If I turned 65 tomorrow on a similar income to my present one I wouldn’t need superannuation.
But would I turn it down? No.
I wouldn’t say I was entitled to it but I would say I was eligible for it and I’d take it.
Unless you’re very different from most of us I suspect you would.
We don’t make the rules but most would play the game if they could and not just with superannuation.
How many people who get Working for Families really need it?
It depends on how you define need. I don’t think anyone who can already afford luxuries needs a benefit.
I can understand why those who qualify for it don’t turn it down. Many will be the people who’ve always been too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich – having too much to qualify for any other assistance but not having enough to be really well off.
Most will set aside any qualms they might have about taking taxpayers’ money they don’t really need, arguing they’ve worked hard and paid a lot of tax and now they’re getting something back.
I wonder how many people who criticise MPs’ pay and allowances could put their hands on their hearts and say they’ve never taken anything they’re eligible for whether or not they need it?
Anyone who can’t is casting stones from a glass house.
There are differences between benefits and the salaries and allowances MPs get, of course.
MPs’ salaries are paid for the job they do and most more than earn it. The allowances are for work related expenses.
However, they make the rules which leads to the perception – probably unfair – that the rules are more than generous.
Their pay is set by an independent body, maybe allowances should be too.
That way MPs would get fair recompense for out of pocket expenses and free them from any suspicion of making rules which give them more than they need.
It would also give them some protection from the stone throwers.