June 4, 2025 • 25 mins
This week on The Fin podcast, Joanna Mather and Michelle Bowes on how the super tax will work, why it’s so controversial and what people are doing to get ready for it.
This podcast is sponsored by Aussie Broadband.
Further reading:
7 ways the wealthiest will beat the $3m super tax
Investment bonds, an early inheritance for the kids or just cop it on the chin? Affected taxpayers are weighing their options.
ATO puts wealthy families on notice over $3m super tax
The new tax is not yet law but the ATO wants to understand the “behavioural responses” to the planned tax that might already be occurring.
There is a case to reform super tax breaks. But not this way
Australia’s tax breaks on retirement balances are generous. But the treasurer is going about reform the wrong way, experts say.
Save 50% or more on unlimited access to the Australian Financial Review in our EOFY sale, ending June 30.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
The Australian Financial Review.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
The government's super tax change has been hugely divisive. Jim
Chalmers insists it's prudent policy that affects only the richest Australians.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
This is a change which is modest and it makes
a meaningful difference to the budget.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Opponents say it's confusing, unfair and will eventually capture those
in their early twenties just starting out in the workforce. Today,
after a resounding election victory, Labor together with the Greens,
has the numbers to get the change through Parliament and
those Australians with large superbalances are already preparing. But ahead
(00:51):
of the vote, critics are becoming louder, warning there may
be more taxes on wealth to come.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
The reality is that we do have a problem in
our tax system. There is an overreliance on income taxes
and young people pay very great proportion of the taxes
and that problem is going to get more acute.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Welcome to the Finn. I'm Lisa Murray. Today, Wealth editor
jo Animes and reporter Michelle bows on how the new
tax will work, why it's so controversial, and what people
are doing to get ready for it. It's Thursday, June five,
(01:38):
Hi Joe, Hi Michelle, thanks for coming on the podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Hi there, thanks for having us Joe.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
This super tax change was proposed just over two years ago,
back in early twenty twenty three. At the time, Jim
Chalmers and Anthony Albanizi said it would make the superannuation
system more equitable, and they made a point of noting
that seventeen people had superbalances worth more than one hundred
million dollars. How did they pitch land.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
The language was really direct and incendjury. They challenged mister
Dutton to take to the next election opposition to this
policy and sort of in which case he would be
standing on the side of millionaires. So in late February
twenty twenty three, Gin Chalmers and Anthony Albanezi called a
press conference. They were there to commemorate a year since
(02:29):
the devastating floods in the Northern Rivers. But then came
this surprise announcement.
Speaker 5 (02:35):
The Cabinet has met this morning and had a discussion
about superannuation.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
They talked about the idea that this was really necessary
because the government had inherited a trillion dollars worth of
debt and you know, they had no choice but to
try and find money from somewhere.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
And today I'm announcing the earnings on superbalances above three
million dollars will have a concessional rate of thirty percent
rather than fifteen percent.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
And straight away they made the point that it wasn't
going to affect many people. They stressed that point a lot.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
This proposal does not changed the fundamentals of our superannuation system.
Ninety nine point five percent of people with superannuation are
unaffected by this reform.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
It was only going to be zero point five percent
of zuper account holders, the wealthiest Austraians. And they made
a real point of noting how some of the big
account balances in the system were worth many hundreds of
millions of dollars and that super had kind of gone
beyond the remit of retirement savings for a dignified retirement
and all this sort of language we use.
Speaker 5 (03:44):
And with seventeen people having over one hundred million dollars
in their superannuation accounts, the individual who has over four
hundred million dollars in heesel or her account, most Australians
would agree that that's not what superannuation was for.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Straight Away, the proposed tax change became a political issue
and the Coalition said the government was leaving retirees in
the cold.
Speaker 6 (04:07):
I think every Australians should be unsettled by what the
Labor Party's doing at the moment. They went to an
election and the Prime Minister promised and looked the Australian
public in the eye and said that it wouldn't change superinuation.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
There was a month's long battle and the government was
unable to get this change through the Senate. The expectation
now is that with Labour's thumping victory and the Greens
holding the balance of power in the Senate, that this
will go through. The start date for this is July one,
so there is some time to prepare for this for
(04:38):
people who are affected, but it also gives us plenty
of time to have a lot more debate and for
detractors to stir discontent.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
So, Michelle, you've been writing a lot about this, the
ins and outs of the tax, how it's going to
affect people. Can you explain exactly how the change will
work and who it's going to affect.
Speaker 7 (04:59):
Sure, Lisa, Well, it's effectively a plan to increase the
tax on the earnings of superbalances above three million from
fifteen percent to thirty percent. But for many people there's
an actual misconception about how that will work because it's
not a flat tax rate. So, for example, if your
balance was three point two million, the amount above three million,
(05:21):
is that two hundred thousand dollars and thirty percent of
that would be sixty.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Thousand, sixty thousand dollars.
