‘The new super tax has been designed to excuse long-serving politicians': And it’s causing outrage

Superannuation has long been a hot-button issue in Australia, but recent developments have sparked fresh outrage.

A controversial change to tax policy is now under scrutiny—not just for who it targets, but for who it appears to protect.

What’s unfolding has fuelled claims of political double standards and left many wondering who really shoulders the burden.


A fresh political firestorm erupted after it was revealed that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and other long-serving MPs would be ‘shielded’ from a looming superannuation tax reform hitting everyday Australians.

The new tax, set to be debated when Parliament returns in late July, would force Australians with super balances over $3 million to pay tax on unrealised gains each year—even if they have to sell assets just to cover the bill.

Yet politicians benefiting from the old parliamentary pension scheme, including the PM, would only be taxed once they retire and actually receive the funds.


image1.png
Albanese spared from new super tax hit. Image source: Instagram/albomp


For additional context, only 1 per cent of former politicians and public servants with defined benefit pension schemes will be impacted by Labor’s controversial superannuation changes in the first year. Meanwhile, others who qualify for these generous arrangements, including Anthony Albanese, can delay paying the new taxes until they retire.

Critics described the move as a blatant double standard, with the opposition accusing Labor of crafting rules that protect its own.

Some Liberal MPs still in Parliament, including new leader Sussan Ley who entered politics before the scheme was abolished in 2004, would also benefit from the same delayed tax conditions.

A spokesperson for Treasurer Jim Chalmers attempted to defend the carve-out, but was slammed for delivering what many labelled a confusing justification.

The carve-out allows MPs to defer tax until retirement, with payments calculated using a modest inflation rate aligned with government bonds.


Supporters of the exemption argued it made sense, as parliamentary pensions couldn’t be sold down to pay the tax bill the way other super accounts could.

Without the exemption, figures like the PM would need to liquidate personal assets to settle the yearly tax—an expectation critics said highlighted the broader flaw in the policy.

That flaw—taxing unrealised gains—drew condemnation from economic heavyweights including former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry and former RBA Governor Philip Lowe.

Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg has accused Treasurer Jim Chalmers of crafting superannuation changes that would unfairly exempt Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Bragg argued that the Treasurer plans to set ‘special arrangements for the Prime Minister’ under Division 296 and called for full transparency in the legislation itself rather than through later regulation.

‘Otherwise, it’s a massive conflict of interest,’ Bragg warned, suggesting that delaying details could allow the Treasurer to manipulate pension arrangements for the PM after the bill passes.

In response, a spokesperson for the Treasurer dismissed the claims, accusing Bragg of ‘lying and misleading again in his desperation to get selected for the Liberal shadow frontbench.’ They emphasised that defined benefit interests, including those of federal MPs, have been publicly covered in the legislation since 2023 and clarified in draft regulations since March 2024.

‘Our modest changes to make superannuation tax concessions fairer and more sustainable apply to defined benefit interests,’ the spokesperson said, adding that only ‘half a per cent of people with more than $3 million in super’ would be affected.

The government also defended its approach as consistent with how the previous Coalition administration handled similar reforms.


Despite growing backlash, Labor insisted it would push forward with the changes.

The threshold for the tax would remain fixed at $3 million, with Chalmers refusing to index it in line with inflation.

This has sparked warnings that while few Australians would be impacted initially, over time the tax net would widen significantly.

Modelling from AMP suggested that by the time Generation Z reached retirement age, about half of them would be liable unless the threshold was adjusted.

Treasury estimated the tax would raise $40 billion over the next decade, with most revenue collected in the later years as more people are caught by the static cap.


Australia Institute chief economist Greg Jericho recently pushed back against claims that many young Australians would be impacted by the proposed $3 million superannuation cap, calling such arguments part of a ‘hyperbolic scare campaign’.

He argued that even under generous assumptions—like an 18-year-old earning the average wage of $106,277, receiving 3.7% annual raises, and working until age 67—their superannuation would only reach $2.1 million.

‘Even if someone works their entire life on the full-time average wage, they will not get $3 million in super,’ Jericho said.

However, critics such as Mr Wilson argue that these calculations ignore key factors like compounding investment returns and rising employer contributions, which are set to increase from 11.5% to 12%.

He contends that super funds typically grow at 8.5% annually, and using more favourable assumptions, a 21-year-old university graduate could amass $3.6 million by retirement. Support for this view comes from AMP’s deputy chief economist and FSC modelling, which suggests that around 500,000 young Australians could eventually breach the cap if it's not indexed to inflation.

Wilson further warns that the tax on unrealised gains could lead to a ‘deadweight loss’ of $94.5 billion and shift $155 billion from superannuation into the housing market, undermining public trust: ‘Effectively they’re destroying the social contract... He feels caged in … what are they going to do to me?’

Women could be disproportionately affected, especially those who inherited super after the death of a partner and found themselves nudged above the $3 million limit.

Some experts called it a ‘widow tax’, warning that many older women would be hit with high tax bills simply for surviving their partners.

‘Critics say the new tax will be particularly tough on women, and some widows who inherit their partner's super savings will suddenly be forced to cough up big tax payments.’

Farmers and property investors were also expected to struggle, as they would be taxed on valuations of assets they couldn’t easily sell or subdivide.

‘If that on paper value goes down in subsequent years too bad, the tax hit doesn’t change.’


Labor would have the numbers to pass the legislation with support from the Greens, who from 1 July held the balance of power in the Senate.

The Greens signalled they might push for the tax to apply at $2 million instead, making the measure even more far-reaching than what Labor proposed during the election campaign.

Despite widespread concerns from economists, the public, and even some within government, Labor showed no signs of backing down.

Key Takeaways
  • PM Anthony Albanese and other long-serving MPs were exempt from the new super tax until retirement, unlike regular Australians.
  • The tax targets unrealised gains on super balances over $3 million, but isn’t indexed, meaning more people will be affected over time.
  • Critics warned it unfairly impacts women, widows, farmers and property investors who can’t easily access or sell assets.
  • Labor plans to proceed with Greens support, despite backlash and concerns from economists and the public.

With super rules shifting and exemptions stirring controversy, do you think politicians should be held to the same tax standards as everyday Australians? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
 

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
Politician definition = SCUM, legalised thieves & becoming a worse problem than scammers!
Love it. And yes they are scum and even corrupted. Just tell me as to why they (Bowen especially) would push for that baseless crap knowing that it is never going to work but only to hurt every citizens in this Country and knowing full well that it is only going to help and making rich China (NOT US), if they did not have a real method in their madness.??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Julie1946
You might like to read about it, it’s not hard to find if you research it .View attachment 75968
Thanks. Perhaps I might have misinterpreted your post because I knew already what thus MAN named ALBO was up to. Yep, everyone will have to pay the tax BUT THEM.
And that is what ALBO and his Socialist followers are up to.
Sick mined as they are, yes there is A LAW FOR US AND ANOTHER LAW FOR THEM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Julie1946

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×