Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 58

Age pension reform: income taper change is unlikely

I have previously suggested that reform of the age pension is likely at some point in the future and investigated one area of reform (the approach to pension indexation, see Cuffelinks 21 March 2014). I now look at another reform candidate, the income test taper rate. Once again we can identify how complex and sensitive an area of reform this would be – the Government needs to tread carefully!

Background on age pension income testing

Currently the full age pension fortnightly base payment for a single is $751.70, which can increase to $827.10 once supplement payments are included. Combined couple base payments are $1,133.20 ($1,246.80 with supplements).

To be eligible for the age pension you must meet age and residency requirements. The amount you receive is dependent on two tests, one based on the income and the other on the level of assessable assets. In this article we focus on the income test.

The income test consists of a threshold level; beneath this level the age pension entitlement is unchanged. For singles this level is a fortnightly income of $156 and for couples $276 combined. For each dollar earned beyond this level of fortnightly income the age pension fortnightly rate is reduced by 50 cents. So a single age pensioner would receive no age pension payments once fortnightly income reaches $1,841.60 (or a combined income of $2,817.20 in the case of couples).

In 2009 the Rudd government introduced the Work Bonus programme. Under this programme, a level of employment income is excluded from the income means tests ($250 per fortnight per individual regardless of whether one is single or part of a couple).

What did the Harmer Review say on income testing?

The ‘Harmer’ Pension Review, released in 2009, looked at income means testing in detail. It was a balanced exploration of the issues. Some key issues were:

  • to ensure that those with a moderate reliance on the age pension were not receiving inadequate government support
  • a focus on sustainability, meaning that there should exist sufficient incentives for those past retirement age to work 
  • treating different segments of the population equitably (by income and age).

With regard to the first dot point, the Harmer Review found that that “there is no evidence that the means test as a whole is operating to provide an inadequate level of support to pensioners with low to moderate reliance on the pension.”

The second dot point questioned whether high taper rates were sustainable given the backdrop of an aging population. The taper rate could be thought of as an effective tax rate. Once a single person (or a couple) earns more than the relevant minimum level of income, then for every additional dollar, even though it is (usually) not taxed, they receive a lower age payment. This has the same net effect on disposable income as a tax on earnings. To this extent, a taper rate of 40% (as it was at the time of the Harmer Review) represents an effective marginal tax rate of 40% - very high for low income earners. This could be viewed as a major deterrent to working beyond pension eligibility age. This taper rate is now 50% making working pensioners effectively the highest taxed (from a marginal perspective) of all working Australians.

From an equity consideration (the third dot point) the Harmer Review considered that those on low income were given appropriate assistance and that the poor required more additional support. The Harmer Review also identified large inequalities between the outcomes of workers below working age versus those who are eligible for the age pension. For instance, at the time of the Harmer Review, an age pensioner who is in employment and is paid the equivalent of the Federal Minimum Wage would have had a disposable income of $627.84 a week. Compared to the outcome of a non-pensioner ($494.44 a week), it is easy to identify the inequality that exists based on age.

Following this review, the Rudd Government announced major reforms to age pensions in 2009. The pension rate was increased and the income test taper rate was also increased, from 40c in the dollar to 50c in the dollar. The previously mentioned Work Bonus scheme was also introduced. This all appears to be reasonable policy: for those not looking to work the changes represented a redistribution of government age pension capital to the poor and away from those with other income sources (supported by the Harmer Review), while those looking to work are less penalised by high effective tax rates.

The effect on an individual of these changes is illustrated in Chart 1 below. The effect of the changes on couples is similar.

Chart 1: Impact of 2009 Rudd government changes to age pension

The changes make a small amount of work a more financially attractive proposition for those past retirement age. This fits nicely with Harmer Review focus groups where people were most people said they were not looking for full time or stressful work. The benefits of the Rudd Government changes gradually disappear as employment income increases and for those earning $2,000 per fortnight the changes have little or no impact.

Where is the potential for age pension reform with respect to income test taper rates?

I see little potential for a direct change to income test taper rates. Decreasing taper rates would be expensive for the government. And if taper rates increase then this will increase the financial disincentives to work and more people will cease to participate in the workforce and collect a higher age pension. It is worth noting that amongst the many (137 to be exact) reform recommendations of the Henry Review, it was recommended that no change be made to the way that employment income is treated versus investment income: the Work Bonus appears supported by those who have undertaken the major reviews.

I suspect that income test taper rates are not prominent on the Coalition budget radar. Issues such as pension rate indexation, asset testing (specifically the assessment of your home), and the age pensioner concession card appear more obvious candidates for reform.

 

David Bell’s independent advisory business is St Davids Rd Advisory. In July 2014, David will cease consulting and become the Chief Investment Officer at AUSCOAL Super. He is also working towards a PhD at University of NSW.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Mind the (expectations) gap: demographic trends and GDP

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.