
Tax reform isn't hard. Slug multinationals and subsidise the things we want more of
As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones.
Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on.
The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity.
The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world.
Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24.
Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park.
Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree.
We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix.
The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change.
As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities.
We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them.
Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need.
But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come.
Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like.
Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors.
The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies.
READ MORE EBONY BENNETT:
While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free.
Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits.
That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate.
If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms.
Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size.
As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones.
Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on.
The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity.
The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world.
Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24.
Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park.
Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree.
We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix.
The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change.
As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities.
We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them.
Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need.
But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come.
Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like.
Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors.
The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies.
READ MORE EBONY BENNETT:
While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free.
Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits.
That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate.
If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms.
Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size.
As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones.
Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on.
The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity.
The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world.
Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24.
Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park.
Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree.
We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix.
The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change.
As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities.
We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them.
Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need.
But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come.
Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like.
Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors.
The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies.
READ MORE EBONY BENNETT:
While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free.
Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits.
That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate.
If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms.
Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size.
As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones.
Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on.
The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity.
The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world.
Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24.
Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park.
Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree.
We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix.
The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change.
As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities.
We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them.
Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need.
But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come.
Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like.
Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors.
The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies.
READ MORE EBONY BENNETT:
While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free.
Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits.
That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate.
If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Age
6 hours ago
- The Age
The inside story of how Australia's moment to shine in the arts world went horribly wrong
The historic grip of major galleries over Australia's representatives had been broken, and the newish selection process seemed to be serving Australia well. On December 16 last year, Collette and Creative Australia's head of visual arts, Mikala Tai, conferred and the pair's selection was confirmed, the decision tightly held in the organisation for weeks for fear it would leak. Among the select few with knowledge of the successful team, the decision was regarded as 'bold' or 'courageous' – Sabsabi's Lebanese heritage and public pro-Palestinian stance connected him to the Middle East at a time when conflict in that region was emotive and polarising. But a week before the planned February 7 announcement, police lobbed their own explosive device into this febrile mix, going public with their investigations into a caravan loaded with explosives in north-west Sydney. The incident was quickly labelled a 'terrorism threat', although later the Federal Police would describe it as 'a criminal con job'. By then, a federal election was imminent and polling showed voters were starting to turn against Labor. Loading Two days after the caravan discovery, Creative Australia briefed Minister for Arts Tony Burke on its upcoming announcement. Mention was made in the ministerial dispatch that Sabsabi, along with other artists, had withdrawn from the Sydney Festival in 2022 in protest after the festival accepted funding from the Israeli Embassy, 'out of solidarity with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause'. But the minister's office was not alerted to historical works which would later be raised in the Murdoch press and in parliament, including You (2007), a multichannel video and sound installation featuring imagery of the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, in the collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art. 