I don't see how the government has any say in raising the preservation age past sixty, especially for my generation who will never qualify for the pension. The real issue is that we all deserve clarification on the legal process involved in changing such a figure. It means trillions of dollars may or may not hit accounts at certain times in the future should this point be altered. Anybody fluent in legalese?
Don't know about fair or unfair, considering super is governed by government policy that both restricts the rights of the owner (eg age restrictions) but also enhances their benefits (eg tax benefits). I imagine if you are in a position by the time your are 50 of having a super policy that allows you to retire twice over, you would have put into place other wealth preserving and generating stategies that would probably mean don't really need to rely on your super alone.
The Government has to keep raising the retirement age. Reason being, the tax payer has to support all those healthy parasitic wefare bludgers. There is not enough tax dollars to support those in their twilight years who worked hard all their life. Note- Parasite ( Bludger) Tax Payer ( The Host)...........................
If you have dual citizenship just move to a country with a far inferior exchange rate. I know plenty of Aussies, retired in Asian countries, that have a great lifestyle, with their small owner operated businesses.
Are you required to put money into a super? All of those retirement plans are an additional tax (scam) to keep people enslaved. If you trust the government, they will keep you as a dependent and you won't be able to speak or act out against them. They also get you to attack others who have the vision to buck the system. "Since I paid into the system, so should you!"
