Trust, certainty and grandfathering should be at the heart of the super debate not complexity and confusion

I wish this man was around the changes to the asset test. This story equally applies to existing pensioners who had saved and thought they were covered financially in their retirement only to have the "rug pulled out from under them" too late to fix. 

The mooted changes absolutely do not only affect the top 4% of wealthy Australians. I work for a NFP NGO and as such I am paid well below the national average wage. However, as a single woman I have bought my own 2 bedroom unit (just 4 years ago after a lifetime of saving) in a less desirable suburb and have only a small mortgage left which will be acquitted in three years time. As I am now almost 61, I am sacrificing my salary to the full amount permissible of $35,000 per year (including the employer contribution) on a Transition to Retirement plan. However, if the proposed changes go through I will be $10,000 a year short in my planned concessional contributions to super ( a total amount of $60,000 not including compound interest over the remaining 6 years to pensionable age), the TTR plan will be scrapped and my retirement plans will be in total disarray. The reduction in total permissible funds to about $500,000 - down from $750,000 for a single) meaning even a part pension will be out of the question means that far more will be attempting to live on an income less than a full pension if interest rates do not increase in line with the expected returns. The deeming rate for those with savings is already far higher than the reality meaning that the capital will be used up quicker than expected. Far from people becoming self financing, all that is going to happen with these mooted changes is that more people are going to be living in poverty at or even below the full pension rates even though they have sacrificed over many years to help themselves and no longer be able to claim even a part pension. Clearly the Government thinks that the 'wealthy' earn less than $70,000 a year as I do. 

Totally agree with the article. Trust in the superannuation system will be undermined if the proposed changes are not appropriately grandfathered. Plus, the floodgates will open for any future politically driven or ill thought out retrospective changes. Grandfathering the changes simply maintains the level playing field for those people who made their retirement financial strategy decisions under the current regulations and who will be adversely affected by the retrospective aspects of the proposed changes. I retired a few years ago, after 2007 and well prior to the 2016 Federal Budget, and I followed a complying recontribution strategy at that time. The proposed introduction of a $500k concessional contributions limit backdated to 2007 will immediately block me from future contributions, an outcome that was not the case at the time I made the decision to follow that strategy. Therefore, I will be adversely affected by the retrospective and capricious nature of that proposed change, which I consider to be unfair and an abuse of trust. 

I have sold 3 investment property's in the past 3 years before I turned 65 so I could put the money into super under the existing rules these sales cost me over $165000 in capital gains tax and about $38000 in selling costs I think that if the government doesn't grand father these changes and make me reinvest the money outside super they should reimburse me for the $200000+ costs regards JPH 

Yes I saved over all those years by having a reasonably simple life with the intention of hopefully having enough savings to enjoy my retirement and not rely on any government handouts. And finally when I retire one of the first ideas the government has is to grab some of my saved capital from the past to bolster their spending wherever that happens to be. They gave me nothing before and are trying to give even less now. If their ideas on super do come to pass role on the next election. 

1st the politians should have the same deal as everyday australians at the moment a politician has no limit on how much they can salary sacrifice from there wage i am 56 and my limit is 35 thousand and under 50 is 25 thousand why should the politians not be expected to carry the load like the rest of us if the politians change the super rules the politians come under the same rules as everyday australians also would be possible to run adds in national paper with there wages and entitlement and have a least 5 other 1st world countries wages and entitlements so us public can see what other countries politicians get 

Everyone seems to have missed or overlooked the way in which the means test for an aged pension was unilaterally decreased to approximately $800,000 to apply from January next year!! This will impact on a lot of people who have saved & invested in super for many years to be able to at least be self funded to a large degree & thus not relying on the Government of ra full pension. The decrease means that people will miss out on a part pension & more importantly the various savings such as Discounted rates, Rego etc. It only takes some simple math to work out , on current societal costs & inflation, a self funded retirees money will quickly dissipate. This is matter which should be pursued! 

These changes will mean that people retiring in the future will never have enough super to be self funded for any length of time and will end up being taxed on their super pension at the normal marginal rate. Once the Government starts to tax your super pension there is not limit to how high they will go. 15 % this year , 20% in 3 years and so on. To say this only affects a 4% may be true today but how many in 5 , 10 , 15 , 20 years as people are retiring. The numbers will be mind blowing. 

Surprise, surprise!! I, for one, believe that Treasurer Morrison's proposal is actually fair and even if it impacts me, I will support it. The scaremongers in the Labour Party and the Liberal conservatives are only muddying the waters to serve their own selfish interests, one for power, the other for greed, pure and simple. Notwithstanding my distrust of lawyers, barristers and their ilk, grandfathering only entrenches privileges for those lucky enough to get in the "members club" to the detriment of future generations. To me, THAT is grossly unfair and does nothing for the greater and common good. When was the last time we heard of anyone sacrificing their own interests for that of the country? Still scratching your heads? Greece is what happens when citizens ask what their country can do for them instead of what they can do for their country. Let's learn from that! 

What is the point of protest, demands for change or indeed anything else which may serve the public interest? We have two political parties that are only interested in having their own agenda fulfilled and they will continue to bicker and behave like children until they get their way, not ours! Personally I await the next election when we can vote in even more independents so that it can become even more difficult for the two major parties to continue to play games instead of fixing the budget and deficit for our kids and their kids. Come on Katter, Hanson, Hinch, and the rest stand up now while you have the opportunity!