Lifetime tax breaks for mothers should be a priority, argues Liberal MP before party review

Special tax breaks for mothers should be considered as part of an overhaul of the tax system to better support 'modern families', a Coalition MP has argued.
As Jim Chalmers opened the door to a national debate on tax reform, the opposition backbencher Garth Hamilton said 'everything must be on the table' to redesign the system in favour of families.
The new Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, will soon outline details of the process her party will use to review its policies – including on tax and net zero – after its thumping federal election defeat.
But Hamilton, who was the deputy chair of the house economic committee in the previous parliament, said he was not waiting for the party review process to start, joining other Liberal MPs in publicly floating tax ideas.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The advocacy offers a preview of the types of ideas that will be raised, and how public and contested the internal policy brawl will be, as the Liberals thrash out a platform to fight the next election.
Hamilton is planning to run a tax review process of his own, which would bring together like-minded MPs during parliamentary sittings and host events with expert speakers.
'Our tax system must have a purpose and that purpose must be to make life better for Australian families. It's no longer enough to invent new taxes just so governments can have more money to spend,' the Groom MP told Guardian Australia.
'We need a tax system that's inclusive, that supports modern families, whatever shape they may be. If you are looking after each other, Australia should be looking after you.'
Hamilton said one of the ideas that should be on the table was lifetime tax rate deductions for mothers, in recognition of the fact they faced lower salaries when returning to the workforce.
Viktor Orban's far-right government in Hungary is introducing a radical version of the idea, offering lifetime income tax exemptions for mothers of two or more children as part of a plan to address the country's falling fertility rate.
Hamilton understood the fertility rate argument but said he viewed the policy as more of an incentive to work and to help women build their super balances.
He is also among the conservative MPs who support income splitting, a recurring policy idea that would allow parents to split combined incomes evenly across two tax returns, lowering the household's overall tax bill.
For example, if one parent earned $120,000 and the other earned $40,000 then both would be taxed at the rate of someone on $80,000.
One Nation pushed the policy at this year's federal election as a means of supporting stay-at-home parents. The former Coalition senator Gerard Rennick asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to model a similar policy earlier this year, which calculated it would cost roughly $12.5bn over two years.
In a sign of widening support in conservative circles, the rightwing Liberal senator and shadow assistant minister for families and communities, Leah Blyth, has publicly argued the case for income splitting over the past week.
'It's not fair. It's not sustainable. And it's time we backed families,' Blyth said of the existing tax settings in a social media post last week.
The Australian Financial Review reported Blyth was also working on a proposal to make private school fees tax deductible while cutting taxpayer funding to them.
Speaking before Chalmers used a speech to the National Press Club to set the scene for tax changes, the shadow finance minister, James Paterson, reiterated that the Coalition was prepared to work 'constructively' with the government.
'It is self-evident that we do not collect tax in this country as efficiently as we could, and it holds back our prosperity and our productivity and our efficiency as an economy, and there are gains that can be made by reforming the tax system,' Paterson, who is acting shadow treasurer, told Sky News.
'But that is not a blank cheque for this government to increase taxes.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Guardian

3 hours ago

• The Guardian

Australians can look forward to a bigger nest egg as super guarantee rises to 12%

