That document reads like a socialist's road map for wealth equality.
However, these transfers involve trade-offs. Net transfers to one generation must come at the
expense of taxes paid by another generation. These taxes and transfers also distort the incentives of
Australians to work and save.
Therefore, the primary goal of this paper is to measure the size of intergenerational transfers made
through the tax and transfer system, how this has changed over time, and how this has impacted the
age profile of final income (after taxes and transfers) in Australia. By making these transfers more
transparent, we hope to improve the policy discussion around intergenerational equity in Australia.
What I don't understand is why the author believes that it is ok to think that it is ok to take part of an aging person wealth because they have too much, and that it is then ok to reduce how much those aging persons can leave to their family. Isn't wealth just another type of property?
The relative importance of these factors is debated. Indeed, the appropriate size of the welfare state is one of the defining debates of modern history. However, most (but not all) justifications for redistribution towards older age groups are based on the idea that the spending will finance consumption in retirement rather than fund intergenerational bequests.
If my parents worked, saved and sacrificed pleasures so that they can invest and build a huge nest egg, is it not their right to do whatever they want with it? After all, it is theirs.
My mother is in that situation now.
Her husband passed away 2 years this July, they lived frugally, first investing in property when it wasn't fashionable, and then selling and investing in shares again when it wasn't fashionable. They purchased only 2 new cars their whole life, they invested in solar to keep electricity costs down, they have traveled overseas twice in their whole life, they didn't eat out, they didn't buy expensive furniture and jewelry. Instead, they build a large investment portfolio that they were proud of, one that they had intended to leave to their 5 children and numerous grandchildren.
Now my mum has been told that she has to make decisions about her superannuation because she has too much. there's not much she can do, other than start spending it or paying more taxes than she already does. for an 80-year-old person who has lost their life partner this has become a stressful situation. She has voted labor all her life, followed their policies of saving for the future, working hard and not being a burden. And now the government want her money because she and her husband didn't piss it up a wall and spend it on themselves these past 50 years.
that document you shared is just an excuse to take money from hard working big savers to pay for the government wasted projects and welfare expansion that has no stop limit.
And the sad thing is that the current young workforce doesn't even realise that they will be in the $3m bracket long before they reach retirement, so they might as well spend big before that time. What better incentive to create bigger consumerism that this is there.