Australia · Wealth & Taxation
When Billionaires Die,
Who Gets the Money?
Australia has ~150 billionaires holding wealth greater than a third of annual GDP. When they pass away, almost none of that flows back to the public — while ordinary Australians fund the very infrastructure that made those fortunes possible.
🏛️Under current Australian law, the government receives $0 in estate or inheritance tax.
The Law — What actually happens when an Australian billionaire dies
Australia abolished all death duties in 1979 — one of only a handful of wealthy democracies to do so.
There is no estate tax, no inheritance tax, and no gift tax at death.
For a billionaire whose wealth sits in private companies, trusts and unlisted property, the effective death tax is essentially zero.
What IS taxed
Super paid to adult children: The taxable component is taxed at a flat 17% (including Medicare levy). For most billionaires, super is a tiny fraction of total wealth.
Inherited non-primary residential property (CGT partial exemption): This is genuinely nuanced — and commonly misunderstood. See ATO formula ↗
The key point first: When someone dies, their investment property's cost base resets to the date-of-death market value. This means all capital gains accumulated during the deceased's lifetime permanently escape CGT — never taxed, ever.
The ATO Vicki/Lesley example unpacked: Vicki bought a rental property in 1997 and died in 2000. Lesley inherited it, lived in it as her main residence, and sold it in 2024 for a $400,000 capital gain. That $400,000 gain is calculated from the date-of-death value as the cost base — so it is entirely Lesley's post-inheritance gain. Vicki's 3 years of rental appreciation from 1997 to 2000 is completely wiped and never taxed.
However, because Vicki used the property as a rental (not her main residence), the ATO formula reduces the fraction of Lesley's own gain that qualifies for the main residence exemption. The formula: Capital gain × (non-main-residence days ÷ total days) = taxable portion. Non-main-residence days includes Vicki's 1,375 rental days plus Lesley's 0 days (she lived in it). Result: $400k × (1,375 ÷ 10,152) = $54,176 taxable — roughly 13.5% of Lesley's own gain.
What this means: Lesley is not paying tax on Vicki's gains (those are wiped). She is paying CGT on a small fraction of her own post-inheritance gains, because the property's rental history reduces how much of her exemption she can claim. If Vicki had used it as her main residence before death, Lesley would owe $0 CGT on the full $400k.
Heirs also get the 50% CGT discount if they hold the property for over 12 months.
The bottom line: Billionaire investment properties — private apartment blocks, commercial buildings, rural stations — pass to heirs with decades of appreciation permanently untaxed. The partial CGT exemption formula only affects what heirs pay on their own future gains, not the fortunes accumulated by the deceased.
Inherited non-primary residential property (CGT partial exemption): This is genuinely nuanced — and commonly misunderstood. See ATO formula ↗
The key point first: When someone dies, their investment property's cost base resets to the date-of-death market value. This means all capital gains accumulated during the deceased's lifetime permanently escape CGT — never taxed, ever.
The ATO Vicki/Lesley example unpacked: Vicki bought a rental property in 1997 and died in 2000. Lesley inherited it, lived in it as her main residence, and sold it in 2024 for a $400,000 capital gain. That $400,000 gain is calculated from the date-of-death value as the cost base — so it is entirely Lesley's post-inheritance gain. Vicki's 3 years of rental appreciation from 1997 to 2000 is completely wiped and never taxed.
However, because Vicki used the property as a rental (not her main residence), the ATO formula reduces the fraction of Lesley's own gain that qualifies for the main residence exemption. The formula: Capital gain × (non-main-residence days ÷ total days) = taxable portion. Non-main-residence days includes Vicki's 1,375 rental days plus Lesley's 0 days (she lived in it). Result: $400k × (1,375 ÷ 10,152) = $54,176 taxable — roughly 13.5% of Lesley's own gain.
