The article doesn't add any further indication or finer details other than to mention the $5 Mill cap, and to suggest that the big super funds are behind this rather than the option of raising super tax rate, for the obvious reason that this trade-off favours their structure over SMSF. Maybe vested pollie interests will play a part over lobbyists? This is another reason I don't mind the $5 mill cap -might help to keep some of the bastards honest? Hmmm BTW, I the hope I get near this cap I wouldn't be concerned about removing excess or splitting hairs, given the notion that the mega-wealthy are not getting overstated benefits of what shouldn't be a wealth transfer mechanism. However, I think minimising tax is the Australian way, but fairs fair too.
