Indy, the other point, I would always allow a tax free threshold of some kind, at the moment it is $18,200, no taxes or charges on that money ever. A modest amount of earnings above retirement age should always be allowed as it is now. On the full pension, both the poorest paid, and highest paid, receive the same pension, regardless of how much they have contributed, but the higher paid should receive more through superannuation. Do you agree?

Paul1405,
At first glance it sounds ok but let me digest your figures before I come back. We need to get away from bracketing because that's where in my opinion all the discrepancies creep in.
I think we need to get a system akin to a Flat tax Dollar for Dollar, no $37,000 - $ 50,000 etc.
Earn a Dollar, pay 15 or whatever Percent Tax !
Services such as Doctor visits, Dental, Ambulance & Old Age pension must be paid for in every Dollar of Tax. After all, this wouldn't be the only Tax , there's Tax in everything we buy & use.
One thing is certain, the very high salaries of bureaucracy in the Public Service need to become a thing of the past ! They make the whole Nation uncompetitive !

Indy, the only problem with a flat tax on income, is it has to be massively high to raise the required revenue to pay for all the largesse people expect from government. In noway would 15% flat income tax cut it, it would have to be much higher, probably more like 30% plus, if government is going to meet the expectations of the citizens. There in lies the rub, such a high tax, massively disadvantages the low paid, whilst giving a huge financial boost to high income earners. That's why we have a tax free threshold, and sliding scales, to cushion the tax burden on low income earners.

As for your previous claimed 7.5% contribution towards an aged pension entitlement, whether or not you made such a contribution at some time in the dim distant past through an income tax levy is immaterial, the fact is, if that money was there, its not there now. Based on that, like it or not, your payment from a pension fund today would be a big fat zero. Why I believe there never has been any such fund, is because aged pensions have always been means tested, granted, quite liberally, and have never been universal. Although, I recall there was a short lived attempt to pay a universal pension at age 70 by the Whitlam government. But when 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies claimed the pension at 70, there was a general hue and cry, and the scheme was shut down.

Paul1405,
You're the only person I know who doesn't know about the 7.5% pension contribution in income tax. You say 15 % is insufficient ? Well, put it up to 18 or 20 %. People must accept that if they expect services then they must contribute !
A pension is affordable & it must be the same for all, no higher pension for bigger earners, full stop !
The one thing Govt must do is not constantly move the goal posts !
It's not that Govt only has the pension fund to pay out, it has a multitude of other taxes that fill the coffers. Pensions will be spent anyway so it's not dead money at all. The main thing is, we have fewer welfare problems & improved local economy !