Luciferase, our super should have been channelled into publicly owned assetts, rather than left to greedy fund managers to take their share of the pie, while at the same time, play Rusian Roulette with people futures, like the Storm Finacial disaster.

I hate to think just how stable our futures would be now, if in excess of a trillion dollars had been pumped into inf, as all contributors would be enjoying their forthcoming retirement, rather than fearing it.

Heaven knows we would still own the likes of Testra.

Of cause, the whole problem with this is that grubby politicians (FROM BOTH SIDES) would not be able to resist the temptation of spending/wasting it.

SM,
The superannuation changes from Labor are a winner for them, fairly taxing 16,000 mega rich superannuates, people with millions in the kitty. On the other hand your man Abbott wants to disadvantage 3,600,000 of the lowest paid workers by taxing them more. Abbott confirmed on Sunday that the Coalition would abolish Labor's low-income super contribution, Is this the sort of policy you support? I don't, and i'm not saying that from a point of self interest as I do not qualify for the benefit.
It is of great concern to me that Abbott and his front bench are economic light weights. It seems to please the Mad Monk no end, to go around 'trash talking' the Australian economy, he has been guilty of this on several occasions. Politics are politics, but Abbott seems to be hell bent on undermining the Australian economy in the eyes of the world. How Un-Australian is a man who would harm ordinary people for his own political gain

Be careful what you wish for, rehctub.

>>Luciferase, our super should have been channelled into publicly owned assetts<<

Let's put that into perspective for a moment.

"The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s (APRA) Annual Superannuation Bulletin said the value of total superannuation assets jumped by $49 .6 billion, or 3.7 per cent, to $1.4 trillion in the 12 months to June 30 2102."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wealth/apra-says-total-superannuation-pool-worth-14-trillion-at-june-3/story-e6frgac6-1226550483075

Which "public assets" did you have in mind for this level of investment?

How would the money involved be made available to the superannuants when they need it (e.g. to live on), if it is tied up in - say - the NBN?

Then there's this, from the same article.

"They are likely to have climbed by as much as 9 per cent since then, after a 15 per cent rise in equity markets."

Which "publicly owned asset" could have matched this increase in value, over the same time period? Or ever, come to that.

I don't know about you, but the idea of handing over my savings to the government to "invest" in projects of their choice fills me with dread. They already see the pot as a tempting target for further taxation, don't let them get their hands on the rest of it.

The problem is, they have completely forgotten whose money it is. It is ours, not theirs. Because they dance to a different drum...

"...the regulator did point out how much better those public sector defined benefit funds did in the financial year than any other major superannuation category."

Why would they give a flying fig for the rest of us, when they themselves are on such a cushy number?

Pericles, you say how would assets fund retirements, it's called profits.

First, we could have fixed the unemployment problem, unless you're one who believes the numbers, as simply by have enough assets, means NO ONE need be without a job, as 100% of the profits would have stayed here.

Paul, where do you think those millions in savings came from, and just how much tax do you think those with the savings have paid along the way.

Battlers should be grateful that the wealthy go off to work and pay so much in tax, much of which provides the battlers with a lifestyle they could only ever dream of otherwise.

In fact, you don't have to be wealthy to miss out on the free lunch.

At least the receivers of the free lunch could show a little gratitude, don't you think!

Paul,

If Labor is onto a winner, why are they as popular as dog poo?

As far as economic lightweights are concerned, Labor has yet meet it's budget plan, or cost correctly a single policy. Labor aspires to be economic lightweights.

That's exactly what I was getting at, rehctub.

>>Pericles, you say how would assets fund retirements, it's called profits.<<

True. But where, in your scenario, would these profits come from?

Think about it for a moment as you look again at what you wrote...

>>First, we could have fixed the unemployment problem, unless you're one who believes the numbers, as simply by have enough assets, means NO ONE need be without a job, as 100% of the profits would have stayed here.<<

Profits are achieved after paying the wages (sorry, am I going too fast?), so will be far more difficult to achieve if you a) allow businesses to be run by public servants and b) employ everyone who is presently unemployed.

The reality of your scenario is that these businesses would be slowly run into the ground due to egregious mismanagement, and our superannuation savings would go through the floor with them.

If you disagree, give me a quick example of how your programme of investing my superannuation in publicly owned assets would actually work in practice. What would change, and how would that change affect my savings?

Just one illustration will do.