Keating is spot on, except he does not go far enough. The first element of "overhauling" the current Superannuation system is for compulsory contributions by employees. The billions of dollars held in "lost" Superannuation accounts demonstrates that the majority of people do not really see it as their money as they have put no evident skin in the game. Having the contributions made solely by employers gives this impression. Certainly a case can be put 100% that salaries and wages have been and are "adjusted" to allow for the cost of the contributions which could then lead to an impression that the employee is paying. The important issue is the impression & they do not really see this.

The second element is increasing the employer component. I would leave it to someone with superior knowledge like a Paul Keating to accurately (??) determine what is needed. The third element is that there are hundreds of thousands of self employed (sole traders and/or those operating under a partnership) who are not compelled to contribute for their future.

They should have to pay a prescribed higher rate of tax with the increase going towards Superannuation. Little Johnnie was indeed kind with the halving of the Assets Test, but one must also consider that Politicians on taxpayer funded Superannuation (and others) became substantial beneficiaries of the removal of taxation on pensions or moneys extracted from Superannation after age 60. A fourth element should be increasing the age that one can access Superannuation monies. Those who perform heavy duty manual work need to be considered carefully in whatever changes take place as they generally have shorter working capabilities.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.