X
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the SMSF Adviser bulletin
  • News
    • Money
    • Education
    • Strategy
  • Webcasts
  • Features
  • Events
  • Podcasts
  • Promoted Content
No Results
View All Results
  • News
    • Money
    • Education
    • Strategy
  • Webcasts
  • Features
  • Events
  • Podcasts
  • Promoted Content
No Results
View All Results
Home News

Inheritance tax could address questions of financial inequality: The Tax Institute

With a low rate and an appropriate threshold, the reintroduction of a proportionate inheritance tax could go a way in ensuring the bias against younger Australians being able to get a fair financial start is redressed, says one tax expert.

by John Buckley
July 23, 2021
in News
Reading Time: 4 mins read
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

The Tax Institute last week published a 287-page report called the Case for Change, which identifies the elements of the Australian tax mix that are overdue for reform in a bid to ignite discussion over the best way to rework Australia’s tax mix.

Within it, a case is made to explore the reintroduction of a federal wealth transfer tax or inheritance tax in a bid to close the gap on wealth inequality, which manifests itself most boldly in the transfer of wealth in Australia. It estimates that Australians over the age of 60 will transfer $3.5 trillion over the next two decades, with 78 per cent of the estimated wealth to be transferred to 20 per cent of recipients.

X

Andrew Mills, director of tax policy and advocacy at The Tax Institute, acknowledged the long-standing resistance to the idea of a wealth transfer tax in Australia, but said questions of financial inequality in Australia need to be addressed. 

“The core aim of a tax like this is to redistribute wealth and address the widening gap between wealthy and low-income households,” Mr Mills said. “With Australia’s ageing population, and post-COVID-19, this is a question of financial inequality that needs to be addressed.”

State leaders each abolished the inheritance tax in 1979, in a move led by National Party Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Then-prime minister Malcolm Fraser followed suit shortly thereafter and abolished the tax at a federal level, in what was perceived as a move to strengthen his electoral popularity.

The 2009 Henry Tax Review examined the issue in detail, and considered an inheritance tax as a “relatively efficient means of taxing savings”.

It suggested that the tax could be a progressive element of the tax and transfer system, with most of the revenue to be raised from the top 10 per cent of households by wealth, but stopped short of recommending the reintroduction of an inheritance tax.

Now, The Tax Institute’s report suggests that, if consideration is given to a wealth transfer tax in Australia, any rate set should be relatively low compared with other taxes, giving an example of 5 per cent above a hypothetical threshold of $2.5 million.

Mr Mills said the tax shouldn’t be introduced to penalise those that save and leave inheritance to their families, but to redress financial bias so that young Australians can get a “decent financial start” without having to come from rich families. 

“We’ve put forward the suggestion of a relatively low tax rate for an inheritance tax and an appropriate threshold,” Mr Mills said. 

“The idea is not to penalise those that save and leave a substantial inheritance to their families — it’s to ensure that we can redress the bias against all younger Australians being able to get a decent financial start, not just those coming from wealthier families.” 

The report suggests that a rate of 5 per cent over the threshold of $2.5 million would appropriately account for other taxes collected during an individual’s lifetime. 

Mr Mills’ support for the reintroduction of the tax follows the release of new research published by the University of South Australia (UniSA) which showed that public resistance to inheritance and estate taxes may have declined in the 40 years since they were abolished.

Dr Veronica Coram, a social policy expert at UniSA, said the decline in the bequest motive offers the nation a material opportunity for significant Australian tax reform — as well as the chance to address the social inequalities that often accompany wealth transfer.

“There’s nothing more certain than death and taxes,” Dr Coram said. “But while people generally assume the combination is notoriously unpopular, our research suggests otherwise.

“We talked to young adults and senior Australians and two-thirds of them thought Australia should consider reintroducing taxes on estates worth more than $3 million, while only one in 10 was definitely opposed.”

