If one can earn more, just by selecting a term deposit, then super doesn't have a lot going for it.
Moreover, the rules regarding tax, change far too frequently.
Arguably, with virtually every change of Govt.
Moreover, commissions ought to be simply banned.
The returns are already too small to carry truckloads of patent parasites, who continue to take a lifetime of fees, for basically, what amounts to a single service?
We should therefore, rule out commissions paying banks, insurance companies and the like, from our list of legal providers.
And the compact ought only ever apply to a lifetime annuity, which should be annually adjusted for inflation or the CPI, whichever is the greater; and continue until the recipient turns up his/her toes!
If the providers can't comply with that requirement, their licence to operate said fund, ought to be revoked.
Super ought not be used as a de-facto tax haven, but rather come from after tax income.
And the tax system ought to be reformed and vastly simplified, so it no longer needs to carry the burden, of an entire and completely unproductive multi billion dollar industry; or indeed, a whole host of tax avoiders, some of who, may have annual budgets, larger than many sovereign nations!
A very well crafted unavoidable single stand alone expenditure tax, set at 4.8% (adjustable), would make avoidance impossible.
And indeed, add at least 100 billion to internal revenue. This would also remove the current cost of compliance, which presently, rips around 7%, from the averaged bottom line, which would improve by a combined 37%, (averaged).
Moreover, the associated repeal of all other tax measures, inclusive of the GST and fuel excise, would add around 25% to the averaged household budget, making a non contributory, 15+ super immediately available.
[Should it be the elder citizen who survives, or the ATO?]
Moreover, a single stand alone tax system can be microscopically adjusted to alone control inflation or stagnation, region by region, if necessary; meaning, interest rates can be lowered, until the AUD reaches it real value!
Rhrosty.

I have avoided non-compulsory superannuation as far as I possibly could; fortunately as a freelancer this has been fairly easy to do. Why? Because I can't imagine any government of any nation having enough long-term integrity to keep their grubby hands off those ever-accumulating funds. And nothing I've seen or read lately has led me to think otherwise.

Is super very super?
For public servants it's super fantastic. The rest of will use it up just so we can retire with a roof over our heads.

Public Service Defined Benefit super was closed to new entrants in 2004. That's nine years ago.

Public subsidy of superannuation is justified only where the subsidy is less than the cost of the Old Age Pension that would otherwise be due. There is therefore NO repeat NO justification for any tax subsidy of any superannuation for those who would never be eligible for the Old Age Pension.

I absolutely agree with Jon J's comments above. In my view, Superannuation is the greatest national con of all times. It is like a big melting pot of funds with a queue of salivating politicians champing at the bit to get their hands on it! With the abysmal performance by most funds (especially First State Super) over recent years, you would have had more chance of doubling your dollar with a bet on Melbourne Cup! Whilst I agree with the general idea of superannuation, it is difficult to believe that governments on both sides can resist changing rules and getting their hands on part of the profits generated by the growing cash cow of superannuation. I believe the first $10,000 pa personal contributions to super should receive a 100% TAX REBATE. The government should stop beating around the bush and provide REAL incentives to people to start investing at least one-quarter of their net salaries into super (if possible).Unfortunately, things are going to get tougher as the biggest generation of all time, ie the Baby Boomers are now retiring with a small minority of poor X-Y Gen left in the work force to keep funding the pay-outs. Unless, of course, current governments force Baby Boomers to continue working well into their 90's, hanging on to their cathetas and walking frames (nothing would surprise me). (continued)

(continued)
I estimate that within three to five years, the option for Baby Boomers to cash out their superannuation will no longer be available. This may be a good and a bad thing: Good, if the cash pay out is to someone who knows how to self-manage their funds in other high paying options, eg paying off an expensive mortgage, investing in real estate etc; Bad, if the cash pay out is to someone who blows the lot on an overseas holiday! Good or bad, the enforced pensioning of Superannuation payments will take away someone's RIGHT to choose the system of pay out of the funds they have worked so hard for over so many years. One thing for sure is that with every change of government, the rules on superannuation will change. Its a mine field of ambiguity which intimidates many people. Governments MUST agree to keep this incredibly important facet of the general public's personal wealth and future intact, stable and PREDICTABLE. There should be systems set up in regard to the complete abolition of tax on personal contributions (up to a certain point), the lowering of exorbitant fees and the provision of very attractive incentives to entice and keep people investing in superannuation.

This column by Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, gives us the figures.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/fat-cats-that-got-cream-in-super-tax-deal-are-breaking-the-bank-20120814-246sp.html

Note the part where he says that the top 5% of income earners (that is, the people who would save anyway because they want a better standard of living in retirement than can be afforded on the pension) are getting 37% of the benefit from superannuation tax concessions. The total cost of the concessions is close to what it would cost to just give everyone the full pension when they reach the appropriate age, no questions asked.

A better alternative would be to tax super based on how much an individual has accumulated in his/her superannuation account(s). There could be several bands, with taxes gradually increasing from zero towards the person's marginal rate as the total balance rises. You would be able to put in as much money as you like, although it might push you into a higher tax band.

If we are going to make people take the money as a pension/annuity, then there need to be hardship provisions whereby people can get access to more than is being drip fed if they can make a good case for it. Also, if the compulsory contribution is being raised to 12%, why not use the additional 3% for longevity insurance? This would give people an annuity, but only after they turn 85 or some such age.

Good points, Divergence. But don't you think that such a tax scale will then be a disincentive to continue with Superannuation. Admittedly, if the tax scale starts rising to an average amount for those earning more than $300K per annum and/or achieving a Superannuation Balance in the top 5%, then it may even the playing field somewhat. However, there are many middle class workers now earning between $80K to $150K with massive mortgages. I think there are too many questions and much ambiguity about Superannuation.

Katie,

As I see it, your income wouldn't matter, only how big your super balance is. Being on a high income now is no guarantee that you will still be on a high income in the future. Think of professional athletes. Once a high income earner has a big enough balance to be disqualified from receiving the pension, why should we care if he or she chooses to invest in other ways, rather than making a voluntary contribution to super?