What this means: Lesley is not paying tax on Vicki's gains (those are wiped). She is paying CGT on a small fraction of her own post-inheritance gains, because the property's rental history reduces how much of her exemption she can claim. If Vicki had used it as her main residence before death, Lesley would owe $0 CGT on the full $400k.
Heirs also get the 50% CGT discount if they hold the property for over 12 months.
The bottom line: Billionaire investment properties — private apartment blocks, commercial buildings, rural stations — pass to heirs with decades of appreciation permanently untaxed. The partial CGT exemption formula only affects what heirs pay on their own future gains, not the fortunes accumulated by the deceased.
What is NOT taxed
Shares in private companies (e.g., Hancock Prospecting, Meriton) — inherited at date-of-death cost base. Entire lifetime gain: $0 tax at death.
Listed shares — same rule. If Rinehart held BHP shares bought at $10 and they're worth $50 at her death, that $40 gain permanently escapes tax.
Primary residence — fully exempt even if worth $50M.
Trusts — wealth flowing through family discretionary trusts can pass to beneficiaries at the trustee's discretion with significant flexibility, often avoiding both estate and death duties.
Gifts made before death — Australia has no gift tax, so wealth can be transferred to children or family trusts during one's lifetime tax-free (within certain limits on super).
Listed shares — same rule. If Rinehart held BHP shares bought at $10 and they're worth $50 at her death, that $40 gain permanently escapes tax.
Primary residence — fully exempt even if worth $50M.
Trusts — wealth flowing through family discretionary trusts can pass to beneficiaries at the trustee's discretion with significant flexibility, often avoiding both estate and death duties.
Gifts made before death — Australia has no gift tax, so wealth can be transferred to children or family trusts during one's lifetime tax-free (within certain limits on super).
Australia vs the world
The US has had a 40% federal estate tax for decades — it applies to estates over ~US$13.6M. The UK's 40% inheritance tax (above £325k) has been in place since 1986. France's succession duties reach 45%.
Australia goes further in exemption than any G7 peer: not only is there no estate tax, but there is also no CGT trigger at death at all for primary residences, and the cost base "wipe" on death means lifetime private company and trust gains escape permanently.
OECD: 24 of 38 member countries have inheritance or estate taxes.
Timeline
1914
Federal estate duties introduced at up to 27.5% on large estates.
1977
Queensland abolishes state death duties, triggering a race to the bottom.
1979
Federal government abolishes all death duties. Other states follow by 1984.
2010
Henry Tax Review raises wealth inequality concerns. Government takes no action.
2025
~$3.5T intergenerational wealth transfer underway. Still no estate tax.
The 🔢 A Billion tab has the full scale visualiser — pixel ruler, time-in-seconds, and distance comparisons.
This tab focuses on Australia's wealthiest individuals and how their wealth compares to working life.
Australia's Wealthiest — AFR Rich List 2025
Select a billionaire to explore them across the Calculator, Time, and Productivity sections below.
Data: AFR Rich List 2025 ↗
How Long Would It Take You?
How long to match their wealth saving 100% of your salary — no tax, no rent, no food. A purely theoretical maximum to show the scale of the gap.
Your annual salary ($)
$
/yr
ABS median full-time: $100,004/yr (Nov 2023)
← Select a billionaire above to see the comparison.
But Surely They Work Harder?
The common defence: "They earned it through hard work and talent." But if wealth reflected proportional productivity, what would that actually mean?
← Select a billionaire above.
How Big Is A Billion, Really?
The word "billion" gets thrown around in political debate as if it's just a large number.
It isn't. Our brains evolved to understand maybe a few thousand objects at once.
A billion is so far outside that range that even comparison fails.
This tab tries to make it visceral — in time, in space, and in pixels.
① The Same Number — In Seconds
Seconds are something we feel. Count to ten and you've used ten seconds.
Below, the same numbers that describe wealth are shown as durations of time.
② The Pixel Ruler — Zoom Through the Scale
Imagine a ruler where 1 pixel = $1.
