FSC lobbies against super "7 year gap"

The debate about access age for superannuation is forgetting one key fact. The biggest reason for early retirement is poor health. Surely you have to realise that if we deny people access to their superannuation until they are in their 70s that there will be a large number that may never benefit from having superannuation as they will retire, live for several years and then die. I am in my early 50s and have been frustrated in the last 7 years by the annual changes to the superannuation contribution limits. I had a massive mistake made on my Superannuation account by the fund manager for 9 years (Tax never deducted). I found this mistake in mide 2008 just as the GFC hit. My super took two massive hits that year and since then I have been limited to a contribution limit of $25,000 due to my age. The higher contribution limit of $50,000 was phased out the year before I turned 50. I plan to retire at 61 when I will have put in 40 years as an engineer. I may work part time after retirement but I will refuse to have my retirement plans derailed by continual rule changes. I'm currently considering making a complaint to the anti-discrimination commissioner as people of my age group have been specifically targeted with the rule changes. This is age based discrimination at its worst. Surely 40 years of taxes are enough! How much money does the government need? No matter how much they get they always want more because they can't control their spending adequately.

What a goose. I thought we were moving away from the age of entitlement?

Referring to the Age Pension as "your" pension only entrenches the problem. It's "the" pension and no-one should be aspiring to it.

Is it not possible to have a mature forum discussion without contributors resorting to name calling just because they have a different viewpoint?

John Brogden of FSC continues to mix up a number of issues about access to superannuation.

We had a transition to retirement scheme which allowed people access to an income stream (which was taxed at a concessional rate). This system effectively became redundant when Peter Costello introduced in 2007 the dreadful idea of allowing people access to pensions tax free when they reached preservation age, ie between 55 and 60 depending on their date of birth.

This caused a gap of up to 10 years between the age super could be accessed and age when a person becomes eligible to apply for an age pension.

We should re-introduce the system of transition to retirement pensions that could start at 5 years before the eligibility age for an age pension and set the minimum age for tax free pensions to be the same as for eligibility for age pensions. Linking minimum ages for access to super and the age pension via legislation should stop the unedifying squabble going on at present and in the future.

The transition to retirement system catered for those who may not be able to work full time but did not allow them to make lump sum withdrawals. For those able to work, their super account balances should continue to increase.

Let us go back to this earlier approach but increase the minimum age for access to super.

Of course the assets test to access an age pension must be tightened to overcome the problem of people owning larger or more expensive homes.

Re Jason Clarke's comment. Jason it appears that you are very confused. Superannuation is not the aged pension. I suggest that you significantly improve your knowledge on this subject before you criticise another valid point of view. We do live in democracy so your attempts to stifle debate will be unsuccessful.