Unfair to alter rules mid-game

With the retirement age going ever higher and the pension on its last legs, surely superannuation is the one thing government needs to be pushing as a viable alternative – not something it can double-dip into every time it finds itself a little short of cash.

The incentive needs to be there for people to save for their retirement years, but that’s very hard if, every time you get a new government, it takes a different view on super. 

It can be argued that this latest retrospective change will only impact high-income earners – or about 

1 per cent of the population earning over $1.6 million, according to the government – but surely it’s the principle that counts.

No one’s going to argue with calls to make the system fairer for everyone – but surely those who have made decisions for their future based on a certain set of rules should not be made to pay for it later.

It’s like changing the rules of the race halfway down the main straight – it’s just not on! 

In Britain they have something called ISAs, or individual savings accounts.

It’s an account that is exempt from income tax and capital gains tax on the investment returns, and no tax is payable on money withdrawn from the scheme, either.

If you’re over 16 and a UK resident, you can deposit or invest up to £15,240 in any one financial year. It’s a great incentive to save. You can put in as much (up to the limit) or as little as you can spare.

Maybe it’s time we had something similar here, because it seems we can’t get agreement on the best way forward for retirement savings.

Especially if, as we’re being led to believe, the pension will be non-existent and we’ll all have to live on what we have managed to squirrel away during our years of productivity.