I totally disagree with your article

you are arguing that efficiency gain will make up for the decline in workforce participation. The point you miss is that part of the gain a worker receive from this efficiency gain goes to inflation. Also the only way of re-distributing the wealth is through higher taxation.

Australia already have a "way-too- high" marginal tax rate of 47%, this has led to the higher end of the work force to leave for the US, Hong Kong and UK, and for people like Rupert Murdoch and Pat Rafter to live in low tax jurisdiction. The only thing a lifting of the tax rate "to fund social pension" would be to increase the amount of our work force going overseas to work, and the use of tax minimisation vehicles for the wealthy ones who remains in Australia. This leaves the tax burden on middle Australia, who have a mortgage

You also seem to think it will be easy to let everyone access to their superannuation. If everyone withdraw from superannuation, firstly the stock market and property market will crash (simple supply and demand). Companies will start making losses, and start laying off staff. If you want to loss your job and lead Australia to another recession, feel free to scrap superannuation.

I agree with compulsory Super, from what I hear and read, Compulsory Industry Super funds are okay - good returns and low overheads.

Not so the Portable & Personal Super funds marketed by the born-again Insurance companies.

My first Life Ins Policy ran from 1950-1975 when I asked my AMP Agent to cash it in on a new "Whole of Life" Policy - could be converted to Super at a later date. Great, until I retired from Navy and went to put AMP money into an NLM Personal Super Plan - I was self-employed at the time.

AMP gave me a paltry amount and I asked why? Oh, the Agent didn't cancel the original policy and, under Govt regs, the money ate itself up until none left! I asked AMP to compensate me, it was their agents fault - oh no, he was a self-employed agent, AMP is not responsible, since he left the company. They told me he probably didn't transfer old into the new, as his commission would have been reduced by the fortnightly contributions to the original.

So, I had to start from scratch again, with NLM, then transferred to Australian Eagle, who were going extremely well at that time.Three years later I entered hospital for major surgery (war injuries) and was off work 2 years

Since, Aussie Eagle were swallowed by Zurich (I think), then MLC, who were swallowed by NAB. With the Crash of 1987 and lousy funds management by MLC, my money is now worth less than it was 15 years ago! Grrr. Last year I had to retire again, earlier injuries now stop me working altogether.

Worse still, CML want to take half my Super off me, more management fees, if I attempt to withdraw it and put it somewhere else, where I can get a better return! Superannnuation - Grrrrr!

Flez

I am amazed that the writer with academic qualifications can get it so wrong. I am sure the economics Professors and Lecturers at Deakin University would be embarrased by such a display of ignorance. The comment that we are forced to pay 9% of our wages into compulsory superannuation is wrong wrong wrong!

At best an argument can be made that the workers contribute 3% that being the original wage/super trade off from the Wages Accord.

The rest is a tax on employers, not employees . Does the learned Professor believe that every boss would give their workers a 9% (6% in real terms as the original 3% came from the workers in lieu of a pay increase) pay increase if the Federal Government abolished the superannuation surchage. Look there is a pig flying backwards.

Seriously the superannuation funds play an important economic role in capital formation as well as providing the means to improve retirement incomes for ordinary Australians.

Could anyone imagine what the current account deficit would be without the multi billion superannuation funds earning and developing income streams that ultimately lead to capital inflows.

It seems that the author has a degree of bitterness directed towards the former life funds which are the major benficiaries of the Howard choice legislation.

Industry funds which are not designed to generate dividends to shareholders but deliver a maximum return to their members provide quality services to their members and you do not ever hear these members complaining.

At least there are some perks to being self-employed, like legal ways around paying into a superfund where the main beneficiary is the fund manager and not the contributor!

Realist, I too will go with good property choices anyday - by far the winner over super.

Having said that I doubt that any Government can continue to hand out retirement pensions, given the continued rise in life expectancy. Not everyone has the self discipline to save and invest along the way so compulsory super is possibly the only easy solution.

All this tax and compulsion, is enough to send one into an early retirement.

coraliz

problems with your argument

with property, you actually do lose money, and you are hoping to be compensated by capital gain and the capital gain will probably not be there the next 10 years.

even over the last few year, shares investment out perform property, with earning and capital gain greater than the rise in property prices

shares are a safer investment than property, in the last recession, you are more likely to lose more on you property (because of gearing) then in your share portfolio.

you can actually have your property investment in a superannuation fund.

It is