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?

I cannot see that Betsy's article contains an "unstated assumption that the Government should protect investors against losses" as Ken L says it does. Betsy is simply making the point, with which I wholeheartedly agree, that self-funded retirees have suffered a double whammy of falling share prices and falling interest rates and are in no condition to suffer the big hit predicted in the budget. My fear is that the Rudd government will use the excuse of the need to correct its massive budget deficit to make "reforms" to superannuation that will have more to do with ideology than economics. The change to the conditions for receiving the Seniors Health Card is a straw in the wind. It must not be forgotten that many self-funded retirees have lived on relatively modest salaries all of their working lives and now have very modest retirement incomes indeed. The Seniors Health Card removes the principal temptation to rearrange one's affairs to create eligibility for a part-pension. DonG

The fact remains that an extraordinary number of special benefits and concessions were made under Howard to this group. Why should they have a much lower tax rate than a family on a similar income? Why should they have various other concessions that are not available to others on considerably lower incomes?
To bring up self-funded retirees on relatively low incomes is a furphy as it is clear that the government will target higher income self-funded retirees only.
Howard ran a very class-based policy in this area but as it favoured higher-income people it was not named as such. When some of these policies are modified in favour of those on lower incomes a hue and cry starts about class warfare. What hypocrisy and nonsense all that is.

There is an implicit assumption about the level of income that is reasonable for superannuants to access tax free.
Is that tax free income threshhold going to be set at $30,000 or $60,000 or $120,000 or $250,000? Is that threshhold going to be indexed for inflation?

I want to register a protest about the annual changes to the superannuation system which are difficult to understand and mean that superannuants have to churn accountants/advisors when the current one fails to keep up to date with this year's tax lore [oops I meant law]

Poor dears, happy to take the growth in the good years (subsidised by taxpayers), now you want assistance when the free market turns against you! Sorry, no sympathy for greed.
High returns = high risk, low risk = low returns.
You take the good in the good years, silly you for assuming money for nothing would continue forever.
As another poster put it. Under Howard most people get shafted to support his pet generation. Get used to a bit of fairness as applied to the whole community, not just "Howard's folk".
The "spend the kids inheritance" generation are about to have their chickens come home to roost.

Ozandy, our society has a social safety net so that people will not starve if they do not have family to support them when they are too old or too sick to work. If we did not have this social safety net every one would have many children to ensure that they would be looked after - refer the family structures of developing countries.

Australia had an antiquated employer based super scheme that traditionally provided pensions to a few key staff and bugger the fellow on the production line. As good women were all married they didn't need to work so they didn't need a pension either.

The practice of the state and commonwealth public service funding their employee pensions when the employee retires, the increasing longevity of pensioners, the increasing proportion of women [in the aged cohort] reliant on pensions (rather than their husband's income) has led governments to raise the retirement age for women and encourage people to save for their old age through the vehicle of superannuation.

I don't know the figures but it's safe to say that 80% superannuation pensions pay less than $30,000 per annum. Should pensioners on $30,000 per annum pay tax?

Other countries notably UK, Canada and New Zealand have a universal pension system that appears far more generous than the Australian system, presumably because its simpler to administer and less costly to run because there are no profits for the super fund managers and no moneys lost through unwise investments made by beguiled contributors

Sorry guys, but you just worked to hard and didn't waste enough.

You see we have a 'tall poppy' system here, whereby if you work hard, save hard, you will be hit hard, WHY? becasue they can.

My best advise for future generations is to Buy that Boat, go on that holiday, in fact, work hard, piss all your money against the wall and you will be rewarded.

Sorry guys, you have me deepest sympathy. You have been betrayed, BIG TIME!

Self-pity will get you nowhere rehctub. It is not about people being victimised - it is about having some fairness and equity in the system and not having well off self-funded retirees being treated as a needy group who deserve special government benefits.

Well off self-funded retirees should live up to their name and fund themselves and stop trying to obtain special benefits that are not available to others on similar incomes.

Well said Australiana.
Billie, I am a strong advocate of a safety net and looking after the poor.
What I strongly disagree with is the notion that because the poor receive assistance, that this should also extend to those that do not need it. ie. middle class, and upper class welfare.
Howard used government funds as a social tool to gain votes and pursue his culture wars.
Government payouts to folks who own million of dollars in assets and have stable incomes are a waste of funds and defeat the purpose of "welfare". Government propping up of businesses (Private Health Insurance, Private Schools, His brothers business) that make *profits* is a massive distortion of the system.
Here is some reality: The 20%pa returns experienced in last 10 years will now need to be paid for. Some of us younger generations who got nothing from the last 10 years of "boom" are keen to see the intergenerational wealth transfer at least stop, if not reverse for a while.
It will be our turn to cry "gimmie, I'm old" in 20 years time but unlike the current mob, we have a lifetime's experience of being screwed by government, employers and the financial system.
Leaving Uni with a $12,000 debt and then having my first $2000 of Super stolen in fees and charges was a hint of what was to come.

So Australiana and any of you other 'tall poppies' out there. Just how do you think the majority of todays wealthy self-funded retirees bacame wealthy. From hard work for which they contributed S-loads of taxes along the way and all they want is some of it back.

The one thing they didn't plan for 40 or 50 years ago was the huge number of 'layabouts' whos only mission in life is to see just how much they can suck from the system with the minimum amount of personal input.

