Latest news with #TheAustraliaInstitute
Otago Daily Times
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Voting on the pressing issues
As Dunedin prepares for the local body elections, voters have the opportunity to choose local politicians who align with their expectations of the future for Dunedin. While many issues are currently in the spotlight, such as the cost of living, flooding, and housing, these are often closely connected to climate change and sustainability — even if that link isn't always made explicit. There have been a number of reports that find an explicit relationship between the cost of living and climate change impacts. Earlier this year The Australia Institute released a report that found a direct connection between the rising cost of living and the climate crisis, now and into the future. The report identified that the particular sectors to be hit hardest will be insurance premiums, food prices and energy costs. And indeed the more the temperature rises, the worse conditions will get, that means that more weather events will increase insurance premiums and disrupt food production, pushing up costs further. However, much of today's public discourse relies on divisive sound bites that pit immediate concerns against longer-term global challenges such as climate change. This framing creates a false dichotomy. In reality, we can no longer afford to treat climate change as separate from the pressing issues we face — it is deeply interconnected with how we live, work, and make decisions on this planet. This is where I would listen carefully during the local body electioneering. For example, the adaptation report released this week from the Independent Reference Group on Climate Adaptation noted that we need a proactive approach to climate adaptation. The report concluded with three main points: There needs to be increased access to risk information and early planning because New Zealanders need clear, accessible information about natural hazard risks and planned responses to make informed decisions. Early understanding enables individuals, communities and businesses to reduce future costs through proactive planning and risk mitigation. There should be fair and targeted funding for risk reduction. A broad ''beneficiary pays'' principle should guide funding, where those who benefit most contribute more. It is suggested that central government should invest where national or Crown interests are at stake, and help support vulnerable communities with limited capacity to pay. People (and businesses) are going to need to take individual responsibility. People should understand and take responsibility for the risks they face, with property values and insurance costs reflecting changing climate risks. Long-term public buyouts should not be expected, though government should support those in hardship. Māori must be resourced and empowered to make their own local adaptation decisions. Consequently, considering the above recommendations and when thinking about local government actions in this space, consider: 1. How local government candidates prioritise making climate and natural hazard risk data accessible and understandable to the public. This includes supporting initiatives for open data, improved hazard mapping and clear communication strategies. How candidates commit to transparency and proactive public engagement on risk information — not just during emergencies, but in planning and development decisions. 2. How candidates explain how they intend to fund adaptation measures. The ''beneficiary pays'' principle suggests ratepayers, developers and beneficiaries of infrastructure should contribute, but it would be good to understand candidates' positions on the role of council advocacy for central government support, especially where community capacity is limited. Ask how candidates plan to balance fairness, fiscal responsibility and investment in resilience, especially for vulnerable areas. 3. How local leaders treat climate risk when discussing land-use decisions, property valuations and infrastructure planning. Ask for candidates to give their position on development in high-risk areas, managed retreat and the role of insurance and housing affordability in adaptation. Understand what might be the support shown for iwi/hapū leadership and resourcing for Māori-led adaptation. Voters should assess whether candidates recognise that long-term public buyouts are unsustainable and that adaptation will require behavioural, policy and market change. The coming local elections are a chance to assess whether candidates are ready to govern in an era where climate change is not a distant threat, but a defining consideration in local decision-making. Only by actively understanding the connections between climate change and the other key pressing issues can elected representatives on council begin to build a sustainable and resilient future for all people and businesses in our city. Sara Walton is a professor at the Otago Business School, University of Otago. Each week in this column writers addresses issues of sustainability.
