‘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 . . .
Lies from this government roll easily off their tongue, why are we surprised, why do people still vote for this corrupt lot of politicians it beggars belief, he lied all throughout the campaign and people still voted, and now they along with us have to suffer. This is only the beginning of Labor screwing Australians , we are in for a torrid 3 years, the corruption from Labor like in Victoria is going to ruin every single Australian, while keeping themselves with their snouts in the trough 🐷🐽🐷
The Politicians are under the same tax rules, this is a beatup.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Julie1946
Labor government only got in again because of all the unions, and all the preference votes. He hand feeds them with whatever they ask for.

What’s the point of voting for a certain party if they only give their preferences to the Labor government.

It all boils down to corruption.

Australia is sinking….& fast under this Government.

Albo said he wanted to re-build Australia. With all the businesses closing down, there will be very little left, so I guess it won’t take much to build back up.

Labor Government is the worse government ever, and things will only go downhill even more.

GET RID OF THEM ALL NOW !!!😡😡😡😡🤬🤬🤬
Without preferential voting, The Libs would be in an even bigger mess right now.
 
The overall position of a Labour Government has not changed. They look after themselves with loopholes, while those constituents they represent fall farther behind. Or retirement age increases before we can even access our superannuation and when we do we will not be as well off as we had hoped. There is no incentive any longer, yet politicians are not bound by the same rules and standards. I hope Albaneses enjoys his multimillion dollar home and his outrageous pension and perks!!!
My thoughts on the comments so far is that the Libiot trolls just can’t accept their miserable showing in the election. Also do you really believe that your mob don’t do exactly the same thing when they are in power. Seriously get over yourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodEnough
If “SeniorsDiscountClub is really serious about its concern for Seniors then why has it not exposed by a special article that as I previously commented on one of its articles any Commonwealth taxation must be “UNIFORM” but can be on a sliding scale pending the taxation income level?



Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-

In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.

The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.

END QUOTE



And

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury will be avoided.

END QUOTE
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates



QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.

END QUOTE


And

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.

END QUOTE
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>
Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one state to another;

END QUOTE



Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-

Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.

END QUOTE



Likewise State land taxation (including “council rates” are unconstitutional. Doesn’t Seniors Discount Club have a single competent journalist/editor to report on this, as I also previously commented upon?

See my blog at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wombat2u2004
If “SeniorsDiscountClub is really serious about its concern for Seniors then why has it not exposed by a special article that as I previously commented on one of its articles any Commonwealth taxation must be “UNIFORM” but can be on a sliding scale pending the taxation income level?



Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-

In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.

The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.

END QUOTE



And

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury will be avoided.

END QUOTE
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates



QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.

END QUOTE


And

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.

END QUOTE
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>
Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one state to another;

END QUOTE



Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-

Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.

END QUOTE



Likewise State land taxation (including “council rates” are unconstitutional. Doesn’t Seniors Discount Club have a single competent journalist/editor to report on this, as I also previously commented upon?

See my blog at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Don't forget, those rules were made when Straya was young and had politicians with guts and determination to make this bright-eyed and bushy-tailed new nation a better place for all (except for the Abos, who didn't count in the Pom scheme of things).
But, in the intervening years, something went drastically wrong as our electerd reps realised that they held the country to ransom, with only one bunch of winners. This same lesson was then and is repeated now all over the world, the hoi polloi thankfully re-electing the same class (no matter which shade they wear) of self-serving seat warmers in our capitals and shires.
There's no comeback if the ones who gert the power happen to be fascists or communists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wombat2u2004
Well, if anyone believed that what came out from this man and his comrades friends mouths were going to look after you must be in serious needs of medical attention.
So everyone is to be taxed under this tax even if they don't sell anything and then forced to sell assets in order to pay this ridiculous tax, while ALBO and his mates are not. Will he be embarrassed by what is happening when it is so clear that it is unjust and even fraudulent.? :ROFLMAO: No, But I am also sure that he will be laughing his head off.
Yep that is Socialism for you.
On the other end of the equation, well some of you voted for this hypocrite, you have made you bed and now you can lay into it AND CRY.
 
I think all parties are the same and they all get the same payouts and benefits but I do agree the wealth should pay but they usually have offshore accounts or systems to dodge tax unlike the average person
That is not the point, nor is an excuse. These people are compulsive liars and people were too blind to see it. Now let them pay for it.
 
Hey, drop the anti-Albo, anti_Labor bullshit.

I'm not a fan of this exemption, but you headlined it as if it ONY applied to Albo, and got the inevitable, unthinking triggered responses above from your readers who don't or cant read past the headlines.

STOP TAKING POLITICAL SIDES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BS, that is not Political it is the truth. ALBO and bis Treasurer could have stopped it on it's track and make it equitable if they were fair BUT THEY DIDN'T.
 
The backlash is only coming from those affected like it is rumoured Gina has $100m in tax free Super, just imagine $10m/yr tax free income from that alone, those on $3m get around $300k/yr tax free.
BS. Can you share with us as to how you came up with that figure.?
 
All Politicians with +$3m in Super are affected, and have to pay the tax just the same, even Tony and Sussan.
Only when they want to as they can choose to extend it while (Unlike others who are not Politicians) been exempt from paying anything.
 
Pollies pay the same tax, this is a beatup.
Now that’s funny 🤣🤣🤣
Hey, drop the anti-Albo, anti_Labor bullshit.

I'm not a fan of this exemption, but you headlined it as if it ONY applied to Albo, and got the inevitable, unthinking triggered responses above from your readers who don't or cant read past the headlines.

STOP TAKING POLITICAL SIDES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
seriously, it’s the Labor government who are implementing this tax… Chalmers and Albanese are the ones who are going to pass the tax… only one side is going to destroy 🇦🇺 Australians
 
Check out all the information going around and how they have passed an exemption for Albanese
Why don't you share it with us instead of just saying about information going around. Information going around are BS at the best of times without any supporting evidence.
So, and as such, post the evidence you are telling us there are.
If not, well it is some more baseless and unsupported comments.
 
Let's put it in this way, according to what has been said and confirmed by Chalmers, YES Politicians are and can be exempted from paying this absurd and totally unfair tax if and when it becomes due as they have the option to either pay it (LIKE WE ARE OBLIGED TO DO) or choose to postpone it to suit themselves.
Paying tax on unearned income such as UNREALISED CAPITAL GAINS is a travesty of justice, it is as simple as that.
TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE IS VERY EVIDENT HERE (One for us and another one for them) with the current ALBO Government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheezil
Why don't you share it with us instead of just saying about information going around. Information going around are BS at the best of times without any supporting evidence.
So, and as such, post the evidence you are telling us there are.
If not, well it is some more baseless and unsupported comments.
You might like to read about it, it’s not hard to find if you research it .IMG_0666.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelpie

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×