Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Register

30 August 2026

Home / 153

Survey on potential superannuation changes in Budget 2016

Changes are expected in the superannuation rules in the Federal Budget 2016. Here we list a ‘Deficit Dozen’ of potential amendments.

Please take our simple survey on what you would change (not what you think will change). It will only take a minute or so.

We will publish the first results on Sunday 1 May 2016, two days before the Budget.

The survey is now closed.

The potential changes are:

  • Extra 15% tax on concessional contributions ('Division 293 tax') for those earning $300,000 reduced to $180,000 or $250,000.
  • Annual cap on concessional contributions (before tax) reduced to $20,000 (or similar).
  • Annual cap on non-concessional contributions (after tax) reduced to $120,000 (or similar).
  • Abolish 'bring forward' rule which allows up to three years of non-concessional contributions in one go.
  • Introduce a tax on earnings for super in pension phase for people over 60.
  • Introduce a tax on pension payments for people over 60.
  • Introduce lifetime caps on concessional (before tax) contributions.
  • Introduce lifetime caps on non-concessional (after tax) contributions.
  • Abolish Transition-to-Retirement arrangements (but not retrospectively).
  • Remove current concession on capital gains tax for assets held in superannuation longer than 12 months.
  • Retain the low-income super contribution (LISC) scheme which is due to be scrapped on 1 July 2017.
  • Declare a freeze on any more changes to superannuation rules for at least the next three years.

Are there any other superannuation changes you think may be or should be introduced?

 

  •   28 April 2016
  • 15
  •      
  •   
15 Comments
Gary M
April 28, 2016

Add item 13: “tax-free (tax-payer funded) super fund income for life, tax-free (tax-payer funded) distributions for life, free (tax-payer funded) public transport for life, free (tax-payer funded) healthcare and medicines for life, free (tax-payer funded) utilities for life, plus a free slave for life.

Chris P.
April 29, 2016

To Gary M. I'll be the slave as long as I can play tennis at your place!

Rob
April 28, 2016

Bring back the Reasonable Benefits Limit (RBL). Tax payers should not be underwriting tax-sheltered luxury retirement or inheritance schemes

Graham Hand
April 28, 2016

Thanks for the great response already. Results and all comments published on Sunday night.

sharon
April 28, 2016

There is no certainty i...and we need to be able to plan ahead...I have had to budget and live within my means...Governments want to get their hands on super and I don't agree with any cuts excep to the Polly Pension and the extras...try that for a start

JP
April 28, 2016

No wonder the black economy exists. Politicians from any party just can't be trusted.

Richard
April 28, 2016

Seems to me that the politicians who change the super rules should also obey and use the same super rules as the public.

Also, seems to me that the politicians should be able to set the rules and leave them alone. Are they so incompetant that they have to keep changing the rules?

John
April 28, 2016

Agree with Sharon. Sick of parasitic politicians and public servants, with overly generous superannuation and other benefits provided at public expense, seeking to punish working Australians trying to provide their own retirement monies.

Errol Davey
April 28, 2016

"Parasitic politicians and public servants"sums up the feeling of 80%of the general public.--Why should their superannuation entitlements be any greater than any other Australians.We should be all in the one boat!

Janifer Eales
April 28, 2016

Leave super alone. The tax benefits are the carrot required to persuade people to put their life savings into something they cannot touch for 50 years that is subject not only to market forces but the whim of the political ruling class for all those years. Successive govts have suckered working people into believing they need super as they individually don't have the discipline, desire or brains to save and invest for their lifetime in other financial structures not so tied to political will.

Stanley
April 28, 2016

More lazy ill-conceived ideas are coming.

So you think you are safe because of fumbling politicians asserting 'no changes being applied retrospectively'?

With the last changes to old age pension rules, my then 77 yo sibling on part old age pension could only preserve the old asset test rules provided the super funded pension was never stopped and re-started after 31 December 2014. Effectively this change killed the concept of choice in superannuation provider, locking super provider arrangements as at 31 December 2014 unless willing to suffer the new asset test. Yes says the government, you can still exercise choice in super and escape the expensive for profit superannuation provider, but we will permanently penalise you for doing so.

The same advisers and public servants who delivered that outcome will be looking for you in the May 2016 budget.

Meanwhile…

What is a reasonable after tax income in retirement, measured as a percentage of after tax income before retirement?

Without access to the health benefits card, how much additional after tax income from super/investments is required to cover the additional health costs?

How does a woman take time out of the paid workforce to raise the next generation of taxpayers and still achieve a reasonable retirement income from superannuation? The blunt rules for additionally taxing incomes over some arbitrary amount does not respect women with low superannuation balances that in later life are still trying to match the males.

Michael
April 29, 2016

Can anybody raise the issue of same superannuation rules applying to both politicians and common people at this coming election. Any party who promises to change the superannuation rules to politicians will get my vote (and a great majority of votes, I guess).
Wow! Am I just a dreamer to expect politicians to act honestly when it comes to their remuneration and perks?

Stephen Huppert
April 29, 2016

Why are we spending time and energy on the 2016 Budget? Your survey is unlikely to change what the Government is going to do.

We should be spending all this time and energy on the real issue: the fact that Australians are having to deal with the risks of retirement with very little assistance from the industry that should be doing just that - the superannuation industry.

Graham Hand
April 29, 2016

Hi Stephen, you're correct this survey will have no impact on the Budget, but the fact that over 600 people have responded shows Cuffelinks' readers have an opinion and they want to express it. The comments provide a great insight into what people think about superannuation and possible changes. We will publish the results plus all the comments on Sunday and again in next week's newsletter. Cheers

Stephen Huppert
May 01, 2016

Yes - it is interesting to see what people think about the budget, and the budget is important. I look forward to the results but not as much as I look forward to government and superannuation industry really putting the consumer first.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Six ways the Budget Office is probing super taxes

Noel's share winners and loser plus budget reality check

How Canberra explained super changes to me

Firstlinks is sponsored by:
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why have Australian living standards 'fallen' and how do we fix it?

For the last few years there has been much talk of a 'cost-of-living' crisis in Australia and of 'falling living standards'. Lately this has flared up again with the pickup in inflation resulting in a renewed fall in real wages.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Four options for an income investor’s next dollar

What if Australia’s golden age of dividends is ending? Rather than overhaul your portfolio, it may be worth considering where new capital can work harder. I discuss four income strategies and the trade-offs behind each.

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

The ageing ‘crisis’ has not and will not happen

Rising age dependency is frequently treated as a warning sign for economies. But when actual workforce participation is examined, a strikingly different picture emerges about ageing, productivity and economic sustainability.

Retirement

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Shares

Four charts that expose market concentration risk

Investors have recently been rewarded for backing market leaders, but history suggests this eventually comes at a cost. Now may be the time to review whether your portfolio is carrying unintended risks beneath the surface.

Investment strategies

The case for gearing beyond property

Most Australians gear into property but ignore shares. That may be a mistake. Used carefully, geared equity strategies can enhance long-term returns, reduce cash tied up in growth assets and support retirement income goals.

Economy

Australia's $1 trillion debt pile

The headlines exclaiming that Australian government debt has hit A$1 trillion and US government debt has hit $40 trillion has turned heads, but how serious are they really? Will Australia's mix of debt create challenges?

Economy

Has 100 years of growth made us any happier?

For decades, GDP has been the benchmark for economic success, but has it made us materially happier? If happiness does not rise in lockstep with prosperity, are we overlooking what constitutes a successful society?

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

Site Map

About Firstlinks

© 2026 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.