--continued from above--

And lastly, regarding public servants: their super is basically the same as ours- with the exception that they get 14.5% (I think) where as ours is a mandatory minimum of 9%. But note the word MINIMUM, there is absolutely nothing stopping you, when are about the start a new job and are negotiating your employment contract (or when in an existing job and reviewing/renewing your contract), from making it a condition of employment that you will get 14.5% paid into your super. For example, the boss may offer you $30/hr + 9% super and you counter-offer $28.56/hr + 14.5% to which the boss will most likely agree since it is the same amount of money they pay as far as they're concerned. Employer paid superannuation is just part of a wage/salary package but with the legal requirement that at least 9% is mandatory. (Plenty of other things are also mandatory- like overtime/holiday pay for wage earners).

[*: In general this is true, but there are special tax rebates/goverment assistance packages/whatever for very particular occupations- eg. when members of the defence forces serve overseas.]

thinkabit,
Because we get more Public Servants by the day literally, retirement funding will become a big problem. Vote buying by way of basically non-wealth producing positions is what is unsustainable. Wealth producing jobs will continue to do just that !

the boss may offer you $30/hr + 9% super and you counter-offer $28.56/hr + 14.5%
thinkabit,
That sounds good in theory, have you tried it whilst you're out looking for work ?

//indidual: "That sounds good in theory, have you tried it whilst you're out looking for work ?"

Well I'm retired and have been so since 40, so I don't go out looking for work anymore. But regardless, personally I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT have wanted to do that, it used to piss me off that even 9% was compulsory.

I was just pointing out to you that if someone wanted to then they could ask for 14.5% and most employers will pay that, provided that it didn't affect the employer's pocket (ie: the effective cash rate pay is reduced so that the total the of the employee's package is the same*). Bosses do this sort of stuff all the time for their employees and not just to pay extra super. It's called "salary sacrifice" and has potential tax advantages for teh employee. But in addition, it may also reduce the total of tax that the employers pay**- so in this case they will very willing enter such an arrangement.

[*: PS- in my last post I screwed up that calculation, the $28.56/hr should have been $26.20/hr]

[**: this can happen for instance if the employer is a large enough business that it pays the state payroll taxes.
As-an-aside: These taxes are some of the dumbest taxes ever- the state governments are taxing businesses specifically because the they are providing paid employment for people. But that's not really relevant to this thread's topic]

The conservative side of politics, just as they oppose 'Medicare', have always opposed compulsory superannuation, hence the present opposition to increasing the statutory supa contribution from 9.5% to 10%. The Tories admit, compulsory supa payments are made up from forgone pay increases, but they also oppose all wage increases. The nonsense from some within the Morrison government is, if the increase in supa payment is foregone, then through some magic wages will increase by an additional half percent. There is no evidence to support this ridiculous claim.

The Tories also oppose the payment of Aged Pensions, but the political feeling in Australia strongly favours government support of an unsustainable pension to the ever increasing number of old folks. The Tories favour private charities with their soup kitchens, to look after those who wont look after themselves.

To obtain an Aged Pension in Australia, you have to apply for it. Pensions are pure Socialism! All those on an Aged Pension are Socialists, worse still many may well be Communists!