Australia to deploy 100 soldiers to help Ukraine in its bloody war against Russian aggression

Australia will deploy up to 100 soldiers and a military aircraft to Europe in an effort to support Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia. Defence Minister Richard Marles announced the contributions at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) leaders summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday. At the request of NATO and Poland, Australia will deploy a Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail aircraft in August along with 100 Australian Defence Force personnel. Part of Operation Kudu, the deployment is designed to protect an international gateway for humanitarian and military assistance into Ukraine and will not be direct combat roles. The deployment is expected to conclude by November and will compliment Australia's more than $1.5b in support to Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022. 'Australia is proud of its longstanding operational partnership with NATO,' Mr Marles said in announcing the commitments on Wednesday. 'The deployment of an E-7A Wedgetail aircraft will again showcase our ability to operate from Europe, alongside NATO and partners, in support of Ukraine and international peace and security.' Leaders of the defensive alliance descended on The Hague on Tuesday for two days of talks on the conflict and Washington's uncertain commitment to NATO. Representatives of the member states, including many European nations, the UK, the US and Canada, are expected to commit five per cent of their national outputs to defence and related spending. Australia is not a NATO member but is considered one of its Indo-Pacific partners alongside Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand. During the summit, Australia also imposed a fresh wave of financial sanctions and travel bans on 37 individuals and financial sanctions on seven entities. Mr Marles said the sanctions will target Russia's defence, energy, transport, insurance, electronic and finance sectors and proponents of disinformation and propaganda. Foreign Minister Penny Wong welcomed the sanctions as a sign of Australia's deep ties with NATO member states. 'Our targeted sanctions reflect our close coordination with key NATO partners, including the UK, Canada and the European Union. 'Australia has now imposed more than 1,500 sanctions in response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. We will continue to work with partners to disrupt Russia's ability to fund its illegal and immoral war.'

Deep in the 185-page Lattouf judgment is a forensic critique of the ABC's top brass
Deep in the 185-page Lattouf judgment is a forensic critique of the ABC's top brass

The Guardian

time2 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Deep in the 185-page Lattouf judgment is a forensic critique of the ABC's top brass

Buried in justice Darryl Rangiah's 185-page judgment that found the ABC breached the Fair Work Act in its termination of Antoinette Lattouf is a critical assessment of the behaviour of the broadcaster's top management, including former chair Ita Buttrose. Four of the key figures in Lattouf's removal– Buttrose, the then managing director David Anderson, former content chief Chris Oliver-Taylor and Sydney radio manager Steve Ahern – have since departed the ABC. But 18 months ago, they were among senior managers in a 'a state of panic' after an 'orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Ms Lattouf taken off air', the federal court judge said. Rangiah traced every text, email and internal discussion between multiple layers of ABC management in December 2023 and compared them with the evidence they gave in the seven-day trial, lifting the veil on decision-making at the public broadcaster. Some individuals came out better than others. Buttrose, Rangiah said, 'made clear her displeasure' at Lattouf's appointment at the outset, forwarding email complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists to Oliver-Taylor. She demanded to know why an 'activist' had been engaged in the first place, putting pressure on Oliver-Taylor to act, Rangiah found. He said when Buttrose asked David Anderson: 'Why can't she come down with flu or Covid or a stomach upset?' the chair was expressing her 'desire for Ms Lattouf to be taken off air immediately under the pretence of illness'. In the witness box, Buttrose claimed the expression was 'just a face-saving idea'. When it came to her performance under cross-examination, Rangiah was not impressed. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'Ms Buttrose's evidence under cross-examination was somewhat theatrical and difficult to follow at times,' he said. 'She had a strong belief that Ms Lattouf was an activist who should have never been engaged by the ABC and she wanted Ms Lattouf gone as soon as possible.' But while Buttrose's forwarding of complaints about Lattouf placed pressure on Oliver-Taylor, Rangiah said that the chair did 'not materially contribute' to the decision to take the journalist off air, finding that this was Oliver-Taylor's decision alone. In his assessment of Oliver-Taylor, Rangiah found some of his evidence about whether Lattouf was given a direction not to post about Gaza was 'quite implausible', ultimately finding that he does 'not accept' this evidence and Lattouf was not given a direction. At issue was whether Lattouf had been given a direction by her manager, Elizabeth Green, not to post on social media or just a suggestion to keep a low profile. Oliver-Taylor claimed in court that there was no difference between asking someone to do something and 'directing' them. When it came to the former managing director, Rangiah found Anderson 'materially contributed' to Oliver-Taylor's decision to remove Lattouf by 'expressing his opinion that Ms Lattouf had anti-Semitic views' after inspecting her social media accounts. Lower down the chain, Rangiah was critical of evidence given by Ahern, as well as radio chief Ben Latimer and editorial adviser Simon Melkman – the latter two for 'their lack of recollection' about what was said at a Teams meeting before Lattouf was taken off air. 'The evidence of Mr Latimer, Mr Ahern and Mr Melkman under cross-examination left me with substantial doubts as to the reliability and credibility of their evidence on controversial matters,' Rangiah said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'I reject their evidence asserting that Mr Oliver-Taylor was not informed in the Teams Meeting that Ms Green had not given Ms Lattouf a direction and had only given her advice.' The judge was definitive in his assessment of what caused the 'panic' on the executive floor and why emails were flying between them. 'Ms Buttrose and Mr Anderson received multiple letters and emails complaining about Ms Lattouf, which sought to pressure the ABC to not employ her and/or terminate her employment for reasons including her political opinion and/or race and/or national extraction,' he found. 'He [Anderson] considered that it was of critical importance for the ABC to have a high degree of actual and perceived impartiality in relation to the Israel/Gaza war. 'The complaints, as they developed over the ensuing days, were evidently a coordinated campaign to pressure the ABC into taking Ms Lattouf off air or ceasing to employ her.' Of Lattouf's direct manager, Green, Rangiah was highly complimentary, finding 'no doubt about the reliability and accuracy' of her evidence. 'I accept Ms Green to be a reliable witness and accept her account of all her discussions with Mr Ahern,' he said. 'In summary, Ms Green made it explicitly clear she had not given any direction to Ms Lattouf and had merely provided advice.'