$1,000 would be 1,000 pixels — about 25 cm on your screen.
$1,000,000 would stretch 1,000 metres — roughly the length of 10 football pitches.
$1,000,000,000 (one billion) would be 1,000 kilometres — the distance from Sydney to Melbourne, and back.
Gina Rinehart's $38.11B wealth would span 38,110 km — nearly the circumference of the Earth.
The canvas below represents this ruler. Drag or use the slider to fly through it. The yellow marker shows where you are on the scale.
The canvas below represents this ruler. Drag or use the slider to fly through it. The yellow marker shows where you are on the scale.
Current position on ruler
$0
Zoom — 1 pixel =
$1
Zoomed in
Zoomed out
Jump to:
③ If 1 pixel = $1 … How Far Would You Travel?
Estate Tax Calculator
Select a billionaire
Selected
← Select above
Tax regime
Government receives
—
Heirs receive
—
Effective rate
—
Threshold
—
← Select a billionaire above to see the calculation.
International Estate & Inheritance Tax Rates
Why Taxing Wealth Is Very Different From Taxing Income
The core problem: Australia taxes what you earn, not what you own.
Billionaires accumulate wealth through rising asset values — not wages.
Oxfam estimates
Australian billionaires averaged $67,000 per hour in wealth gains in 2024–25 — mostly appreciation in shares and private company equity that doesn't trigger income tax unless sold. Many never sell.
Salaried worker earning $500k/yr
~$220k tax
Pays ~44% effective rate. Every dollar visible to the ATO. No deferral possible.
Gina Rinehart wealth growth, 2020–2025
+$22B gained
Held as unlisted Hancock Prospecting equity. $0 income tax triggered. $0 CGT yet. If she passes without selling: $0 tax on $22B, ever. Cost base wipe at death eliminates all lifetime gains permanently.
What Do They Give Back?
The philanthropy defence: "They give it away anyway." Let's look at the data. The figures below are the most recent publicly reported or estimated charitable donations/foundations — compared with their estimated total wealth.
Even including the most generous billionaire philanthropists in Australia, charitable contributions represent a fraction of 1% of total wealth per year.
Warren Buffett famously pledged 99% of his wealth to charity — this is extraordinary and exceedingly rare.
Most Australian billionaire philanthropy occurs through private foundations which confer ongoing tax deductibility and allow donors to maintain influence over assets.
Philanthropy Australia reports total charitable giving by Australians at ~$13.5B/yr — with the top 1% contributing disproportionately, but not in amounts that offset the billions in untaxed accumulated wealth.
Political Donations — Why Estate Tax Remains Off the Agenda
Both major parties oppose an estate tax. This should not be surprising: the same billionaires whose estates would be taxed are among the largest donors to those parties.
The AEC's disclosure threshold was $16,900 — meaning donations under that figure aren't individually reported.
Grattan Institute analysis: in 2023–24, declared donations were only 7% of party income; ~45% of party income is hidden "dark money."
2024–25 election year total:
Clive Palmer's Mineralogy: $52.9M to Trumpet of Patriots. Kerry Stokes: $500k to Labor + $500k to Liberal.
Pratt Holdings: $1M to Labor (the same week PM Albanese attended a Pratt dinner). Hancock Prospecting (Rinehart): $895k to Advance Australia + $204k to the Liberal Party.
Meriton (Triguboff): $590k to the Liberal Party.
Total declared billionaire-linked political donations in 2024–25: $56M+
As a share of their combined wealth (~$140B): 0.04%. Cheap policy insurance.
Total declared billionaire-linked political donations in 2024–25: $56M+
As a share of their combined wealth (~$140B): 0.04%. Cheap policy insurance.
Examining the "Against" Arguments
❌ "Double taxation"
This is largely a misnomer. The vast majority of large Australian estates consist of asset appreciation that has never been taxed — not money that was earned and already hit with income tax.