At least one thing is for sure, and that is that when future generations retire, it is most likely that there will be very few who actually achieved much so there won't be any 'safety net' as you put it to speak of which may well mean that many will have to fend for themselves. Wow, won't that hurt! Nothing left to suck from.

You should be greatfull for the efforts of these people, many of which faught in wars just so you could live a peacefull existance.

As I said earlier self-pity is a terrible thing. It corrodes your character and turns you into a dreary moaner. Hysterical tosh about the present and future generations reveals you to be a sad and embittered old man. Definitely not a role model for anybody.

AustraliaA.rehctub is right.The next generation might as well spend and not work hard.It is a waste of time and effort.The harder we try the more they tax us or up the interest rates.

The Aborigines had it right.Go fishing and live for the moment.Kevin will get us into so much debt that we will never pay off the interest let alone the principle.

Well australiana, you are way off the mark mate. I am in fact on the better side of 50 and still working hard and living well, although I don't really need to keep working but I get great satifaction out of my job, my customers and the fact that I can pass my skills on to the young up and coming butchers.

With regards to the 'role model' as you put it, we do in fact need a new roll model as the previous ones, those who worked hard and saved hard, in many cases to provide a strong education for their kids, have been 'chewed up' and 'spat out'.

There is no way anyone today can give any assurances to the young ones that hard work pays off, cause, IT DON'T!

This government is just a bunch of 'gold diggers' looking to reap taxes from anywhere possible so they can feed their obsession of driving this wonderful country into bankruptsy. Their off to a good start hey, from 23 billon in surplus to a suggested 70 billion in the red in just 18 months.

The only comfort I draw from this is the fact that I had nothing what so ever to do with them being elected.

The labor voters wanted change, boy they shaw go it hey!

Having just joined this Forum, I'm somewhat surprised at the quite nasty tone of some of the posts criticising self funded retirees.

As one of this apparently unkindly thought of group, I'd like to point out that at 63 years of age, I've had one overseas holiday in my life (2 weeks in Singapore and Hong Kong when I was 24), have twice had assets diminished because of marriage failure, have had to stop work early because of illness, have rarely bought other than op shop clothing for the last 20 years, and much more, saving every possible dollar so that I could be self supporting in retirement.

This has been my choice and I'm glad for it. But I do rather object to being labelled rich and/or greedy.

I know plenty of people on full government pension. One example:
a couple who had no children, worked all their lives until retirement age, spent everything they earned as they went. Why didn't these people (and many like them) use some of their earnings to fund their own retirement?

I'm more than happy for the tax I've paid over the years to support those who genuinely are in need of help. But I've volunteered in the community for 15 years and seen hundreds of examples of tax payer funded government benefits paying for gambling, excessive alcohol and drug consumption.

So maybe those who are so critical of self funded retirees might temper their remarks with some understanding of how galling it can be to unwillingly be funding so many people who just throw it up against a wall.

It is interesting to read the ill feeling / anger that some seem to be aimed against self funded retirees.
Our family believed in the creed that you needed to save all your life, to look after yourself in your old age. And that is exactly what we did. It meant that we worked six or seven days a week, we had three holidays in over forty years; we grew a lot of our food, milked a cow, bought principally secondhand clothes, furniture and white goods. I am sitting at the typewriter wearing a jacket I bought when I was 24 (and I am now 68). We never wasted money. We educated four children through University, raising a doctor, teacher, engineer, and scientist, who all contribute to society. And we are now living meagerly on our savings, frequently spending less than the fabled pension. But the loss of a health care card, should it come, would cause real anxiety in our old age. When you sling off at 'self funded retirees', stop and consider just how much many of them gave up, that you take for granted,- like entertainment, alcohol, holidays, new furniture and clothes, and be glad they are still living within their means, and trying NOT to be a drain on the governments resources.

Rothsay has the wrong end of the stick. The argument in this forum has not been about self-funded retirees on moderate incomes. Instead the focus has been on whether well-off self-funded retirees should continue to receive all the benefits awarded especially to them by the Howard government. Some of these benefits, such as the Health Care Card, are not available to families with children on much lower incomes. Is that fair?

If Rothsay is on a modest income he/she should stop worrying about losing benefits such as the Health Care Card as it is clear that the government will only be targeting much higher incomes. The fact that he/she is worrying is testimony to the beatups being splashed about in some of the mass media.

Rothsay, Take a bow, you are in my opinion a 'model Aussie Baby Boomer'. It's a pitty you were miss lead into beleving that you would be catered for in your twilite years. Unfortunately I can't appologise as I wasn't the one making the decisions at the time, but you do have my sympathy.

Australiana
I have always been of the opinion that our system is backwards.

Imagine a system that gives back a percentage of your taxes paid throughout your life in the form of a pension.

Given that we are looking like heading into 'record debt levels' I think my thoughts are more a dream than ever before.

Why should one person be catered for and another dismissed just because they succeeded while the others failed?

We live in a world that rewards failure and punishes success. Why?

I think Self-funded retiree's should take advantage of the fantastic tax concessions that John Howard brought in for Over 60 year olds with super.

Basically any money in a self-funded retiree's superannuation fund will not be taxed.

If they have more than $250,000 to invest into a superfund they can start a Self-managed superannuation fund which has low fixed rate fees.

They can make all the investment decisions themselves and not risk their money with highly paid fund managers whose perfermance has not be great lately.

Weem Financial Services allows self-funded retirees to set up their Self-managed superannuation fund online at www.weem.com.au and provides advice for self-funded retirees who would like to run their own Self-managed fund.