Goodbye receipts, hello $1000: The future of tax returns is coming
Loading
But make no mistake – this will be a big change for a huge chunk of people. According to the ATO, about 39 per cent of Australians claim less than $1000 in work expenses each year. In moving to an automatic deduction model, the government estimates it could simplify the tax process for 5.7 million people – the vast majority of whom (88 per cent) have a taxable income of $135,000 or less.
For its part, the ATO estimates the move to an automated model won't just make the historically confusing and time-consuming process easier, but also much faster. So much so that this method would require just six steps, meaning you could comfortably lodge a return in under half an hour and still get the same return you otherwise would. By all accounts, that sounds pretty good to me.
But even though this might be the first time you're hearing about it, the idea of automated deductions isn't itself new. In fact, it was first raised by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry all the way back in 2010.
Fifteen years ago, Henry and the Department of Treasury noted: 'For many people, the personal tax system is complex not only because of the rates scale and the lack of a coherent definition of taxable income, but also because they must deal with a large suite of complex dedication rules, numerous tax offsets and a variety of exempt forms of income.'
The complexity Henry spoke of also points to a bigger issue at play, which is the number of Australians paying professionals to help them lodge their annual tax returns.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of legitimate reasons for needing, or wanting, to pay someone to help you ensure you not only lodge your tax statement correctly, but that you maximise your potential return. If you work several jobs, are self-employed, or receive income from investments, for example, a tax specialist can be of great help.
But for the average worker who has a single source of full-time employment and wants to claim standard deductions, even if they are more than $1000, a tax agent simply isn't needed any more.
And yet, the ATO says, of the 15.7 million returns lodged last year, 60 per cent (9.5 million) were lodged by tax agents. If using an agent guaranteed us all mega-returns beyond our wildest dreams, maybe it would be worth it. But the average return for the same financial year was about $2900, and the average fee for a tax accountant ranges anywhere from $100 to $500.
Yes, there are still many complexities in our tax system, and it can be confusing to navigate. But spend five minutes on the ATO app or their online myTax tool, and you'll see that a once overly complicated process has become a lot easier and much more streamlined.
What's more, the ATO has gotten a lot better at auditing claims thanks to AI and data matching tools. Every year, the Tax Office is auditing people more regularly and consistently, and finding bogus claims – like the truck driver who tried to claim a pair of Speedos, or the mechanic who tried to claim a gaming console and TV (among other things).
If you're among the small fraction of people who treat deductions like a sport of what you can get away with, things are only getting tougher. But if you are among the 39 per cent of Australians who claim less than $1000 in deductions, things are set to become a lot easier (and merrier).
Victoria Devine is an award-winning retired financial adviser, bestselling author and host of Australia's No.1 finance podcast, She's on the Money. She is also founder and director of Zella Money.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
10 minutes ago
- The Age
The act of bastardry that's hurting young generations
So post-tax income and pension payments have gone up relative to the overall population, but not all parts of the population. Older Australians have a post-tax income one-third higher than someone aged between 18 and 30. They used to be around the same. The change has been caused by more tax on the younger cohort and less tax (and larger income streams) for the older bunch. Before the turn of the century, retirees received relatively little in the way of income, relying largely on the age pension to get by. Superannuation was created to ensure older people did not have to rely on government support. It was all aimed at giving retirees dignity in their later years. But along the way, it's gone way beyond dignity. In too many cases, it's become estate planning, tax management or wealth transference. The average 60-ish retiree drawing tax-free income from their super plus a bit of the age pension is getting the same income as an average working 40-year-old. But the spending pressures on a retiree and someone in their early 40s are very different. The retiree doesn't face the 'pressures of saving for the future or supporting a growing family'. They've probably paid off their mortgage while they spend far less than someone of working age. One of those saving pressures is finding a deposit for a home. In 1990, to buy a median-priced house in Sydney required almost seven times the median income. It's now more than 13 times the median income. That's a big factor in the collapse in home ownership among under-35s. That fall in ownership is one of the factors contributing to the drop-off in fertility rates among younger couples. We're asking younger Australians to pay huge amounts for their higher education, leaving many in debt for longer (another issue making it more difficult for this group of people to save for a deposit). Breunig and his team point out that we have a tax and welfare system which rewards people who move their wealth into income-generating low- or no-tax asset classes. About two-thirds of income is captured by the tax system. That's great if you have assets not attracting tax. But for those who don't, like most people under the age of 40, that translates into paying more tax. And that tax is probably going towards services (the health system, aged care) used by older Australians. This is why Breunig and his team believe the intergenerational contract is broken. 'The current tax and transfer system, with its growing obligations to the growing cohort of older Australians and shrinking resources from which to meet those obligations, is spiralling down and unsustainable,' they found. To resolve this problem, you could slash spending. The second-largest expense for the federal budget is the age pension, at $66 billion a year. That's followed by the NDIS ($51 billion), aged care services ($41 billion), medical benefits ($35 billion) and assistance to the states to run their hospitals ($34 billion). Loading The largest expense in the budget world is actually the GST at $101 billion, which goes straight out the door, mostly to fund state hospitals. Combined, that's about 40 per cent of the budget, much of which flows to the old, the sick, the disabled and the young. Another option is to increase taxes on older Australians. That would be the bunch of politically important voters who have managed to move the tax system in their favour over the past 30 years. The economic roundtable was all about finding ways to lift our nation's collective living standards while also fixing the budget bottom line. When it came to tax, the usual ideas such as company tax or the GST dominated discussion.