Gina's $38B estate was never "taxed money in" — it grew as iron ore valuations rose.
Where income tax was paid on earlier income (say, executive salaries), that money was then invested and grew — and that growth was never taxed either.
The estate tax largely applies to the untaxed portion, making "double taxation" a stretch.
❌ "Small businesses will be destroyed"
92% of Australian small businesses have turnover under $2M — nowhere near the proposed $5–10M estate tax threshold.
Of 2.59M small businesses, the ABS reports fewer than 1% have turnover over $10M.
A $5M estate exemption threshold would protect the overwhelming majority of family farms and small business owners.
Even the US's 40% rate (threshold ~US$13.6M) includes a "qualified family-owned business" carve-out with payment-in-instalments provisions.
The small business threat is real for a handful of edge cases — not the norm.
❌ "Valuing illiquid assets is too hard"
Private company and pastoral property valuations happen routinely for other purposes: stamp duty, family law settlements, ASIC reporting, bank lending. The US, UK and France all manage estate tax on unlisted assets.
Moreover, if an estate is too illiquid to pay a 30% levy, that is itself an argument for allowing payment in instalments (standard in most proposals) — not for exempting it entirely.
If estates were forced to hold less of a single illiquid asset, the valuation complexity would diminish naturally.
❌ "They'll just use trusts to avoid it"
Tax avoidance is a design problem — not a reason to not have a tax. Australia's CGT regime was introduced in 1985 despite avoidance concerns; ATO data shows it raises substantial revenue.
Well-designed estate taxes include look-through provisions for discretionary trusts and deem trust assets into the estate on death. The US and UK do this imperfectly but successfully.
That some people avoid tax via complexity is a reason to improve the law — not to write blank cheques to the ultra-wealthy.
❌ "But They Create Jobs!" — Is This A Valid Argument?
The claim: Billionaires employ thousands of people and drive economic activity — taxing their estates would destroy jobs and reduce investment.
This is probably the most emotionally resonant argument and deserves a careful answer.
Problems with the "job creator" argument
The causation is reversed.
Billionaires are wealthy because their employees created value — not the other way around.
Gina Rinehart does not personally mine iron ore. Harry Triguboff doesn't lay bricks.
The workers are the proximate cause of the business output; the billionaire is the capital owner who captures a disproportionate share of the returns.
An estate tax doesn't destroy jobs. The business continues after the estate tax is paid — it just transfers partial ownership. The UK, US, Japan and France have all had estate taxes for decades alongside functioning, employing businesses. No evidence exists that estate taxes reduce employment in the industries they affect. The Rinehart iron ore mines don't stop operating because an estate tax is paid — mining continues, workers stay employed, royalties flow.
Wages haven't kept pace with productivity. Productivity Commission data shows Australian labour productivity grew ~80% from 1990–2022 while real wages grew only ~30%. If employees shared fairly in the value they create, there would be far fewer billionaires and far fewer workers in poverty. The "job creator" framing obscures this distribution problem.
An estate tax doesn't destroy jobs. The business continues after the estate tax is paid — it just transfers partial ownership. The UK, US, Japan and France have all had estate taxes for decades alongside functioning, employing businesses. No evidence exists that estate taxes reduce employment in the industries they affect. The Rinehart iron ore mines don't stop operating because an estate tax is paid — mining continues, workers stay employed, royalties flow.
Wages haven't kept pace with productivity. Productivity Commission data shows Australian labour productivity grew ~80% from 1990–2022 while real wages grew only ~30%. If employees shared fairly in the value they create, there would be far fewer billionaires and far fewer workers in poverty. The "job creator" framing obscures this distribution problem.
What the evidence actually shows
Estate taxes in practice: employment unchanged.
A 2017 NBER study of US estate tax changes found no statistically significant effect on employment at affected firms.
Businesses adapt: estate taxes are often paid through life insurance, asset sales, or instalment plans — not by firing workers.
