Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 496

Five proposed changes to superannuation

The taxation of superannuation in Australia is complex, inequitable, and subject to regular change. These features reduce the long-term confidence of Australians in their superannuation system. We can and should do better.

This article proposes:

  1. Paying Superannuation Guarantee (SG) contributions on all government-paid parental leave funded by reduced super tax concessions
  2. Extending the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset (LISTO) so that it fully compensates those earning up to $45,000 for tax on their superannuation contributions
  3. Reducing the Division 293 tax threshold from $250,000 to $225,000
  4. Introducing a maximum superannuation benefit at age 70 of $3.4 million
  5. Requiring all superannuation benefits be subject to minimum drawdown rules from age 70.

The current superannuation tax arrangements

A good starting point to review the current tax arrangements for superannuation is to briefly describe the existing rules that apply to most Australians. It is also helpful to separate those rules that apply during the accumulation (or pre-retirement) years and the pension (or post-retirement) years.

Accumulation years

Contributions paid into super

  • From the employer or from an individual where a tax deduction is received
    – Taxed at 15% at most income levels
    – Capped at $27,500 pa, except for some catch up rules
  • From an individual where a tax deduction is not received (i.e. from after tax money)
    – No further tax on the contribution
    – Capped at $110,000 pa

Investment income (received by the super fund)

  • Taxed at 15% with a 10% tax on realised capital gains
  • Reduced by tax deductions for expenses and offset by franking credits

Pension years

Investment income (received by the super fund)

  • No tax is paid on earnings on pension products with a starting limit of the Transfer Balance Cap (i.e. a current maximum retirement benefit of $1.7 million per person)
  • For balances not in pension products: taxed at 15% with a 10% tax on realised capital gains, reduced by tax deductions for expenses and offset by franking credits

Benefits paid from super

  • Tax free on all benefits paid after age 60 (lump sums or pensions), except for some death benefits

Proposals to improve the super system

1. Super Guarantee on paid parental leave

Under current legislation Superannuation Guarantee (SG) contributions must be paid on most forms of leave, including annual leave, long service leave and sick leave. Yet, these compulsory super contributions are not required on paid parental leave, whether paid by the government or an employer.

This is unreasonable and disadvantages many more women than men.

Recommendation

  • Require that the SG be paid on all government-paid parental leave
    The net cost to the Government based on the long-term SG rate of 12% and allowing for the 15% contribution tax is approximately $0.36 billion [estimated using data in the Budget Papers October 2022-23].

2. Low Income Super Tax Offset

Concessional contributions, subject to an annual cap of $27,500 (plus some carry-forward contributions, where eligible), are generally taxed when received by the superannuation fund at a flat rate of 15%. This is the less than the marginal tax rate for all income taxpayers.

The low-income super tax offset (or LISTO) is paid to those with an adjusted taxable income of $37,000 or less. The offset equals 15% of the individual’s concessional contributions, thereby removing the tax on contributions, subject to a maximum of $500.

The value of the tax concession provided to individuals on their concessional contributions is the difference between the individual’s marginal tax rate and the tax paid on their super contributions. 

Figure 1 shows the value of this concession, expressed as a percentage of the concessional contribution, for each level of taxable income, assuming the current SG contribution rate of 10.5%. This graph assumes the person is single (with no dependants) and ignores the Medicare levy, as well as any impact relating to private health insurance.

Figure 1: The current value of tax concessions on concessional contributions for 2022-23

This graph is a simplified form of a similar chart in the Retirement Income Review (Chart 3A-1) which used an effective income tax threshold of $21,884 for 2019-20. The above chart uses the same threshold given the abolition of the low-medium income tax offset after 2021-22. This graph is based on taxable income and not the definition of Division 293 income that applies at very high incomes. Hence, the graph overstates the level of the concession for someone whose taxable income is under $250,000 but where their Division 293 income exceeds $250,000. The Retirement Income Review also adopted this approach.

