Whose superannuation is it?

In Downunder "superannuation" is the system which requires workers to put a minimum amount into a fund to support their needs in retirement. The employer is also required to put in a minimum amount. 

At present workers can put in more if they wish. They can also take some out for things like a home loan deposit.

The Senior Cat was part of a generous superannuation scheme which has long since ceased to exist. The present scheme is much less generous but it still has the same sort of purpose.

I have some superannuation. I paid what I could into a "self-managed" fund.  There was no employer contribution required because I "failed" the then compulsory medical examination. In reality I was probably a great deal healthier than all those who smoked and drank alcohol but any disability was a convenient way of ruling people out.  

Most people think of their superannuation savings as almost sacred. You want as much there as you can get for retirement. 

Or do you? The present government went to the election saying there would be no changes to superannuation funding and the way it works. Some people have been adding more, trying to do the responsible thing. There are also some tax benefits.

But now the government wants to change that. They want to take away the tax benefit. Why be allowed to pay less tax if you are doing the responsible thing and saving for your retirement? Yes, you might cost the government less when you retire but they need the money now. It can be used for the benefit of other people they tell us. It can be put into programs like housing which will benefit everyone. 

It is also seen as a way of directing people into the superannuation funds managed by and for the union movement. There will be benefits in belonging to some funds rather than others. It won't happen? It will. There have been advertising campaigns "encouraging" people to do just this.

And should governments, governments of any persuasion, be allowed to use our superannuation funds for their benefit? Because it is for their benefit. If they are seen to be doing "positive" things with our money won't we re-elect them?

I might be happier about this if governments didn't waste so much money. As it is I would prefer they didn't touch the money I have invested. I need it too.