I actually don't have a problem, if they restrict how much can
be drawn at any one time. I've seen too many starry eyed dreamers
cash in their super, have a go at small business and lose the
lot in a short time. Next they are back on a pension, sucking
on the Govt teat.

Next we have those who want to rort the system. They've claimed
all the super tax deductions, but try and draw out what they can
to leave to the kids or spend up, then on the pension they go,
again the Govt teat suffers.

And that is really our problem! Too many on the Govt teat, not
enough providing for themselves.

rechtub/yabby I too have no fears about how much we can withdraw.
Well lets not allow them to go down the paid as pension track, but we should not get pensions we do not need.
My mid life job change took a very large settlement on retirement away.
It would have been huge.
My home and all is mine, but my intention to live without welfare will leave only the home to be fought over.
I you both, we all have spent our tax's every cent of them, in living in this great country and YES too many will not make the effort to feed themselves
Our super is safe, even more so, if we come to understand that fact.

Yes, Blind Freddie could see that the superannuation funds are going to become irresistible to the thieving of politicians.

And now we have clowns saying the "rational" way to deal with the problem is more tax! The scheme was not set up to help "the rich". Both the pension and super were set up by Labor to help the workers steal from others, and it hasn't worked out that way because the interventionists can never seem to understand that they can't just engineeer society at will.

Compulsory super is a classic example of one failed government intervention being used as the pretext for a further intervention, which in turn fails, and so on. In this case, the original intervention was the old age pension. When it was introduced, the proportion of payers to payees was about 27 to 1; now it’s more like 2 to 1. And people who were taxed all their lives to pay for the pension, feel entitled to receive it in their old age. But there was never money in trust. It was always ever only a tax-and-spend, an immoral steal-and-redistribute scheme. If a private company ran a Ponzi scheme like this, the directors would all be in prison, as our politicians should be.

In principle, each person should be able to provide for their own old age from their own savings. Provision for the poor must logically be from savings surplus to that. It is completely back-the-front to think that the primary consideration is provision for the poor. If the system is structured that way, as it has been, the result will be unsustainable, which is the problem we've got now.

The solution is to phase out governmental provision for the aged. More government intervention can only make the problem worse. The successful end result would be a self-sufficient retired population, with charitable provision for the poor. The government needs to stop taxing income and savings, and tell everyone to prepare now for their own retirement or rely on charity. The transitional provision is to grant relief from taxes into old age.

JKJ forgive me, but you are kidding are you not?
Superannuation is a Labor/Union gain, yes.
Often paid for in wages rises being redirected to? Superannuation.
Other increases come from increased productivity in enterprise agreements.
In fact very many years ago, a prime minister said we would all bank In social security 6 penths a week, to pay our pensions it did not work.
Tell me I am wrong, but you appear to think those who have not provided for old age should be let die in the streets.
Single mothers get the short end of the stick less wages less super less hope.
Do you understand you apparent good fortune may be based on luck? and bad luck may be a reason others fail.
I am not defending parasites, we have plenty who will not work and bosses who thieve workers wages ,but you sicken Me.

Jardine K. Jardine
I couldn’t agree more.

I would also add that of the 2-1 ratio we have now, many of the 1’s take family hand-outs along the way, further stretching the funds.

Those of us who are in the mid to late stages of our working lives have seen first hand how our predecessors have been robbed blind of their promised entitlements, so much so that many now cheat taxes as they know they will be forgotten at old age, or, they waste every cent knowing that they will be looked after.

As I have often said, work hard, spend hard and waste all you have and you will be rewarded with a pension. Save hard and contribute maximum taxes and you are on your own.

It is a back to front world we live in, but hey, the powers to be are simply not financially accountable for the actions. They simply have an open cheque book to pretty much do with as they like, while, all the time racking up personal super and ongoing benefits in the millions

Belly
You do understand, don't you, that the only way the poor can be provided for, is out of savings surplus to the requirements of those who provide for themselves? If that is not so, then the only other logical possibility is that the poor must be provided for at the expense of those who provide for themselves. If you don't understand that, as you don't seem to, then you don't understand what you are talking about.

At present, the old aged pensioners are being provided for out of the income of people who are now working, thus preventing the current generation from providing for their own retirement. The problem with the current system is, it's not sustainable. Thus it *doesn't matter* whether you think the current system is good, it must eventually crash, and leave large numbers in poverty and distress, because the governments have more pension liabilities than they have revenue to pay for them. Do you understand that?

So if it's not sustainable, why was it set up? Because economically illiterate people, stupid people, greedy people, idiots, and halfwits, didn't understand that. They thought, like you, that the problem of poor people being poor was because of not enough government intervention, as if wealth was a genie, and only government could rub the lamp. But government intervention doesn't solve the problem of poor people being poor. It merely takes the original problem, and makes it much bigger and worse and unavoidable in the future, which is now coming due.

You have not given any reason why people should not provide for their own retirement. Even if people have bad luck, they can still insure against it.

There is not the slightest reason why the population should be forced to pay for single mothers to look after their own children. They can make extra money doing other people's shopping, cooking, cleaning, gardening and so on. They also have everything they need to earn extra money, and it's right between their legs.