Any time someone tries to get ahead in Australia, the govt taxes them to the hilt

The Prime Minister was at the Press Club bemoaning the lack of private sector investment and its impact on productivity.

Yet every time people do try to save and invest and get ahead, the same government and its supporters demonise them as somehow rorting the system.

And try to tax the living daylights out of them.

A perfect example is Labor's ongoing push to introduce even more taxes on superannuation.

Though time remains to correct the more egregious measures in the package - such as taxing unrealised gains and not indexing the thresholds - once the new Senate sits, the path looks to be clear for Labor to pass whatever punitive tax laws they want.

The Coalition is effectively powerless to stop this, so they may consider making a deal with Labor rather than allow the Greens to bully the government into making the legislation even worse by lowering the threshold at which it applies from $3 million to $2 million.

Much of the commentary around this tax increase has focused on the fact that the tax only applies to "a small number of people" who are supposed to have gamed the system somehow.

This characterisation is deeply unfair and little to no evidence has been provided to support claims of gaming the system.

Indeed, though the government makes much of its credentials when it comes to fairness, if fairness is to be the central theme of our tax system, shouldn't the system be fair to everyone and not just those the government thinks more deserving?

The simple fact is, when it comes to "making the rich pay their fair share", many believe any punitive move is acceptable and nothing is unfair.

Take the issue of indexation for example. Graeme Samuel argued in The Australian Financial Review this week that because many taxes aren't indexed, it's OK for the super tax threshold to be held constant and catch more people every year.

But almost everyone already acknowledges that bracket creep is deeply unfair. The fact that some parts of the system are already unfair is a terrible reason to make the system even less fair.

Samuel's faulty reasoning doesn't stop there; turning to the issue of taxing unrealised gains, arguing effectively that people will eventually just stop complaining and put up with it like they do with land tax and council rates.

What sort of defence is that?

"The policy might be bad, but we can just ignore the complaints and everything will be fine?"

All this does is highlight how flimsy the justification for this tax increase really is. It's not some noble crusade to rid the super system of "rorting". It's a naked attempt to raid people's savings, made by a government riding high on popular opinion and low on cash.

It is worth pointing out that the other policy arguments supporting this legislation - to the extent there are any - are also far from sound.

As noted above, the government points to those with massive super balances (in excess of $100 million) as a problem that needs correction.

READ MORE:

However, the truly large super balances were accumulated under rules that existed almost two decades ago. Those rules have long since been tightened.

It is certainly possible to accumulate balances above the $3 million threshold under the current rules (and much easier to accumulate the lower threshold the Greens want to see).

However, many of those who have a balance at that level would already have faced additional taxes on their super contributions during their working life (those with incomes above $250,000 already pay an extra 15 per cent tax on some of their contributions).

Moreover, despite the apparent concern over higher balances, governments of both sides have continued to increase the rate of compulsory contributions for all workers - including those with large balances.

This exposes the more fundamental issue the government is grappling with: superannuation as currently designed is not fit for purpose.

The system is really designed for the benefit of those administering super funds - especially industry super, which has a stranglehold on the super market and the Labor party in equal measure.

There are many more who would be better off now, and no worse off in retirement, if they were able to opt out of the system altogether.

It's not just that the tax concessions are relatively less valuable to these people than others - a common argument often used to argue for higher taxes on high-income earners.

The contributions themselves are less valuable. Or to be more precise, they are more valuable as income now than they ever would be as income in retirement.

This includes those on lower incomes, whose super contributions only serve to slightly lower their pension entitlement. It also includes those from whom the age pension would effectively represent a pay rise.

Why deduct compulsory super payments from those living in poverty now?

There are also many in the system who should be exempt from, or able to radically reduce, their compulsory contributions, as their balance is already sufficient for their retirement plans.

Despite their balances being above the level where further contributions would reduce potential pension entitlements, they are compelled to continue to quarantine tens of thousands of dollars a year in super.

The problem goes beyond just compulsory contributions.

Other than the family home, savings outside super are taxed at punishing rates.

And the concessions that do exist (negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions) are also under siege from a government that considers any income from the "rich" as fair game for additional taxation.

So, in effect, the government has both incentivised and compelled people to accumulate super beyond their needs, and is now using that fact as evidence to justify increasing taxes. It's a classic bait and switch.

Is it really a wonder why we have the investment drought Albanese complained about?