News.com.au
15-07-2025
- Automotive
- News.com.au
Polestar exec calls for change to ute tax
The boss of one of Australia's greenest car companies has called for an end to tax breaks for utes that have become the nation's best-selling cars. Scott Maynard, managing director of Polestar in Australia, says lucrative tax concessions for high-riding utes have gone too far, resulting in taxpayers subsidising cars that are harmful to the environment. Large four-wheel-drive utes can be exempt from luxury car tax and fringe benefits tax that apply to other vehicles. Maynard says the fringe benefits tax concession 'continues to disproportionately serve the sale of dual cab utes and not what I would consider to be a far more progressive style of transportation, which is electric vehicles'. 'Consider that three of the top five selling cars in Australia for the entire first half [of the year] were dual cab utes and their variants,' he said. 'We've now got more than one and a half times the dual cab ute to tradie ratio, which doesn't make sense. 'If you consider some of the positioning of some of those particular vehicles, which are clearly no longer tools of trade, I don't think it's a difficult jump to make to put that on the fact that they've enjoyed tax let off since 2000. 'Wouldn't it great to see benefits like that afforded to vehicles that are now cheaper to own um easier to live with and better for the environment?' Rod Campbell, research director at The Australia Institute, made headlines in 2024 when pointing out the 'considerable costs on society' of subsidising large utes such as the RAM 1500 and Ford F-150. The Australian public is subsidising big, dumb utes by hundreds of millions of dollars each year,' he said. 'These vehicles are damaging roads, reducing safety and increasing emissions, yet they are given a massive tax break. 'Removing the luxury car tax exemption will not affect most ute drivers, particularly tradies. 'Instead it targets those buying large luxury vehicles, worth sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, for personal use. 'Economics 101 says that governments should tax things they want less of, and subsidise things they want more of, and it is stunning that the Australian Government seems to want more big, dumb utes.' Maynard's views differ from peers at the top of the car industry. Polestar has effectively split from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, a collective that lobbies on behalf of member companies such as Toyota, Ford and Mitsubishi – brands that rely heavily on the sales of utes such as the HiLux, Ranger and Triton. But Polestar doesn't have a ute. It doesn't have any cars that require petrol or diesel fuel – every Polestar sold in Australia is a pure electric vehicle. Maynard said the brand's all-in stance on electric vehicles 'does open a window for us' as rival brands water down their commitment to EVs. The brand has recorded an uptick in interest from customers who were considering plug-in electric vehicles before a tax break expired on April 1, pushing them toward EVs. 'Anecdotally, I feel like I'm talking to more and more customers that say now that's done,' he said. 'At a function last night, I spoke to three people at a table that said, 'you know, we were squaring up for a PHEV [but] we will probably just go full electric now'. 'And I know that there was a lot of people that were trying to get their PHEV deals secured before that FBT incentive [expired].'
News.com.au
17-06-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
‘Naive': Australians have their say on proposed super tax
Young voters and Labor voters are among those most in favour of the Albanese government's proposed tax concession reductions for people with more than $3m in superannuation. Half of Australian voters (52 per cent) support the proposal, while about one in four (26 per cent) oppose it, YouGov polling on behalf of The Australia Institute has found. Young people aged 18-24 are about four times as likely to support the proposal as oppose it. Female voters are more than twice as likely to support the proposal as oppose it. Only 0.3 per cent of Australians – some 80,000 – have super balances north of $3m. Under the proposed changes, they would pay an additional 15 per cent on yields, which according to Treasury estimates would pump about $2.7bn into Commonwealth coffers. Speaking to NewsWire, The Australia Institute executive director and former chief economist Richard Denniss said he believed it was naive to suggest young voters should be worried about tax concessions for the ultra-wealthy. 