Like Mr Mills, Dr Coram said the faltering interest emerges as an opportunity for Australian tax reform, and to address the mounting wealth that often trickles down to those who mightn’t need an inheritance.

“The lack of interest in giving or receiving inheritances meant that most participants saw no reason to object to estates being taxed, which opens potential opportunities for much-needed tax reform,” Dr Coram said.

“Inheritances generally go to people who are already well off and don’t need them; they encourage inequality and inhibit social mobility.”

Dr Coram believes the tax could not only help close the gap on inequality, but also raise revenue and close a projected federal budget deficit of $106 billion for the 2021–22 year, and one as big as $1 trillion in 2025.

Tags: NewsTax

Related Posts

People will hold on to assets with revised Div 296 legislation to avoid CGT

by Keeli Cambourne
December 5, 2025

In the Senate Estimates on Wednesday (3 December) Senator James Paterson said according to the Parliamentary Budget Office, superannuation members...

Daniel Butler, director, DBA Lawyers

Keep transactions arm’s length in unit trusts to avoid hefty NALI tax: legal expert

by Keeli Cambourne
December 5, 2025

Daniel Butler, director of DBA Lawyers, said if dealings are not done at arm’s length, section 295-222(5)(a) can result in...

Mary Simmons

Understanding complex behaviour next challenge for SMSF sector

by Keeli Cambourne
December 5, 2025

Mary Simmons, head of technical for the SMSF Association, told SMSF Adviser that although changing rules and technical complexity will...

Comments 36

  1. Alex says:
    4 years ago

    People should be given an option to put the full amount into super tax-free.

    Reply
  2. Howard Hughes says:
    4 years ago

    Communism aimed to level the playing field also. If we want more money invested into equality by way of improved health services, education (including financial literacy), etc then why shouldn’t we expect our government’s public service to operate more efficiently like the rest of us have to in order to not waste money? The money that would be saved could then be used to fund such things instead of pillaging hard working people who’ve paid tax their whole lives on multiple levels (income, super, CGT, FBT, LCT, GST, MLS, Stamp Duties, etc). The government’s answer is always to tax instead of overhaul from within.

    Reply
    • John says:
      4 years ago

      The government does have a lot of fat to burn.

      “I pay the tax I am required to pay, not a penny more, not a penny less. If anybody in this country doesn’t minimize their tax, they want their heads read because, as a Government, I can tell you they’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.” Kerry Packer

      Reply
  3. Rob says:
    4 years ago

    I’m not against the idea, but how does imposing a tax on the ‘super’ wealthy diminish inequality – you want to make everyone equal by smashing the rich?

    Reply
    • Jenny says:
      4 years ago

      Its not smashing the rich. Remember the person who accumulated the wealth is no longer with us.

      It would level the playing field by using the tax money to invest in education, health and providing greater opportunities for the people who weren’t born into rich families. Do you think the children are entitled to huge amounts of wealth just because they were born into the family?

      My only concern is the government probably wouldn’t use the money appropriately.

      Reply
      • DavidL says:
        4 years ago

        Health and education are free in this country, so how exactly is the playing field not already level? Equality of opportunity is the best anyone can ask for – and we have that. It is impossible to legislate for equality of outcomes.

        Reply
        • Rich old bloke says:
          4 years ago

          You’ve obviously never gone to school without shoes. There is no equality in Australia and neither quality health nor education are free.

          Reply
        • Jenny says:
          4 years ago

          ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

          Health is “free” if you are on your death bed or can wait 2 years to get into surgery. Even then you still have to fork out a huge amount of cash. Dental is not free or basic drugs.

          Don’t get me started about education. Its free to enroll children into state schools, but still need to fork out for the uniform, books, other supplies and added events. University is not free, unlike between 1975 to 1984. The amount of HECS that university need to pay off is unbelievable. I’m lucky to have graduated before the price hike.

