Prosperman. Where did I say that a consequence was "not to hit these people"? Unless I say something and you quote exactly what I say, then you are just making stuff up about me (or any other poster, for that matter).
I have been a student and a teacher for many years in the area of Economics. My brother was an Economist for many years in one of the big banks of Australia. The charge of me being "very naive" is based on your ignorance of me rather than any reality. Just think about this for a moment. It was me who posted this article about the reason why Shorten's figures seriously understate the number of people who will be adversely effected by this decision. Why would I do so if I was "naive"?
There are informed commentators who are outing Shorten regarding his "naivety" in trying to suggest that he is going to reign in all those very wealthy people with gigantic superannuation funds, who are getting cash back for their imputation credits. However, he used figures pertaining to a year before the latest tweaks were made to the super rules and thus he can be attacked on that inaccuracy. Another glaring inaccuracy is that those very rich he is claiming his changes will target is the ENORMOUS NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS which will also be impacted. The funds raised will be far greater from this latter group (the little people) than it will be from the tiny number of VERY RICH PEOPLE.
I don't know whether I have made myself clear to you or whether you would even take the time to read what I have written.
But with most things Economic, the issues are very complex and I have been reading in the Economic Forum here responses which are far more sophisticated than I have read here. Best not to simply insult people without understanding what is being argued. I also felt angry when I calculated how much I personally will lose as a consequence of this Shorten plan. I believe it would require enormous tweaking for it not to harm many features of our economy, some of which are not predictable. I doubt it will ever be implemented in its current form.
Without budget repair, this country will go further to the dogs. Even if politicians had their supers dragged from them, it would have more than a tiny change compared to the change this initiative would have. Shorten doesn't know:
1. how much more the additional demand on the Aged Pension would be, as a consequence of this policy.
2. how innovative shareholders/retirees/accountants can be to effectively stymie many of the consequences of his proposal.
Strange indeed for you to call me"naive" yet I am the person who, by posting that analysis by a professional, was attempting to make other people aware of the shakey ground upon which Shorten is walking.
I will await your apology, but not with baited breath, because it is unlikely to ever come. You need to control your anger and discuss the issue, think about people's motives for posting as I did, and hold back on the insults. You chose the wrong person and the absolute wrong post to write as you have done.
May I remind you again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICIANS OWN SUPERS - NOTHING. You out yourself as an unsophisticated thinker by throwing that in. Keep discussing Shorten's policy and you then can be taken more seriously as a debater worth reading.
