On the ball David.
The government's playing about with superannuation has taken away the prime purpose of superannuation, which was to reduce the burden of old age pensions for future generations.

They have destroyed the expectations on which long term planning for self sufficiency can be made.

As an 80 year old I am incensed that I cannot transfer an excess over $1.6m to my wife. I did what society expected during my income earning
years- supported my wife fully. When I was a young man you supported your wife or went to gaol.

Because I supported my wife, she had no earned income during most of her life to base a superannuation account.

The net result is that we, as the couple we have been for 60 years, are discriminated against when compared to younger people who have the ability to build up two superannuation accounts.

That is a pathetic idea of morality - of what is fair.

There was a super swiftie in play here and that was when some folk used super as their personal tax haven to effectively reduce a top tax rate, from 48 cents in the dollar to 15!? And then argue as some do, as taxpayers, the private school they CHOOSE to send their kids to should be entitled to the same funding as the state system!

And more than one pollie is the beneficiary of negative gearing! With another hard done by right winger, Kevin Andrews, reportedly obtaining negative gearing benefit from a reported 230 properties? Go figure!

We inherited a Westminster system, which when first assembled, saw unpaid volunteers giving their time in the GENUINE service of county!

Later and with the formation of the labor party. he poor politicians from there were paid a stipend to cover cost of living. Since then incomes have grown along with pollies super to be among the most generous in history and unprecedented!

If there is a super swiftie in play, it has to be salary entitlements ten times the aged pension and for what? Effectively becoming (self serving) roadblocks that prevent a government from actuating a mandate? And then have the gaul to complain about a measure of equity and fairness being returned to a system.

Do something useful David, which would make a pleasant change, and get a nuclear industry up and running! Even if that means, shock horror, committing government funds! Check with U tube and numerous articles on (suppressed for half a century) SAFE, CLEAN, CHEAP thorium.

Oh I forgot, you're not there to benefit the country or the national interest or restore equity and fairness, just prevent others from achieving those outcomes, ever?
Alan B.

You are in a unique position David and just by asking the right questions, get something done for the nation!

When it comes to real economic outcomes and the multiplier effect, you get the dunces hat and are asked to stand in a corner, where you'll likely have plenty of company?

The roll-out of CLEAN CHEAP SAFE nuclear power would do more for this country and the domestic economy than any other reform/doable government controlled policy!

We were once the third wealthiest nation on the planet and a creditor one at that! And a time we we had the good sound commonsense to own and control all power generation and reticulation along with a few banks and cash cow essential service!

Now we carry in total record domestic and foreign debt! And around 95% of corporate Australia have off-shored operation to avoid our tax and fair reward for a fair days work! And I speak as a former businessman and employer!

Look, wages are just 16 % of the bottom line? The real impediment of doing business or making stuff here is the energy bill times transport costs times the cost of water, which is an essential in more manufacturing than you'll be aware of?

Pollies who know no more than what others tell them/want them to know, talk about natural cost!

The natural cost of CLEAN, SAFE, CHEAP thorium energy is around a dollar a year for the average family! Energy that cheap clean and inherently safe, safer and cheaper than coal is exactly what the nation needs to rekindle the manufacturing sector.

All we need after that is a fair and equitable tax system to relive the lifters from the dead weight of the tax avoiding leaners, who use the system to avoid a fair share of a common burden and the price we ought all willingly pay for the privilege of living in Australia!

The return of fairness and equity, would do far more o restore harmony than all the law and order rubbish so called libertarians continually waffle on about?
Alan B.

How come the good Senator fails to question this whole idea of superannuation to begin with?

Superannuation is coercive to begin with for all employees who are compelled to pay that money rather than use or save it the way they see fit. That money which they earned then falls into the hands of swindling managers, as the ordinary working person does not, and rightly should not need to, understand about economics and all that rubbish (just think of the loss of energy and unpaid productive time incurred by requiring ordinary people to be conscious of investments and all that, just in order to maintain their well-earned savings).

Subsequently, money earned in superannuation funds is not taxed in the same way as any other money earned: Why? Why should others who earned their money by the sweat of their brow, pay the full tax-rate while those who placed it in super pay only 15%, or even 0% once they flipped a switch?

The whole thing is unfair, the whole thing has got to go - and the latest "swiftie" is therefore a small step in the right direction, hopefully the beginning of the end!

On the other hand, while the OLO readership may be familiar with my opposition to government and its theft of our money, IF there is still to be a state/government, then the age-pension is one of the least unethical among its expenses. So long as the state exists and so long as it involves itself with all kinds of things that it shouldn't, such as health and education, this age-pension should not only remain but become unconditional and be remitted to anyone above a given age, no questions asked. Being unconditional, it will no longer discourage people from saving, so they can enjoy a bit more than meagre subsistence in their old age.

David Leyonhjelm writes "... a superannuation balance of $1.6 million ... is not enough to retire on without the age pension ...". He goes on to say this "... might only buy an annuity starting at around $50,000 ...", but that is more than TWICE the age pension and about 80% of average earnings (ABS, May 2016). That seems more that adequate for a comfortable retirement.

Tom W.

Dear Tom,

The age pension does not resemble anything like comfortable-retirement and even double that is borderline so, especially for someone like myself who is unwilling to take a tainted-cent from the state/government, which becomes a critical issue in old-age when medical and high-care expenses soar.

It is so sad to see loving old couples who, though longing to live together, live apart and see each other only 3 nights a week in order to avoid losing their dual single age-pension that is higher than a couple's pension, on which they cannot survive.