Speaker 7 (05:26):
Yeah, correct, But that is not the tax that that
person would pay. It's actually a proportional tax, and it
only applies to the proportion of earnings above three million dollars,
the proportion that that makes up of someone's total superballance. So,
for example, imagine someone starts the year with a three
million dollars superballance and ends it with our three point
(05:47):
two million in super The change is that two hundred
thousand dollars, But that only represents just over six percent
of their total superbalance of three point two million. So
the tax levied on the t two hundred thousand dollars
works out to one eight hundred and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
So it's quite complicated, but the tax is a lot
less than that thirty percent figure that we think about
at the outset.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 7 (06:12):
And look, I think it's also worth saying here that
when we've spoken to many many people about this tax
that will be personally affected, it's not the idea of
paying more tax on their super that they are against
per se. It's the calculation of this tax, because it'll
be calculated at the end of each financial year based
(06:33):
on all those gains that they are considered to have made,
whether or not they've sold assets and realized those gains.
So it's effectively taxing paper profits.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
And that's the major.
Speaker 7 (06:43):
Complaint about this tax. And for example, there if one
year you make a gain, you pay the tax, but
then if the following year the value of your assets
in super drops and you make an unrealized loss, there's
no refund.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
For you don't get that money back, that's right.
Speaker 7 (06:59):
Instead, you get a credit that could potentially be used
against a future game. But if you've passed away in
that time or closed your superfund, the credit's lost. And
in terms of who this effects, the people that seem
to be most agitated about the change were farmers and
small business owners because they often own their property, their
(07:20):
farm or the business premises they operate out of. In
a self managed superfund. So if a superfund owns listed shares,
those are liquid assets.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
They're easy to sell, that's right.
Speaker 7 (07:31):
If they get that tax bill on the paper profits,
they can sell some shares to pay the tax. But
if you haven't a liquid asset, much harder to sell,
like a farm or a commercial premises, and the value
of that goes up and you need to pay.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Tax on it.
Speaker 7 (07:45):
It's pretty difficult to sell a paddock of a farm
or a bathroom of a property to pay that. So
the government is expecting to generate two point three billion
in the first full year of collection, and of course
we know charmers keep saying it's only to affect eighty
thousand people or zero point five percent of taxpayers at first,
(08:05):
But then we get to the other major criticism of
this plan is that the three million dollar threshold isn't indexed,
and due to bracket creep, which is essentially the tax
thresholds not rising with inflation and wage increases, Treasury projects
that if that threshold doesn't change over thirty years, some
one point two million people, or actually ten percent of
(08:26):
taxpayers will eventually be hit, and young people particularly will
be in the firing line. So AMP Deputy chief economist
Diana Messina estimates that today's typical twenty two year old
worker will definitely accumulate more than three million in SUPER
by the time they hit sixty four. And that's only
if they ever earned the average wage. That's just due
(08:47):
to wage inflation and the power of compound interest in super.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
So Joe Michelle's picked up there on the two main
contentious issues with this tax. One is that it's not indexed,
which means the threshold for the tax that three million
dollars doesn't rise in line with inflation, so it captures
more and more people every year, and as Michelle said,
it will eventually capture young people who've started paying souper today.
(09:15):
And the other big criticism is that it includes unrealized gains.
So where's most of the opposition coming from.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Yeah, so, as Michelle said, the farmers aren't happy. It's
estimated that about three thousand and five hundred farms we affected.
When the government announced this measure, it did give those
sort of figures about who would be affected, but it's
been silent since, so there's been sort of quite a
bit of speculation or modeling that's filled the void. So
there's also smsfs who are obviously vocal critics. Some of
(09:46):
them own residential property that may have appreciated significantly. They
might own commercial property. They might also have invested in
sort of private companies or startup businesses whereby the shares
have grown significantly over time, sort of these lumpy, unlisted assets.
They're the people who will be affected. Of course, the
newly elected Tim Wilson and funds manager Jeff Wilson, who
(10:08):
runs money on all retirees, have leapt in and started
a campaign to sort of get rid of this proposal,
as they did for the franking credits in the twenty
nineteen elections, So they're going to be pretty noisy going forward.
There's opposition from tax purists who argue that it's bad policy.
We don't tax unrealized gains anywhere else, why should we
(10:29):
do this here. Of course, there are others who point
out that the income tax scales aren't indexed either. Paul Keating,
the father of superannuation, is apparently a critic of the proposal.
Or let's just say the unrealized gains and the indexation issues.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
And Keating is obviously a mentor to Jim Chalmers, So
it'll be interesting if his criticisms have any influence on
the treasurer.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
Yeah, Jim Chalmers will definitely be sensitive to what Paul
Keating has to say.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Michelle, you've been talking to financial advisors and investors about
the change. How are people starting to prepare? Are they
trying to get around this change before it's even been introduced?
Speaker 7 (11:11):
Well, as one financial adviser put it to me, he's
advising clients to be alert but not alarmed. So what
he was sort of alluding to there is they're definitely
modeling scenarios. They're definitely looking at their options and what
it might mean for their clients' tax bills. But until
this law actually passes, they're not taking action just yet.
