$3,000 superannuation boost coming for Aussies from July 1: 'Huge difference'
Superannuation will soon be paid on the government's parental leave payments. The change means Aussies could receive nearly $3,000 extra into their retirement fund, which could make a 'huge difference' over time.
Parents with babies born or adopted after July 1 will receive the additional superannuation payment when they receive paid parental leave. This will be 12 per cent of their payment, in line with the super guarantee rate increase.
UniSuper senior private client adviser Melinda Brown told Yahoo Finance the changes also coincided with paid parental leave increasing from 22 to 24 weeks. It will increase again on July 1, 2026, up to 26 weeks.
RELATED
Devastating superannuation tax reality hitting 50,000 Australians in growing trend
Centrelink age pension changes coming into effect from July 1
$1,000 ATO school fees tax deduction that Aussies don't realise they can claim
'At the minimum wage and with the super contribution of 12 per cent, that's nearly $3,000 that's going to be put into their superannuation,' she said.
'Compounding over a number of years, it is going to make a huge difference. Especially as we know that women generally retire with 25 per cent less in superannuation than men.'
Paid parental leave is based on the minimum wage, which will increase by 3.5 per cent to $24.95 per hour, or $948 per week, on July 1.
The move is expected to improve the retirement balances of around 180,000 Australian families each year.
In Australia, WGEA data found 68 per cent of employers offer access to paid parental leave on top of the government scheme.
The majority (87 per cent) who offer paid parental leave also pay superannuation for parents while they are on leave.
For workers who don't, Brown said it can be worth asking your employer if they will pay super during your leave.
'The more an employer is asked this question, the more they may decide to think about actually paying super on parental leave,' she said.
If you are eligible for parental leave pay, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will pay a super contribution directly to your super fund.
This is called the Paid Parental Leave Superannuation Contribution (PPLSC).
If you share your parental leave, each parent will get the super contribution based on how many days they use. It will be paid automatically after the relevant financial year ends, starting from July, 2026.
Brown said it was important for parents to take proactive steps to prepare their super before they go on parental leave.
That includes checking your insurance, as inactive super accounts may lose cover unless you elect to keep it.
'That can happen if it's been over 16 months since you've had a contribution,' Brown told Yahoo Finance.
'So you can actually ask your super fund. There's usually a form where you can just elect to ensure that you do keep that cover.'
It can also be worth considering voluntary contributions before or during your leave to help grow your super, or spouse contributions or splitting.
'At the end of each financial year, you can split the super contributions received from the employer so your concessional contributions, you can split to your spouse if you wish,' Brown said.
"It's up to 85 per cent of the concessional contributions. So they do allow for the 15 per cent contribution tax, and it's also limited to the concessional cap.'
If you have multiple super accounts, it could also be worth consolidating them to save on fees. You can get this through myGov.
It may also be worth considering your investment mix and getting financial advice tailored to your circumstances.
'A lot of super funds these days do provide limited advice at no extra cost to you. So it can be a really good time to have a chat to your super fund about what services they can help you with,' Brown said.Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New ‘bonus' tax deduction up to $6,000 could be on the way for those age 65 or older
If the massive tax package currently being debated in Congress becomes law, Americans who are 65 and older will enjoy a hefty new tax break: An additional $4,000 to $6,000 drop in taxable income, thanks to a new additional standard deduction. The House version of the tax bill calls for a $4,000 additional deduction, while the Senate version ramps that up to $6,000. The House approved its version in May, and the Senate is working now to bring its version to a vote. Then the two chambers will need to massage each bill into one cohesive whole, before sending it to President Donald Trump for signature. The potential bad news for taxpayers? There would be income limits, with the value of the tax break phasing out starting at a modified adjusted gross income of $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for married-filing-jointly filers. This new tax break would be temporary, in effect only from 2025 through 2028. 'The bottom line is if you're in the modified adjusted gross income that gets this, it will save you on taxes,' says Mark Gallegos, a CPA and tax partner at Porte Brown LLC in Chicago. This would put 'more money back in people's pockets, and I think that's the whole point,' he says. House version Senate version Additional standard deduction $4,000 $6,000 Income limits Starts to phase out at income of $75,000 for single filers, $150,000 for couples Starts to phase out at income of $75,000 for single filers, $150,000 for couples Permanent or temporary? Temporary; in effect from 2025 through 2028 Temporary; in effect from 2025 through 2028 Available to taxpayers who itemize? Yes Yes It seems likely that this new tax break would be added on top of the existing additional standard deduction that Americans who are 65 and older already enjoy. In 2025, that additional standard deduction is worth $2,000 for a single filer aged 65 or older, or $3,200 for a married-filing-jointly couple if both spouses are age 65 or older (if just one spouse is 65+, the additional deduction is $1,600). Neither the House nor Senate proposals are clear about whether the new tax break would be added on to that existing tax perk, says Mark Luscombe, a CPA and principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting in Chicago. Nothing indicates that it would replace the existing additional deduction, 'so my interpretation is it's in addition,' Luscombe says. Keep in mind, too, that both bills propose an increase to the existing standard deduction that's available to all taxpayers. This gets a bit complicated, so let's back up a bit: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act essentially doubled the value of the standard deduction, effective from 2018 through 2025. Now, both the House and Senate tax bills would make that tax change permanent. On top of that, each of the bills would give the standard deduction a slight bump: The House bill would temporarily increase the standard deduction by $2,000 for joint filers, $1,500 for head of household filers and $1,000 for single filers and those married filing separately, effective 2025 through 2028. The Senate bill would permanently increase the standard deduction by those same amounts, starting in 2026. So if one of these bills becomes law, then taxpayers aged 65 or older would enjoy the slightly higher standard deduction, plus their regular