'It seems quite ridiculous to suggest that young people who can't afford to buy a house, young people who are worried about all of the pressures of modern life, should be worried about the feelings of much older people with $3m in superannuation,' he said. 'We are in a cost-of living crisis. To suggest that the big concern for most Australian voters, let alone for most young voters is the feelings of people with more than $3m in super paying a little bit more tax. Well, I just think that's naive.' Some critics have decried the proposal as a tax on unrealised gains, with others warning it could penalise younger generations down the track. However, Mr Denniss said these criticisms misinterpreted or overlooked the realities of the situation. 'The simple reality is only 80,000 of the 26 million people in Australia have got more than $3m in super. If someone finished school and started earning the average earnings on the day they finished school and worked for the rest of their life, they still wouldn't get to $3m in superannuation,' he said. 'To suggest that in time, this will be a big deal for all Australians really suggests that people making that argument have no idea what ordinary Australians are dealing with – $3 is an enormous amount of money to have in superannuation and all the government's proposing is that people that are fortunate enough to have that much get slightly smaller tax concessions than they currently do.' Mr Denniss added that it was 'pretty clear' why young people would think 'sure, pay a bit more tax, because I'd like to have access to better quality health, better quality education, and improvements to my cost of living'. The survey also found that half (50 per cent) of Australian voters believe the additional $2.7bn in revenue from these changes would make no difference to their vote at the next election. However, about one in five (19 per cent) indicated that it would make them more likely to vote Labor. Mr Denniss said that of particular interest was the higher proportion of young voters, female voters and independent voters who were more likely to support the reduction. 'It's very high risk for the Liberal Party to so soon after losing young female voters in inner city areas to come out and defend a policy that overwhelmingly helps higher income men,' he said. The survey found nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of Australian voters see the main purpose of the superannuation system as funding their retirement. More than half (53 per cent) also believe it's there to reduce reliance on the aged pension. 'We're often told that the point of superannuation is to help people fund a dignified retirement and that the benefit of superannuation is that it takes pressure off the age pension budget. This sounds amazing, but in reality in Australia, there are people with half a billion dollars in their self-managed super funds,' Mr Denniss said. 'So unfortunately, superannuation has become a vehicle for tax minimisation for the very wealthiest Australians and giving huge tax breaks to people with half a billion dollars in super does nothing to take pressure off the age pension budget for the simple reason that someone with half a billion dollars was never going to get the age pension. 'We really need to reflect as a country on what is the point of superannuation and what is the goal of giving tax breaks to superannuation? Because giving tax breaks to people who've got half a billion dollars in their self-managed super fund makes no economic sense and it doesn't make a lot of political sense either.' The 18-34 age group showed the highest likelihood of being swayed to vote Labor due to this policy; however, South Australian voters and Coalition supporters were among the most likely to be less supportive of Labor as a result. 'The reality is that people living in the inner cities of Australia are often the highest income earners, so it's not a surprise that we see a lot of people in regional areas and a lot of people in capital cities like Adelaide and Hobart, where incomes are a lot lower than Sydney and Melbourne, are less concerned about this policy than most,' Mr Denniss said. 'But to be clear, even in the inner city, even in NSW, a majority of Australians actually think that this is a good idea.'