It is apparent that there are several anomalies in the current arrangements, including:

  • There is no concession or advantage received by individuals with an income below $21,884 after allowing for the low-income tax offset. These individuals receive no tax concession as they pay no income tax and also pay no tax on their super contributions due to LISTO.
  • Due to the inconsistencies between the threshold under LISTO (i.e. $37,000) and the second income tax threshold of $45,000, individuals with incomes between these two figures receive a lower concession.
  • The LISTO cap of $500 is less than the tax payable on the 11% SG contribution in 2023-24 for individuals with incomes above $30,303.

Recommendations

  • Increase the income threshold for LISTO from $37,000 to $45,000 to match the second income tax threshold.
  • Increase the maximum LISTO payment from $500 to $810 to match the tax payable on a 12% SG contribution for an income of $45,000.
    The cost of this change is approximately $0.52 billion per year [based on Mercer analysis from data in ATO, 2% sample unit record file of individual tax returns, 2019-20].

3. Division 293 tax

Figure 1 showed those with taxable incomes between $180,000 and $250,000 receive the highest tax concession on their concessional contributions. In fact, it is more complicated than this as the extra 15% tax arising from Division 293 uses adjusted income, which includes concessional contributions and other items. Hence, the graph overstates the level of the concession for an individual whose taxable income is under $250,000 but where their Division 293 income exceeds $250,000.

Notwithstanding this complexity, many individuals whose taxable income is between $180,000 and $250,000 receive the highest level of taxation support for their concessional contributions.

Recommendation

  • Reduce the Division 293 threshold from $250,000 to $225,000. This is 25% above the highest income tax threshold, thereby allowing for the maximum level of concessional superannuation contributions and other items used in the definition of adjusted income.
    This measure would raise additional revenue of approximately $0.22 billion [using data from the ATO, 2% sample unit record file of individual tax returns, 2019-20].

4. Capping the size of super benefits

There are various limits within the superannuation system relating to the level of contributions. However, there are no limits in respect of benefits. The Retirement Income Review noted that:

At June 2018, there were over 11,000 people with a balance in excess of $5 million. People with very large superannuation balances receive very large concessions on their earnings.” (their emphasis)

The Review observed that certain tax concessions are not cost-effective. The implication is clear. The introduction of some form of benefits cap would limit the significant concessions received in respect of investment earnings by those with very large balances.

This leads to two questions:

1.What is the maximum retirement benefit that should receive full tax exemption on investment earnings during retirement? This is the Transfer Balance Cap (TBC) on amounts transferred to pension accounts and is currently $1.7 million, going up to $1.9 million on 1 July 2023.

2. Should there be an additional benefit cap above the TBC (i.e. on the total balance in super, not just in pension accounts?) If so, what should the cap be?  

The second question relates to the appropriate tax treatment of superannuation balances outside pension products (i.e. beyond the TBC). Currently, investment income from these superannuation balances is taxed at 15% (10% for capital gains) which represents a tax rate below the lowest marginal tax rate. 

The financial position of retirees with superannuation balances above the TBC varies significantly. Some have limited income outside superannuation whereas others may have significant income from investment portfolios or ongoing employment. Hence, the appropriate tax rate on investment earnings on these super balances varies significantly. There is no 'correct' answer for all retirees.

The recommendation is for retirees to retain up to $3.4 million within the superannuation system. This total figure should be indexed annually (as currently occurs with the TBC) so that its real value is maintained.

The next question is how to apply such a cap. As with the TBC, it should be a one-off test and not repeated during retirement. In addition, a transition period is needed to avoid forced disposal of assets such as property in the short term, which may be particularly relevant for SMSFs.

Recommendation

  • Require all individuals at age 70 to reduce their TSB to $3.4 million.

The introduction of the additional cap would raise revenue of approximately $0.70 billion, after allowing for some behavioural change.

