Average Aussie families will be hard hit by the retrospective changes to Family Tax Benefits.

WHILE there is earnest talk in tones of outrage about retrospective policy and millionaire retirees, how about some real victims of backdated government decisions?

If there is to be hand-wringing over retrospectivity there are some real hardship cases out there.

No, not the people with $1.6 million in their superannuation accounts who might have to pay 15 per cent tax on more savings if Malcolm Turnbull has his way.

And not the folk cranky because the government wants to limit the after-tax contributions to superannuation to $500,000, calculated from 2007.

The Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull arrives at Parliament House in Canberra after winning the 2016 election. Picture: Gary RamageSource:News Corp Australia

We should be looking after the interests of the 130,000 single parents and grandparent carers who could lose Family Tax Benefit B payments when their child reaches age six.

Or maybe the 137,000 families who, under Labor policy, could have their Family Tax Benefit A supplement halved when household income reached $100,000, losing about $366 in payments per child. (There is no means test on Labor’s child care funding so an individual on $100,000 per year could benefit from it, but a family with an entire household income of $100,000 would have their FTB reduced.)

These are real and potential losses for people who cannot get an accountant to adjust their financial situation. They face a retrospectivity that cannot be corrected.

What do you do? Return the kids? You can’t backdate childbirth.

Remember, Liberal Peter Costello when treasurer urged families to have more kids, with the Family Tax Benefit system part of the encouragement. One for mum, one for dad, one for the country, Mr Costello said in 2004.

But today, the Coalition and the Labor Opposition want to dilute the Costello encouragement by reducing the FTB payments to low- and middle-income households. Those who were given the Treasurer’s assurance 12 years ago will now be penalised for following it.

But there doesn’t seem to be much hand-wringing going on for young families and retrospective policy. It has been confined to the policy circumstances of another, older demographic.

Parts of the Labor Party have also agitated against ‘retrospective’ changes to superannuation tax benefits. Picture: AAP Image/Julian SmithSource:AAP

There is much agitation — within sections of the Liberal Party and from the ALP — over proposed superannuation changes contained in the May 3 Budget and yet to be endorsed by Parliament.

Senior Liberals are reported to have warned Malcolm Turnbull his election campaign was being harmed by the proposals to put a cap of $1.6 million on the tax-free retirement savings, and to limit post-tax contributions to $500,000.

There is no standout evidence this policy caused major damage to the Liberal campaign.

Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop, one of those said to have warned the Prime Minister, increased her primary vote by 3.1 per cent.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, another unheeded cabinet voice of warning, lost 3.27 per cent of his primary vote, but that was because of a strong increase in the Labor and Greens vote, not cranky retirees.

Both the proposed superannuation changes and FTB cutbacks are aimed at reducing spending and making the schemes sustainable.

In fact, there is so much money that could be saved by a new retirement savings regime Labor might eventually, reluctantly of course, support the government on the matter.

But if both major parties push on with FTB cuts, they should not be surprised by increasing complaints that they don’t look after families — prospectively or retrospectively.