Personally, i would do a lot better with controle of the money than those now looking after my 9%.

Good article.

Yes well, maybe? However, A 15% non-contributory system just might rescue it!
If you read my double barrelled response to today's Alan Austin's economic article. I have laid out the mechanism, that could make that possible.
Besides, the destiny of demography, leaves us with no other choice than to thoroughly reform both our tax system and super.
The rest of the solution and increased tax receipts, is as simple as growing the economy!
The lowest tax rates coupled to the world,s cheapest carbon free energy, would achieve just that! And indeed, make possible some visionary nation building projects, like very rapid rail that effectively destroys the tyranny of distance, which has held us back, in so many ways, for so long!
Or an inland shipping canal the quite massively reduces bulk shipping costs to Asia!
Whether or not super is controlled by former unions or union bosses, is largely immaterial.
When what is really important; is complete transparency, competent management, with runs on the board, competitive fee structures, and effectively unobstructed consumer choice!
Rhrosty.

This article illustrates why so many of us operate our own self managed super funds and why this government is so keen to find ways to penalise us for doing so. If there's one thing this nanny, neo-left government can't stand it's people making their own decisions about their own money - or about anything else for that matter.

I was a trustee of a defined benefit super fund. Sometimes we invested well, other times not as well. It was a relief to the board when the employer turned over to an accumulation fund where members made their own investment choices and thus exposed to markets.

Sure there was/is a GFC, but what about the preceding years when earnings were double digit? Some pick downturns and divest to cash to avoid loss. However, for the non-clairvoyant the long-term average that Treasury assumes is preserved over time. We should not totally divest on the day we retire as we still have many years ahead of us and cash has the poorest return of the asset classes over a lifetime.

When returns are zero or negative capital must be spent on living by superannuants. When they are positive the need to spend capital may vary from none, through to some, through to growth in capital.

Perhaps we need laws preventing superannuants who lavish themselves in the good years from receiving welfare in the bad years.

Where SV says "If there's one thing this nanny, neo-left government can't stand it's people making their own decisions about their own money......" he doesn't accept that people ARE making their own investment decisions. Under the age pension the government taxes us all and does the investing, including some public infrastructure. This was in the same way as the my trustee board made investments on behalf of fund members before the shift to an accumulation fund.

If the author's point is that Gov't should be paternalistic over the retirement of its citizens, then that is something to argue about. However, given that it isn't, we must refine how retirement, welfare and compulsory super dovetail for a sustainable outcome.