Sydney Morning Herald
10 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The act of bastardry that's hurting young generations
So post-tax income and pension payments have gone up relative to the overall population, but not all parts of the population. Older Australians have a post-tax income one-third higher than someone aged between 18 and 30. They used to be around the same. The change has been caused by more tax on the younger cohort and less tax (and larger income streams) for the older bunch. Before the turn of the century, retirees received relatively little in the way of income, relying largely on the age pension to get by. Superannuation was created to ensure older people did not have to rely on government support. It was all aimed at giving retirees dignity in their later years. But along the way, it's gone way beyond dignity. In too many cases, it's become estate planning, tax management or wealth transference. The average 60-ish retiree drawing tax-free income from their super plus a bit of the age pension is getting the same income as an average working 40-year-old. But the spending pressures on a retiree and someone in their early 40s are very different. The retiree doesn't face the 'pressures of saving for the future or supporting a growing family'. They've probably paid off their mortgage while they spend far less than someone of working age. One of those saving pressures is finding a deposit for a home. In 1990, to buy a median-priced house in Sydney required almost seven times the median income. It's now more than 13 times the median income. That's a big factor in the collapse in home ownership among under-35s. That fall in ownership is one of the factors contributing to the drop-off in fertility rates among younger couples. We're asking younger Australians to pay huge amounts for their higher education, leaving many in debt for longer (another issue making it more difficult for this group of people to save for a deposit). Breunig and his team point out that we have a tax and welfare system which rewards people who move their wealth into income-generating low- or no-tax asset classes. About two-thirds of income is captured by the tax system. That's great if you have assets not attracting tax. But for those who don't, like most people under the age of 40, that translates into paying more tax. And that tax is probably going towards services (the health system, aged care) used by older Australians. This is why Breunig and his team believe the intergenerational contract is broken. 'The current tax and transfer system, with its growing obligations to the growing cohort of older Australians and shrinking resources from which to meet those obligations, is spiralling down and unsustainable,' they found. To resolve this problem, you could slash spending. The second-largest expense for the federal budget is the age pension, at $66 billion a year. That's followed by the NDIS ($51 billion), aged care services ($41 billion), medical benefits ($35 billion) and assistance to the states to run their hospitals ($34 billion). Loading The largest expense in the budget world is actually the GST at $101 billion, which goes straight out the door, mostly to fund state hospitals. Combined, that's about 40 per cent of the budget, much of which flows to the old, the sick, the disabled and the young. Another option is to increase taxes on older Australians. That would be the bunch of politically important voters who have managed to move the tax system in their favour over the past 30 years. The economic roundtable was all about finding ways to lift our nation's collective living standards while also fixing the budget bottom line. When it came to tax, the usual ideas such as company tax or the GST dominated discussion.
The Advertiser
10 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Big homes, small families: the Aussie housing mismatch
Australian households are mostly one or two people but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who owned more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told AAP. The data also highlights the high number of empty nester households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Ms Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Ms Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities." Australian households are mostly one or two people but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who owned more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told AAP. The data also highlights the high number of empty nester households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Ms Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Ms Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities." Australian households are mostly one or two people but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who owned more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told AAP. The data also highlights the high number of empty nester households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Ms Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Ms Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities." Australian households are mostly one or two people but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who owned more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told AAP. The data also highlights the high number of empty nester households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Ms Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Ms Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities."