Perth Now
17-06-2025
- Business
- Perth Now
What Aussies really think of super tax
Young voters and Labor voters are among those most in favour of the Albanese government's proposed tax concession reductions for people with more than $3m in superannuation. Half of Australian voters (52 per cent) support the proposal, while about one in four (26 per cent) oppose it, YouGov polling on behalf of The Australia Institute has found. Young people aged 18-24 are about four times as likely to support the proposal as oppose it. Female voters are more than twice as likely to support the proposal as oppose it. Only 0.3 per cent of Australians – some 80,000 – have super balances north of $3m. Under the proposed changes, they would pay an additional 15 per cent on yields, which according to Treasury estimates would pump about $2.7bn into Commonwealth coffers. Some 80,000 Australians have super balances more than $3m. NewsWire / Simon Bullard. Credit: NewsWire Speaking to NewsWire, The Australia Institute executive director and former chief economist Richard Denniss said he believed it was naive to suggest young voters should be worried about tax concessions for the ultra-wealthy. 'It seems quite ridiculous to suggest that young people who can't afford to buy a house, young people who are worried about all of the pressures of modern life, should be worried about the feelings of much older people with $3m in superannuation,' he said. 'We are in a cost-of living crisis. To suggest that the big concern for most Australian voters, let alone for most young voters is the feelings of people with more than $3m in super paying a little bit more tax. Well, I just think that's naive.' Some critics have decried the proposal as a tax on unrealised gains, with others warning it could penalise younger generations down the Mr Denniss said these criticisms misinterpreted or overlooked the realities of the situation. The Australia Institute executive director Richard Denniss believes it's 'naive' to suggest young voters should be worried about tax concessions for the ultra-wealthy. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: NewsWire 'The simple reality is only 80,000 of the 26 million people in Australia have got more than $3m in super. If someone finished school and started earning the average earnings on the day they finished school and worked for the rest of their life, they still wouldn't get to $3m in superannuation,' he said. 'To suggest that in time, this will be a big deal for all Australians really suggests that people making that argument have no idea what ordinary Australians are dealing with – $3 is an enormous amount of money to have in superannuation and all the government's proposing is that people that are fortunate enough to have that much get slightly smaller tax concessions than they currently do.' Mr Denniss added that it was 'pretty clear' why young people would think 'sure, pay a bit more tax, because I'd like to have access to better quality health, better quality education, and improvements to my cost of living'. The survey also found that half (50 per cent) of Australian voters believe the additional $2.7bn in revenue from these changes would make no difference to their vote at the next election. However, about one in five (19 per cent) indicated that it would make them more likely to vote Labor. Liberal senator Andrew Bragg has claimed that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese could be exempt from Labor's proposed super tax. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: NewsWire Mr Denniss said that of particular interest was the higher proportion of young voters, female voters and independent voters who were more likely to support the reduction. 'It's very high risk for the Liberal Party to so soon after losing young female voters in inner city areas to come out and defend a policy that overwhelmingly helps higher income men,' he said. The survey found nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of Australian voters see the main purpose of the superannuation system as funding their retirement. More than half (53 per cent) also believe it's there to reduce reliance on the aged pension. 'We're often told that the point of superannuation is to help people fund a dignified retirement and that the benefit of superannuation is that it takes pressure off the age pension budget. This sounds amazing, but in reality in Australia, there are people with half a billion dollars in their self-managed super funds,' Mr Denniss said. Mr Albanese is not exempt from the super tax. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: NewsWire 'So unfortunately, superannuation has become a vehicle for tax minimisation for the very wealthiest Australians and giving huge tax breaks to people with half a billion dollars in super does nothing to take pressure off the age pension budget for the simple reason that someone with half a billion dollars was never going to get the age pension. 'We really need to reflect as a country on what is the point of superannuation and what is the goal of giving tax breaks to superannuation? Because giving tax breaks to people who've got half a billion dollars in their self-managed super fund makes no economic sense and it doesn't make a lot of political sense either.' The 18-34 age group showed the highest likelihood of being swayed to vote Labor due to this policy; however, South Australian voters and Coalition supporters were among the most likely to be less supportive of Labor as a result. 'The reality is that people living in the inner cities of Australia are often the highest income earners, so it's not a surprise that we see a lot of people in regional areas and a lot of people in capital cities like Adelaide and Hobart, where incomes are a lot lower than Sydney and Melbourne, are less concerned about this policy than most,' Mr Denniss said. 'But to be clear, even in the inner city, even in NSW, a majority of Australians actually think that this is a good idea.'