(11:32):
If they do decide that they do need to take action,
there are several strategies that we hear that people are
looking at. So for some that might mean bringing forward
inheritances by gifting money to kids or even grandkids.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Which is a tax free that's right.
Speaker 7 (11:46):
And that would help them lower their superbalances below three
million dollars. Or another option would be taking some money
out of super and putting it into other structures they
may have, like a family trust or an investment company. However,
there would be a capital gains tax payable in the
moving of that money, so for some people, the modeling
might show that they're just better off leaving it in
(12:09):
SUPER and paying the tax. Of course, another way to
lower the balance could be to split SUPER with a spouse,
if your spouse has a much lower balance than three million,
so there's that option. I think the ones that are
really stuck, though, are the people that are younger than
sixty who haven't reached preservation age yet and they can't
withdraw any money from SUPER, so they're much more limited
(12:29):
in what they can do to adjust their balance, and
their best option is probably to change the asset mix
in SUPER, looking to hold more liquid, lower growth assets
inside SUPER, like bonds like larger amounts of cash or
even dividend paying blue chip shares that don't move too
much in value, and owning those higher growth assets outside
(12:51):
of SUPER. So that's things like property, cryptocurrency, or any
speculative shares because they obviously have a bit more price volatility.
Of course, there are some potentially what might be considered
anyway slightly dodgy strategies that might be a focus for
the ATO, such as people moving money offshore or seeking
more conservative valuations for unlisted assets such as property, and
(13:15):
the ATO is putting wealthy families on notice that it
will be watching what they're doing in preparation for this
tax going forward. But ultimately, Lisa, all of those scheming
about what they're going to do in response to this
tax might actually be missing the.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Bigger picture here.
Speaker 7 (13:37):
Because government debt isn't getting any smaller, there's more and
more speculation building that there will be other taxes introduced
on wealth by this government. Historically, Australia's relied largely on
income tax revenue to fund the budget, but there's a
bit of a push away from that and it looks
like the wealthy could be in the crosshairs.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
We're talking about the proposed super tax change, why there's
opposition to it, and how people are preparing for it. Joe,
there's speculation that this might just be the start. It
could lead to other wealth taxes. What do you think
the government might look at, Well.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
We know that Treasury's hot trot on looking at trusts,
but I think you know, the problems are obvious to everybody,
including the people who oppose this tax, who say people
with high superannuation balances need to pay more tax. Superannuation
death benefits are projected to increase from about seventeen billion
in twenty nineteen to about one hundred and thirty billion
(14:58):
by twenty fifty nine, so obviously a lot of super
is being passed to the next generation rather than being
spent for a retirement income. The tax system undoubtedly favors wealthier,
older Australians. The system is increasingly generous to people aged
over sixty five, who have an average tax rate of
about seven point five percent, which is much lower than
(15:21):
the people who are building families, trying to buy homes,
building careers. So there's always speculation. You know, would the
government reintroduce an inheritance tax? Australia abolish those taxes in
the nineteen seventies, but we're an outlier, listen. I have
no idea, but it would be a pretty brave government
who introduced inheritance taxes. The thing about all this is,
(15:42):
of course, this measure, when taken alone, is easy to pose.
What a lot of the experts say is that a
government needs to come to the people with a tax
package that has trade offs it has winners, it has looters,
but it sort of rewrites the tax system in a
way that can be sold to the public other than
just doing one small tax change. At the time, of course,
(16:03):
Labor is a bit gun shy. It went to the
twenty nineteen election, the unlosable election, with some pretty bold
tax reform related to capital gains tax, negative gearing and
franking credits. They were met with a scare campaign from
the Liberals.
Speaker 8 (16:19):
Vote Labor and a retiree taxes on the horizon Bill.
Shorten's new housing tax would take a wrecking ball to
the economy. Labor's billions of dollars in higher taxes will
put the squeeze on all Australians India.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
And as we all know, that election defeat was very bruising.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
They are inventing attacks.
Speaker 5 (16:38):
They're inventing just completely fabricating attacks.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
This does not exist and will not exist.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
So within the party they're very keen not to repeat that.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
And as you say, the tax treatment of superannuation is
very generous, isn't fair to say it's becoming a real problem.
Last week the Financial Review Rewindow column broke the news
that two Wise Tech directors have more than two billion
dollars combined sitting in their self managed super funds. That's
(17:11):
a bit more than you need for a dignified retirement.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
Yeah, and the AFI has been putting in freedom of
information request to the tax Office for a number of
years now to find out what the biggest funds are worth.