          Then there is the issue of kids going to school hungry, having poor role models due to socio economic situations. There could be initiatives put in place to resolve this. Have a read of this: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/EconEffects

          Reply
        • Brett says:
          4 years ago

          How wrong you are! Its hard to see the problems from a place of privilege. Try to step into their world.

          Reply
  4. Bill says:
    4 years ago

    Unless there was bipartisan support for such a tax I can’t see it taking off. If a government proposed it, the opposition would automatically oppose it.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous says:
    4 years ago

    Here is the key sentence “It estimates that Australians over the age of 60 will transfer $3.5 trillion over the next two decades, with 78 per cent of the estimated wealth to be transferred to 20 per cent of recipients.” – Communists can’t handle that

    Reply
  6. Anonymous says:
    4 years ago

    I agree the inheritance tax should be introduced. The level of taxation in this article is too lenient. Each person should have a $2million inheritance cap. Any amounts above the cap should be taxed at 100%

    Reply
    • Wildcat says:
      4 years ago

      That is a ridiculously stupid suggestion

      Reply
      • Ross says:
        4 years ago

        Its not too ridiculous of a suggestion. Why would someone need to inherit more than $2 mill? They should be lucky to be born into a rich family and all the opportunities that come with it.

        Reply
        • Wildcat says:
          4 years ago

          So a farmer has a property worth 10m and his kid runs it with him. The child is then forced off the the land as they can’t afford an 80% mortgage to pay the tax?

          Google “politics is a cow” and look up communism. You are right there my friend.

          This is just envy writ large. If you want that much money and aren’t lucky enough to have wealthy parents then go out and earn it. Don’t take out your frustration out on others.

          What this debate misses entirely is most wealth is not owned by individuals anyway. If the family has good advice mum and dad go out of this world owning nothing but the house anyway.

          An inheritance tax would only hit middle class wealthy with poor structuring and estate planning, not the very wealthy. There needs to be more intelligent debate on this subject by those that actually understand how it works.

          I don’t object to the principle that has been raised in the article but crafting the legislation is way more complex than most people realise. Therefore the response that individuals will take will also be expensive and time consuming. As a result more resources will be wasted in this country already drowning in red tape and will likely be net negative. Unless you count the wealth distribution impact of fees but this will only go to lawyers, planners and accountants. Great outcome ++??

          Reply
          • Bob says:
            4 years ago

            This really raises the question of affordability of farms. If someone can not make a farm profitable with a $2M head start, this raises serious questions.

          • Greg says:
            4 years ago

            Good point on wealthy people will always be able to afford accountants and lawyers to structure their estate to avoid taxes.

            We should still try to shut it down

          • Anonymous says:
            4 years ago

            Didn’t Bill Shorten loose an election over this…

          • Anonymous says:
            4 years ago

            Even though people avoid tax by storing their wealth in trusts and companies, an individual needs to hold the end units or shares. Even with complex structures involving units being held by a company, whose shares are held by another structure. At the end of the line, someone must have ownership of the units/shares.

            This would make it hard to get an accurate valuation of the estate.

          • Jenny says:
            4 years ago

            Do you not see what is wrong with your comment?

            Its basically saying that if you want to own a farm, here is the possible options:
            1. Be born into a family that owns a farm and inherit it
            2. Be born into a family that can provide multi million dollars to buy a farm
            3. Win the lotto

            Cause without help, there is no chance for a regular person to buy a farm. All the jackaroos, jillaroos, shearers, farm hands can say good buy to the dream of owning their own farm because their is no chance they could raise over $2 million earning a honest living.

            This is the true meaning of inequality and restricted social mobility. People should not be entitled to excessive amounts of wealth just because they come from a rich family.

          • DavidL says:
            4 years ago

            No, Jenny, they are not the only options. You could also put your balls on the line, take out a massive loan, work 70 hours a week, and risk everything to make a go of it instead of complaining that others have more than you.
            I think you’ll find that’s how every successful enterprise started. If someone is willing to risk their family’s future to build something, then it’s only right that their family should reap the rewards.

