Superannuation Tax Concessions: $50 Billion a Year That Mostly Benefits the Rich
By Direct Democracy
Every year, the Australian federal government hands out around $50 billion in superannuation tax concessions. To put that in perspective, that's more than the annual cost of the aged pension, more than the entire defence budget, and enough to fully fund the NDIS with billions left over.
You'd think a concession that large would be widely popular, broadly shared, and rigorously defended on its merits. Instead, economists across the political spectrum largely agree it's one of the most poorly targeted, regressive, and expensive policies in the federal budget - a system that was designed to help ordinary Australians retire comfortably but has been quietly captured by the wealthy.
So how did we get here?
What Are Superannuation Tax Concessions?
When money goes into your superannuation fund, it's taxed at a flat rate of 15% - well below the marginal income tax rates most working Australians pay. Returns earned inside super are also taxed at just 15% (or 0% in the pension phase once you're drawing down). When you eventually withdraw your super in retirement, it's tax-free after age 60.
The idea was sound: encourage Australians to save for retirement by giving them a tax break on contributions and earnings. Reduce reliance on the aged pension. Sensible enough in principle.
The problem is the structure. Because the concession is calculated as the difference between your marginal tax rate and the 15% super rate, the benefit is dramatically larger for high earners.
Who Actually Benefits?
Consider this:
| Income Level | Marginal Tax Rate | Super Tax Rate | Concession Per Dollar | \n | --- | --- | --- | --- | \n | Under $18,200 (no tax) | 0% | 15% | *Negative* - they're worse off | \n | $18,201–$45,000 | 19% | 15% | 4 cents | \n | $45,001–$120,000 | 32.5% | 15% | 17.5 cents | \n | $120,001–$180,000 | 37% | 15% | 22 cents | \n | Over $180,000 | 45% | 15% | **30 cents** | \n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Someone earning $200,000 a year receives **seven and a half times more benefit per dollar** contributed than someone earning $40,000. And because high earners also contribute more in absolute dollar terms - and are more likely to have employers making voluntary contributions on their behalf - the gap compounds dramatically. |
According to the Australian Treasury and the Grattan Institute, the top 20% of income earners receive around 60% of all superannuation tax concession benefits. The bottom 20% - many of them low-income women working part-time - receive virtually nothing, or are actually penalised.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has projected that under current settings, superannuation tax concessions will exceed the cost of the aged pension by the mid-2030s. We will be spending more subsidising the retirement savings of wealthy Australians than we spend supporting elderly Australians who have nothing.
Why Does This Policy Exist?
The honest answer is: it was never really designed for the people who need it most.
Super was introduced by the Keating Labor government in 1992 - a genuine reform that built retirement savings for millions of Australians who had none. But over the decades, successive governments from both sides added layer upon layer of tax advantages that increasingly served high-wealth individuals looking for a legal tax shelter.
Today, some Australians hold super balances exceeding $10 million or even $100 million. These are not people who need government assistance to retire. They are using superannuation as a highly concessionally taxed vehicle for wealth accumulation and estate planning - a function it was never intended to serve.
Both the Howard-era Coalition and successive Labor governments expanded concessions or failed to wind them back. The industry superannuation funds - large, powerful, and politically connected - have a financial interest in maximising contributions. The financial planning industry profits from managing large balances. And the high-income earners who benefit most are also the most likely to donate to political parties, write submissions to Treasury consultations, and have their calls returned.
What Has Been Done - And What Hasn't
The Albanese Labor government introduced a modest reform in 2023: from 2025, earnings on super balances above $3 million would be taxed at 30% rather than 15%. This was projected to affect around 80,000 people and save roughly $2 billion a year.
It was immediately denounced as an attack on retirees. The Coalition voted against it in the Senate. Wealthy lobby groups ran campaigns. Some crossbenchers wobbled.
To be absolutely clear: a tax rate of 30% on earnings above $3 million in super is still lower than the tax rate a nurse pays on overtime. The reform was modest to the point of timidity. And even it faced enormous resistance.
Meanwhile, the structural concessions that benefit high earners on contributions - worth tens of billions annually - remained largely untouched.
The Bigger Picture: A System That Rewards Wealth
Superannuation tax concessions are a perfect example of a policy that persists not because it's popular with ordinary Australians, but because:
- The people who benefit most have disproportionate political influence
- The cost is invisible - it's forgone tax revenue, not a line item anyone sees
- Both major parties are beholden to industries and donors who profit from the status quo
- Complexity is a shield - most people's eyes glaze over when the topic comes up
Polling consistently shows that when Australians are actually informed about how these concessions work and who benefits, support collapses. A 2023 survey by the Australia Institute found strong majority support for reducing concessions on large super balances once respondents understood the structure.
In other words: if ordinary Australians had a direct say, we'd almost certainly choose differently.
This Is Exactly Why Direct Democracy Matters
This is the kind of policy that thrives in a political system where decisions are made behind closed doors, influenced by well-funded lobby groups, and insulated from genuine public scrutiny. When a small number of elected representatives control the outcome - and when those representatives depend on donations and preferential media coverage from the very people who benefit - reform is almost impossible.
Direct Democracy changes that equation. When members vote directly on policy positions and elected representatives are bound to follow those instructions, the interests of ordinary Australians - not major donors, not industry lobbyists, not the top 20% - drive the outcome.
Superannuation tax concessions are costing every Australian household real money: in higher taxes elsewhere, in underfunded services, in a budget that struggles to afford aged care, housing, and healthcare. Voters deserve a direct voice on whether that $50 billion is being spent wisely.
---
Want to have a real say on policies like this one? Take our [policy quiz](https://directdemocracy.com.au/quiz) to see where you stand, or [join Direct Democracy](https://directdemocracy.com.au/join) to become a member who actually votes on the issues that matter. This is your money. You should decide how it's used.