SM the problem with your reasoning is that 'top 25%' is probably as compared with children and pensioners - Otherwise the figure would be much higher.... Most of the world does not have dividend imputation at all. Trickledown economics never helped the most vulnerable here in America. But reform of super concessions and dividend imputation could provide over $20 billion - without which the NDIS and Gonski might never happen... As Richard Denniss has argued again and again - tax breaks for superannuation now outstrip the entire Aged Pension budget. So effectively the average taxpayer is subsidising the top 10 per cent. Looked at that way surely it cannot be seen as fair...

Tristan,

I used the term earners. These are registered tax payers not children or pensioners. They work hard and do work that ensures that the other 75% are employed. Without them the economy stops. They are also the most mobile, and can easily move out of the reach of the grasping labor party. when they do, the lowest suffer, as does the ATO's coffers.

You also seem confused between the term subsidy and concession. No high income earner is subsidised, A tax concession is granted to encourage savings behaviour that benefits the entire country. That the super concession outstrip the aged care budget is probably due to most retirees being able to self fund themselves and not relying on state hand outs.

Shadow Minister,

You need to explain why the "wealth creators" in countries such as Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. that have lower Gini coefficients than Australia are willing to accept a smaller share of the pie. These countries all rank high on the UN Human Development Index, GDP per capita, the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index, etc., so they certainly aren't suffering because of greater equality.

Actually, your proposal to tax superannuation when it is withdrawn, not while it is being accumulated, would fix most of the equity issues, although there ought to also be some sort of reasonable benefit limit. I don't mind giving people a tax concession so that when they are retired, they can get the roof fixed, pay the dentist, or replace a clapped out old car or refrigerator. Why should all the rest of us have to pay more, though, so that rich people can swan around Europe in a luxury car?

Since the government is unwilling to wait for its money, another alternative might be to tax super in bands as we do with income, based on how big a total balance an individual has in his super account(s), not what his income may be at a particular time. You could be allowed to put as much in as you want, but it might push you into a higher band.

Might be a good idea, Divergence. :)

D,

Norway's Gini index (GI) is low mainly because the country's population is so small and it has vast oil wealth from the North Sea. It's personal tax rates are lower than Aus. Swiss income taxes appear to be very similar / slightly lower than Aus with a higher GI? With Sweden being the only ones to tax high earners more than 50% marginal, and has experienced growth rates far lower than Aus and Sweden's wealth is distributed much less equally than its income, with a wealth Gini coefficient of 0.85, which is higher than the European average of 0.8

So I don't think any of the examples you have given are particularly relevant.

As for taxing Super inputs based on total value has some merit. It would however, need to be significantly lower than the marginal rate.

I am sure that Mr Ewins is basically a very nice person, is well-meaning and cares for his mother.

But he seems to be wedded to the idea that there is something criminal in putting aside enough money during your working life, so that you don't have to depend on the fickle self-interest of politicians in your later, non-working years.

Funding Gonski and NDIS are complete red herrings. The Australian taxpayers get precious little of any value from their contributions as it is, and are within their rights to ask why, if they are so important all of a sudden, such plans cannot be funded by sacrificing programmes of lesser benefit.

The present superannuation rules are already a nightmare, and need substantial overhaul. But such an overhaul should not be driven by a misguided "soak the rich" philosophy, as it affects a whole raft of people who are a) not rich and b) have taken responsibility for their own financial future, within the law and within the rules. Messing with that lot will not be pretty, and is guaranteed to be counterproductive in oh-so-many ways.