So Bill Shorten, as suspected, has his eyes on people's super, the top end of cause who usually achieve their high incomes from extreme efforts in the first place.

What a hide they (labor) have, as first they went on their quest of waste and mismanagement, which saw our surplus turned into a massive debt, then they want to tax those who no doubt through their higher taxes provided the most of the wasted funds in the first place.

So hold on to your hats people because this is just the beginning of grubby governments wanting to get their hands on the trillions in super.

Good on you Bill.
Stick it to those greedy crooks using the super system to rip off tax payers increasing their wealth at all our expense. Upper class welfare at its most obscene. Superbludgers they should be being called.

Extreme efforts my foot flesher. The rich are not the ones working hard. Many of them barely work at all. Even when they do they are incompetent as evidenced by the sorry state of many of our major companies.
Parasites the lot of them.

Bring back the 70% top tax rate and stop trying to milk the poor and the desperate.
Better still bring back the guillotine and the revolution and remind the cashchuckers why they(rightly) live in fear and paranoia. Seems they never learn.

We could save a damn sight more by putting all those public servants on a super scheme the same as the rest of us. Compared to the future unfunded liability for our bureaucrats pensions, any saving by attacking the self funded wealthy is peanuts.

We will know Labor is serious about helping any but unionists when we see a reduction in the cost of the unionised bureaucracy. Of course we will be very busy ducking all those flying pigs by then. This is just another bit of social envy utilisation, to keep the low achievers voting Labor. Funny isn't it, they vote for Labor who has a vested interest in keeping them where they are? I guess if they weren't dumb enough to fall for it, they wouldn't be low achievers.

Lol!...butcher, my heart bleeds for you.

Fancy someone putting a stop to Costello's nifty tax minimisation scheme for wealthy individuals.

The super scheme wasn't designed to do that. It's been the elephant in the room that Hockey & Co ignored when they decided to target those least able in society...especially as it seems they're not in favour of chasing down multi-national corporate tax evaders.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/rich-to-lose-tax-breaks-on-supersized-super-under-future-labor-government-20150422-1mq49r.html

"Capitalising on public dissatisfaction at the extent of tax minimisation by wealthy individuals who have been able to park pre-tax income in superannuation accounts to avoid the top marginal tax brackets applicable to other earnings..."

"future unfunded liability for our bureaucrats pensions"

The public servants paid for their compulsory superannuation.

"Unfunded" means that the employer, the government, didn't put in its contribution at the time.

As an occasional contractor to the federal public service it was very, very obvious that the overwhelming majority of public servants who retired or were forced to by redundancy were on quite modest incomes.

For that very large majority the superannuation they receive after the usual forty years or so employment is small and excludes them from receiving age pensioner benefits. It is only relatively recent that their indexing was made six monthly (lag) or so I understand. Previously it was only adjusted annually.

The real sting in the tail however is that unlike the politicians whose indexing in linked to average weekly earnings, the public servants' super is CPI linked, which ensures they rapidly lose the spending power of the super.

That is despite strong criticisms and recommendations by independent parliamentary committees of what they determined was unfair and discriminatory discounting of public servants (and military) superannuation by NOT applying similar indexing as enjoyed by their employers, the politicians.

While the the very top of the Senior Executive Service has increased in salary, it was due to them particularly where politicians removed their permanent status.

I don't have an oar in the water on this. It remains a perfect case example though of the hypocrisy of governments and the parliament. To the credit of the ACT Greens it is something they have criticised as glaringly unprincipled and unethical. The ACT Greens are right to say that.

I should have mentioned the Abbott government recently, passed legislation applying the current pension indexation arrangements to some military superannuation benefits (not to the 'Comsuper' public service superannuation).

The LNP described its 'initiative' as applying ‘fair indexation’ to these military superannuation benefits! It was political cynicism.

If it is 'far indexation' why didn't the government and parliament require the same indexation for the superannuation received by parliamentarians? The indexation applied to parliamentarians' super is fair. However as the employer of those now retired public servants the government knows it can get away as an employer with not being fair to its retired employees.

To take an example, it appears that the 'handsome'(sic) CPI indexation the retired public servants may eventually receive for the quarter ended December 2014 and for the quarter ended March 2015 ie for both quarters will be 0.37594%.

Not a windfall is it and definitely not what the politicians themselves would find acceptable. No rush either.

Again, it is only the ACT Greens who have been prepared to criticise the obvious unfairness and hypocrisy of BOTH sides of the parliament.