You appear to have no concept of wealth creation other than pursuant to some kind of government compulsion or confiscation.

For example you have ignored the third tier of retirees, who are neither on superannuation nor on the pension, because they have provided for their own retirement during their own lifetime by their own investments, hindered and gouged and castigated at every stage of the way by the meddling of the socialist know-it-alls.

It’s relatively easy to invest to outdo the super funds. I could, and would, have done better with my super money than my compulsory super funds did.

With the government gouging 40 and 50 percent of one’s income, and taking a further big bite through constantly inflating the money supply, the result is that many people, after a lifetime of working, arrive at old age broke. What account have you taken of these facts a) increasing the pension-reliant group you claim to be concerned about, and b) reducing the group who would otherwise be independent on their own investments?

The rich reaping the benefits of compulsory political wealth distribution schemes promoted by the economic illiteracy, or grasping, of socialists is a reason *against* such schemes, not in favour.

While ever you fail to take ethical account of the coercive nature of what you’re advocating, and fail to address the self-defeating economic dysfunctionality of your socialist grabbing schemes, I will challenge you to defend your “values” – mate.

Your concept, in lieu of economic theory, that human society is some kind of high-wire trapeze act, with people at risk of falling to their deaths without a 'safety net' (provided by government o'course - who else?), only shows sloppy and fuzzy thinking. You can't just conjure benefits by sleight of government. For your belief system to be rational, you have to take account of the same quantity on both sides of the equation. Without taking account of costs, anything will seem beneficial, durr, and you'll only end up with more of your own complaints that your own favoured schemes don't work *and* favour the rich.

Hi Killarney and JDJ,

I'm sure I'm not alone in not having super: we spent that a long time ago on putting a deposit on another house on the SA south coast where we intended to retire to. Neither do I therefore get a pension, since I now rent that place out. Nor do I have medical insurance, so life is quite exciting really. Yeah, a bit like being on the high wire without a net.

Compulsory superannuation didn't come in until the early nineties, about the time my contract with an Indigenous education organisation was scrapped: it's also an exciting thing to work for an Indigenous organisation, particularly if you disagree with them in any way. In anyway whatsoever. After all, loyalty to the clique is what counts, not performance. And certainly not initiative.

So if any Gen Y want my place, then - as my dear old English grandmother, such a refined Sussex lady, used to say - they can kiss my hairy arse.

Joe