I have noticed the ramping up of the inequity of super savings, seems targeted at the growing 'younger votes' as the political balance shifts. Points argued include: *A system for retirement income, not passing wealth onto next generation *Most super funds do not drop in value (net balance) from retirement through to death (fact check needed for this 'claim') *Many retired have >$1 million PPOR value exempt from assets for pension/part pension * those on pension who rent have far less spending power than their peers who own their home (on same pension amount) therefore inequitable *less people working to support those drawing welfare etc. Not to get into an argument about specific points, it very much seems that a political undercurrent to create a divide between retirees and workers is growing, and spurious arguments are being linked together to muddy the facts.
I'm not against trimming the excess fat from those who have more than ample and over-used (?) the super system (say, capped at $3 Mill for example), but the political manipulations that seem to be developing to 'divide and conquer' between the generations, the 'haves and have-nots' I find abhorrent and nasty, and reeking of discrimination and ageism.
I'm not against socialistic ideals, but these cannot come at the expense of removal of rewards for entrepreneurialism, for those who are creative and 'risk takers' to create wealth and economic advancement and all that comes with it, political history bears this out.The risk takers need a supportive, entrepreneurial culture, So lets be very careful as we enter into the inevitable dilution of super, and the restrictions and winding back of 'perks" of the past, and not create more division in the population as popularist, cheap political stunts ensue (and not follow USA's divided mess they have brought upon themselves). Bloody politicians -come the revolution, they'll be first against the wall.