          • Jenny says:
            4 years ago

            DavidL, the options outlined were based on Wildcat’s comment that a person could not get a loan to buy the family property with a $2 million inheritance. If this was the case, your option to take out a massive loan is not a viable option….

          • Rob says:
            4 years ago

            Wildcat, not sure how many middle class people will have $2M at death. $2M easy when they first retire, but not at the end of their life. $4M if they have two children, which is normal for middle class families.

            The concept of a middle class person having more than $2M at death is about as out of touch as politicians thinking a $180K salary is normal.

        • Kylie says:
          4 years ago

          True. If it is $2M per person, a couple could inherit $4M between them. Using a 4% SWR, this could amount to an extra $160K per year for the couple before eating into the capital. This would make life very easy for a couple. They could start working part time or retire early.

          Reply
          • John says:
            4 years ago

            The average children per family in Australia is 2 (rounded up). If you include partners, up to $8 mill of inheritance can be passed to children. This doesn’t include grand children.

      • Greg says:
        4 years ago

        What I find ridiculous is the concept that someone is entitled wealth and standard of living just because their parents had money. Make the children earn their own money!!! Plus $2million is a lot. If you can’t set yourself up for life off that amount of money, you don’t deserve it!

        Reply
      • Mike says:
        4 years ago

        The report suggests a limit of $2.5m and then 5% tax. I am over 60 and will not have anywhere near that after working 40+ years. My kids will have a leg up at least. Probably has merits at this early stage.

        Reply
        • Anonymous says:
          4 years ago

          Great point Mike. A lot of people are objecting to this, but in reality it would have minor impact on the majority of the population.

          Reply
      • Anonymous says:
        4 years ago

        Personally I think it is a great suggestion except for the 100% level. Just because your parents have money doesn’t mean you should get it for nothing.

        Reply
    • Tax man says:
      4 years ago

      If this occurred people would just pass their wealth (apart from $2M) to the beneficiaries before death or find another structure to pass the wealth.

      Reply
    • Maryanne says:
      4 years ago

      You say that because you obviously haven’t worked hard enough to provide for you and your family. I have paid taxes for the last 50 years. Is that not enough. Now I have to give my money to someone living on social security. Where is the drive anymore to achieve. Oh no wait the government has stuffed up the economy with Covid now they want all our savings to get them out of their mess

      Reply
  7. Anonymous says:
    4 years ago

    The children did not earn it, why should they receive more than 1c of inheritance tax free?

    Reply
  8. Albert says:
    4 years ago

    An appropriate threshold could be set at $25M; and an appropriate rate set at 5%. But that will not satisfy the social policy experts.

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      4 years ago

      $25M is a lot of money…

      Reply
    • Olivia says:
      4 years ago

      I think this is a good suggestion to get the inheritance tax over the line. The vast majority of people would not be impacted by a $25M threshold.

      After its implemented, hopefully people could see that its a great policy and the threshold could be lowered and the rate raised. This could get our nation out of debt a lot quicker.

      I honestly would not be objected to 17.5% over $5M

      Reply
      • Rex says:
        4 years ago

        You obviously are not due to inherit over $5M. Stop burning the rich.

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.
SMSF Adviser is the authoritative source of news, opinions and market intelligence for Australia’s SMSF sector. The SMSF sector now represents more than one million members and approximately one third of Australia's superannuation savings. Over the past five years the number of SMSF members has increased by close to 30 per cent, highlighting the opportunity for engaged, informed and driven professionals to build successful SMSF advice business.

Subscribe to our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

About Us

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Collection Notice
  • Privacy Policy

Popular Topics

  • News
  • Strategy
  • Money
  • Podcasts
  • Promoted Content
  • Feature Articles
  • Education
  • Video

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited

No Results
View All Results
NEWSLETTER
  • News
  • Money
  • Education
  • Strategy
  • Webcasts
  • Features
  • Events
  • Podcasts
  • Promoted Content
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited