Dear Pericles,

Why the NBN of course, and tramways, high-speed rail, expressways (joint venture tollways, of course), a second Sydney airport, Holden and Toyota, and Super-trawlers, plus Gonski and higher education (for overseas students) and face-to-face trade negotiations as well as tours to talk up Australian Tourism - and all the consultants along the way - and joy of joys a competitor to Telstra, a Pubic Bank, and joint mining ventures all over the shop.
A dead-set winner all the way - as long as no-one wants to retire or draw an old age pension until the profits (read return on investment) start rolling in around 2030-2200.

Lucely keeps talking about super as though it's ripping food out of the mouths of babes, when the reality is that it's worker's investments, and, far from being money ripped from government coffers, it's a lifeblood of serious and profitable enterprise.
The changed arrangements (as thus far revealed) is a NEW Tax (as will be the rest of the tinkering Labor has in mind) designed to bolster government coffers - in order to fund some of Labor's 'wishlist' or failed promises, in order to regain part of their lost standing in the eyes of a disenchanted electorate before September (or whenever).

Superannuation 'justice' for all - yeah, yeah, but the real agenda is more wealth re-distribution, bridging a spiraling-out-of-control budget deficit, and some shiny new 'lollies' for the upcoming election campaign.

Even Thatcher would not be amused by the 'spin'.

Pericles, you must have miss understood my post, as the biggest problem with my suggestion is leaving it up to government, from either side.

So hypothetically speaking, profits would come from thelikes of Telstra, toll roads, factories ect, as many of our major companies are partially, if not all but totally forieng owned, so the profits leave our shores.

So in essense, my suggestion was merely a pipe dream I'm afraid.

Sorry if I miss led you.

I then read Saltpetre's post.

If only we could trust governments to get it right, what a great place this would be.

Earlier I wrote "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." This was a bit cryptic and was not meant to suggest super funds should be forced into infrastructure investment. No, funds should simply invest on the best risk/return basis,

I was simply referring to Costello's largess in removing the exit tax on super earnings for over 60's being extended too far, decreasing revenue that could have been spent on infrastructure. This will rightly to be pulled back if Labor can manage to stay in power.

Saltpetre, you earn money you pay tax, be it on wages/salary or super. Also, Investment earnings are taxed both within and outside super. Super tax arrangements are a concessional compared to income tax to entice investment to fund for retirement. The argument is about how concessional they should be.

To be consistent you must also find income tax to be offensive. Being arch-conservative, perhaps you do. You say "Lucely keeps talking about super as though it's ripping food out of the mouths of babes...". I'm sure there are many babes out there and others whose needs could put ahead of the wants of wealthy superannuants.

Grow up Luciferase, the whole idea of super is to put food in the mouths of babies, by reducing the requirement of government funded old age pensions.

For the average worker that is about all it does, it sure won't make their retirement a bed of wealthy roses.

To get the wage earner to accept loosing quite a bit if now income, to have it given back in many years time, some sweetener was required in the form of tax relief. If such a sweetener is not offered the resistance to the whole system will see it fail. Worker resistance would destroy it.

So if you want the money to put food into the mouths of the so called disadvantaged, you would be wise to fully support the current system, rather than rob those who have payed into it.

"For the average worker that is about all it does, it sure won't make their retirement a bed of wealthy roses."

Sharpen up, Hasbeen, clearly I'm not talking about reducing the concessions for average workers. Those with 2 million in super would never burden the taxpayer by qualifying for a pension even if taxed at a non-concessional rate on all their super earnings. Why then extend the concession beyond the first 100K p.a?

"...you would be wise to fully support the current system...". I do, Hasbeen, but it needs Costello's over-generosity wound back. What is the point of extending concessional tax rates beyond 100K p.a earnings (indexed) when the average worker will never reach that amount? Services like health, that also affect average workers'lives, can be better funded by limiting the concession and collecting more tax revenue.

If the Gov't wanted a guarantee it would not be re-elected it would have lowered the 100K p.a figure. It's about right where it is. Those opining that a lower figure was planned for the budget are like Murdoch journalists who enjoy the smell of their own manure.

The level of whining by average Joe's over this reform leaves me in awe at how much they'd rather burn the witch than see reason.

Luciferase, the only reason super is on the agenda, is due to the missmanagement from this incompitent mob, because put simply, they have wasted so much money, they are now out of options, esspecially given their greedy grab a the miners has failed.

As far as them getting another crack, keep dreaming, they are dead in the water.