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

Never mind Bill Shorten Rehctub, who is not in a position to change anything at present, you should be more worried about what the present Government is doing with our retired health services consumers.

All but the poorest in our society are expected not to be on a full aged pension even more often these days. But beware, unless you are on a full pension when you retire and then need some home help or personal care to stay at home, you will be paying big dollars for any help at all.

It is best to just have the roof over your head when you retire, and nothing else , so you can get a full pension. Otherwise you won't be able to afford to get old and sick....

So given these high income earners are already paying at least $84,000 in income tax, more than. The so called average wage, you lot want even more out of them. Unbelievable!

If you are one of the 70+% who rely on welfare to live, just ask yourself, who do you think provides that welfare you so heavily rely on?

As for the comment 'most of them don't work hard', do you think they left school at grade 9 and fell into their jobs?

Also, for every individual who earns $250K plus, how many jobs do you think are supported by this persons efforts/skills?

Of cause to earn $250K plus usually means one is pretty clever and, if you try to tax their super on the way in, on earnings and on the way out, they will simply stop using super as an investment tool.

Suze, couldn't agree more. The next thing governments will address is to stop those who retire at 55, spend their super on trips, cars, motor homes, boats etc, then claim the pension at age 65. That's most certainly one thing I'm considering. It's just a shame that these spend thrift adventures are actually spending the kids inheritance, meaning most of them will then be reliant on the pension as well.

Talk about pissing into a fan.

Hard work and effort should be rewarded, not punished and, if someone on $80 K a years is entitled to something, why should the person on three times that amount, paying more in tax than they earn, miss out.

The whole system is ars about.

In summary, you can't ask people to make themselves self sufficient on the one hand, then tax them mid field. Shifting the goal posts just because governments give too much out or waste too much is not the answer. Accountability of governments would be one place to start because to have two ex pm's on half a million a year for life combined when they caused so much chaos is a joke.

rehctub,

"The whole system is ars about."

At present, yes.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/4/23/tax/alps-tentative-steps-towards-super-reform?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=BusinessSpectator&utm_medium=Twitter

"According to the Murray inquiry, the wealthiest 10 per cent of Australians receive 38 per cent of superannuation tax concessions -- more than the concession to the bottom 70 per cent of income earners combined

Superannuation tax concessions are designed to benefit those who don’t need them and, as a result, has effectively become a tax avoidance scheme for wealthy Australians. The purpose of these tax concessions is also unclear; it certainly has little to do with the sustainability of the superannuation system or relieving pressure on the aged pension."

Now, perhaps you might like to stop your squealing and foot stamping and consider a fair system for your country.

P,

It is probably worth noting that the richest 10% also pay nearly 50% of the income tax and receive less than 1% of the benefits.

SM,

It's probably also worth noting that they live and derive their affluence in a first world industrial society with advanced infrastructure and relative peace and prosperity - cheap at half the price in my book.