Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 80

Tax and the financial planning process

With the forthcoming Government White Paper on the Australian tax system and some comments that the Murray Inquiry made with respect to tax and the financial system, it is timely to have a look at where tax fits into financial planning.

An indicator of a good tax system overall, as the public finance economists love to say, is that tax should not impact on economic behaviour. Or, to put that another way, taxes should not ‘distort’ economic activity, which in the context of financial planning, means taxes should not ‘distort’ where individuals save because, after all, financial planning is just saving and investing.

All very well in theory. However, this is not the case in the real world and taxes can have a significant effect on how individuals save. In fact, the Murray Inquiry highlighted six different ways in which the Australian tax system distorts the way individuals save and it is these that will come under review with the Government White Paper.

So what are they and how do they affect the way a person saves?

  1. Tax affects asset selection by individuals. That is, tax impacts on which assets an individual (or SMSF) will hold. Probably the best example of this is Australian company shares that pay imputation credits. Investors will actively seek out this class of investment specifically to get the tax effect of dividend imputation.
  2. Taxes affect asset allocation by individuals. That is, tax impacts how much a person will invest in or allocate their savings to each type or class of asset. Perhaps the outstanding example of this is the family home, which is tax exempt and is the asset class owned by the majority of Australians.
  3. Tax affects how much individuals will borrow. The Henry Review noted that the Australian tax system of negative gearing actually incentivised people to ‘gear up’ for favourable tax advantages.
  4. Tax affects asset location. In other words, tax affects where the assets are held. SMSFs are the best example, and they have become the preferred holding vehicle for many people’s wealth.
  5. Tax affects whether individuals will invest directly or use a financial intermediary. The tax affects here can be subtle, such as the use of carry forward tax losses, which is not as effective in financial intermediaries when compared with investing directly. Some retail and industry superannuation funds do not handle the transition from accumulation to pension efficiently when compared with SMSFs.
  6. The Australian tax system affects when to dispose of an asset. Individuals get a 50% tax discount and SMSFs get a one-third tax discount if they wait at least 12 months before disposing of the asset.

Although the theory is that the tax system should have no bearing on how people save and invest, these six differences will come under serious scrutiny by both Murray and the Government White Paper.


Gordon Mackenzie is a Senior Lecturer in taxation and business law at the Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales.

Warren Bird
April 17, 2015

This website, which quotes ABS Census stats, confirms the accuracy of Gordon's statement.

April 17, 2015

The family home is not owned by the majority of Australians. In my suburb Western suburbs Perth) it is approx 33% owned, 33% mortgage and 33 % renters. In the younger age group I know in other suburbs they are renters, mortgage stress (interest only ) or living at home with parents, please explain your facts a bit more clearly.

Mike Timmers
September 26, 2014

It is true that availability of imputation credits is frequently said to affect asset selection (ala point 1 in this article) - of Australian tax residents at least. But should it? Since an imputation credit is a fully refundable tax offset think of it like this - the paying company is distributing that part of its profit on a pre-tax basis and the franking amount has been withheld and remitted to the Tax Office as a type of prepayment of the shareholder's ultimate tax liability. As such dividends could be considered equivalent to other investment incomes, for example such as trust distributions and interest on deposits which are paid from pre-tax profits - which could have tax withheld and remitted to the ATO where the investor fails to provide a TFN or ABN. In this way the gross return from those forms of investments can be compared on a like-for-like basis. What is important is the gross income yield, not so much the tax prepayment represented by the tax withholding.

Of course shares carry a prospect for capital growth as well as risk of loss, compared with a cash deposit, which should be considered in the investor's risk-return equation.

Bruce Bennett
September 23, 2014

If negative gearing is to remain a part of the Australian taxation system, should its scope be limited and its benefits spread more widely? For example, in the case of residential or commercial real estate only allowing negative gearing for investments in new property or, in the case of equities, limiting it to investments in new infrastructure funds.


Leave a Comment:



Let's make this clear again ... franking credits are fair

SMSFs, member-direct and Labor's franking

Retained profits a conspiracy against super and pension funds


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.