The "job creator" multiplier is wildly overstated. Elon Musk employs ~100,000 people across Tesla and SpaceX. But those businesses have valuations in the hundreds of billions — his personal wealth is not the operative variable. Remove Musk personally; the businesses (and their jobs) would continue under different ownership. The same is true of Rinehart's mining operations, which are run by professional management teams.
Government spending also creates jobs. The $5B/yr in estate tax revenue would fund hospitals, schools, research facilities and social housing — all of which employ large numbers of Australians, many in regional areas where billionaire business activity is minimal. "Job creation" is not a billionaire monopoly.
The "job creator" multiplier is wildly overstated. Elon Musk employs ~100,000 people across Tesla and SpaceX. But those businesses have valuations in the hundreds of billions — his personal wealth is not the operative variable. Remove Musk personally; the businesses (and their jobs) would continue under different ownership. The same is true of Rinehart's mining operations, which are run by professional management teams.
Government spending also creates jobs. The $5B/yr in estate tax revenue would fund hospitals, schools, research facilities and social housing — all of which employ large numbers of Australians, many in regional areas where billionaire business activity is minimal. "Job creation" is not a billionaire monopoly.
The verdict: The job creator argument conflates "this person owns a business that employs people" with "this person's personal wealth is the cause of those jobs."
An estate tax is paid by the estate — the business assets, not the workers. The businesses continue.
The productivity/wage divergence data suggests workers have systematically received less than their fair share of the value they create — which is precisely the mechanism that produces billionaires in the first place.
Sources
Who Would A 30% Estate Tax Above $5M Actually Affect?
The proposed reform is one of the most targeted taxes Australia could introduce — affecting less than 0.3% of all deaths.
~168,000
Deaths in Australia per year (ABS 2023)
~500
Estates/yr estimated to exceed $5M — Anglicare/Treasury modelling
0.30%
Proportion of deaths affected — fewer than 1 in 300
~$5B/yr
Estimated annual revenue from a 30% AU estate tax (Anglicare 2023)
99.7%
Of Australians who die: completely unaffected
0
Impact on: primary homes, family farms under $5M, ordinary small businesses, superannuation (already separately taxed)
Small businesses — the actual numbers:
Of 2.59M actively trading businesses, 1.58M are sole traders with no employees.
ABS data shows median net assets for non-employing small businesses are well under $200k.
Profitable small businesses with $1–2M in assets are still well below the $5M threshold.
The "small business" argument primarily protects large family businesses — a legitimate edge case,
but easily handled with instalment payment provisions standard in the UK and US.
The IRS reports that since 2000, fewer than 2% of small US family farms have owed any estate tax at all.
Sources
The Affirmative Case: Higher Tax → Better Outcomes for Everyone
Estate taxes don't just redistribute wealth — they fund the things that make life better for everyone.
The countries with the highest inheritance/estate taxes (Japan, Belgium, France, UK) also have lower income inequality, better public services and by most measures, happier populations.
Australia's proposed 30% estate tax above $5M would affect only the top ~0.3% of estates — those most able to absorb it.
#1–3
Finland, Denmark, Iceland — World Happiness Report top 3, 2024. All have inheritance taxes and strong public services.
8.0/10
Average life satisfaction in Denmark vs 7.2 in Australia (OECD Better Life Index, 2024)
20%
Gini coefficient in Denmark. Australia: 33%. Lower = more equal. OECD
Free
University education in Denmark, Finland, Norway. Funded in part by wealth taxes and high income taxes on the wealthy.
€0
Out-of-pocket costs for Swedish hospital stays (highly subsidised). Despite 57% marginal income tax at high incomes.
3×
Norway's sovereign wealth fund (oil revenues redistributed) is 3× GDP. Public wealth building — not billionaire wealth building.
The beneficiaries of the status quo are vanishingly few.
An estate tax above $5M would affect approximately 300–500 estates per year in Australia — a fraction of 0.3% of all deaths.