Following the introduction of this cap, individuals currently aged 70 or over would be given three years to reduce their total superannuation balances to the legislated cap.

The application of this cap should also prevent these individuals from subsequently making a downsizer contribution into their superannuation account.

5. Minimum drawdown rules to apply to all super

There are currently no minimum drawdown rules applied to the balances in excess of the TBC, irrespective of the age of the member. Applying the minimum drawdown rules to the total balance would reduce the scope for superannuation to be used for estate planning.

Recommendation

  • Require the minimum drawdown rules to apply to all superannuation balances from age 703.

***

1 We have used 31 years for the retirement period as it represents the average life expectancy from the preservation age of 60 (ABS, Life Tables 2019-2021) plus 5 years, which recognises that half the population will live beyond the average life expectancy. In addition, we expect individuals who have these above average benefits will receive little or no Age Pension so that the eligibility age for the Age Pension is not relevant.

2 This value assumes that the pension is paid for 20.0 years based on the latest ABS life expectancy figures at age 67. The use of a wage related deflator simplifies the calculation as the Age Pension is linked to average wages.

3 Age 70 is suggested as it is between the Age Pension eligibility age of 67 and age 75, which is the maximum age permitted to make non-concessional contributions without a work test.

 

Dr. David Knox is a Senior Partner and Senior Actuary at Mercer Australia. This article is general information and not investment advice, and does not consider the circumstances of any person.

 

25 Comments
Mark Hayden
March 09, 2023

Well done David, that is a well reasoned proposal. Too many people jump on their personal hobby horse rather than look at the big picture. A review of all tax concessions and related rules is the best way forward. Please keep the ball rolling.

Ian simmonds
February 23, 2023

Ian
As Tax payer I was only allowed to salary sacrifice 26K but Gov workers had unlimited amounts, I found this grossly unfair.

Fred Stone
February 20, 2023

Its funny how a few years ago we were told that the few extremely rich who were abusing Superannuation were being curtailed by introducing a cap on pension phase. I would have thought that would be enough (I am obviously wrong!!). Apparently we are all now the few extremely rich.


No mention is made in this article of reducing the early access to Super as witnessed during the COVID-19 debacle, and mentioned in the media. All the decisions being made and discussed at present are based on today's money, and base on the current inflation numbers these $1.7M or $3.4M thresholds will arrive a lot sooner than what one may think. No mentioned is made of indexing these thresholds to inflation?


My proposal would be to bring in a third party Superannuation authority as per this article back in 2013 https://www.firstlinks.com.au/article/bring-on-the-council-of-superannuation-custodians


Maybe we can come up with some novel ways to use the accumulated money in Super accounts as investment funds to improve society and take some of these costs away from government who do not appear to be able to use money in a cost effective and efficient manner. Just some of MY thought.

David
February 19, 2023

Here's an alternative. Leave superannuation alone as it is. The more it is fiddled with to cure "inequities" the worse it will become.

Bryn
February 19, 2023

I thought the suggestions put forward by David were a bit superficial. Any changes to superannuation (i.e. accumulation & pension) should make for a simplified system that can be left alone to mature. The current super system has not had time to mature because it's always being interfered with, despite it having been in place for several decades. Most of the recent changes inflicted on super have been to reduce the benefits to superannuant retirees rather than to simplify it.

Besides wishing that politicians would leave super alone for a while, I'd like to make a comment that is never heard and that is that superannuation should also be seen as a financial vehicle for funding care in older age, not just for day to day living expenses while we're young enough to enjoy a vibrant retirement. I would hazard a guess that a lot of retirees are not spending as much as they could because they want to ensure they have enough money to pay for their later years in a care home.

Irene Y L Tsang
March 12, 2023

I think we need Paul Keating!

