As an aged pensioner who is about to lose all of my part pension, I cannot in all honesty say that this is a bad policy. With so many have not’s around, it is clear that the haves must give some ground. But what I DO object to is being singled out for pain when many others who are much better off than me are being left untouched.

If the Aged Pensioners have to take the pain then so should all the other types of pensioners and also those who are getting massive tax breaks from superannuation

But what I DO object to is being singled out for pain when many others who are much better off than me are being left untouched.

---

I agree totally, but this IS the insidious way this issue is always approached, especially by Costello 10 years ago doing exactly the same as Abbott now (or in fact Abbott simply following Costello), ie FIRST blaming people for living longer (which is a lie in any case as ABS figures verify) and then moving on to gloss over the real issues, eg UNfunded Super in Costello case, but STILL hanging the "cure" on the "have nots".

But why are you about to lose your partial pension - I guess it is the 2017 proposed amendments?

And are you "Grandfathered", as simply "sweeping" your ABP will allow you to escape the curse of Grandfather and probably stay on the pension.

Howard and Costello increased rations to the chickens (the average pensioner) and fed the roosters caviare. Now the rations are withdrawn and the roosters remain untouched, earning unlimited money tax free on exit from super.

This continued largesse is at the expense of poorer superannuants who have lost part pensions. It's absolutely disgusting and Abbott must be being lauded in the boardrooms of the nation.

No matter how governments address this issue they will simply be outsmarted time and time again.

If they do cut the pension for working too hard and investing wisely (accumulating assets) smart people will simply stop buying investment properties and just keep upgrading their family home.

Instead of having four or five properties worth say $2 million, they will have one house/unit worth 2 million then once they retire they will reverse mortage.

Given interest rates are so low, there has never been such an opportunity to reep ones just rewards.

The fact is that most successful people don't get to be wealthy by mistake, they are smart and, once governments try to outsmart them we just change tact to suit.

So the building industry suffers, jobs are lost, all because tall poppies hate successful people and loath the fact that they might want some of their taxes back.

How rude of us!

As I said earlier, test whatever tax loop-holes they may, but don't serve it up on a platter to them through super. It is utterly ridiculous that millions can be pulled by individuals from super having not been taxed on profit over decades, just 15% on the way in.

Any attempt to pull back on this incredible largesse by Costello is defended against to the hilt by the LNP and their entourage from the big end of town.

It's enough for the benefit to extend to something the befits a good lifestyle, rather than something that enriches the offspring. I can almost imagine the dead being refrigerated to keep the deal on the road for the offspring.

It's enough for the benefit to extend to something the befits a good lifestyle, rather than something that enriches the offspring.

---

I apologize if I am reading your message incorrectly but I have seen this "leave it to kids" argument many times at other forums.

There seems to be a misapprehension that a Retiree can simply take an Age Pension and let their Super grow for their kids, but the PRESENT system ensures that is not an option as any "decent" amount of super will severely limit the Age pension from Year #1 AND that quickly gets worse as super capital rises at say 8%.

So that is NOT a loophole.