A few things about this proposal "get my dander up".

Firstly, we have a Coalition Government which, let''s face it, is likely to be in power for the majority of time going forward as Australians want the LNP in power federally, for good it would seem, which is increasingly looking for ways to "tighten the screws" on pension eligibility. Eventually, they'll introduce "mutual obligation" to the Age Pension.

Secondly, allowing workers to take home the extra 2.5%, means that that money will, of course, be taxed at the worker's marginal tax rate. (Saving the Government some $1.8B in foregone revenue, but delivering the worker less in net terms).

Thirdly, those same workers, having spent the (net reduced) 2.5% "through working life", means a reduction of how much(?) in their Super, by way of foregone compound interest.

Lastly, so when they actually retire, they'll:

- Have less in Super to retire on,

- Rely more on an increasingly difficult to get Age Pension, and so will be

- Forced to "eat into" the equity on their home (via a Reverse Mortgage) to have some kind of decent standard of living in retirement.

That's what these "ideas' are setting people up for, down the track.


And for all the bleating and hand-wringing (on these boards and elsewhere) about the "evils" of the Super system as it is, I'm yet to see a coherent case made for a system which is better, and isn't likely to leave workers worse off than they would be under the current system.