'That the work was seen as highly ambiguous, and already nearly 20 years old … appears to have given staff confidence that any controversy connected with the work could be managed,' the report says. A staff member later left a message with Burke's office alerting them to the work's existence but appears not to have followed that call up. A 'questionable' matter The board of Creative Australia was backgrounded on the winning team but played no direct role in the selection process. Members were not alerted to any potential controversies. Days after the team's announcement, as its sister tabloid paper defended allegations it tried to entrap a Sydney cafe in an antisemitic sting, The Australian described Sabsabi's use of imagery of Nasrallah as 'ambiguous' and 'questionable'. Collette and senior members of his team were unaware of a second sensitive work, Thank you very much (2006) featuring imagery of the 9/11 attacks and US President George W. Bush, until Senate question time two days later when the Coalition's then-shadow arts minster Claire Chandler rose to her feet. By all accounts, Chandler's questions sparked panic. Soon after, around 3pm, the CEO, chair and head of public affairs held a call with Creative Australia's external communications advisers, who concluded the negative media narrative around the artist and his prior artworks posed a significant risk to the reputation of Creative Australia if the stories continued to run. Burke then called Adrian Collette at 3.30pm asking why he was not alerted to the contentious artwork. He later insisted he did not demand Sabsabi's head. The report found that the minister's statement was consistent with the information received by the panel during its review. Loading Collette later recalled in testimony to Senate estimates: 'We anticipate always that the selection of the Venice artist will be controversial. It has been from time immemorial. 'Everyone has a view on the artist, on the art. We don't resile from any of those decisions; we haven't in the past. But what happened at that moment was a recognition by me and the board that this entire process was going to be mired in the worst kind of divisive debate.' At 6.05pm an emergency meeting of the board had been convened, and it was determined to offer the artistic team the opportunity to withdraw from the project under threat of sacking. The board did not seek the advice of the head of visual arts or its head of communications, and did not allow the artist to present his case. It was beyond the panel's terms of reference to judge the legitimacy of the board's decision, but it's clear the board acted hastily without drawing breath. The board could have announced a review of the team's selection. Instead, it brought a gun. 'Nobody except those involved can ever know how fraught and heartbreaking that meeting was,' board member and artist Lindy Lee later recalled. She resigned the next day. Officially, the board said it acted to avoid the unacceptable risk to public support for Australia's artistic community of a 'prolonged and divisive debate'. The panel found the board felt compelled by 'a strongly negative narrative [that] was expected in the media around the artworks and the artist, and the decision to select the artist had become a matter of political debate'. Another factor that may have been weighing on some board members was the potential for the controversy to be used as a battering ram to reduce the funding and independence of Creative Australia. With an election imminent, Creative Australia faced an existential threat from cuts, real or imagined, as conservatives made every noise they would follow the playbook of Donald Trump in stirring up the culture wars. Notably, it is in a more benign political environment with Labor securing a thumping majority that Sabsabi and Dagostino have now been reinstated. In any event, at 7.41pm on February 13, Collette contacted the artistic team and advised them of the board's decision. Sabsabi and Dagostino refused to resign. Forty minutes later, after the board's statement was prepared, Collette made three unsuccessful attempts to contact them. Sabsabi and Dagostino later recalled being stunned by the turn of events: 'The Venice Biennale is one of the biggest platforms in Australian art,' Sabsabi told this masthead. 'To be selected and then have it withdrawn was devastating. It was heartbreaking and has caused ongoing anxiety. It's had a serious impact on my career, my wellbeing and my family's wellbeing.' By 6pm the following day the Herald had broken the news that philanthropist Simon Mordant had resigned, along with Mikala Tai and program manager Tahmina Maskinyar. Petitions and protests followed, the outrage lasting four months until the board voted two weeks ago to rescind its decision. Had Creative Australia been as well-prepared for the public announcement as it should have been, it is possible that its senior leadership and board may have reached a conclusion that any controversy around both works could be sensibly managed, the report concluded. The organisation was caught between its conflicting desire to do right by the artists and political realities. Ultimately, the entire mess could have been avoided if cooler heads had prevailed and due processes were followed. Changes afoot Former publisher Louise Adler is not the only commentator to draw parallels between the Sabsabi debacle and Antoinette Lattouf, the radio broadcaster who was last week awarded $70,000 after a Federal Court found she was unfairly sacked by the ABC for her political opinions concerning the war in Gaza. Like Lattouf, Sabsabi's pro-Palestinian views were well known at the time of his appointment, and complaints flooded Creative Australia as soon as the appointment was publicised, cheered on by the Murdoch media. Holding or expressing a political opinion was held by the federal court as not a valid reason for terminating Lattouf's employment, even at the national broadcaster. Sabsabi and Dagostino had been selected by an open expression of interest process, by an organisation founded on the principle of artistic independence. Both stand as an abject lesson to the dangers of knee-jerk reactions to pressure tactics. Sabsabi and Dagostino speak of a sense of renewed confidence that allows them to move forward with optimism and hope after a period of significant and collective hardship. The arts world feels vindicated by their intervention. Loading It's likely there will be changes to the Venice selection process, and there is every indication that Collette, an experienced arts administrator, will seek to make things right, and then make a diplomatic exit. 'At the end of the day, Adrian became the kingmaker,' said one campaigner. 'He brought the recommendation to the board. The buck stops with him.' Mikala Tai made a rare statement via social media after a period of media silence in which she said she had come to learn why she wanted to work in the arts industry. 'I have also learnt a lot about cultural leadership. That we have conferred leadership on administrators and that this is a distraction from the fact that artists remain the heart of the industry and that the moment we forget the artist, we sacrifice the industry.'

