Sorry, didn't think you were talking about the complexity side of it. Your point is valid and I agree with you in the most part but also think there must be an way to temporarily help those with lower balances as they may not have had super for their whole lives. Once we get a generation of people having contributed 12% or more then we should be able to cut out ALL extra top ups etc. Why 500K, who knows but I would suspect it will operate as a sunset clause whereas age alone doesn't and income varies for many.
If you earn 3 times the average wage, and pay more than 3 times the tax, why would you say they "don't need access to their money?". THAT is a very Leftist statement if I ever heard one today.
I am not saying they don't need their money. Saying they have capacity to fund current lifestyle and have plenty left over which can be tied up in super with big tax advantages if they choose. It is the individual who determines if they need access or not, not me. Not "leftist" at all imo.