June
February 17, 2023

There seem to be an awful lots of handouts in terms of families now that we never heard of raising our children who are now 46 and 50 years old. No parental leave, back to work just to cover our 17% mortgage and by the time we paid for childcare, my working was only just worthwhile, but not if you take into account the guilt of doing so. I think I can remember getting something like $2 every so often "child endowment" and a "baby bundle" when our eldest was born. Why on earth have we spent over 50 years working our guts out, raising our children to work hard, living on our savings without asking for handouts in tough times, only to be told now that our super arrangements have to change for the good of all. We have grandchildren who have HECS Debts (I could not afford higher education) but still have had lots of overseas travel in their 20's......what IS going on with the world? There is no certainty in any planning for retirement that any of us do.

Ian
February 26, 2023

Absolutely agree June. We have said the same ourselves. We are breading an 'entitled' population. The result is reducing the incentive for individuals to work and save and loading businesses with costs and taxes, making them less competitive in the world market. There is a major flaw in our economic model. It makes me feel very pessimistic.

Nick Callil
February 17, 2023

Well done David on a well thought out and argued set of proposals. Change is never popular in superannuation but it is more important to have a sustainable and broadly equitable system if we want it to continue in the longer term. These proposal would take us closer to this.

Tim
February 17, 2023

Before we start messing with superannuation yet again, here's an idea, scrap certain social security payments such as JobSeeker. Save tax dollars there makes more sense than targeting those who take a proactive approach with their superannuation.

Ps. I'm 31, so I'm not saying this as one of the fortunate individuals who have massive super balances. I'd just like to not be restricted in saving for retirement.

RalphA
February 17, 2023

What will the unemployed live on if you scrap JobSeeker?

James
February 17, 2023

More motivation to get a job like the rest of us had to?

Andrew
February 17, 2023

For goodness sake, it's our money! Keep you grotty little hands off it. Too many people with a self serving interest is wanting to change things. Imagine what it will look like in 20 yrs when the super pie is 100 times bigger than present.

Rich
February 26, 2023

Yes in 20yrs time my $10million in super will be worth $36.7million, if compounded at, let's say, just 7 percent. More than enough to live off I hope. Or, I could pay a decent amount of tax on the income, still have enough to live off, and the tax would help the government with problems like the inadequate healthcare budget, the defence budget. How useful is your massive pile of super if an authoritarian dictatorship decides to waste the country and take our commodities off us. But that couldn't happen could it?

Cam
February 16, 2023

Paid parental leave only started in 2011, so women aged 45 and largely older missed out. How about an idea to boost their super instead? Maybe a variation on LISC for people aged over 45.
I like ideas number 5 and number 3. I'd suggest age pension age for 5, and the top marginal tax rate for 3 as variations

James
February 16, 2023

We often complain when governments change the rules wrt superannuation.

Now we have superannuation funds and those that work for investment institutions proposing changes, some of which are disadvantageous! What next?

Angus
February 16, 2023

It is completely UNFAIR to retrospectively cap the size of a person's funds in Superannuation or force drawdowns on them when people have foregone consumption, saved, taken risks and worked hard at their investments, all the time abiding by the rules of the day including having their Super money locked up for decades until they can access it. Any changes to Superannuation should be grandfathered at the very least. And there is a need to stop constantly changing the Superannuation rules - it is undermining confidence in the Superannuation system, particularly for people getting, or contemplating getting, old and infirm in years to come. It's hard enough to keep across things now without age intervening! And what happens when a Superannuant makes a bad investment decision or negative macro economic or geo-politics events affect their investments negatively? This happens often over the long term of their Superannuation. Do they get to put the money back in?? Do they get any costs involved in doing this paid back with interest??? And how do you re-emburse the Superannuant who has contributed to their Super by selling assets in their own name and paid Capital Gains Tax, transaction costs etc. on those assets to then contribute the remaining funds to their Superannuation? Do they get the tax and other outgoings that they have paid refunded with interest?? And how do you deal with inflation which will ultimately eat the Superannuant's fund balance reducing it's value as the superannuant ages and inflation compounds year after year over time? It is hard to find income paying investments whose capital value keeps up with inflation year after year. And do you really think these enforced changes will raise more money? People will simply stop working and paying tax to Government, put more money in their tax free principal place of residence and negatively gear property and other investments to avoid paying tax. And they'll encourage their kids to avoid Superannuation, live it up, retire early and collect a Pension in later life. Why bother working hard and being self sufficient?? Better to spend and enjoy life free of the hassles of saving (ie. foregoing consumption), investing, risk taking and spending thousands of hours and endless worry and concern trying to adapt to constantly changing Superannuation rules. The real target of all this should be the hundreds of thousands of Federal and State politicians, public servants and those who worked in big corporations, who receive risk free CPI adjusted pensions each year for life. These required NO or LIMITED contributions by the recipient and increase as the lucky recipient gets older, require no time spent on investment and administration, no risk and no ongoing investment stress. Some of these pensions already exceed $1 million per year and often exceed $150,000 per year! And they grow risklessly by CPI each year!! Reining in the huge growth in Defined Benefits Pensions outlays in the Public Sector is where the Government should be concentrating its' taxation resources if there is to be any material impact on the Budget. That would be a much more equitable, fair and prospective target than individuals' Superannuation. There are simply hundred of billions of dollars involved and many of these Public Sector Defined Benefits Schemes are underfunded and require payment from Government each year to fund the Government largesse to those retired Politicians and Public Servants who receive them.

Merrilyn
February 17, 2023

100% agree with all of this comment! I just wish it taken notice of by these greedy so & so's that make these changes!
I'm 61 & already having regrets at locking my money away in super for the last 20+yrs instead of somewhere i could at least access it how i need to access it.
The rules (especially Transition to Retirement rules) are already too rigid if you wish to keep working but are on a low income & need a lump sum of your money for whatever reason as I'm now finding out!
So easy to contribute, so damn hard to access even when you are past preservation age! :(

Jim
February 18, 2023

Interesting that you call for grandfathering of any changes but then point the finger at public sector (and military?) defined benefits schemes, that are all closed to new members. In defence of public servants, they are generally highly qualified professionals that could earn higher remuneration in the private sector and the "generous" super forms an important incentive to retain talent. and had no choice but to join these db schemes. The PSS also requires member after-tax contributions, up to 10% of their salary annually.

Bob Rackemann
February 21, 2023

Angus, you are woefully wrong with your assumptions regarding defined benefit pensions?

As a person that was a member of a defined benefit scheme for nearly 4 decades I can set you straight at least on the scheme I belonged to. The defined benefit scheme I belonged to was only “indexed” as you call it by the following method. A multiple of 0.21 x years of service x final salary. You stated these funds require propping up by governments. Please explain why the Queensland government recently took $5bn out of the earnings of defined benefits if your claim is correct. Put simply the Queensland makes more money from the folks silly enough to remain in the scheme.

For example if you have a balance of $1m accumulated over 40 years you can expect a princely increase of $40k per year on average. That is despite contributions of $20k for someone earning $100k a year.

Alternatively putting the balance into a super investment account and receiving a 5% market return will deliver $50k increase + $20k contributions for a total of $70k ($30k more than defined benefit.

So not all public servants get the ridiculous assertions you make regarding defined benefits.

Albert
February 21, 2023

Bob is 100% correct here and on how benefits were calculated. In fact, in the 2015 FY, without benefit of any pay increment, my defined benefit balance increased by $25K, which was significantly less than the contributions I made in that year. Defined Benefit Schemes are no longer offered, and haven't been since early 2000s. The value in DB schemes were that members were contributing to super long term, long before mandatory superannuation in the 90's and were making forced contributions significantly higher than 9%.

John
February 23, 2023

We are unlikely to see restrictions on defined benefit (DB) pensions, for several reasons: (a) Current Federal politicians elected before 2004 (e.g. Albo!) will get a DB pension; (b) Likewise for Federal public servants who joined before 1990 and stay until 55; (c) Most public servants past, present and future vote Labor or Greens; and (d) most DB schemes are enforceable contracts.