The beneficiaries of its revenues — better hospitals, schools, housing, research — number 26 million Australians.
This is not a trade-off between rich and poor. It is a question of whether extreme dynastic wealth should be allowed to self-perpetuate across generations with zero public contribution.
The Housing Crisis Connection
Australia faces its worst housing shortage in modern history. Billionaire wealth intersects in two distinct ways: as a revenue source for housing investment, and as a market distortion through concentrated ownership of rental stock and land banking.
~$800k
National median dwelling price (CoreLogic 2024)
163,400
Dwelling shortfall projected by 2027 (NHFIC 2024)
650k+
Australians on social housing waitlists (AIHW 2023)
~$550k
Average cost to build one social housing unit
💰 Revenue → fund housing directly
Estate tax revenue could be earmarked for social housing construction.
A 30% estate tax on the top 8 AFR billionaires' combined ~$176B estate would generate ~$51B — enough to build approximately 92,700 social housing units at $550k each. That's more than half the current shortfall from 8 estates.
🏗️ Forced sales → add supply
Property-heavy estates — like Triguboff's Meriton, which retains thousands of apartments for rental rather than sale — may need to partially liquidate to pay estate tax. This adds supply to an undersupplied market.
Separately, land banking (holding undeveloped land near cities) becomes less attractive when an estate tax applies regardless — potentially releasing developable urban land.
Fire sale risks — and why the GFC comparison matters:
If large property estates are forced to sell quickly to pay estate tax, falling prices could trigger a cascade: declining collateral values → mortgage defaults → bank stress.
In Australia's context this risk is modest but real, particularly for concentrated rental portfolios.
But here's the GFC parallel worth noting: During the 2007–08 Global Financial Crisis, the dominant policy response in the US, UK and Australia was to bail out the banks — not the homeowners facing foreclosure. The US TARP programme injected $700B into financial institutions. Australian banks received blanket government guarantees on deposits and wholesale funding. The pattern is: when banks are at risk from falling asset prices, governments bail out banks. When ordinary people lose their homes to falling prices or mortgage stress, the safety net is far thinner.
So the fire sale concern — "falling prices will hurt banks" — while legitimate, implicitly assumes the government will act to protect financial institutions as it historically has. If that protection is the default response, it somewhat undermines the argument that estate-tax-driven sales would be uniquely destabilising.
Most estate tax proposals address this directly with payment-in-instalments provisions (10–15 years for illiquid assets), which avoid forced sales entirely. AHURI research supports targeted housing investment as the most effective use of estate revenue.
But here's the GFC parallel worth noting: During the 2007–08 Global Financial Crisis, the dominant policy response in the US, UK and Australia was to bail out the banks — not the homeowners facing foreclosure. The US TARP programme injected $700B into financial institutions. Australian banks received blanket government guarantees on deposits and wholesale funding. The pattern is: when banks are at risk from falling asset prices, governments bail out banks. When ordinary people lose their homes to falling prices or mortgage stress, the safety net is far thinner.
So the fire sale concern — "falling prices will hurt banks" — while legitimate, implicitly assumes the government will act to protect financial institutions as it historically has. If that protection is the default response, it somewhat undermines the argument that estate-tax-driven sales would be uniquely destabilising.
Most estate tax proposals address this directly with payment-in-instalments provisions (10–15 years for illiquid assets), which avoid forced sales entirely. AHURI research supports targeted housing investment as the most effective use of estate revenue.
What About Inherited Investment Properties? (ATO Clarified)
Short answer: All of the deceased's lifetime gains on investment properties are wiped at death and never taxed. Heirs inherit at date-of-death market value as their cost base.
The partial CGT exemption formula only applies to the heir's own future gains — and is further reduced if the deceased used the property as a rental (not a main residence).