Australian workers can look forward to a bigger nest egg, with an increase to the superannuation guarantee to add tens of thousands of dollars to the average super account. From 1 July, employers' minimum required contribution to employees' superannuation accounts will rise from 11.5% to 12%. It is the latest and last in a series of incremental increases from 9% over more than a decade since they were legislated by the Rudd-Gillard Labor government in 2012. With the latest bump, a 30-year-old earning $60,000 would have an extra $20,000 in super by retirement, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. It will add about $300 each year to the superannuation of a worker on a $60,000 salary, or $500 for someone on a $100,000 salary. 'The system foundations are cemented for young, working people to have a comfortable retirement,' the ASFA chief executive, Mary Delahunty, said. 'It's a moment all Australians should be proud of.' Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email The association said the cost of a comfortable retirement had increased 1.6% in the past year, while the cost of a modest retirement rose 1.7%. A 'comfortable' retirement includes top-level health insurance, a reasonable car and leisure activities. The cost of either outcome was increasing slower than Australia's current 2.4% headline inflation but retiree budgets remained under pressure from rising food, energy and health costs. Couples on average need $73,900 annually for a comfortable retirement, while most singles require $52,300 a year, ASFA says. For a modest retirement covering the basics, couples needed $48,200 each year, singles $33,400, or for renting couples, $64,250, and $46,660 each year for singles who rent. The figures underlined the importance of increasing Australia's housing stock, Delahunty said. 'They also illustrate how super can be the difference between hardship and stability later in life, especially for renters.' For some workers, the extra contribution would come from their existing pay package, according to CPA Australia's superannuation lead, Richard Webb. 'It's a good idea to check with your employer to see how they view the changes and what it means for you,' he said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Workers on contracts with a total remuneration package could see a slight drop in their take-home pay, while those on award or enterprise agreements would likely receive the contribution on top of their current pay. When compulsory superannuation was introduced in 1992 – in part to reduce government spending on the age pension – only one in 10 Australian retirees listed super as a source of income. Nine in 10 people between 30 and 50 now have super. Government spending on the age pension was projected to fall from 2.3% of gross domestic product in 2020 to 2.0% by 2062-63, despite a doubling of the over-65 population and a trebling of over-85s over the same period. However, the super guarantee increase would not help those who missed out on paid work for extended periods, the Super Consumers Australia chief executive, Xavier O'Halloran, said. '(For) people who have caring responsibilities or who have been locked out of the unaffordable housing market … increasing SG further won't address those inequalities,' he said. O'Halloran said there was more that could be done to support people struggling in retirement, when a significant portion of their autumnal years' savings were made. 'Right now, there are no minimum standards for retirement products like there are for MySuper,' he said. 'There is also no performance testing of retirement products, so super funds can still sell poor products.'

The Independent

6 hours ago

• The Independent

Republicans weigh Medicaid changes amid ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill's' unpopularity

This week, Senate Republicans released the tax and health care parts for their version of President Donald Trump's desired 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' But they face a huge problem: The bill is becoming incredibly unpopular. A poll from Ipsos and The Washington Post found that a plurality of Americans oppose the bill, with 42 percent opposing it, 34 percent saying they have no opinion and 23 percent saying they support it. Specifically, they are grappling with the unpopularity of the bill's changes to Medicaid. And it does not show signs of letting up. On Monday, the Senate Finance Committee released the text of its part of the bill. During the debate around the bill in the House, Republicans made it so that able-bodied adults without dependent children would have to work, participate in education or community service for 80 hours a month. Conservative Republicans lobbied to make the work requirements begin in 2026 rather than 2029. The Senate bill goes even further. For one, it lowers the age at which children are considered dependent to 14 years old. That means parents of children older than 14 would have to work to keep their Medicaid. Sen. Jim Justice, a freshman from West Virginia, defended the work requirements. 'Biblically, we are supposed to work,' he told The Independent. 'We have taken the dignity and the hope and the belief away from a lot of people where they are hopeless, they think they can't. ' According to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, about 29 percent of West Virginians are on Medicaid and 62 percent of West Virginians on Medicaid work either part-time or full-time. It seems Republicans know how politically caustic touching Medicaid might be. Sen. Bernie Moreno, a freshman from Ohio, tore into reporters. 'You guys really need to report it accurately, though, which is we're actually increasing the amount of money we're spending on Medicaid,' Moreno told The Independent this week. 'We're spending more on Medicaid. We're also eliminating the abuse by able-bodied adults, and we're reinstating the fact that Medicaid is for people who need it.' Trump has said he wants the bill done by the July 4th holiday. Earlier this week, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Mehmet Oz, the television host, met with Senate Republicans to discuss the bill. The legislation also seeks to cap the level of provider taxes. To pay for Medicaid, many states levy taxes on facilities like hospitals or nursing homes. This often allows for states to collect the money to receive matching funds from the federal government. Under the proposed bill, states that did not expand Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act signed by then-President Barack Obama, would be prohibited from raising provider taxes. States that did expand Medicaid would see their provider taxes reduced by 0.5 percent annually until they are capped at 3.5 percent in 2031. 'The provider tax is a way around the match,' Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota told The Independent. 'The whole point is for us to get after waste, fraud and abuse, and the provider tax is a way for states to avoid putting up their share of the match.' Sen. Ron Johnson, a fiscal hawk who has wanted the bill to slash even more spending, went a step further. 'It's legalized fraud, it's not health care,' the Wisconsin Republican told The Independent. 'Why are we paying for taxes reimbursing state taxes and fees? It's absurd.' But the proposal in the bill raised alarm bells for hospitals, since Medicaid accounts for 19 percent of all hospital revenue, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Many rural hospitals also rely on Medicaid given the large number of rural residents who are on Medicaid. Chip Kahn, the CEO and president of the Federation of American Hospitals, said in a statement earlier this week that the Senate text made the bill worse. 'Rural communities across the country will be the hardest hit, with struggling hospitals compelled to face difficult decisions about what services to cut,' he said. 'It's imperative Senators take a detour on this text and reject its deepening of the House cuts already on the table.' But it's not just the hospital lobby that hates the text so far. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, the biggest defender of Medicaid among Senate Republicans, criticized the provisions. 'I'm totally surprised by what they proposed to do on the provider tax I don't know why we would defund rural hospitals to pay for Chinese solar panels,' he told The Independent, referring to the fact that Senate version draws down the renewable energy credits from Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act at a slower pace than the House's version of the bill does. Hawley later said that he spoke with Trump about the subject. 'I think that you know he's he does not want to have Medicaid benefits cut,' Hawley said, adding that Trump doesn't want to see rural hospitals hurt either. But Hawley is not the only Republican worried about the effect on hospitals. Sen. Susan Collins, who faces a tough re-election in Maine in a state Trump lost. 'I'm looking at whether there would be receptivity to a provider relief fund that would be aimed at rural hospitals, nursing homes and community health centers,' Collins told reporters on Wednesday. 'I've not endorsed in any way, a provider tax change.'

