Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "Australians don't want their savings used as a 'slush fund' for Labor" video.

To get a superannuation balance of over $3 Million dollars someone would have needed to have put significant amounts of money in many years ago when the rules allowed it. Because you most certainly will never get anywhere near that figure under current rules. To the point, if a person many years ago put money in, following the rules, why should they now be penalised for just doing what was legal. Sure, make changes to stop it happening, which has been done. But retrospectively changing the rules, very bad practice.
11
@theend9494 The majority of my super balance is extra after tax money I stuck in it. Advised by both the fund manager and printed ATO rules I could retrieve all of part of it any time I wanted after retirement. Now its being suggest I may not be able !@#$%^. I am counting on pulling some out to purchase a modest home somewhere on the North Coast. Don't want to sell the Sydney home until both of us are positive we have made the right move. My son and daughter both need financial assistance for their homes. It's my money, I put it in with a clear and correct understanding of the rules. Now some A hole comes along and is suggesting I shouldn't be able to have it, and I'm some sort of tax avoiding scumbag for even thinking I should.
1
Funny how the media start believing there own narrative as fact. NO Labor politician has come out and suggested anything like the planned changes will be confined to only accounts over $3 Million. The media just started saying it, so now it is supposedly a fact. It isn't, they haven't a clue what these thieves are planning. And listening to Chalmers speech, it is most certainly something vastly more substantial.
1