I believe that those who suggest the current super policies are designed to selectivly benefit one group in society ( specifically the baby boomers) completely miss the point.
Governments in future simply will not be able to supply social welfare to support the ageing population.
Two main reasons :
1/ The baby boomers represent a significant increase in the birth rate after the war, and they are the ones currently reaching retirement age.
2/ People in general,mainly due to better medical services and nutrition are living significantly longer than in the past.
These are matters of fact, which I'm sure nobody would argue with.
Therefore we are entering a period when there will be a dramatic increase of retired citizens, most of whom will be live for longer than previous retirees.
So the government needs to encourage everyone to plan financially for their old age. To the extent that we have compulsory super contributions while we are working is an excellent start, but will not fund future retirees suffieciently to make them financially independant for perhaps 20 or more years after they stop work.
It was in this context, to make it as attractive as possible for workers to financially make additional provision for their retirement, that the current super laws were brought in.
Sure, we can come up examples of individuals taking what appears to be undue advantage. This happens in any system. We could all come up with examples where this happens in the social welfare system, but nobody suggest we abandon social welfare.
Its the OVERALL result that is important, and that's where the focus needs to be.
As a matter of common sense, logic, and future economic necessity, the government needs to continue to encourage individuals to contribute to their super.
This of course including non "baby boom" workers who are less than 50 years of age.
So I hope short term left wing idealism, where so called "rich" retirees are currently benefiting from the present system does not cloud the governments long term thinking.
If it does, these "rich people" will still survive but "workers" will miss out in the future when they eventually do retire, with inadequate super, and insufficient government welfare is available.
(and before I get the predicted response that "workers" cannot afford to contribute extra now for the future....I acknowledge that not all workers can. But anything we can do now to encourage at least some workers,... and many can, to contribute more now to super and relieve the pressure later, should be welcomed and encouraged )
