This article appears to be one of the usual attempts to turn a class issue into a generational issue. Superannuation tax concessions for rich people are indeed far too generous -- why not a progressive system with taxes based on how much has been accumulated in superannuation, instead of giving everyone a flat 15% concession? The Australia Institute has calculated that it would be cheaper just to take away the tax concessions and give everyone the full pension, even at a higher rate than now.

http://www.tai.org.au/content/sustaining-us-all-retirement

So far as most people are concerned, the retirement income system is not generous. From a new OECD report:

"Australia's combined superannuation and pension system ranks relatively well on fiscal sustainability, but very poorly on the level of income it is delivering to retirees. Australia has one of the highest poverty rates among over-65s in the OECD." Apparently only South Korea is worse. Australia is the worst when it comes to level of replacement for wages, although part of this is due to the fact that the superannuation system is not mature.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ways-to-fix-australias-pension-system-20140905-10d1tu.html

Well the last thing we needed was a researcher in public policy to tell us the welfare state is a failure.

It is patently obvious that when we pay some clown in the tax dept. to take money out of my pay, another in treasury to distribute it to the departments, another to syphon some off to policy adviser & consultants, another to pay my doctors bill, any ambulance bill, any time in hospital, & more to mind others kids in school, that there is little left to pay to families, or for families to pay for the things they need.

Just why we should be paying for others kids I have no idea, except perhaps it justifies a lot more public servants working in welfare departments, as school teachers & university staff.

So sorry Alan, most of us were well aware of the rip off of the welfare society, & huge public spending, & realised we would be much better off with no assistance, but with our own money to spend how we choose.

It really is a pity that we will have to go through a huge crunch, harming many, before we can get back to where those who do nothing worthwhile, get nothing much, including academics, bureaucrats & bludgers.

Divergence
They would be good policy suggestions if the aim was to make the working class and the aged population poorer, but in case you haven't noticed, the aim is the opposite.

Jardine,

How is cracking down on an egregious rort reducing the aged or working class people to poverty? What is wrong with a reasonable threshold for assistance, whether it comes in the form of a pension or in the form of tax concessions? The government is predicting that by 2016/17, the superannuation tax concessions are going to cost more than the Aged Pension, and they cost nearly as much now. A grossly disproportionate share of the tax concessions are going to high income earners who don't need help with saving for retirement and would do so anyway because they want a better standard of living in retirement than could be afforded on the pension.

According to John Hewson, 36.1% of the benefits are going to the top 10% of income earners, while the bottom 10% get no benefit and are actually penalized.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/the-super-gouge-needs-fixing/

I am amazed that you would justify this rort at the expense of people on modest incomes. Do people with more than $5 million in their self-managed super funds really need those tax concessions?

http://www.afr.com/p/national/tax_leakage_alarm_over_super_wealthy_kf7K4fYSDcSI1437kKAMUN