Congratulations PHB, you have demonstrated that you are an intelligent person with savvy views of finances, combined with a cynical streak as to the effectiveness of G policies. We are brothers, although a minority in the wider community.
My latest life guru is a cartoonist/ turned author, Tim Kreider. Although providing a caveat that he was not a neurosurgeon et al, he revealed that some research determined that conservative voters had enlarged Amygdala, while liberal thinking folk had more developed anterior cingulate cortex.
I have previously provided input to Choice on the subject of over the counter codeine analgesics that morphed into a debate on most/many products in pharmacies, being sold for profit, were snake oil. Furthermore, that sale breached an ethical standard - established by these high minded folk. My tertiary studies were pharmacy, accounting/finance and law, plus dabbling in data mining/AI. In that contribution I revealed the issue of "standing to comment’ by reference to a legal standard to be able to provide evidence in a courtroom. Of course, the right to comment is a universal right in a free and liberal society. The real question is whether that commentary is sage, of any worth or just diatribe from the poorly informed majority. I referred to the Hanson/Lambie factor, and can confidently state that the IQ in their electorates viz others would mirror the comparison to other Senators. I have tasted the hypocrisy of a Federal Health Minister and G decision making first hand.
So now to G policy in the Superannuation arena. At first blush not a bad idea. First order issue - reduce inter-generational reliance on the social security budget. Second order issue - attempt to encourage a dissolute and wasteful majority of comfortably off Aussies to rein in their spending and increase their savings towards retirement and/or exit from the workforce. Third order issue - determine the right balance of carrot and stick ‘rules’ to achieve the previous two.
Now to determine, without political biases, my input to a realistic scorecard of the top three order issues, while recognizing that many others also exist. Evaluation, or In AI jargon - back end propagation. Issue 1. Overall 3/10. Upper income earners that would not access pensions have enough Super. The middle 66.7% of the bell shaped curve have enough Super for some period, but not enough for all or most of a longer life expectancy. The age when Super savings commenced is germane. Partial reliance on a pension will continue to be required. At least 20% or more of the population will continue to rely on social security, irrespective of any Super policy. Issue 2 overall 6+/10. The middle 66.7% were forced into saving and di achieve something which varies with commencement age, income, whether the tax advantages of voluntary additional contributions were accessed. Low income earners, even with additional G uploads, had their savings disproportionately eaten away by fees and a plethora of charges. The leakage to agents with trailing commissions, and finders fees et al, was morally reprehensible and should have been criminal. Higher income earners obtained the lions share of benefits, through access to tax minimisation from maximizing voluntary contributions. I repeat these folk, including me, would never access social security, so the policy was a huge yet unnecessary winner. Issue 3 overall 3+/10. Super contributions to at least 25% of low income earners makes no sense and seriously/negatively impacts their lives, while putting only a small break on consumption. This group is likely to be caught in debt trap from credit cards to pay day lenders. They are not financially savvy enough to avoid this likely foreseeable issue. The carrot to high income folk was vastly excessive and unnecessary simpliciter. The middle cohort split between the previous evaluation, and probably a pass.
What is the nett effect? I submit that former cabinet ministers, or high ranking Lab/Lib party appartchniks, have a chance of obtaining well paid jobs on Super company boards. There is always the possibility/probability of corruption, including contributions to a political party, specific social issues, and personal funds. Politicians do require a range of skills. You have a greater chance of succeeding if you can master a perception of sincerity and empathy with a group on individual’s concerns. Emotional intelligence is an asset, particularly an ability to take credit for a plethora of ideas and actions from multiple minions and other sources. Narcissism is essential. The ability to look forward to likely consequences of policy is rare.
Chess, bridge, mah-jong and goh players would make better politicians. In reality society has the sort of politicians we deserve, and that mirror our bell shaped level of wide attributes and weaknesses. That is why their obtuse and vague utterances can be understood as well as any biblical parable - you hear what you want to hear and it means whatever you want it to mean. We obtain politicians to mimick the bell shaped curve of intellect.
Financial competence is the preserve of about 20+% of the population. About that percentage pay off their credit cards every month to a zero balance. What muppet would pay 22+% interest, when other financial instruments exist. Answer, those will no ability and/or no other options. The abuse of politician’s entitlements, including what is legal yet immoral, mirrors common and equity law. Narscisssm, narrow vision to their voting group and self interest of politicians is paramount to success in that field. It has little to do with good policy. Please reflect on my scorecard for the Super issue and previously on the worthiness of health related policy. Cheers Geoff