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!