Sydney Morning Herald
6 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australian government super tax: Most Australians are far from being affected by new tax on Superannuation, ATO data shows
Known as the super guarantee, this rate has gradually climbed from 9 per cent in 2013 to 12 per cent, beginning this month, meaning younger workers will be contributing a larger slice of their income to their super over a longer period. Chalmers has said Labor's legislation would not increase the $3 million threshold in line with inflation, meaning more people would be pushed past the cap in decades to come, and by which time that amount will not be worth as much in real terms. Loading Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Sally McManus told Channel Nine's Today program this week that it would be 'a very long time into the future' before the average worker would be affected by the $3 million cap. McManus also said the threshold has 'got to be indexed' to make sure most people do not end up being hit by the new tax rate. Calculations based on the latest ATO data, for example, suggest a surgeon – the highest income occupation in 2022-23 – earning the job's average salary of about $470,000 a year, and contributing 12 per cent to a super fund (returning an average of 5 per cent), would still have to work about 22 years to accumulate $3 million in superannuation. That includes an assumption that their wages grow at 3.5 per cent a year. Under the same assumptions, an individual earning $180,000 would have to work 34 years before reaching the $3 million cap, and a person earning the median salary of $62,000 in 2022-23 would have to work five decades. The data from the Tax Office shows the median super account balance for those earning more than $180,001 grew from nearly $304,000 in 2021-22 to just over $315,000 in 2022-23, while the overall median balance climbed from $57,900 to $60,000. Grattan Institute Housing and Economics Security program director Joey Moloney, meanwhile, says that in 30 years' time, the $3 million threshold will still hit only the top 10 per cent of income earners, and the threshold – like ones for personal income tax – is likely to change under future governments even without indexation. 'There are people forecasting 30-, 40-plus years into the future as if this threshold will never change,' Moloney said. 'That strikes me as a very bold assumption because there'll be 10 electoral cycles in between that.' Moloney also noted that 85 per cent of those with super balances over $3 million are aged over 60 and the super tax change would reduce the pressure on younger Australians because older, wealthier Australians would shoulder more of the burden of budget repair and the ageing population. Latest data from the ATO shows men aged 60 to 64 and women aged 70 to 74 have the biggest median super balances, at just under $225,000, with both seeing a drop-off in the size of their nest eggs after 75. Men in the ACT, Western Australia and South Australia had the highest median super balances in 2022-23, while among women, median super balances were highest in the ACT, South Australia and Tasmania. Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.


Perth Now
9 hours ago
- Perth Now
Brothers turn side hustle into $100m empire
It started with a single phone case produced by two dentists. Now it is one of the world's fastest-growing luxury brands. Australian brothers Omar and Zane Sabré's 'side hustle' has evolved into Maison de Sabré, a homegrown luxury leather house now standing shoulder to shoulder with the world's most elite fashion brands. 'We're literally just two guys that started just thinking that they could do something. And then really actually followed through and did it … it's phenomenal,' Omar said. 'We really wake up every morning and just sort of pinch ourselves and be like, this is insane, you know?' Australian brothers Zane and Omar Sabré swapped their careers as dentists to build a global luxury powerhouse. Supplied. Credit: Supplied Walking away from careers as dentists, the brothers credit their rise to an unwavering commitment to craftsmanship, from their very first meticulously designed phone case to today's collection of refined luxury bags. 'We were there to sort of shake luxury up and give it a new definition,' Omar said. What started as a direct-to-consumer business has grown into a full-scale luxury house, now sold in over 150 countries and stocked by retailers such as Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Ave, and Bloomingdale's – with revenue set to surpass $100 million for the first time in 2025. Omar Sabré said the brothers still pinch themselves over the brand's meteoric rise. Supplied. Credit: Supplied Launched during Zane's time at dental school, the brothers poured everything into their 'side hustle' and by the time Zane graduated, the brand had become their full-time focus. 'By the time I graduated, we made the decision to go full-time in the business and leave our dental careers behind us, which was back in between 2017 and 2018,' Zane said. 'From there, we only had one core product, which was this phone case, it was quite a meticulous phone case, we used … some of the best materials and the best craft.' In just eight years, the duo has turned their vision into one of Australia's most prominent fashion exports, proudly redefining what Australian luxury looks like on the global stage. 'We're able to export Australian creativity onto the world stage and I think that's something that's been really rare,' Omar said. 'It's something that we really take a lot of pride in … because when people hear about Australian leather goods, it's typically the first time they've ever heard that phrase.' The brothers say they are proud to represent Aussie creativity on the global stage. Credit: Supplied The bond between the brothers has been a quiet superpower behind the business – helping them scale fast without losing the trust, chemistry, and aligned purpose that comes from family. For Zane, working with his brother is the 'best thing in the world'. 'There is nobody else you typically really want to do it with other than your own blood, someone you've grown up with and have been joined at the hip ever since you were kids, 'On paper, it makes the most sense; in reality, it makes even more sense.' Maison de Sabré is taking on heritage luxury brands on their own turf. Supplied. Credit: Supplied Described as a quiet luxury 'disrupter', Maison de Sabré is set to become the first Australian brand to launch a multi-venue retail activation across Saint Tropez, Mallorca, and Cannes, a space long reserved for heritage fashion houses. 'I think we're on to something truly special,' Zane said. 'We're excited to represent a brand from Australia as two guys that really knew nothing about business or entrepreneurship or luxury or fashion eight, nine years ago, now being able to sit alongside some of the best in the world.'