The ATO's Vicki/Lesley example: Vicki bought a rental in 1997, died 2000. Cost base resets to 2000 market value — Vicki's gains: $0 tax, permanently wiped. Lesley inherited and lived in it as her home, then sold in 2024 for a $400k gain (measured from the 2000 death value). Lesley pays CGT on $400k × (1,375 rental days ÷ 10,152 total days) = $54,176 — about 13.5% of her own gain — because Vicki's rental history reduces the main residence exemption fraction. The other 86.5% of Lesley's gain is fully exempt. Lesley can also apply the 50% CGT discount.
For billionaire-scale property (e.g. Meriton apartments): Triguboff's portfolio of apartment buildings — bought over decades — passes to heirs at today's market value. Decades of price appreciation: $0 tax, wiped forever. Heirs only ever pay CGT on gains from the date of Triguboff's death onwards, and only on the rental-use proportion. ATO formula ↗
The ATO's Vicki/Lesley example: Vicki bought a rental in 1997, died 2000. Cost base resets to 2000 market value — Vicki's gains: $0 tax, permanently wiped. Lesley inherited and lived in it as her home, then sold in 2024 for a $400k gain (measured from the 2000 death value). Lesley pays CGT on $400k × (1,375 rental days ÷ 10,152 total days) = $54,176 — about 13.5% of her own gain — because Vicki's rental history reduces the main residence exemption fraction. The other 86.5% of Lesley's gain is fully exempt. Lesley can also apply the 50% CGT discount.
For billionaire-scale property (e.g. Meriton apartments): Triguboff's portfolio of apartment buildings — bought over decades — passes to heirs at today's market value. Decades of price appreciation: $0 tax, wiped forever. Heirs only ever pay CGT on gains from the date of Triguboff's death onwards, and only on the rental-use proportion. ATO formula ↗
Research Funding vs Fossil Fuel Subsidies vs Billionaire Wealth
Australia's publicly-funded research bodies are chronically underfunded relative to GDP and other OECD peers.
Meanwhile, the same industries whose billionaires benefit from a zero estate tax receive tens of billions in government subsidies.
Here's what the numbers actually look like side by side.
$940M
NHMRC Medical Research Endowment Account 2024–25 — Australia's primary health research fund. ~0.03% of GDP.
$650M
Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) grants 2024–25. Despite the fund having $973M available, only $650M was released.
~$1B
Australian Research Council (ARC) annual funding — all disciplines except medical. Barely grew in real terms for 15 years.
~$250M
Cancer Council Australia annual fundraising (est.). Relies heavily on public donations — not government funding.
~$30M
Tour de Cure total funds raised since 2007 — exemplary community fundraising for cancer research.
$2.59B
Total NHMRC + MRFF + ARC combined — Australia's peak government research investment annually.
Scale comparison — annual public research funding vs billionaire wealth
Government Handouts to the Fossil Fuel Industry
While research goes underfunded, fossil fuel producers — whose billionaire owners benefit from zero estate tax — receive extraordinary government support.
The largest single mechanism is the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, which refunds fuel excise to mining operations and heavy industry.
Australia Institute 2025 report ↗
$14.9B
Total Australian government fossil fuel subsidies in 2024–25 (Australia Institute, March 2025)
$10.2B
Fuel Tax Credits Scheme alone in 2024–25 — the single largest fossil fuel subsidy. Major beneficiary: coal & iron ore mining.
$548
Fossil fuel subsidies per Australian person per year in 2024–25 — or $28,381 per minute of every day.
$67B
Forward estimates of total fossil fuel subsidies — 14× the Disaster Ready Fund; 6.5× the Housing Australia Future Fund.
+3%
Year-on-year increase in fossil fuel subsidies 2023–24 to 2024–25. Rising, not falling.
5.75×
Fossil fuel subsidies ($14.9B) are 5.75× total government research funding ($2.59B). We subsidise carbon; we starve research.
Who Benefits?
