Australia's billionaire count has doubled over the past decade, rising from 74 in 2015 to 161 in 2025. Yet remarkably few of them believe the tax system should change to reflect that dramatic concentration of wealth.
Three Australian billionaires have stepped outside this silence: entrepreneur Dick Smith, tech executive Graham Marr, and anaesthetist Richard Barnes recently signed an open letter with hundreds of the "super-rich" demanding governments tax them more. The open letter, timed to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, argued that extreme wealth was polluting politics, driving social exclusion and fuelling the climate emergency.
The scale of wealth concentration is difficult to ignore. Australia's 48 billionaires hold more wealth than the bottom 40% of the population, which is 11 million people. More strikingly, the average Australian billionaire increased their wealth by almost $600,000 a day over the past year, that's more than the average Australian earns in nearly six years.
Smith told media he joined the call for a wealth tax simply because it would "benefit us greatly", given that roughly 30% of the population lives pay packet to pay packet, and arguing that the top 1% should pay 15% more tax. Barnes wants to see a more progressive income tax system, a tightening of the 50% capital gains discount and an inheritance tax.
The financial case for such taxes is substantial. A 5 per cent wealth tax on Australia's billionaires could raise $17.4 billion annually, funds that could reduce pressure on housing and childcare costs, extend energy bill relief and increase the humanitarian budget. The Greens have repeatedly proposed a 10 per cent tax on the net wealth of Australian billionaires to bring down the costs of food, medical and dental care, public transport and university education.
The opposition to such measures typically centres on practical concerns. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, there is very high degree of uncertainty around wealth tax collection, with concerns about compliance given that it would impose taxes on assets many times greater than income tax on earnings, with high wealth individuals likely to employ strategies to avoid or minimise their liability. Some economists warn that unrestrained tax increases could prompt wealthy individuals to scale back investments or relocate to tax havens, slowing economic growth and discouraging risk-taking and innovation.
The government has not embraced these proposals wholesale. While the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has hinted at changes to the capital gains tax in the next budget, he has ruled out an inheritance tax. Instead, the focus has been narrower: the government has proposed introducing an additional tax on individuals with a total superannuation balance above AUD 3 million, at the rate of 15% on earnings between $3 million and $10 million and at 25% on earnings above $10 million.
What Smith, Marr, and Barnes are attempting to highlight is a tensions at the heart of fiscal policy. Ordinary Australians face rising housing costs, declining wages in real terms, and cutbacks across services. Simultaneously, a small number of individuals accumulate extraordinary wealth with minimal friction from the tax system. The wealth divide is not just growing; it amplifies what one signatory called "elitism around the country", opening doors for those with wealth through lobbying, political donations, and media ownership.
Whether the government will act on these calls remains unclear. Australia remains a comparatively low-tax country, and wealth taxation raises significant administrative and enforcement challenges. But the fact that some of Australia's wealthiest individuals are willing to publicly advocate for higher taxes on themselves suggests the status quo increasingly lacks even the consent of those who benefit most from it.