InvestSMART

Beware super surprises

The rich may not be the only ones to be hit by Canberra's tax tinkering.
By · 27 Apr 2012
By ·
27 Apr 2012
comments Comments
The rich may not be the only ones to be hit by Canberra's tax tinkering.

HIGH-INCOME earners and possibly those with large superannuation balances - frequently referred to as the 1 per cent - may have to rethink their personal finances if the federal government tinkers significantly with superannuation in the budget.

There is no doubt the government plans to claw back revenue through a change in superannuation tax treatment. And there seems to be uniformity among the pre-budget leaks that one area up for grabs is the 15 per cent concessional rate at which contributions, over the 9 per cent paid in by employers, are taxed.

This will affect many more than the top 1 per cent as plenty of Australians make top-up contributions. But it could provide juicy revenue for the government without annoying its heartland voters. While limiting or eliminating concessions on super contributions would be unpopular, the real sleeper would be an attempt to change the 15 per cent tax on earnings inside super funds.

Budget leaks on this possibility are not so firm. While Canberra has clearly thrown the idea around, it is no certainty. But the impact of such a move is great and high-income earners would have to think twice about topping up their super until there is budget clarity.

If the government increases the tax on income inside super it could be done only on larger balances - and may not be applied to lower-income or even middle-income earners with lower balances.

One effect that an increase on the tax rate of income in super funds would be that funds would be diverted into investments that still attract some tax benefits. The most obvious is the franked dividend.

Whether inside or outside the umbrella of super, listed shares that provide fully franked earnings have the potential to be far more attractive. This is because those investments that do not deliver tax-free income in super funds, such as bank interest, would benefit from the franking credits on shares by offsetting more of the higher tax rate. This could push up the prices of high-yielding, fully franked shares.

The downside to investing on yield, which is a function of dividend over share price, is that the share price could be low because of the high risk associated with future earnings.

Among the high-yielding stocks are some of the riskier players such as Myer, David Jones, Pacific Brands, Specialty Fashion Group and Tabcorp.

But there is also a group of stocks with less volatile earnings that sits among the high yielders. The top 30 with fully franked dividends include Telstra and the big four banks.

Those at the very top of the wealth pile can put up to an additional $450,000 over three years into superannuation - but this doesn't attract any concessional tax rate. The government could try to reduce this amount.

There is no real political downside in damaging the top 1 per cent of earners, who could ultimately abandon super. The mere and constant threat of unfavourable changes to the tax treatment has already prompted a reluctance by some high-income earners to put fresh funds into super.

An adviser with an investment banking firm that specialises in the affairs of wealthy individuals told me his firm had been telling clients for years to avoid saving via super and structure their affairs around trusts.

The practical problem with attempting to target the highest-income earners is that they will find more tax-effective ways to invest. The middle-income earners who do not have million-dollar balances in super may end up being collateral damage.

IT IS early days in the Peter Slipper affair, sufficiently so that it is hard to get a sense of whether Andrew Wilkie's attempt this week to reinvigorate his plan on pre-commitments in gambling will find support either with the government or the opposition. But it is worth having a watching brief on companies that would be affected by a Wilkie win.

James Packer's Crown was active in lobbying against Wilkie. Crown's Melbourne and Perth casinos would be negatively affected. It is one issue on which Packer would be in agreement with the board of Echo Entertainment, whose earnings could also take a hit. It has casinos containing pokies at the Star in Sydney and Jupiters in Queensland.

Woolworths has a huge number of machines in its Victorian pub business, thanks to winning the gaming licence from Tatts and Tabcorp. Aristocrat could be a short-term beneficiary if Wilkie was successful as many poker machines would need to be replaced.

There are plenty of moves left in the game of political chess being played, thanks to the allegations against Slipper. Wilkie is back in the game but it remains to be seen whether he can extract a win.

Google News
Follow us on Google News
Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.
Share this article and show your support
Free Membership
Free Membership
InvestSMART
InvestSMART
Keep on reading more articles from InvestSMART. See more articles
Join the conversation
Join the conversation...
There are comments posted so far. Join the conversation, please login or Sign up.

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

The article notes the government is considering changes to superannuation tax treatment that would hit high-income earners. Proposals include revising the 15% concessional rate on contributions and possibly increasing the tax on earnings inside super funds. If implemented, wealthy people who use super for tax advantages may rethink topping up their balances or seek alternative structures outside super.

No. While the intent may be to target the top 1%, the article explains many Australians make top‑up contributions, so altering the 15% concessional rate could affect a much broader group of taxpayers, not just the wealthiest.

Raising the tax on earnings inside super could be targeted at larger balances and might not apply to lower‑ or middle‑income earners. The move could discourage top‑end contributions, prompt investors to move money into other tax‑effective vehicles, and lead super funds to favour investments that retain tax benefits, such as fully franked shares.

The article explains that if super earnings are taxed more heavily, investments that deliver franking credits (fully franked dividends) become relatively more attractive because franking credits can offset higher tax rates. That could boost demand — and prices — for high‑yield, fully franked shares.

Among the high‑yielding stocks cited are riskier retailers like Myer, David Jones, Pacific Brands and Specialty Fashion Group, and gaming company Tabcorp. The article also points out Telstra and the big four banks sit among the top 30 stocks with fully franked dividends, making them relevant to dividend‑focused investors.

Yes. The article mentions wealthy Australians can currently put up to an additional $450,000 over three years into superannuation without concessional tax treatment, and it suggests the government could try to reduce this amount as part of revenue‑raising measures.

The article warns that targeting the highest earners may encourage those individuals to find other tax‑effective strategies (for example, trusts), while middle‑income earners without million‑dollar super balances could end up as collateral damage if concessions are tightened more broadly.

If Andrew Wilkie’s push for mandatory pre‑commitments in gambling gained traction, the article says casino operators such as Crown (James Packer’s business), Echo Entertainment (with The Star and Jupiters) and some venues linked to Woolworths could see earnings hit. By contrast, machine manufacturers like Aristocrat might be short‑term beneficiaries if many poker machines needed replacing.