We know that forty two smsfs have more than one
hundred million dollars in assets. And obviously this is actually
one of the first times that we've actually known who
these people are. These are the egregious examples that sort
(17:35):
of get people fired up. So the rear window column
revealed that Wise Tech director Charles Gibbon sold shares worth
two hundred million in December last year, saying at the
time that it was for personal estate planning purposes. They
were sold by the trustee for the Gibbons Ubranuation Fund,
trustees of which are mister Gibbon and his wife, which
meant they paid something like ten percent of in capital
(17:57):
gains tax, which is far lower than you would pay
outside of super in your own name, which in their
case would likely be forty five percent top marginal rate
plus the MIDI care levy. Even after the sale of
those shares. He still has wise Tech stock in his
SMSF and it would probably be worth we think about
one point seven billion dollars, and then another and then
to compound sort of the situation. Another Wise Tech director,
(18:19):
Michael greg we found had shares worth five hundred and
sixty eight million. So these were the kinds of examples
that really people get fired up about.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
I guess both directors have been with wise Tech and
invested in wise Tech from early on, and that's.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
What people do.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
They have the shares in their fund before at IPOs
and then you get that huge escalation. But it still
is a pretty strong example of superfunds that have built
up too much in assets.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
It is and opponents would say, well, this is a
tax on aspiration people who have ostensibly worked hard and
benefited from their ideas.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Michelle. Parliament sits again next month. The government, together with
the Greens, has the numbers to get this legislation through.
Do you think it'll be passed in its current form
or do you think the government might be forced to
make changes, either in response to the criticism or any
demands from the Greens.
Speaker 7 (19:20):
Well, as you say, Lee, so the Greens do hold
the balance of power in the Senate, and they've argued
that they'd like the threshold lowered to two million dollars,
which would meet an extra sixteen thousand people would be
captured in the first year of this tax. But unlike labor,
the Greens are actually pushing for the threshold to be indexed,
meaning it would increase each year in line with inflation.
So if you were to assume an average inflation rate
(19:42):
of say two point five percent, the Greens proposed two
million dollar threshold would actually end up being less punitive
than the labor on in next three million dollar threshold
after around sixteen years. That means it would capture less
people than what the government is currently proposing now. Jim
Charmers has said recently in several interviews, there is no
(20:02):
other way to do this tax change.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
These changes were announced almost two and a half years ago. Now,
we did multiple rounds of consultation and we said to people,
if there is a better fair way of making this calculation,
tell us about it.
Speaker 7 (20:17):
He has noted that the government did do three rounds
of consultation, although if you speak to those in the industry,
they say that they were pretty short rounds of consultation.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
And his mind was already made up.
Speaker 7 (20:27):
Chalmers has said that taxing unrealized gains is just the
simplest and best way to go about this.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
The unrealized gains calculation was recommended to us by Treasury.
We provided years of opportunities for people to suggest different
ways to calculate that liability, and nobody has been able
to come up with one.
Speaker 7 (20:49):
He's also defended his decision not to index that three
million dollar threshold. He says there's many instances in the
tax system, and one is income tax rates where thresholders
are not and from time to time the government can
then take a decision to raise those thresholds. There are
still a few weeks until Parliament comes back after the
election and the new parliament begins, So whether Amas holds
(21:13):
firm is probably going to depend to some extent on
how much pressure he comes under and whether the Greens
are willing to trade away any demands on this tax
concession that they might have for sweetness when it comes
to other policies.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Finally, a question for both of you, tax concessions on
super are generous, are they too generous? And what's the
best way to improve the system.
Speaker 7 (21:36):
So, for my part Lisa, Yeah, I think the tax
concessions on super are probably too generous, and some thirty
years after compulsory super began, tax reform probably is necessary because,
as we've said several times here, people hoarding hundreds of
millions of dollars in their super is not what the
system was intended for. But that taxing of unrealized gains
(21:58):
really does still stick with me as somehow inherently unfair.
And the bigger concern is will it set a precedent
that will leak into other parts of the tax system.
But for me, any starting point on the bigger debate
about tax changes, we really need to think about the
sort of society we want to live in, because there's
no doubt that inequality, both between the generations and even
(22:22):
within the haves and have nots in each generation has
grown considerably in recent years, and unless that's addressed somehow,
it does threaten to tear apart the very nature of
what we consider Australian values. I think in our Australian society.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
We've talked about the generosity of our retirement system for
a long time, and back in the tax white paper
process there are a lot of submissions from a lot
of people, very smart people talking about how to make
things more equitable. One of them was around making our
subranuation tax concessions progressive, just like the income tax scale.
Back then, Chris Richardson was with economics and he talked
(23:00):
about sort of making the scales more progressive, or making
superannuation taxes more progressive by taking one's marginal rate and
taking fifteen percent off that. So there were all these
kind of options that were put forward that are probably
worth recanvassing. The reality is that we do have a
(23:20):
problem in our tax system. There is an over reliance
on income taxes, and young people pay a very great
proportion of those of the taxes, while retirees can live ten, twenty,
maybe thirty years in retirement virtually tax free. And that
problem is going to get more acute now. Twenty nineteen
was a very nasty experience for labor and I am
(23:44):
hopeful that they will or somebody will bring another package
to the Australian people, one that will make our tax
base more sustainable, it will make things fairer, but that
it will be a very very brave party that does that.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Thanks Joe, Thanks Michelle, thank you, Thanks Lisa, thank you
for listening to The Finn. I'm Lisa Murray, with Joanna
Maser and Michelle Bows reporting today. The Finn is produced
(24:23):
by Alex Gau with assistance from Mandy Coolan. Fiona Buffini
is head of Premium Content. Alex Gau composed the theme.
