Superannuation was once the silver bullet. Set aside a fraction of your pay, watch it grow, and by retirement age you’d have a nest egg to match your lifestyle. But the very system designed to deliver financial security is colliding with another force: the house that keeps running away. And for younger Australians, the contradiction is glaring—they may retire with a balance their grandparents couldn’t imagine, but no house to show for it.
At the centre of this tension lies the proposed $3 million cap on tax-concessional superannuation balances, set to apply from 2025. Earnings above that threshold will be taxed at 30% rather than 15%, with the government arguing this change is modest, affecting fewer than 1% of accounts. That’s technically true—today. Around 80,000 Australians sit above the cap, a drop in the ocean. But what’s modest now may become mainstream later. The cap is not indexed to inflation, nor to wage growth. Without adjustment, it becomes a slowly tightening vice.
Projections from macroeconomic analyst Tarric Brooker show the scale of this problem. A 22-year-old entering full-time work today and receiving average wages for life is projected to breach the $3 million cap by their early 60s. That’s with cautious assumptions—12% employer contributions, modest real investment returns, and wage growth of 3–4%. Treasury’s own modelling backs this up: a young worker today is on track to exceed the cap, not as an exception, but as the norm.
So, what was pitched as a tax on the ultra-wealthy risks becoming a stealth tax on anyone who has the audacity to work, save, and retire without needing the Age Pension. It’s a textbook case of bracket creep. The real value of $3 million shrinks each year with inflation, yet the tax line stays still. By 2040, that threshold could feel more like $2 million in today’s terms. Fast forward to 2060 and we’re taxing average retirees as if they were tycoons.
This drift is especially unfair when compared to the retirees of today. Most never had super for their full working lives—the system only became mandatory in 1992. Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones said recently the average balance at retirement is between $150,000 and $200,000. Among those aged 60–64, it’s about $400,000 for men and $320,000 for women. Compare that to the trajectory of today’s youth and the contrast is stark.
Meanwhile, the second part of the trap is playing out in the housing market. The national median house price is over $1 million, and in Sydney it’s close to $1.5 million. Price-to-income ratios are among the highest in the developed world, with Sydney clocking in at 16× the average annual income, Melbourne at 10×. This puts home ownership out of reach for many—even those earning above the median wage.
If current trends persist, a young worker in their twenties today may retire with $3–4 million in super, but still be renting, or saddled with an enormous mortgage. Brooker’s projections show house prices growing at around 5% a year, while wages grow at 3.5%. By 2067, median house prices in Sydney could top $11 million, with the national average around $8 million. That’s 20–30× income—territory that breaks conventional definitions of affordability.
This is where the contradictions deepen. The government is simultaneously taxing high super balances, while presiding over a housing market that may one day require precisely those balances to afford a home. Retirees may be told they’ve saved “too much” and get taxed more, only to need those very savings just to live somewhere that isn’t a sharehouse.
High immigration, AI disruption, and rising public debt all complicate the picture. Australia is growing fast—net migration is over 440,000 a year, and the population is expected to hit 41 million by 2060. Every new arrival adds to housing demand, and if supply doesn’t keep pace, prices will continue their relentless climb. That’s before considering the potential impact of AI on wage growth. If automation flattens earnings, the gap between housing and income will stretch even further.
Public debt is another silent player. The Intergenerational Report suggests deficits will persist to 2060 and beyond. With ageing populations, health and pension spending will balloon, squeezing the budget. It’s no coincidence that the super cap change was pitched as a revenue measure—it’s expected to raise $2 billion a year. But such policy tweaks, if miscalibrated, risk turning economic necessity into generational penalty.
Indexation of the cap is the most obvious fix. Tying it to inflation or wage growth would preserve the original intent: targeting very large balances. Without that adjustment, the threshold becomes a moving target, catching more ordinary savers each year. There’s precedent—other super limits are indexed. This one isn’t, and that feels deliberate.
Broader reforms are also needed. Tax concessions in the super system could be better targeted. Perhaps a progressive rate: 15% below $3m, then 30%, then 45% at even higher levels. Or reduce concessional contributions for high-income earners while boosting incentives for low earners. Meanwhile, housing needs a supply revolution. Zoning reform, streamlined approvals, and infrastructure spending could help. But without serious effort, demand—fueled by migration, tax settings, and investment—will keep outrunning supply.
The real danger is bifurcation. A future where the “asset rich” have multi-million super balances but no house, while others inherit property and sail through. Or worse: the emergence of an Australian underclass who never get a foothold in the market at all. These aren’t fringe outcomes—they’re plausible if nothing changes.
There’s time to act. Index the cap. Build homes. Rethink the tax incentives that reward owning five properties but punish saving too well. And above all, assess every policy through an intergenerational lens. Who benefits now, and who pays later?
A 22-year-old entering the workforce in 2025 may retire with a super balance worth ten times what their parents had. But if housing prices triple in that time, and tax thresholds remain frozen, what looks like wealth on paper could amount to little more than a forced savings account for a very expensive retirement rental. That’s the Australia we’re sleepwalking into. And it’s time to wake up.
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
