Weighing super pros and cons in teal seat home to biggest balances

Voters in Monique Ryan’s Melbourne seat of Kooyong are divided on whether the teal independent should support Anthony Albanese’s tax increase on super balances above $3m.

Kyle Sewell in Kooyong on Wednesday. Picture: Arsineh Houspian

Voters in Monique Ryan’s Melbourne electorate of Kooyong are divided on whether the teal independent should support Anthony Albanese’s tax increase on superannuation balances above $3m.

Lukaa, a doctor who voted for Dr Ryan at the 2022 election and did not want her last name published, said she believed the changes were “unfair”.

“We work very hard and pay high tax,” she said.

“Yes, we should help other people. That’s OK. (But) I already pay tax on my car, house, when (I paid) stamp duty.”

She said the government ­“already eats half” her salary in tax, and changes to superannuation being proposed by the Prime Minister would discourage young people from working hard.

Kyle Sewell, 38, who also voted for Dr Ryan, said he did not “100 per cent agree” with the changes.

“Why are we targeting individuals, not companies?” he said.

“But also, ($3m) is a significant amount of money. Superannuation is for retirement … but the cost of everything is going up.”

Kooyong, located in Melbourne’s east, has the highest super balance of any electorate in the country, with the average among individuals there $328,066, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. That is $26,000 more than the next highest seat, Higgins – ­located just south of Kooyong.

Grace, who did not want her last name published, voted for Dr Ryan and backed the changes.

“Given the state of the economy … if I was on an income ­bracket at that level it is a reasonable contribution,” the 29-year-old said. “It would not seem crippling to me.”

Michael Waugh, who voted for former treasurer Josh Frydenberg, labelled it a “horrible, unjust, unfair and sinister” policy.

“The real reason behind it is to use private money on (public infrastructure projects) like social housing,” the 60-year-old said. “I don’t have a problem with social housing, but my tax should ­already pay for that.”

Andrew Hunter, who also voted for Mr Frydenberg, said “the whole thing is bloody messy”.

“The government has to be ­realistic (and) help people to put money away for super so they are not relying on the government in old age,” the 79-year-old said. And Tracy, who voted for Labor’s Peter Lynch at the federal election, said the tax increase was fair.

“I think a lot of people in this demographic have more cash. (They) put their money (into super) to prevent paying tax while the rest of us pay it,” she said.

Harley Kirkwood, who voted for Mr Frydenberg, said it was “not easy to accumulate that much wealth” and supported a 30 per cent tax on nest eggs worth more than $3m.

“The purpose of 15 per cent was to build nest eggs for people. (Super) wasn’t designed to benefit people that were already in a position of wealth,” he said.

He said the contributions taxed at 30 per cent would not occur until the end of that individual’s ­career and they would have a huge salary to begin with.

Additional reporting: David Tanner