If you like the show and want to hear more,
follow us wherever you get your podcasts, and consider rating
and reviewing us as it helps others find us. For
more stories about markets, business and power, subscribe to The
(24:46):
Financial Review at AFI dot com slash subscribe, See you
next week.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
The Australian Financial Review
The Australian Financial Review.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
The government's super tax change has been hugely divisive. Jim
Chalmers insists it's prudent policy that affects only the richest Australians.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
This is a change which is modest and it makes
a meaningful difference to the budget.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Opponents say it's confusing, unfair and will eventually capture those
in their early twenties just starting out in the workforce. Today,
after a resounding election victory, Labor together with the Greens,
has the numbers to get the change through Parliament and
those Australians with large superbalances are already preparing. But ahead
(00:51):
of the vote, critics are becoming louder, warning there may
be more taxes on wealth to come.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
The reality is that we do have a problem in
our tax system. There is an overreliance on income taxes
and young people pay very great proportion of the taxes
and that problem is going to get more acute.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Welcome to the Finn. I'm Lisa Murray. Today, Wealth editor
jo Animes and reporter Michelle bows on how the new
tax will work, why it's so controversial, and what people
are doing to get ready for it. It's Thursday, June five,
(01:38):
Hi Joe, Hi Michelle, thanks for coming on the podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Hi there, thanks for having us Joe.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
This super tax change was proposed just over two years ago,
back in early twenty twenty three. At the time, Jim
Chalmers and Anthony Albanizi said it would make the superannuation
system more equitable, and they made a point of noting
that seventeen people had superbalances worth more than one hundred
million dollars. How did they pitch land.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
The language was really direct and incendjury. They challenged mister
Dutton to take to the next election opposition to this
policy and sort of in which case he would be
standing on the side of millionaires. So in late February
twenty twenty three, Gin Chalmers and Anthony Albanezi called a
press conference. They were there to commemorate a year since
(02:29):
the devastating floods in the Northern Rivers. But then came
this surprise announcement.
Speaker 5 (02:35):
The Cabinet has met this morning and had a discussion
about superannuation.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
They talked about the idea that this was really necessary
because the government had inherited a trillion dollars worth of
debt and you know, they had no choice but to
try and find money from somewhere.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
And today I'm announcing the earnings on superbalances above three
million dollars will have a concessional rate of thirty percent
rather than fifteen percent.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
And straight away they made the point that it wasn't
going to affect many people. They stressed that point a lot.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
This proposal does not changed the fundamentals of our superannuation system.
Ninety nine point five percent of people with superannuation are
unaffected by this reform.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
It was only going to be zero point five percent
of zuper account holders, the wealthiest Austraians. And they made
a real point of noting how some of the big
account balances in the system were worth many hundreds of
millions of dollars and that super had kind of gone
beyond the remit of retirement savings for a dignified retirement
and all this sort of language we use.
Speaker 5 (03:44):
And with seventeen people having over one hundred million dollars
in their superannuation accounts, the individual who has over four
hundred million dollars in heesel or her account, most Australians
would agree that that's not what superannuation was for.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Straight Away, the proposed tax change became a political issue
and the Coalition said the government was leaving retirees in
the cold.
Speaker 6 (04:07):
I think every Australians should be unsettled by what the
Labor Party's doing at the moment. They went to an
election and the Prime Minister promised and looked the Australian
public in the eye and said that it wouldn't change superinuation.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
There was a month's long battle and the government was
unable to get this change through the Senate. The expectation
now is that with Labour's thumping victory and the Greens
holding the balance of power in the Senate, that this
will go through. The start date for this is July one,
so there is some time to prepare for this for
(04:38):
people who are affected, but it also gives us plenty
of time to have a lot more debate and for
detractors to stir discontent.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
So, Michelle, you've been writing a lot about this, the
ins and outs of the tax, how it's going to
affect people. Can you explain exactly how the change will
work and who it's going to affect.
Speaker 7 (04:59):
Sure, Lisa, Well, it's effectively a plan to increase the
tax on the earnings of superbalances above three million from
fifteen percent to thirty percent. But for many people there's
an actual misconception about how that will work because it's
not a flat tax rate. So, for example, if your
balance was three point two million, the amount above three million,
(05:21):
is that two hundred thousand dollars and thirty percent of
that would be sixty.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Thousand, sixty thousand dollars.
Speaker 7 (05:26):
Yeah, correct, But that is not the tax that that
person would pay. It's actually a proportional tax, and it
only applies to the proportion of earnings above three million dollars,
the proportion that that makes up of someone's total superballance. So,
for example, imagine someone starts the year with a three
million dollars superballance and ends it with our three point
(05:47):
two million in super The change is that two hundred
thousand dollars, But that only represents just over six percent
of their total superbalance of three point two million. So
the tax levied on the t two hundred thousand dollars
works out to one eight hundred and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
So it's quite complicated, but the tax is a lot
less than that thirty percent figure that we think about
at the outset.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 7 (06:12):
And look, I think it's also worth saying here that
when we've spoken to many many people about this tax
that will be personally affected, it's not the idea of
paying more tax on their super that they are against
per se. It's the calculation of this tax, because it'll
be calculated at the end of each financial year based
(06:33):
on all those gains that they are considered to have made,
whether or not they've sold assets and realized those gains.
So it's effectively taxing paper profits.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
And that's the major.
Speaker 7 (06:43):
Complaint about this tax. And for example, there if one
year you make a gain, you pay the tax, but
then if the following year the value of your assets
in super drops and you make an unrealized loss, there's
no refund.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
For you don't get that money back, that's right.
Speaker 7 (06:59):
Instead, you get a credit that could potentially be used
against a future game. But if you've passed away in
that time or closed your superfund, the credit's lost. And
in terms of who this effects, the people that seem
to be most agitated about the change were farmers and
small business owners because they often own their property, their
(07:20):
farm or the business premises they operate out of. In
a self managed superfund. So if a superfund owns listed shares,
those are liquid assets.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
They're easy to sell, that's right.
Speaker 7 (07:31):
If they get that tax bill on the paper profits,
they can sell some shares to pay the tax. But
if you haven't a liquid asset, much harder to sell,
like a farm or a commercial premises, and the value
of that goes up and you need to pay.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Tax on it.
Speaker 7 (07:45):
It's pretty difficult to sell a paddock of a farm
or a bathroom of a property to pay that. So
the government is expecting to generate two point three billion
in the first full year of collection, and of course
we know charmers keep saying it's only to affect eighty
thousand people or zero point five percent of taxpayers at first,
(08:05):
But then we get to the other major criticism of
this plan is that the three million dollar threshold isn't indexed,
and due to bracket creep, which is essentially the tax
thresholds not rising with inflation and wage increases, Treasury projects
that if that threshold doesn't change over thirty years, some
one point two million people, or actually ten percent of
(08:26):
taxpayers will eventually be hit, and young people particularly will
be in the firing line. So AMP Deputy chief economist
Diana Messina estimates that today's typical twenty two year old
worker will definitely accumulate more than three million in SUPER
by the time they hit sixty four. And that's only
if they ever earned the average wage. That's just due
(08:47):
to wage inflation and the power of compound interest in super.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
So Joe Michelle's picked up there on the two main
contentious issues with this tax. One is that it's not indexed,
which means the threshold for the tax that three million
dollars doesn't rise in line with inflation, so it captures
more and more people every year, and as Michelle said,
it will eventually capture young people who've started paying souper today.
(09:15):
And the other big criticism is that it includes unrealized gains.
So where's most of the opposition coming from.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Yeah, so, as Michelle said, the farmers aren't happy. It's
estimated that about three thousand and five hundred farms we affected.
When the government announced this measure, it did give those
sort of figures about who would be affected, but it's
been silent since, so there's been sort of quite a
bit of speculation or modeling that's filled the void. So
there's also smsfs who are obviously vocal critics. Some of
(09:46):
them own residential property that may have appreciated significantly. They
might own commercial property. They might also have invested in
sort of private companies or startup businesses whereby the shares
have grown significantly over time, sort of these lumpy, unlisted assets.
They're the people who will be affected. Of course, the
newly elected Tim Wilson and funds manager Jeff Wilson, who
(10:08):
runs money on all retirees, have leapt in and started
a campaign to sort of get rid of this proposal,
as they did for the franking credits in the twenty
nineteen elections, So they're going to be pretty noisy going forward.
There's opposition from tax purists who argue that it's bad policy.
We don't tax unrealized gains anywhere else, why should we
(10:29):
do this here. Of course, there are others who point
out that the income tax scales aren't indexed either. Paul Keating,
the father of superannuation, is apparently a critic of the proposal.
Or let's just say the unrealized gains and the indexation issues.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
And Keating is obviously a mentor to Jim Chalmers, So
it'll be interesting if his criticisms have any influence on
the treasurer.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
Yeah, Jim Chalmers will definitely be sensitive to what Paul
Keating has to say.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Michelle, you've been talking to financial advisors and investors about
the change. How are people starting to prepare? Are they
trying to get around this change before it's even been introduced?
Speaker 7 (11:11):
Well, as one financial adviser put it to me, he's
advising clients to be alert but not alarmed. So what
he was sort of alluding to there is they're definitely
modeling scenarios. They're definitely looking at their options and what
it might mean for their clients' tax bills. But until
this law actually passes, they're not taking action just yet.
(11:32):
If they do decide that they do need to take action,
there are several strategies that we hear that people are
looking at. So for some that might mean bringing forward
inheritances by gifting money to kids or even grandkids.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Which is a tax free that's right.
