3 ms·
Superannuation is an interesting issue. I don't think the problem is that there's too much investment sloshing around, but rather it's that investment incentiv
by spangry 10y ago
Superannuation is an interesting issue.
I don't think the problem is that there's too much investment sloshing around, but rather it's that investment incentives in Australia are horribly distorted by the tax system (and in two cases, IMHO, by the lack of a certain tax [0] / price on a negative externality [1]). So the money gets funnelled into unproductive investment (or socially/globally harmful activity).
I get even more concerned when people float ideas like mandating that x% of super must be invested in infrastructure projects, or allowing super to be withdrawn early to pay for a house deposit (shudder). The tax treatment of super itself is also completely messed up: it's regressive and completely at odds with its own policy aim (i.e. to reduce future age pension outlays). You can thank Kevin Rudd for squibbing an opportunity to address this, because he wanted a nice headline instead.
The government really has to level with the population and let them in on the big secret about super: it's not "extra money" that you get in addition to your wage, it's an additional income tax where the revenues are locked away in managed investment funds (making it harder for politicians to get their grubby little hands on the revenue).
[0] Land-value tax, which corrects an inherent investment distortion (i.e. privatisation of land-rents).
[1] Carbon pricing.
- daemin 10y agoYeah, the option of allowing super to be withdrawn as a house deposit seems very much like stopping a fire by shovelling coal on top of it. This is just like the first home owners grant, which only made barely-affordable houses that much more expensive and didn't actually make houses more affordable for young people.