Wattle, your links don't seem to lead anywhere? Or maybe its a virus or something on my computer messing it up for me?... (I keep on getting words repeated twice in my hyperlinks - very frustrating) I'm getting hyerlinks appearing in this very post which I haven't intended. I don't know what's happening there...

But anyway - that fact remains that a third of superannuation concessions are made available to the top 5% income demographic. And removing those would save approximately $15 billion.

And remember its mainly the wealthy who can afford to put tens of thousands into super every year; and effectively escape paying tax.

Sure there are other ways of taxing the wealthy. Inheritance taxes for instance. But neither major party will touch that with a ten foot pole.

Also when you talk of people earning $35,000 a year - re you talking about retirement income? OR during a person's working life?

Giving a fairer go to low income Australians can be achieved via a broader restructuring of the tax mix as I've suggested.

Also it needs to be remembered that if someone retires on $35,000 a year they are doing VERY well. The Aged Pension is around $20,000 - and those surviving on it are living in poverty.

Good points Foxy.

Gillard just indexed the aged pension by another three years (67) and Abbott is going to add another three years (70). It was Howard who re-indexed pension payments by changing the permanent formula so high that even Treasury had a panic.

There is some substantial BS going on here. If you were born TODAY, you might live to mid 80s. The majority of the Boomers will still croak in their mid to late 70s, especially men who did hard physical labour. Quite a few female Boomers will go the distance in to their 80s.

But here's the thing. It's a statistic. It's not REAL. There are about a dozen policy levers you could pull before reaching for the shotgun. Try over coming age prejudice in recruitment would be one.

Absolute shocker. Oh yeah, remember when they deregulated the economy, we'd all be living on easy street? BS

Hi Tristan,

I apologise for not putting in links. You can get it straight from the horses mouth at the ATO website

http://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Super-statistics/SMSF/Self-managed-super-fund-statistical-report---June-2013/?page=2#Total_asset_range_table

or you can look at Trish Powers summary

http://www.superguide.com.au/comparing-super-funds/typical-smsf-trustee-profile

I agree that a $38000 super pension is better than Centrelink but we were discussing taxation levels, and a person employed and earning $38000 pa is paying about 10.5% tax overall but their marginal tax rate is 35%.

If we were to tax super at someone's marginal tax rate, as suggested by Richard Denniss, then low income earners would be hit hard.

Thanks Wattle;

Richard Denniss points that the top 5% income range benefit largely from the concessions - making up about a third of the cost... If we removed those concessions from the top 10 per cent income demographic alone - or maybe the top 15% - we would probably be able to save over twenty billion without hitting low income earners.

It's Abbott's attack of super co-contributions which is hurting low income earners.

As will attacks on the Aged Pension.

$38,000 a year for retirees is not 'wealthy' - but it is a relatively privileged position to be in compared with most.

Workers have a right to a decent retirement. Capitalism as we know it is focused on chronic growth regardless of the effects upon the 'social life-world'. Under capitalism we have achieved abundance - but rather than making the most of that abundance to set us free - instead we are enslaved to the accumulative imperative, and the accumulative logic.

That is neither 'the good society' nor 'the good life'.

Dear Malcolm (Paddy),

Thanks for that.

I'm worried sick about people like my mum who's
currently in an aged-care facility. Independent
Living it's called. She had to
share the money that they got from the sale of
their home to put Pop into a Nursing Home after
a stroke left him needing 24/7 care. Now if she's
going to need a Nursing-Home in the future - although
she's got a bit of money left - she's barely keeping
her head above water. The costs of decent Nursing Homes
these days are outrageous and coming up with the huge
bond fees is a keller for most people. That's why
cutting into people's pensions is such a worry.

I wish the government could do something about putting
caps on Nursing home fees, especially bonds. The homes
make enough profits as it is - but they should not just
be about profits - or am I being naive?

Foxy sweetie, you've got that wrong, most nursing homes make a very poor return on investment. It was the poor return that caused a crisis in availability of places in the Keating/Howard era. No one would invest in the things, as they were offered a lousy return.

That is why Howard introduced the bond as a way of covering the capital cost of new facilities. I don't like it any more than you do, but without it there would not be places available when our folks, & ultimately us, need them.

I made a pretty serious study of it when my mother had to go into one. The system looks pretty much like mobile phone contracts, almost designed to make it easier for the smarties to rip us off. I opted to pay the $300/400 a month extra, & not lodge the bond.

She & the fool who did her tax had made it harder by telling the tax office she owned her own home. In fact she owned the granny flat, value about $20,000, I had paid the $35,000 to install it, after a huge hassle with council. As her address was my address, the taxman had her down as owner of my property. She cost herself a large chunk of pension because of that. It then led to problems with the bond story.

Still I'm sure if many of us knew in advance of all the restrictions & costs we are saddled with after pension age, I'm sure we would have given anything we had to our kids while we still could. Do get some advice yourself, while you still have the freedom to do as you want