this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
57 points (98.3% liked)

Australia

4891 readers
502 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
57
Richest super balances to be taxed at higher rates after Greens agree to back Labor plan (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 days ago by NomNom@feddit.uk to c/australia@aussie.zone
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If you retire at 60 with 3 million in super, you could spend $70k per year for 40 years

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

With $3m in super, you could draw $100k/year and assuming 5% growth you'd have over $3.5m after 10 years:

Year,Starting Balance,Withdrawal,Interest Earned (5%),Year-End Balance  
1,"$3,000,000","−$100,000","+$145,000","$3,045,000"  
2,"$3,045,000","−$100,000","+$147,250","$3,092,250"  
3,"$3,092,250","−$100,000","+$149,613","$3,141,863"  
4,"$3,141,863","−$100,000","+$152,093","$3,193,956"  
5,"$3,193,956","−$100,000","+$154,698","$3,248,653"  
6,"$3,248,653","−$100,000","+$157,433","$3,306,086"  
7,"$3,306,086","−$100,000","+$160,304","$3,366,390"  
8,"$3,366,390","−$100,000","+$163,320","$3,429,710"  
9,"$3,429,710","−$100,000","+$166,485","$3,496,195"  
10,"$3,496,195","−$100,000","+$169,810","$3,566,005"

"But $100k won't be enough in ten years!" I hear you say. Ok, let's give ourselves a 10% pay-rise every 10 years.

Year Range,Annual Withdrawal,Year-End Balance (End of Decade)  
Years 1–10,"$100,000.00","$3,566,005"  
Years 11–20,"$110,000.00","$4,355,900"  
Years 21–30,"$121,000.00","$5,497,281"  
Years 31–40,"$133,100.00","$7,196,668"

With a starting fund of $3m, and a 10% payrise every decade, after 40 years we have over $7m in our super fund. Now, what happens to our poor rich person who needs to pay 30% on growth above $3m?

Year,Annual Withdrawal,Ending Balance,Annual Tax Paid
1,"$100,000","$3,045,000",$0
10,"$110,000","$3,472,749","~$6,144"
20,"$133,100","$3,871,911","~$12,048"
30,"$161,051","$4,110,378","~$15,716"
40,"$194,872","**$4,052,857**","~$15,271"

Instead of ending up with $7m after 40 years, this poor individual now only has $4m after 40 years.

As I said, I really wish I had this problem!

[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Sure $3M would be a nice 'problem'.

But I'm more concerned about poor suckers like me and maybe you.

Your key assumption is that the asset value never goes down. And you are ignoring the impact of inflation.

We are looking at long terms here, and when and where things happen matters.

So, in the case of a 'comfortable' $800K (lol i wish). Well, if the market tanks, that could easily be 400K. Not so comfortable now? And the $50K a year you were taking out, maybe you have to halve that to make it last. Oh, and whatever you were drawing out? $50K in 10 years time, assuming 4% inflation, is only worth 2/3 of whatever you take out today. And if you start budgetting for increased health care and aged care as you grow older, well....

Even this has a large dose of 'assumes the status quo' in it

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

This article is discussing a tax on earnings in super funds above $3m.

I think that people who are earning more than my annual salary just from growth in the value on their pile of cash should be charged tax on that growth.

They can afford it better than any of us, and I'm always amazed at people who think this is a bad thing.

None of the present changes apply to your examples.

Perhaps that's the answer to my question: people criticise this tax because they worry it'll affect them?

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

If you have $3m in Superannuation, with a standard 6% ROI annually, you could spend $180K of “earned interest” every year without ever touching your principal.