My point is still valid I think, in that it will create additional admin and complexity to super fund administrators/trustees. Also, it seems to be favouring anyone who might drink & smoke their hard earned away for most of their life then do a catch-up in final years. I think the caps should be more related to income and or age. Why was $500k chosen? Why not $250 or $750?
I have cynically stated here before that it might have something to do with helping the Industry Super Funds (that have Labor in their pocket - just look into Shortens actions) up to a level where they tend to lost members to SMSF's. Just a cynical view.
you also said: "the very well off who did not need access to their money."
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.
