Luciferase,

Just how many times do you want to tax superannuation? It is already taxed up-front when the deposit is made to the fund.

There is no practical reason apart from expenditure elsewhere why government shouldn't give the age pension to all past the required age. Review where the money is going first and then look again at the priorities for the wastage, whoops expenditure, of those taxpayers' $$.

You know as well as anyone else that this is just another tax because the federal government cannot stop spending.

I notice you steered clear of the hypocrisy of Gillard's and Swann's outrageously boosted superannuation, that unlike their 'servants', the military and government employees, is fully indexed. Also, unlike their public servants, Gillard and Swann are not obliged to fund in advance what they might receive in superannuation benefits.

So much for the hollow spin of equity or fairness in this government's approach to superannuation.

From their own retirement benefits, Gillard, Swann and other government Ministers vie withe wealthy people they say they despise. Just work out how much has to be invested to safely deliver what they receive when they retire.

It's all about me-me-me, Luciferase. How could it be any other way.

If you are going to lose out over the new regulations, you will bitch and moan, then get your accountant or financial advisor to work out a new scheme for yourself. If you believe that you will be a net beneficiary of the changes (even if you are unable to work out exactly how or why this might occur), you wave your arms in the air and say "hee hee hee, soak-the-rich, soak-the-rich".

For instance:

>>...the super industry seems to think this reform is actually OK<<

And what exactly is their stake in the game? Why, it is going to make superannuation planning just a little bit more complicated, so that their particular investment vehicles will attract more of Joe Public's funds, and away from the rapidly-growing SMSF segment, innit?

It's all just noise.

Sound and fury - on all sides of the political and financial spectrum - signifying nothing.

OTB: "There is no practical reason apart from expenditure elsewhere why government shouldn't give the age pension to all past the required age. Review where the money is going first and then look again at the priorities...."

Many europeans have been there done that under the cloud of black economies rife with tax avoidance. They, their children and grand-children will be paying for it for a long time to come.

Regarding the Canberra gang on all sides, heck, I'm jealous too. Enter politics if you want to join them, but I don't see how adding fuel to OLO's burning witch (JG) applies to sustainable superannuation policy. Happy to join a discussion on this in another thread

Pericles, noise? It's about applying public resources in an equitable manner, a significant and complex issue. Sorry if you're tired old dear/chap.

....Costello announced that super after 60 would be tax free for all, a bit overgenerous really

Yes L, but you must remember, this was pre labor, when we had money in the bank and a future.

Then along came labor.

Need I say more!

The odd bit of infrastructure for the future would have been a better spend, butch, but we used the money to pay ourselves bonuses instead.

Paul,

While I think with all the leaks from the ex cabinet, and the articles about funding the NDIS and Gonski, that it was patently obvious that Labor intended to bring in a big new tax on super, but chickened out.

What everyone forgets is that while this tax is small, it is yet another level of red tape and reporting that labor has introduced that pensioners will pay for. For example, I have my super with 3 different agencies. If each of them made $50k in earnings a year, how would the others know? Who would pay the tax etc.

It is yet another example of Labor's economic incompetence.