Speaker 7 (11:46):
And that would help them lower their superbalances below three
million dollars. Or another option would be taking some money
out of super and putting it into other structures they
may have, like a family trust or an investment company. However,
there would be a capital gains tax payable in the
moving of that money, so for some people, the modeling
might show that they're just better off leaving it in
(12:09):
SUPER and paying the tax. Of course, another way to
lower the balance could be to split SUPER with a spouse,
if your spouse has a much lower balance than three million,
so there's that option. I think the ones that are
really stuck, though, are the people that are younger than
sixty who haven't reached preservation age yet and they can't
withdraw any money from SUPER, so they're much more limited
(12:29):
in what they can do to adjust their balance, and
their best option is probably to change the asset mix
in SUPER, looking to hold more liquid, lower growth assets
inside SUPER, like bonds like larger amounts of cash or
even dividend paying blue chip shares that don't move too
much in value, and owning those higher growth assets outside
(12:51):
of SUPER. So that's things like property, cryptocurrency, or any
speculative shares because they obviously have a bit more price volatility.
Of course, there are some potentially what might be considered
anyway slightly dodgy strategies that might be a focus for
the ATO, such as people moving money offshore or seeking
more conservative valuations for unlisted assets such as property, and
(13:15):
the ATO is putting wealthy families on notice that it
will be watching what they're doing in preparation for this
tax going forward. But ultimately, Lisa, all of those scheming
about what they're going to do in response to this
tax might actually be missing the.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Bigger picture here.
Speaker 7 (13:37):
Because government debt isn't getting any smaller, there's more and
more speculation building that there will be other taxes introduced
on wealth by this government. Historically, Australia's relied largely on
income tax revenue to fund the budget, but there's a
bit of a push away from that and it looks
like the wealthy could be in the crosshairs.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
We're talking about the proposed super tax change, why there's
opposition to it, and how people are preparing for it. Joe,
there's speculation that this might just be the start. It
could lead to other wealth taxes. What do you think
the government might look at, Well.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
We know that Treasury's hot trot on looking at trusts,
but I think you know, the problems are obvious to everybody,
including the people who oppose this tax, who say people
with high superannuation balances need to pay more tax. Superannuation
death benefits are projected to increase from about seventeen billion
in twenty nineteen to about one hundred and thirty billion
(14:58):
by twenty fifty nine, so obviously a lot of super
is being passed to the next generation rather than being
spent for a retirement income. The tax system undoubtedly favors wealthier,
older Australians. The system is increasingly generous to people aged
over sixty five, who have an average tax rate of
about seven point five percent, which is much lower than
(15:21):
the people who are building families, trying to buy homes,
building careers. So there's always speculation. You know, would the
government reintroduce an inheritance tax? Australia abolish those taxes in
the nineteen seventies, but we're an outlier, listen. I have
no idea, but it would be a pretty brave government
who introduced inheritance taxes. The thing about all this is,
(15:42):
of course, this measure, when taken alone, is easy to pose.
What a lot of the experts say is that a
government needs to come to the people with a tax
package that has trade offs it has winners, it has looters,
but it sort of rewrites the tax system in a
way that can be sold to the public other than
just doing one small tax change. At the time, of course,
(16:03):
Labor is a bit gun shy. It went to the
twenty nineteen election, the unlosable election, with some pretty bold
tax reform related to capital gains tax, negative gearing and
franking credits. They were met with a scare campaign from
the Liberals.
Speaker 8 (16:19):
Vote Labor and a retiree taxes on the horizon Bill.
Shorten's new housing tax would take a wrecking ball to
the economy. Labor's billions of dollars in higher taxes will
put the squeeze on all Australians India.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
And as we all know, that election defeat was very bruising.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
They are inventing attacks.
Speaker 5 (16:38):
They're inventing just completely fabricating attacks.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
This does not exist and will not exist.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
So within the party they're very keen not to repeat that.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
And as you say, the tax treatment of superannuation is
very generous, isn't fair to say it's becoming a real problem.
Last week the Financial Review Rewindow column broke the news
that two Wise Tech directors have more than two billion
dollars combined sitting in their self managed super funds. That's
(17:11):
a bit more than you need for a dignified retirement.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
Yeah, and the AFI has been putting in freedom of
information request to the tax Office for a number of
years now to find out what the biggest funds are worth.
We know that forty two smsfs have more than one
hundred million dollars in assets. And obviously this is actually
one of the first times that we've actually known who
these people are. These are the egregious examples that sort
(17:35):
of get people fired up. So the rear window column
revealed that Wise Tech director Charles Gibbon sold shares worth
two hundred million in December last year, saying at the
time that it was for personal estate planning purposes. They
were sold by the trustee for the Gibbons Ubranuation Fund,
trustees of which are mister Gibbon and his wife, which
meant they paid something like ten percent of in capital
(17:57):
gains tax, which is far lower than you would pay
outside of super in your own name, which in their
case would likely be forty five percent top marginal rate
plus the MIDI care levy. Even after the sale of
those shares. He still has wise Tech stock in his
SMSF and it would probably be worth we think about
one point seven billion dollars, and then another and then
to compound sort of the situation. Another Wise Tech director,
(18:19):
Michael greg we found had shares worth five hundred and
sixty eight million. So these were the kinds of examples
that really people get fired up about.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
I guess both directors have been with wise Tech and
invested in wise Tech from early on, and that's.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
What people do.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
They have the shares in their fund before at IPOs
and then you get that huge escalation. But it still
is a pretty strong example of superfunds that have built
up too much in assets.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
It is and opponents would say, well, this is a
tax on aspiration people who have ostensibly worked hard and
benefited from their ideas.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Michelle. Parliament sits again next month. The government, together with
the Greens, has the numbers to get this legislation through.
