The rebuttal to the non-indexation seems to be to quote Chalmers comment that future Govts can decide to lift the cap. The way these economic narratives have been allowed to run means that lifting the cap in future will be described as having to "find money in the budget" to give a "benefit to the wealthy". Cue all the howling from the Greens, the Grattan bloody institute and so on.
Nonsense of course but this is one effect that the Snake Chalmer is very conscious of when he factors a hard 3m cap into the budget. It'll be very difficult to ever get the cap increased to allow for the impact of inflation.
Decision time will come when the TBC meets the new cap. They will become one. If it's a conservative Govt at the time then the overall cap of $3m will get indexed. If it's a Govt like this one, they'll take it as an opportunity to combine the TBC and the overall cap - non-indexed. So it'll be 30% tax above the equivalent of 1.9m in todays dollars. Then inflation eats away at it until the tax benefits of super will finish at not much more than the asset cutoff limit to qualify for the pension. I'll advise my kids not to make extra contributions like I've been doing. Probably suggest that they follow the advice of one of the posters here and throw everything at the family home and just keep ugrading that for 30 years.
Btw - how does a socialist political lobby group get away with calling itself an "institute" that publishes "independent research"? Surely by now we all know exactly what Grattan will say on any topic before they've said a word. Yet all of the papers now seem to quote their propaganda as if it's somehow meaningful? I'm going to retire soon, I think I'll open an institute.