The Fuel Tax Credits Scheme — the largest single fossil fuel subsidy at $10.2B — primarily benefits coal and iron ore miners. These are the same industries underlying the fortunes of Rinehart, Palmer, and Pratt.
In 2024–25: these billionaires' estates will pass to their children with $0 estate tax, while their mining companies receive billions in annual fuel tax rebates from the very government that charges them nothing at death.
Australia Institute ↗ and
Michael West Media ↗ have both documented the gap between public subsidies and private tax minimisation.
Capital Flight — Does The "I'll Just Leave" Threat Actually Work?
The standard counter-argument: "Tax billionaires too heavily and they'll emigrate."
The evidence is real but context-dependent — it mostly applies to annual wealth taxes in small open economies.
An estate tax is a structurally different mechanism.
🇫🇷
France's ISF Annual Wealth Tax (1988–2017)
~60,000 millionaires left 2000–2017. ~€200B capital flight. Gérard Depardieu moved to Belgium — 5km away. Raised €3–4B/yr but one analysis found it caused €7B in lost revenue from departures. Macron repealed it in 2018. This was an annual tax on living wealth.
⚠ Real, documented flight — for an annual tax on existing wealth
🇳🇴
Norway's 2022 Annual Wealth Tax Hike
Raised annual wealth tax by 1%, expecting $146M/yr extra. Instead, ~50 billionaires moved to Switzerland, costing ~$594M — 4× the projected gain. A small, open economy next to a tax haven. Cautionary tale for annual taxes.
⚠ Real emigration — in a small open economy with a low-tax neighbour
🏛️
Estate taxes are structurally different — and much harder to escape
An estate tax is paid once, at death. To avoid it: you'd need to fully renounce Australian residency, transfer all assets abroad, and do it decades before death — all to avoid a one-time payment. The US has had a 40% estate tax for decades and hasn't experienced billionaire emigration events. Gina's Pilbara iron ore cannot be moved to Switzerland. Triguboff's Meriton apartments are in Sydney.
✓ Estate tax flight risk is largely theoretical for fixed-asset billionaires
🗣️
The rhetoric vs. follow-through gap
Every Australian resources tax proposal triggers capital flight threats. The mines and billionaires stay. A 2024 NBER study on Sweden found wealth tax repeal reduced wealthy out-migration by 30% — confirming some mobility, but also that many stay regardless. Overstated as a universal lever.
⚡ Some mobility — heavily overstated for estate taxes specifically
Annual wealth tax ≠ estate tax.
Capital flight evidence applies to taxes on living, moveable wealth — paid year after year.
An estate tax is a one-time event on death. The blanket claim that "all wealth taxes cause capital flight" conflates two entirely different mechanisms.
The countries that have maintained estate taxes for decades (US, UK, Japan) have not experienced billionaire emigration specifically to avoid them.
Disclaimer: Net worth figures are estimates from the
AFR Rich List 2025
(published 2025-05-01).
Listed-equity components (Kerry Stokes / Scott Farquhar) updated automatically from ASX/NASDAQ prices.
Other billionaire wealth figures require manual update when AFR publishes the next edition (~May each year).
ABS median salary last updated: 2024-03.
Fossil fuel subsidies: Australia Institute 2025-03.
NHMRC budget: 2024-05.
Asset breakdowns are rough estimates — actual allocations through trusts and holding companies are not publicly disclosed.
Tax calculations are simplified illustrations; actual estate tax calculations involve complex valuations, trust structures, and legal provisions.
"Years to accumulate" assumes 100% salary savings — a theoretical standard.
Political donation data: AEC 2024-25 disclosures.
This page is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice.
Key sources: ATO · AFR Rich List 2025 · Grattan Institute · Oxfam Australia · OECD · Australia Institute · Brookings · NHFIC · AIHW
Key sources: ATO · AFR Rich List 2025 · Grattan Institute · Oxfam Australia · OECD · Australia Institute · Brookings · NHFIC · AIHW