The Guardian
11-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Wealthy Australians are worried we might realise how rigged the system is in their favour
We need to talk about wealth. The latest dwelling price figures reveal that for the first time the average home price across the nation is above $1m. While that will quite rightly have people concerned about affordability, we need to also think about what this means for wealth and just how unequal our society has become. A couple of weeks ago the Australian Financial Review released its latest 200 richest list. It was a list of wealth, not income. Income is how much you earn over a set time – usually a year – whereas wealth is the value of everything you own right now. And my goodness, the wealth of the richest 200 has grown. My colleague at The Australia Institute, David Richardson, calculated that in 2004, the combined wealth of the AFR richest 200 was equivalent to 8% of Australia's annual GDP. Now they are worth 24.5% of our annual GDP. Over the past year the wealth of the richest 200 has increased 6.9% to $667.8bn – well ahead of the 3.4% increase in wages. But that should not be a surprise because wealth generally grows faster than income, and very much so over the past 25 years: If the graph does not display click here And if you think that graph looks familiar, it might be because you have previously seen my graph of property prices and household disposable income per capita: If the graph does not display click here The link between property values and wealth is rather crucial in Australia because land and the value of dwellings makes up around 55% of the total of Australian household assets (most of the rest are deposits, shares and importantly, superannuation). And the value of dwelling and land has grown much faster than income over the past decade: If the graph does not display click here We can look at the house prices and see that in Sydney the median established house is now $1.395m, or that in Adelaide it has risen in the past year from $769,000 to $842,500 (a 9.6% increase), and bemoan the further falls in housing affordability. But we also need to think about what these rises in values means for those who hold them – and the ones who don't. If the graph does not display click here The housing figures we cite each quarter for house prices are actually titled Total Value of Dwellings. The Bureau of Statistics estimated the total value of Australia's dwellings in the March quarter this year at $10.9tn. Yes, trillion. That was a $125.3bn increase from the December quarter last year. By contrast, in the first three months of this year, Australians were paid $300.2bn in wages and salaries, up $4.35bn from the 2024 December quarter. That means in one quarter the value of housing stock owned by households (ie not including property owned by governments or businesses) went up $125.3bn while the value of wages paid went up just $4.35bn. If you are starting to think owning property might be a good way to get some wealth and worsening housing affordability means fewer people are able to accumulate wealth, then you are right. The total $10.9tn is now four times the value of Australia's annual GDP. As economist Alex Joiner noted, that is well above the value of US housing stock and it's a major drag on our productivity, because land, to be honest, doesn't do anything except generate wealth. And wealth is very much more concentrated at the top than is income. The survey on income and wealth from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2019-20 revealed that the richest 20% held 48% of total household income. That might seem bad enough, but in the same year the top 20% held 62% of all wealth: If the graph does not display click here Wealth also grows faster at the top. Income inequality in the decade from 2009-10 was relatively stable. But the wealth of those in the 90th percentile (ie wealthier than 89% of Australians) grew by 39% compared with just 24% for those in the 40th percentile: If the graph does not display click here And here's the kicker: we tax income quite well; we barely tax wealth at all. Remember that $4.35bn increase in wages and salaries? Most of that would be captured by income tax. What about that $123.5bn increase in dwelling value? Barely any of it is taxed at all. A very small part of it will get captured by increased council rates or land tax, but for the most part, as with all forms of increased wealth, it is barely touched by the tax office. And this is the point behind those fighting against the absurdly small changes to tax on superannuation. Barely anyone will get hit by it – maybe 0.5% of us. And even if for some weird reason we would go 30 years and 10 federal elections without the $3m threshold being changed, you would need to squint and shuffle some numbers around to have maybe 10% affected. The current median superannuation balance for men in their early 50s is around $162,000; for women it is $111,000. You really think $3m is anything even remotely possible for most people? If the graph does not display click here So why the ruckus? The same reason there is massive noise about any changes to the capital gains tax discount: wealth. Those with wealth like property prices rising because that increases their wealth, and they love that the capital gains tax discount gives them a 50% tax break when they generate even more wealth. The attempts to change superannuation tax concessions has worried the extremely wealthy that people will realise just how rigged the system is in their favour. And they worry it might finally be the start of attempts to address the growing wealth inequality in this country. It should be. Greg Jericho is a Guardian columnist and policy director at the Centre for Future Work