Do you think it'll be passed in its current form
or do you think the government might be forced to
make changes, either in response to the criticism or any
demands from the Greens.
Speaker 7 (19:20):
Well, as you say, Lee, so the Greens do hold
the balance of power in the Senate, and they've argued
that they'd like the threshold lowered to two million dollars,
which would meet an extra sixteen thousand people would be
captured in the first year of this tax. But unlike labor,
the Greens are actually pushing for the threshold to be indexed,
meaning it would increase each year in line with inflation.
So if you were to assume an average inflation rate
(19:42):
of say two point five percent, the Greens proposed two
million dollar threshold would actually end up being less punitive
than the labor on in next three million dollar threshold
after around sixteen years. That means it would capture less
people than what the government is currently proposing now. Jim
Charmers has said recently in several interviews, there is no
(20:02):
other way to do this tax change.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
These changes were announced almost two and a half years ago. Now,
we did multiple rounds of consultation and we said to people,
if there is a better fair way of making this calculation,
tell us about it.
Speaker 7 (20:17):
He has noted that the government did do three rounds
of consultation, although if you speak to those in the industry,
they say that they were pretty short rounds of consultation.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
And his mind was already made up.
Speaker 7 (20:27):
Chalmers has said that taxing unrealized gains is just the
simplest and best way to go about this.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
The unrealized gains calculation was recommended to us by Treasury.
We provided years of opportunities for people to suggest different
ways to calculate that liability, and nobody has been able
to come up with one.
Speaker 7 (20:49):
He's also defended his decision not to index that three
million dollar threshold. He says there's many instances in the
tax system, and one is income tax rates where thresholders
are not and from time to time the government can
then take a decision to raise those thresholds. There are
still a few weeks until Parliament comes back after the
election and the new parliament begins, So whether Amas holds
(21:13):
firm is probably going to depend to some extent on
how much pressure he comes under and whether the Greens
are willing to trade away any demands on this tax
concession that they might have for sweetness when it comes
to other policies.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Finally, a question for both of you, tax concessions on
super are generous, are they too generous? And what's the
best way to improve the system.
Speaker 7 (21:36):
So, for my part Lisa, Yeah, I think the tax
concessions on super are probably too generous, and some thirty
years after compulsory super began, tax reform probably is necessary because,
as we've said several times here, people hoarding hundreds of
millions of dollars in their super is not what the
system was intended for. But that taxing of unrealized gains
(21:58):
really does still stick with me as somehow inherently unfair.
And the bigger concern is will it set a precedent
that will leak into other parts of the tax system.
But for me, any starting point on the bigger debate
about tax changes, we really need to think about the
sort of society we want to live in, because there's
no doubt that inequality, both between the generations and even
(22:22):
within the haves and have nots in each generation has
grown considerably in recent years, and unless that's addressed somehow,
it does threaten to tear apart the very nature of
what we consider Australian values. I think in our Australian society.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
We've talked about the generosity of our retirement system for
a long time, and back in the tax white paper
process there are a lot of submissions from a lot
of people, very smart people talking about how to make
things more equitable. One of them was around making our
subranuation tax concessions progressive, just like the income tax scale.
Back then, Chris Richardson was with economics and he talked
(23:00):
about sort of making the scales more progressive, or making
superannuation taxes more progressive by taking one's marginal rate and
taking fifteen percent off that. So there were all these
kind of options that were put forward that are probably
worth recanvassing. The reality is that we do have a
(23:20):
problem in our tax system. There is an over reliance
on income taxes, and young people pay a very great
proportion of those of the taxes, while retirees can live ten, twenty,
maybe thirty years in retirement virtually tax free. And that
problem is going to get more acute now. Twenty nineteen
was a very nasty experience for labor and I am
(23:44):
hopeful that they will or somebody will bring another package
to the Australian people, one that will make our tax
base more sustainable, it will make things fairer, but that
it will be a very very brave party that does that.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Thanks Joe, Thanks Michelle, thank you, Thanks Lisa, thank you
for listening to The Finn. I'm Lisa Murray, with Joanna
Maser and Michelle Bows reporting today. The Finn is produced
(24:23):
by Alex Gau with assistance from Mandy Coolan. Fiona Buffini
is head of Premium Content. Alex Gau composed the theme.
If you like the show and want to hear more,
follow us wherever you get your podcasts, and consider rating
and reviewing us as it helps others find us. For
more stories about markets, business and power, subscribe to The
(24:46):
Financial Review at AFI dot com slash subscribe, See you
next week.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
The Australian Financial Review
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.