Pericles - You miss the point that I am not proposing a new tax; I am proposing the removal of *concessions* which cost us more than the entire Aged Pension budget. And I am talking about *the top 5% income demographic* - whose concessions alone are costing *the rest of us* over $10 billion a year. (And possibly the top 10% as the ACTU has suggested) You talk about 'soak the rich' - but in reality it is *the rich soaking the rest of us*.

Again: Tax concessions for super alone are now costing us more than the entire Aged Pension budget... Why not redirect some of that money into subsidising lower income Pensioners and self-funding retirees instead? But Tony Abbott wants to drop similar measures which Labor has implemented, and seems more interested in the position of the wealthy... And then they talk of 'class war'.

To get it in perspective: GDP is about $1.4 Trillion a year. If we halved dividend imputation, and remove superannuation concessions from only the top 10% - we would end up with about $25 billion - out of that $1.4 Trillion. (in the vicinity of just 1.6 per cent of GDP; it's hard to be exact because we know the top 5% receive $10 billion - but I don't have the exact figures on the top 10%)

Gonski and NDIS are not 'Red Herrings' - they are desperately overdue initiatives to do with educational equal opportunity and the rights of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged of all. Together they could end up costing close to $20 billion. Significant money could be left aside from the reforms I suggest to pay for Aged Care reform as well.

Currently much Aged Care is of a substandard quality; It is paid for via regressive 'flat-tax'-like user pays mechanisms. There is understaffing ; the infrastructure is often poor; quality of life for many is non-existent.

If we could address these at least somewhat by raising an additional $25 billion out of a $1.4 TRILLION economy - then why don't we?

We can argue "more tax" against "fewer concessions" until the cows come home, Mr Ewins.

>>Pericles - You miss the point that I am not proposing a new tax; I am proposing the removal of *concessions* which cost us more than the entire Aged Pension budget<<

These so-called "concessions" are a direct incentive for people - all people - to put an amount aside from their wages and salaries, in order to give themselves an income in their later years.

Think of those "concessions" as an investment: the revenue that the government does not collect today will be more than regained later, when these responsible folk who take advantage of them, do not suck vigorously on the public teat in their dotage.

Their alternative, which your policy appears to encourage, is to rely upon the State. Which in itself is a bit of a gamble, as we know beyond a shadow of doubt that they haven't a clue when it comes to setting aside the funds that will enable them to do this. What was it that brought the Future Fund into being? Unfunded Public Service superannuation, that's what.

>>Gonski and NDIS are not 'Red Herrings' - they are desperately overdue initiatives<<

They may well be "desperately overdue initiatives", but their essential fishiness is in the "either/or" nature of your argument. Specifically penalizing savers is no the only way to fund these programmes, there is a wealth of over-engineered programmes that could be trimmed to make way for them. Unfortunately, that would cause public servants to be made redundant, which would, I am sure, be against your religion.

You clearly feel that it to work hard, save money, and generally handle your own affairs responsibly is a form of oppression on the working classes.

Phoooey.

The point is that there are millions trying to save on lower incomes. For many home ownership is an impossible dream even with both partners working. And the way things are many of them have no chance. The pubic service, BTW, is not a 'magic puddding' you can keep cutting forever either... And tax breaks for the top 5% inevtiably means higher taxes for the rest of us. Or cuts in our services. Or user pays mechanisms that leave ordinary people much worse off.

If you want to give concessions to incentivise savings - do it for lower income Australians. But these are the people the Liberals are attacking by removing THEIR superannuation concessions... The top 5% income bracket don't NEED tax breaks. The rest of us shouldn't be taxed MORE so they can retire on incomes higher than most of the population earn working full time. This is just the wealthy trying to promote their personal interest as if it is the general interest. And they seem to actually have convinced themselves of it as well.

A few thoughts: when using the emotive term 'costing the public', don't we mean 'failing to collect on behalf of the public'? We're not paying these people. We're simply not collecting from them. Costs put us in the negative; failure to collect leaves us at zero.

That said, I don't fully understand the ins and outs of superannuation, so I'll take what you said at face value. Provided that earnings are not taxed twice - on the way into super and again on the way out - it's reasonable to remove concessions. My understanding from the text-heavy and information-light ATO site, though, is that we pay tax when we draw on our super - isn't that double-dipping?

Finally, I'd like to know why it is imperative that we fund Gonski. In your own words, can you explain how Gonski will improve educational opportunities and outcomes for children? I've heard the spin, but as yet it seems to boil down to an economic rationalisation rather than an educational reform. We can double the funding to state schools without improving their outcomes. Some of the commentary I have read seems to suggest that Gonski is as much about bringing down the standards of the elite as it is about bringing up the standards of the ... well, non-elite. That isn't educational reform - it's levelling the playing field in the same way that the French and Russian Revolutions did so. I'm hoping you can explain to me why these suggestions are wrong.

The NDIS, on the other hand, seems to be an open-and-shut case for me.

Tristan,

The left whingers seem to believe that the top 5% can be endlessly taxed with no consequences.

Incentivising these people to save means that these individuals will still have some spending power after retirement. There are a surprising number that don't save and with increasing longevity become a drain on the state a decade or so into retirement.

While I agree with increased incentivisation of the lower income group, with a greying population, reducing savings for retirement incentives anywhere is crazy.

"Incentivising..." really, SM, you're usually better than that.

Here's an idea. Since you mean 'encourage' which has synonyms such as embolden, nuture, promote, inspire and steel, this could yield:

"Steeling these people to save..." and "While I agree with increased steeling of the lower income group..."

Which would, given the taxation context, be simultaneously correct and sound amusing.