Mark
February 16, 2023

Making everybody spend their super before they die is outright mean. It contradicts the aim of super which is to keep people of the welfare system in old age. Also what about people like me who have a government defined benefit super scheme e.g military super which is government guaranteed which means my super never draws down. That means when I die my beneficiarie will get a huge lump sum so leave my military super conditions alone. So if you don't mind l would like to leave some sort of inheritance.

Cam
February 16, 2023

Withdrawing money from super doesn't mean you have to spend it. The money can sit in your personal name instead. Its just the tax on earnings that would be higher. I expect people would keep most/all in cash and term deposits though instead of shares, and would end up with much lower income over the years.

Old but Sane
February 16, 2023

Super was meant to be drawn down, but you don’t need to spend it. It was NOT designed as an estate planning tool. Costello changed it you didn’t have to start drawing down a pension at age 65. I agree with the proposals.

BTW your military pension cease on death, there is no lump sum, however a reversionary pension may be paid to a spouse or children, if eligible.

 

Leave a Comment:


RELATED ARTICLES

The current super system fails the poor

Six ways the Budget Office is probing super taxes

$5 million cap punishes 30 years of super saving

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The nuts and bolts of family trusts

There are well over 800,000 family trusts in Australia, controlling more than $3 trillion of assets. Here's a guide on whether a family trust may have a place in your individual investment strategy.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 581 with weekend update

A recent industry event made me realise that a 30 year old investing trend could still have serious legs. Could it eventually pose a threat to two of Australia's biggest companies?

  • 10 October 2024

Preserving wealth through generations is hard

How have so many wealthy families through history managed to squander their fortunes? This looks at the lessons from these families and offers several solutions to making and keeping money over the long-term.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 583

Investing guru Howard Marks says he had two epiphanies while visiting Australia recently: the two major asset classes aren’t what you think they are, and one key decision matters above all else when building portfolios.

  • 24 October 2024

A big win for bank customers against scammers

A recent ruling from The Australian Financial Complaints Authority may herald a new era for financial scams. For the first time, a bank is being forced to reimburse a customer for the amount they were scammed.

The quirks of retirement planning with an age gap

A big age gap can make it harder to find a solution that works for both partners – financially and otherwise. Having a frank conversation about the future, and having it as early as possible, is essential.

Latest Updates

Planning

What will be your legacy?

As we get older, many of us start to think about how we’ll be remembered by those left behind. This looks at why that may not be the best strategy to ensure that you live life well and leave loved ones in good stead.

Economy

It's the cost of government, stupid

Australia's bloated government sector is every bit as responsible for our economic worries as the cost of living crisis. Grand schemes like the 'Future Made in Australia' only look set to make it worse.

SMSF strategies

A guide to valuing SMSF assets correctly

SMSF trustees are required to value all fund assets, including property, at market value when preparing the fund's financial statements each year. Here are some key tips to ensure that you get it right.

Economics

Australia is lucky the British were the first 'intruders'

British colonisation's Common Law system contributed to economic prosperity, in contrast to Latin America's lower wealth under Civil Law. It influenced capitalism's success in former British colonies, like Australia.

Economics

A significant shift in the jobs market

The expansion of the 'care sector' represents the most profound structural change to Australia's job market since the mining boom. This analyses how it's come about and the impact it will have on the economy.

Shares

Searching for value in tech stocks

Just because a stock is cheap doesn't necessarily make it good value. This uses case studies in the tech sector to help identify when stocks trading on 30x earnings may be inexpensive and when others on 10x may be value traps.

Investing

Are more informed investors prone to making poorer decisions?

Finance Professor Michael Finke recently discussed the double-edged sword of taking an interest in your investments, three predictors of panic selling, and why nurses tend to be better investors than doctors.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.