14 October 2025

Chalmers backflips on proposed super changes as he strives for greater fairness

| By Andrew McLaughlin
Join the conversation
36
Jim Chalmers, Treasurer of Australia

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the changes to the proposed super taxes will make the system fairer for all. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

With the Prime Minister on leave this week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been left holding the bag to announce major changes to the Government’s proposed superannuation tax scheme.

Labor’s plan to double the tax on earnings on superannuation above $3 million was taken to the last election. If applied, the new tax would have been applied to just 90,000 people, or about one-half of one per cent of superannuants.

But the plan was criticised because it would not have been indexed to adjust for inflation, which would have caused the tax base to increase over time as more superannuation accounts crossed the $3 million threshold due to inflation. Analysts predict that this version of ‘bracket creep’ would have caused this threshold to drop to a current equivalent of $2 million within 15 years.

For earnings on super balances between $3 million and $10 million, the rate remains 30 per cent, while the rate over $10 million becomes 40 per cent. And despite Mr Chalmers previously predicting future governments would likely take the creep into account and make adjustments, he has now committed to automatically index the threshold from the beginning.

The plan was also criticised because assets held in super funds would have been taxed on their valuation, much like interest, dividends, or a capital gain.

These ‘unrealised’ gains on assets would have been calculated and applied at the end of the tax year instead of when the gain was actually realised, raising concerns of unfairness because a tax is applied to an asset that isn’t providing an income stream.

READ ALSO Minister and eCommissioner laying down the law with social media giants as under-16s ban approaches

Mr Chalmers told the media on Monday (13 October) that the cap is now indexed at CPI.

“We have always had in our back pocket this indexation or an indexation like this in order to get it through the parliament,” he said.

“We have also always said to you publicly and privately that we expect future governments would have lifted the old threshold. Here we are indexing that to make that clear.”

In addition, he says the proposed tax on unrealised gains will be scrapped, with only realised gains subject to the tax from 2026. This change is intended to give super funds time to implement the change, although the Treasurer said there was more work to do to finalise this change.

“There is more work to do on the calculation and attribution of the realised gains part of what we are proposing here,” he said.

“We are anticipating that it will be calculated at the fund level and then attributed to members with balances above 3 and $10 million, but we want to be upfront with you and say that we will do a little bit more work on that.”

Further changes will also be made to the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset (LISTO), a 15 per cent contribution up to a maximum of $500 paid by the government for workers who earn up to $37,000 a year. While the low-income threshold will be raised nearly 18 per cent to $45,000 from 2027, the maximum contribution will increase by more than 60 per cent to $810.

“It means the total number of eligible Australians for the LISTO will become 3.1 million, and by one realistic calculation, it means about an extra $15,000 at retirement,” Mr Chalmers said.

Mr Chalmers said the changes have taken more than two years of feedback into account.

“We have worked through the issues and we found another way to deliver on the same objectives,” he said.

“This means a better deal for low‑income workers and also better targeted concessions for the biggest balances. This will make the superannuation system fairer from top to bottom.

“When it comes to the feedback … the objective there has been to separate the genuine feedback from the usual kind of predictable, partisan feedback that you get from time to time,” he added.

“As Treasurer and as a government, we always try and take feedback seriously.”

READ ALSO It’s foul play when parliament’s sporting club kicks out a Senator in order to keep gambling money

He said the changes will mean a drop in revenue of more than $4 billion over the forward estimates, with the bulk of that being due to the delay in implementing them.

“The original proposal would have raised $6.2 billion over the forward estimates,” he said.

“This new package will raise $2 billion over the forward estimates, but a very big chunk of that is actually the one‑year delay.

“And so it will raise a bit less than the original proposal, but it will still make the superannuation system fairer and stronger and more sustainable, and that’s our objective.”

Deputy Opposition Leader Ted O’Brien described the changes as a “humiliating backflip”.

“This is a humiliating moment for the Treasurer who spent two years defending the indefensible – a policy so unfair it united people from all walks of life,” he said in a statement.

“Jim Chalmers has spent years assuring us that there was simply no other way than to tax unrealised gains without indexation, but today he was finally forced to admit that he was wrong.

“Taxing theoretical profits was always a reckless idea, but the Treasurer was determined to take from Australians’ life savings to feed his rapidly deteriorating budget bottom line,” he added.

“Now he is left with a $4.2 billion budget black hole over the forward estimates, and is no doubt cooking up all sorts of new taxes on everyday Australians to fill it.”

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

36
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

If only Melbourne had hosted the games we all paid for, we could all have gone and seen Jim’s floor routine.

No one interfered and manipulated our superannuation system more than John Howard and Peter Costello!

You’ve probably got a point there Jack. The $300 billion Future Fund was a superannuation funding powerhouse.

