The $1.6 million transfer balance cap revisited

You have correctly addressed certain aspects of the TBC which could be regarded as unfair or at best applying unequally to persons on a Super related Pension. However, I would like to raise another issue resulting from the introduction of the TBC which I regard as unfair and which only applies to persons who do not own a home. As no consideration is given to such persons in deterring their TBC this results in a situation where such persons are in my opinion grossly disadvantaged in comparison to those who do own a home. There are many persons who have for example just about their TBC or not much more in their Super savings but have always rented or chosen to rent in preference to home ownership. Now, if those people purchased a home and consequently reduced their Pension they would be eligible (given all other factors are equal), to claim up to a full old age pension from the Government's coffers. So I believe one can fairly argue that such persons are grossly disadvantaged in comparison to people who for example own a $2M (or more), home but still get the benefit of the full TBC.