Wales Online

9 hours ago

• Wales Online

How much do British Lions players get paid?

How much do British Lions players get paid? The Lions begin their summer tour preparations with a match against Argentina in Dublin on Friday night Maro Itoje and his Lions team-mates are set to make a lot of money this summer (Image: 2025 Getty Images ) The British & Irish Lions kick off their summer tour this evening with a warm-up game against Argentina in Dublin. It is the first time in their history that the touring side have played a match in Ireland and head coach Andy Farrell is certainly taking the curtain-raiser seriously. ‌ The Lions boss has named a strong XV to face the Pumas at the Aviva Stadium, with Wales skipper Jac Morgan starting and Welsh scrum-half Tomos Williams being selected on the bench. ‌ Both will have an opportunity to lay down a marker for the upcoming Test series against Australia, with excitement now building for the trip Down Under. Being selected for the Lions is widely regarded as the ultimate honour for players in the northern hemisphere. Former skipper Sam Warburton said during his playing days: 'To finally get that Test jersey playing the first match against Australia, which we managed to win, that is the only jersey that I have hanging up in my house – that's how proud I am of that one. 'For me that was the biggest and single most important game I have ever played in. Article continues below 'When you are playing club rugby, yes you want to play for Wales and I wanted to play for Cardiff but in the back of my mind I always set my sights really high on playing for the Lions. 'There was pressure on the players and as captain I felt a lot of responsibility. That was why it was such a relief to get the Test series win against Australia – an amazing feeling but we also knew that people would be optimistic about the Lions moving forward to the next series.' Along with the honour of representing the Lions, players also get rewarded financially - and quite handsomely too. ‌ According to the Telegraph, this summer's tour is set to be a record-breaker, with a £10million profit expected. A new profit-sharing agreement will see selected players pocket £100,000 each for their contributions in Australia. That is a 25 per cent increase on the tour to New Zealand in 2017, which saw players pocket £80,000 for their efforts. The trip to South Africa in 2021 was played behind closed doors due to Covid. "We know that players love playing for the Lions, and it is the pinnacle of their professional careers, and this landmark agreement highlights how they are at the centre of our thinking," said Lions chief executive Ben Calveley. Article continues below Simon Keogh, Rugby Players Ireland chief executive, added: "Players are central to the ongoing success of the British and Irish Lions Tours and we are delighted that their views – including those of Lions heroes of the past – have been heard throughout this process. "I'd like to thank the British and Irish Lions for their honesty, transparency, and genuine consideration of the players' voice. "As a result, I believe that we have reached an agreement that is both fair and reflective of the strong collaboration between all stakeholders in rugby."