Eva Cox correctly points out that it is women who have spent years of their working lives in unpaid carer roles, either raising children or caring for elderly parents or both, who are disadvantaged by the current superannuation system.

However, the disadvantage needs to be addressed at the start of women's working lives, not at the end, i.e. their child care role needs to be financially recognised just like the child care work of an employee in a creche. It is illogical to pay a wage to a child care worker in a centre but not to a mother doing the same work but also providing love and maybe even breast milk.

If Eva Cox and her cohorts in Women's Electoral Lobby and allied feminist groups promoted policies such as income splitting between spouses or a family based taxation system where family income is divided among the dependents, e.g. counting husband and wife as one unit each, and every child as half a unit, then women would have some earnings and savings while undertaking their child raising work.

Cox should ask herself why taxpayers have to subsidize the child care costs of women earning up to $75,000 a year, while mothers who care for their children themselves get nothing. And why do mothers who already have an income from paid work - and often maternity leave from their employers - also get paid parental leave payments from the government while mothers who care for their babies full-time get far less in the baby bonus?

These inequities need to be addressed early in a woman's working life, not when she is nearing retirement.

Babette Francis,
National & Overseas Co-ordinator,
Endeavour Forum Inc.

I think the author should have a look at the article by well respected economist Judith Sloan on the Australian yesterday, in terms of her analysis of and comments on the methods that used in coming up that figure and the the underlying assumptions.
There is a strong culture of envy and hate of well off in some circles of the Australian society and a tendence to grab other's income as much as possible.
Serious scholars should be factual rather than using sensational figures out of dodgy methods without questioning the reliability of those numbers. The simple fact is that some numbers even from Treasury cannot be assumed to be reliable. Just consider the differences between actual MRRT collection in the first 6 months and the Treasury various projections which is topical at the moment.
Ideology does not necessarily advance research.

It was Haw-Keat and their advisors (I am sure there was only one advisor) who conned the poor workers with the promise of the biggest pie in retirement; a pie bigger than what they earned. I am sure before putting around 10% away they would like to have some world basics with that 10% compulsory super contribution. Such things as a dwelling, a partner, a baby, overseas trip etc. etc. But you are forced to let someone rob 10% or so of your hard earned money. The Treasury estimates are rubbery like the MRRT estimate. The $ 2 billion a year and you get 126 million in half a year. On that basis the tax forgone will be around 4 billion dollar or 6 billion in 2015/16 (rounded to the nearest billion). The same apply to our 1.3 trillion super pie. It is all on paper like the values for capital outlays for MRRT. But there is a fact; the fat cats living off the super pie do better than the ones waiting for the biggest pie in retirement.

I hear the UniSuper has performed well recently and it is time to make a quick get away with the loot. But then what is in the Super Statement is not what you get when you leave. It is the exit value calculated by the same robbers. I made a submission to Cooper review that funds should not loose contributions and they honour the highest balance amount as the exit entitlement.

If you earn more than $450 a month you start paying 450*.09*.15= $6.08 super tax upwards and if you only eat take away then you pay $41 tax. It is the poor who contribute the most to the revenue.

There are super concessions for the rich and these concessions are available to the poor as well. There is no government hand out to the wealthy retirement. The problem is poor has no money to get those tax concessions. My concern is the poor who are forced to part with their hard earned money to some unknown mob and the government.

Women and single parents are the most disadvantaged under the current tax and super laws. A fair tax system where a family unit is taxed will help towards equity among opposite and same sex units. We have one thing under family law, another under tax laws and something else under super.

See my comments under Mr Passant’s article on the same subject.

REMOVE TAX ON SUPE, GET RID OF RID COMPULSORY SUPER,

What I find puzzling about this article is that it seems to confuse and conflate two issues. The first is the inequities in supporting people on low incomes. Both major parties seem determined to remove support for people on low incomes. Reversing this trend is important. The question is how this should be paid for and there are a variety of avenues to achieve this of which reducing superannuation benefits is just one.

The second issue is; does the superannuation scheme provide too high benefits to the wealthy? While the answer is probably yes, cutting too deep will push people out of super and back onto the Government dependent age pension. It will also drive other more beneficial investments. As I understand it the analysis has not taken these longer term factors into account. In addition, the "cost" is not a real cost but forgone revenue that could be spent elsewhere. Will this extra revenue less the reduced revenue from people who use alternative investment vehicles, exceed the cost of additional Government pensions?

.
Last, a personal advice to Super addicts. Do not put all savings in to hog’s trough, throw some on the ground like small investments (guarantee they will grow more and can be used at any time), use some to breed; one for mum, one for dad, one for the country and the last for retirement. You might retire with millions of dollars but something with the same DNA on retirement is worth more than anything.