I don't think the government has anything against self-funded retirees but it does need to address the extraordinary favouritism that Howard bestowed on this group, especially its more wealthy members. This group contained a large part of his core support and he rewarded them handsomely but at the unfair expense of taxpayers and receivers of government benefits. The economic crisis is an ideal opportunity to build more fairness back into the system.

Dividend imputation is a separate issue and there is no indication as yet that the government will agree to the changes, which as yet are only speculation about what might turn up in Ken Henry's review.

Putting to one side the speculation about what the government may or may not do at some unknown future date, I'm struggling to understand the nature of the complaints in the post. The unstated assumption seems to be that the government should protect investors against losses. I would have more sympathy with this argument - although still not much - if the government taxed the capital gains of self-funded retirees but in fact they don't, by and large. And I don't recall self-funded retirees offering to give up some of their taxpayer-funded perks when the value of their superannuation was going up at four or five times the rate of inflation a few years ago.

Many retirees pay much less tax than workers on the same income, who are struggling to raise kids while working casually in very precarious employment arrangements ... and having to find enormous mortgage payments or rents to boot.

We have a safety net that provides means-tested pensions and other benefits for the elderly. I'd be interested to read Betsy's case for giving special treatment to self-funded retirees in the first place.

I think if you read the other posts Betsy you'll get the flavor of what's happening. Any self funded retiree is perceived to have had a leg up and is considered "rich" in the new Labor class warfare stakes.

Your argument that the state cannot afford to fund everyone and they need to fund themselves is lost here unfortunately.

I don't want to be a burden to the state or my descendants, but there are some people who want to see everyone reduced to a common class.

Our dear leader, PM Rudd, and his media team are masters at tapping into the vein of populist culture and at this moment, attacking CEOs company directors or anyone perceived to be "rich" is paying dividends.

PM Howard would see a master of the dog whistle if he looked back here now. Mind you it doesn't help Australia, but it helps keep the current government winning the daily news cycle, and that's all that counts to some people.

Don't worry love, if your income really gets so low, you can't afford the hair dresser appointments, & the holidays, you can apply for a part pension & live reasonably comfortably.

You might even get so poor, that you could get the full pension, like millions of others. The holidays will be out, but you should still be able to afford some mince, a couple of times a week.

I wonder what sort of artical you would write, if you did have to rely on just the pension?

Kevin is following the creed of Wall St and the Global Banksters from a Govt point of view.You socialise the losses and capitalise on the taxes.We wouldn't mind so much if they spent a bit better.

You can be darn sure none of the Rudd millions will be touched.Bob Carr before he brought in draconian land taxes in NSW bought in New Zealand where there were none.

When government provides 'free' benefits paid for by inflating the money supply, this systematically robs people who save, including self-funded retirees.

Yes Rudd's policies are nothing but cynical thieving. However there is no point in objecting to it on the basis that you'd like more of other people's money. That's what everyone else is doing. In fact this article is a perfect illustration of the intellectual climate in a country in which politics becomes the mere unprincipled scramble by each interest group to plunder everyone else.

There is no way out of the problem while ever people are in the ethical wasteland of forced redistributions - in a word, socialism. The case of self-funded retirees rings hollow if all they have to contribute to the debate is a plea for more handouts. However they are perfectly justified in demanding that their savings cease to be treated as public property. The way out is a recognition of the ethical principle and practice of individual freedom and private property. Socialism is a dead end: or didn't we learn that in the 20th century?