But wait, there’s more, it turns out Howard was a superhero to “the poor” as the SMH reported:

“That’s right, the Howard Government has turned super from being the preserve of the rich to providing the most generous tax breaks for the poor. Howard’s battlers have become Howard’s beneficiaries.” Super super even.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/howards-super-super-revolution-20060326-gdn8o9.html

Our country has moved on significantly since that article was published nearly 20 years ago Penfold! But thanks for pointing out just part of the miserableness and spitefulness we suffered from the Howard & Costello years and their many policies aimed at hitting those on the lowest rungs of society the hardest. Not to mention the consequences of those miserable policies that we are seeing in the media today. The Howard government was one of the most devious and miserable governments in Australia’s history but paved the way for the corruptness we saw from the Abbott and Morrison governments.

Just watch the ABC’s People v Robodebt to get a bit of an insight into their dishonesty and cruelty!

Hilariously Penfold doesnt understand that his own link actually outlines some of the reasons that the vast majority of Superannuation tax breaks in total dollar terms go to wealthier people.

I know he isn’t real good with percentages but this one is a doozy.

Funnily enough, the only reason that Superannuation accounts in the tens of millions exist, is because of the changes Howard made conveniently for his baby boomer base.

No younger person can ever get near those amounts due to the sensible changes made to properly define the policy purpose of Superannuation.

Jack there’s quite a lot of misery in that post. Thankfully the majority of Australians disagreed with you and voted in Howard 13 times in Bennelong and four times as Prime Minister. Our second longest serving Prime Minister after Menzies. And what great years they were – a thriving economy, low unemployment, social cohesion, national pride, budget surpluses, secure borders, the world’s best cricket team. How times have changed. Did you know that last month was the 25th anniversary of the amazing Sydney Olympics ?

And your comments about “many policies aimed at hitting those on the lowest rungs of society the hardest” is directly contradicted by the SMH article which even uses the term “Howard’s Battlers”. That’s quite some compliment from the left-leaning SMH.

Btw you might want to pop over to UC to lodge those robodebt complaints. The system was introduced by none other than a William Shorten.

But we can agree on one point of yours – to see dishonesty exemplified there’s no better place than the ABC.

Incidental Tourist5:40 pm 14 Oct 25

Taxing unrealised gains is not a new idea—it’s essentially a form of wealth tax, applied even when that “wealth” produces no actual cash income. A tax on unrealised superannuation gains is conceptually similar to taxing the value of unsold houses.

For example, some retirees in suburbs like Yarralumla and Forrest have been hit with exorbitant property rates—tens of thousands of dollars a year—simply because their once-affordable homes, purchased over 50 years ago, have appreciated in value. Their only “offence” is owning a home that has become valuable over time. Meanwhile, public housing tenants living in the same suburbs pay nothing extra, and can sit back watching self-funded retirees being forced out.

A similar pattern is emerging in Victoria, where the so-called “vacancy tax” penalises people for simply owning a holiday home—again, a tax on perceived “wealth” which produces no income.

Winston Churchill once said that capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth, while socialism is the equal sharing of misery. It’s therefore no surprise that a cost-of-living crisis unfolds as policies drift increasingly toward socialistic ideals.

Good riddance to this abomination of a tax. Most people in the industry could see from the very start the gross unfairness, impracticality and irrationality of an unindexed tax on unrealised capital gains. It was a proposed tax on a fluctuating account value, not on actual income earned.
It should not even have taken this long to bury the idea.
But there are always people who automatically advocate for policies, even when those policies are plainly and logically wrong, simply on the basis of their own habitual, usually left wing, political affiliations. Now they are left trying to defend or reinterpret themselves after being deserted by their masters.

“…..strives for greater [commie] fairness”

oh, oh.

Do you see “commies” everywhere? This Labor govt could be accused of lot of things but communism is laughably not one.

It’s a strange alternate universe the far right inhabits.

One of the great proposed policy disasters of the last few decades, even Chalmers hero Paul Keating had to slap him down over it.

Taxing unrealised gains – in other words asking people to pay tax on money they hadn’t received – was even morally and financially worse that Robodebt (albeit a different target group). Retrospectively taxing superannuation is a complete breach of the social contract and the intent of superannuation and hopefully the parliament refuses to support it. What an embarrassment for a Treasurer clearly out of his depth.

Here’s a simple solution Jimmy – stop spending. Just like the RBA has asked you to do. Stop lumping the grandkids with hundreds of billions in debt. You might even help interest rates reduce if you do.

A few differences though… Robodept charged people who had almost no money. The super tax increases the tax for people who use super as a wealth storage, and affects mostly very wealthy people. Very few salary earners will ever see their super grow to exceed 3 million.

Very true Lars, the negative impact of robodebt was more pronounced because of its victims were welfare recipients. But in the case of robodebt at least it was based on historical declarations of additional income which were then extrapolated unfairly.

In this case the tax was being levied on unearned income or as Acton put it well above – “a fluctuating account value”. Morally that’s even less defensible than robodebt.

As you say Chalmers shocker will only impact wealthy people and you can bet that the ones with $10 million plus (40%) will be restructuring their affairs so the amount of extra income Jimmy gets will be very small. Wonder if he’ll start being branded dim Jim.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.