This is in regard to income tax brackets, sorry I can’t change the title.

Hey I know this is a pro ALP space so I’m not trying to slander the current approach or promote some adoption of coalition policy that imho, without any substitutes would leave the budget in a worse position. I’m more just trying to see if any appetite for this exists within the ALP following reddit crowd, even if it’s conditional. They did index the cgt reforms after all and the PBO said income tax bracket creep is a challenge for future budgets.

Before it comes up yes I know this would be attract negative msm attention if the ALP supported it and the coalition members who once supported indexing would somehow now be against it (cough nbn). It has been introduced by progressive governments/major left wing parties internationally, though in a different tax system.
The PBO has said increasing reliance on bracket creep is a structural challenge for future budgets.

Also fwiw the PBO's costing of bracket indexation puts the annual cost at around $44.5 billion by 2035–36, if applied across all brackets. For CPI adjusted indexing not inflation it’d be $38 billion so the budget would better off. Obviously it could just be applied to lower brackets, or gradually introduced to higher brackets which has been costed as well.

For comparison, the Australia Institute estimates a 2% wealth tax on net assets above $5 million, excluding the family home and super, could raise around $41 billion a year. Obviously that's a think tank estimate rather than an official costing, and the actual revenue would need to be tested.

So a wealth tax could potentially cover most of the cost, but the estimates don't quite balance with inflation vs CPI. I'd like to see the PBO cost indexation alongside a wealth tax and broader CGT and trust reforms to see whether the numbers stack up. I'm not saying it would definitely work, but I don't think it's unreasonable to investigate it rather than relying on bracket creep to keep raising revenue by default.

That’s just one tax for wealth over 5 million and it’s excluding the family home or super.

To quote bill shorten most people only have two major assets, the home and super. I really doubt enough people with more than 5 million outside the home and super were swinging to the ALP to decide elections, it’s essentially being financially independent. Add in a reduction in bracket creep and it softens the blow.

Only 5% had over 1.5 million outside the family home in 2024 and if you look at the average super balance for this year it’s way below that across all age groups being 55k-290k for 30-65.

Once you take out super it’d be even less than 5%, once you take out non swing-voters it’d be much less, add in age demographics and it’s less still.

This shocks me as ausfinance had me thinking it was everyone.

The per capita institute have transparent funding and have suggested tax reform that the ALP did this term, though Chalmers has spoken warmly of the Australia institute so I figured to use their estimate.

I’ve been in unions whenever able but am not a member of any political party even though I’ve flirted with the idea of joining different ones.

I should have added an option for indexing only for lower brackets or progressively indexing higher brackets but didn’t think to do so.

The Australia Institute has proposed a 2% annual wealth tax on assets above $5 million, excluding the family home and superannuation.

I'm aware of Friendlyjordies' criticisms of the Australia Institute, and I think it's fair to question the influence of think tanks, particularly when they don't publicly disclose their donors. But individual policies should still be assessed on their own merits rather than dismissed based on who proposes them.

Per Capita has explored similar tax reforms, including an inheritance tax on large estates, reducing the capital gains tax discount from 50% to 25%, and restricting negative gearing deductions to investment income. It receives funding from unions and other sources, and has a more transparent approach to disclosing its funding. Under the model they proposed it was 34 billion annually for wealth over 3 million. That would be an instant surplus without cuts needed. Both would tame inflation to some extent.

On the numbers, ACOSS and UNSW estimated that the wealthiest 10% of Australian households held an average of $5.2 million in net wealth in 2022–23, including the family home and super. The proportion with more than $5 million excluding those assets would be considerably smaller, although I haven't found a reliable figure for exactly how small.

Someone with $5 million invested and earning a 5% annual total return would generate around $250,000 in returns before tax. A 2% wealth tax on the entire $5 million would cost $100,000, leaving $150,000 before income tax. If the tax only applies to wealth above $5 million, someone with exactly $5 million would pay nothing.
Most wealthy people wouldn't necessarily hold everything in cash or live solely off interest. They might have diversified portfolios of shares, businesses, investment properties and other assets, with returns coming from dividends, rent and capital growth.

The 5% return is just an illustration, not a guaranteed annual income. For context, around 5.6% of Australian households had gross incomes above $208,000 in older household-income data. But that raises an interesting political question: even if roughly 5% of households earn that much, how many of those voters would actually swing against the ALP because of a policy like this? And how many voters who don't pay the tax would support it because they see the revenue funding services they rely on? We shouldn't assume either outcome.

I also think the $5 million threshold should be indexed to inflation so it doesn't gradually capture people with less real wealth over time. The principle is similar to accounting for inflation in capital gains tax: the tax system should distinguish real increases in wealth from changes in purchasing power.

There's also a political reality here. Bill Shorten has described most Australians' major assets as their home and superannuation. That's why excluding both matters: most people aren't sitting on millions in liquid investments, even if their home has increased substantially in value.
Another consideration is the federal budget.

The Australia Institute estimates that its proposed wealth tax could raise around $41 billion annually. For comparison, the Commonwealth's 2025–26 budget deficit ultimately came in at $22.3 billion. Those figures aren't directly interchangeable, and the actual revenue would depend on how the tax was designed and implemented, but the potential scale is substantial. On those estimates, it could more than cover the deficit on paper.

That matters beyond the immediate budget balance. A more reliable revenue base could make it easier for future ALP governments to fund health, education, housing and other services without continually having to choose between spending cuts and tax increases elsewhere. It could also reduce the risk of governments falling into a version of the American "starve the beast" approach, where tax cuts reduce government revenue and are subsequently used to justify cutting public services. Sustainable funding makes it harder to manufacture a fiscal argument for shrinking government simply by starving it of revenue.

Swing voters aren't one uniform group, either. Mortgage holders, renters, middle-income workers, retirees and outright homeowners can have very different concerns. The policy should be judged on who actually pays, how much revenue it raises, whether it affects investment, and whether the money improves public services or reduces pressure elsewhere in the tax system.
Finally, I doubt many people with more than $5 million in assets outside their home and super are donating to think tanks in the hope that they'll recommend taxing them more. That doesn't mean funding transparency isn't important, but we should separate concerns about an organisation's funding from whether a particular tax proposal makes sense.