Super tax debate highlights everything wrong with Australia's media and economic system
Super tax debate highlights everything wrong with Australia's media and economic system

The Guardian

time2 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Super tax debate highlights everything wrong with Australia's media and economic system

The reason why we don't have free dental in Medicare is because we subsidise the inheritance of the wealthiest people in Australia. I know it might shock you to see it written plainly, it might even annoy you. But it is the truth. The way superannuation is mostly covered by the media in this country is about how to avoid paying tax and how to use it to fund inheritance. Take the headline this week in Nine newspapers 'money column': 'We have $8m in an SMSF. How can we avoid the new super tax?' You could hardly find a more pointed example of everything wrong with Australia's media and economic system. I look forward to the SMH and others providing advice on how people on jobseeker can work for cash to avoid losing any benefits and paying extra tax. Similarly, it doesn't take long for any story about the proposed changes to the tax breaks on superannuation balances over $3m to mention inheritance. That's because $3m is so far beyond what anyone needs to retire comfortably that only the most self-delusional think they need more than that to survive. Heck, the main way Peter Dutton criticised the changes was to label them a 'quasi inheritance tax'. The best one of the genre is an AFR headline: 'New $3m super tax is 'stealing my children's inheritance''. You might expect that from the AFR, but you would hope for better from the ABC. On Tuesday night, ABC's 7.30 reported on a pair of farmers who were worried about the changes to the superannuation tax breaks because the combined balances of the couple was $5.5m and so might soon have a combined $6m (ie more than $3m each). The 7.30 story had no mention of inheritance, but the written version noted that 'the money isn't only being used to fund their retirement. The plan is for it to help fund the inheritances of their other children without necessitating selling off the family farm.' Let's stop right there. We don't give tax breaks on superannuation so that you can fund the inheritance of your children. Tattoo that on your eyeballs. Superannuation tax breaks are designed to encourage you to save so you do not need to rely on the age pension. It is not so your kids can get a head start in life. That might be a nice thing for you to do, but there is zero public benefit in giving you a tax break to do it. The story also contained the claim by the couple's son that 'Mum and Dad will be up for an extra $120,000 a year'. According to the report, the extra tax was due to the anticipated unrealised capital gain of the farming assets (the wind turbines and the agricultural chemical businesses) once the couple's super balance passed $6m (ie $3m each). Well now. If your Spidey senses are tingling, you should be a journalist. Because that seems a rather bold claim. Consider that to pay $120,000 in tax on just plain old income you need to earn $342,000 a year. If the graph does not display click here Given the average tax on that is 35.1%, we know that cannot be the case for super, because super earnings are only taxed at 15% until the balance goes above $3m and then the earnings attributable to the amount above $3m are taxed at 30% – both below 35%. So, for that claim to be true, the earnings on their superannuation (including unrealised capital gains) would need to be well over $342,000. How much? Well, the Treasury has given us a handy fact sheet that lets us work it out. For one person with a $3m super balance, their fund would need to increase by $2m for them to have to pay an extra $120,000 (yes, just a 6% tax rate). But what if the $120,000 is combined? In that case, both their funds would need to grow in a year from $3m to $4.3m. Each would pay $60,035 on that $1.3m unrealised gains. Yep, a tax rate of just 4.6% each. If the graph does not display click here Consider as well that an ordinary income earner pays an average tax rate of 4.6% when they earn just $25,500. Those with super balances of over $3m are still getting a tax break because if it was taxed like normal income they would pay 45% tax not 30%. These tax breaks cost money. Money that the government has decided it is better to spend than, for example, to include dental in Medicare. Let's do some maths. The cost of putting dental in Medicare, which would include 'preventative and therapeutic dental services, including regular check-ups and teeth cleans, crowns, orthodontic treatment, oral surgeries, periodontics and prosthodontics' is estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Office to be $13.63bn in the first year. That is a lot of money. But not compared to how much each year the government gives in tax breaks to the richest 10% on their superannuation – most of whom will not be eligible of the age pension, and thus are getting a tax break for no public good, and much of which will go towards inheritance. In 2025-26, the Treasury estimates these breaks will cost the budget $22bn. If the graph does not display click here When the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, was asked about dental in Medicare during the election campaign he told reporters that 'we've got to make sure that we can afford it and make sure there's room for it in the budget'. OK, then. Let's not cut all the super tax concessions for the richest 10%. Let's still give them $8bn a year in tax breaks to help ensure they have stonks more money than they need for retirement. Great, we have now found room in the budget to pay for dental in Medicare. Dental in Medicare or tax breaks to the richest so they can give money tax free to their kids? Budget and governing are about choices, and so too is how the media covers it. Greg Jericho is a Guardian columnist and policy director at the Centre for Future Work

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store