additional standard deduction, plus the new additional standard deduction. Here's an example of how these tax breaks would work, assuming the Senate's $6,000 version becomes law and assuming the new tax break is on top of the existing additional deduction. Example based on Senate's proposed bill A 70-year-old single taxpayer with taxable income of $50,000 in 2026 likely would qualify for these deductions: $16,000 standard deduction $2,000 existing additional standard deduction $6,000 new additional standard deduction That adds up to a $24,000 total deduction. Thus, $50,000 minus $24,000 = $26,000 taxable income. That reduction in taxable income would drop the taxpayer into the 12 percent tax bracket, from the 22 percent tax bracket. Learn more: Current tax brackets and federal income tax rates This new additional standard deduction would be in lieu of tax-free Social Security benefits for retirees, an idea touted by Trump on the campaign trail. That's because changing how Social Security benefits are taxed would be complex — and costly, reducing government revenues by as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Adding an extra standard deduction is simpler and cheaper. The $4,000 proposal in the House bill would reduce government revenue by an estimated $66 billion over 10 years, according to a report from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Also, the proposed tax break would help out lower-income taxpayers more than ending taxes on Social Security benefits would have, Luscombe says. For one, Social Security beneficiaries with lower incomes generally don't owe taxes on their benefits — that's a fate that hits higher-income beneficiaries. Plus, the proposed new tax break – both the Senate and House versions — has income limits that would skew the benefit toward lower-income taxpayers. 'This proposal has a phase-out, which is unusual for a standard deduction,' Luscombe says. 'That would tend to focus it on lower- to middle-income taxpayers.' Also unusual for a standard deduction? This one would be available to people who itemize their deductions. Still, 'very few people at these income levels are itemizing,' Luscombe says. 'Only about 10 percent of taxpayers currently itemize, even with the current standard deduction.' Learn more: How to choose between claiming the standard deduction and itemizing
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Key admission in social media ban update
The brains tasked with finding a way to enforce Labor's world-leading social media ban for under 16s say it is possible but that there is no 'silver bullet'. The preliminary findings of the Age Assurance Technology Trial (AATT) were released on Friday just six months before the ban was set to come into force. Project chief Tony Allen said his team found 'there isn't a one solution fits all' but rather a range of options that parties could use. 'There isn't like a silver bullet that will solve everything,' Mr Allen told Sky News. 'And different providers of social media services, for instance, will need to explore exactly what will work for them and their users, and that's really for them to assess their risk and to consider what they might want to implement.' In terms of what it might look like in practice, he suggested 'successive validated' – a series of tests designed to firm up a user's age. Mr Allen said it could start with 'something which is fairly simple, like holding your hand up or showing your face or talking'. 'And then that might not give you sufficient level of confidence, so then move on to maybe age inference techniques, or ultimately, they may need to move on to age verification where you need some sort of record or document,' he said. The trial uncovered some challenges. It found parental control and consent systems could be effective when first rolled out but could not 'cope with the evolving capacity of children' or properly protect a 'child's digital footprint'. It also warned that 'service providers were over-anticipating the eventual needs of regulators' and over-collecting user data. This consequently 'increased risk of privacy breaches', according to the findings. But Mr Allen said the 'clear conclusion' was that enforcing age limits could be enforced safely. He held back on putting a figure on the efficacy, noting the measurers were not 'foolproof'. 'There are ways that they (children) can get around them,' Mr Allen said. 'But then we've had tobacco laws for 100 years to stop children accessing tobacco, and it doesn't stop them from accessing some children from tobacco. 'So you have to try and work on how you reduce the risk and reduce the instance. 'You'll never completely eliminate it.' NewsWire understands the full findings will be handed to the government later this month.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Media Ban Moves Closer in Australia After Tech Trial
(Bloomberg) -- Australia's world-first social media ban for under-16s moved closer to implementation after a key trial found that checking a user's age is technologically possible and can be integrated into existing services. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing The conclusions are a blow to Facebook-owner Meta Platforms Inc., TikTok and Snap Inc., which opposed the controversial legislation. Some platform operators had questioned whether a user's age could be reliably established using current technology. The results of the government-backed trial clear the way for the law to come into force by the end of the year. The findings also potentially allow other jurisdictions to follow Australia's lead as countries around the world grapple with ways to protect children from harmful content online. 'Age assurance can be done in Australia and can be private, robust and effective,' the government-commissioned Age Assurance Technology Trial said in a statement Friday announcing its preliminary findings. The trial's project director, Tony Allen, said there were 'no significant technological barriers' to stopping under-16s gaining social media accounts. 'These solutions are technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online,' he said. Under the new law, digital platforms including Snapchat, Meta-owned Instagram, and X will be responsible for enforcing the age limit, with penalties of as much as A$50 million ($32 million) for breaches. The trial tested a range of methods and technologies, including facial scans, inferring a user's age based on their behavior, age verification, as well as parental controls. The tests also took into account the ways teenagers might try to circumvent age checks. 'We found a plethora of approaches that fit different use cases in different ways, but we didn't find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases,' the trial said in its statement. More than 50 companies participated in the trial, while Apple Inc. and Google, developers of the most popular mobile-phone operating systems, are also contributing, Allen said on a video conference call on Friday. The trial didn't assess public acceptance for any particular technology or the costs involved. The accuracy of the different methods, for example the margin of error for facial analysis, wasn't made available. (Adds details of trial in final four paragraphs.) Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
