I think the informed and thinking youth of today are already well aware that, when compared to their parents, they are getting it tougher in today's Australia. One only has to look at the wage:average house price multiple to see that! Job availablity compared to their parents' days? Look at free universities available to their parents compared to getting a university education (often significantly inferior to that their parents received). Very very ordinary students are now able to get into what is termed a "university", come out waving their "degree", yet finding they have been hoodwinked, as they can only get a job perhaps in hospitality serving coffee to their parents and grandparents, for a very ordinary wage and little prospect that this will continue.
Even two or three of these "degrees" just multiples the toilet-paper quality of their "education".
What is more at issue today is the superannuation environment is now alarmingly enabling an escalating debt problem which, if maintained into the future, without tax chjanges, is simply unsustainable. I think it is a clumsy way of scaling back this escalation.
Given that the alternative of taxing pensions on their way out (on a progressive tax scale) would solve the problem of super funds being hit even in the growth phase with this change to unused imputation credits being non-cash refundable, then young people would feel less aggrieved than I believe they are feeling already. There is a set percentage of one's super fund which is based on an age-range then this higher tax (on the way out) will affect the size of the tax paid. This is a way of dampening down the over "rational exuberance" (misquote) for the super environment as a legal means of tax evasion. Why wouldn't it be used as such given the ease and magnitude of the easy money?
