The truth is out. Treasury thinks we're pretty dumb and at times myopic, unlike decision-makers who naturally have a "high level of financial literacy".
These character assessments are made in its submission to the financial system inquiry though, lest you think it's being elitist - who, Treasury? - I better hurriedly add that the bit about being dumb came from a survey by the Bureau of Statistics for the OECD. Oh, and I'm sure you weren't asked.
"Around half the Australian adult population struggles to understand basic everyday documents and forms, and are [sic] unable to understand and perform rudimentary analysis of figures in texts, tables and graphs," says Treasury.
I was going to illustrate this with a chart but thought better of it. Mind you, none of this has stopped Treasury from presenting lots of figures in texts, tables and graphs in its submission. Guess old habits die hard.
To be fair, it's probably under-estimated our fear of figures because those who couldn't, or so they said, answer all the questions were booted off the survey altogether.
But the myopic bit is Treasury's own. The reason we have compulsory super, which, bear in mind, isn't a gift from your boss but paid for with the higher wage you're not getting, is because of "under-saving by individuals due to myopia".
Still, it gets as good as it gives. There's some self-criticism when it comes to financial regulations which fail "to take account of how people actually behave, process information and use information technology".
Hang on, there's a back hander I missed. The reason the regulations don't work properly is that consumers aren't "adequately informed" and so don't make rational financial decisions.
At least it wasn't referring to itself about the decision-makers with a high level of literacy. They're trustees of super funds who are smart enough to use expert managers who, by whatever means, overcome the "difficult task" of understanding the "complexity of the taxation and regulatory arrangements" of super. Amen to that.
Even so, it thinks super fees are too high and fund managers have failed to come up with decent enough products suitable for retirement.
But how about this? The tax concessions on super aren't just a rort for the rich. Either it's suddenly changed its mind or we've misunderstood it all this time.
After all, isn't our super something that every cash-strapped government wants to get its mitts on, and usually does? Not on Treasury's watch, apparently, because these tax breaks "address the bias in the current taxation system against long-term saving". Economists argue that the effective tax rate increases the longer you save because there's no protection against inflation.
It also says "a lower rate of tax on retirement income is justified" though I'm not quite sure how to take that. At the moment there's no tax on retirement income after you turn 60, so maybe it thinks there should be just an itsy bitsy little one.
And get this. The "separation of the ownership of funds from those who manage the funds", which would be all of them except self-managed ones, "opens up the risk that managers rationally maximise their own interests at the expense of fund members."
So unless you look after your super yourself, and Treasury says you should be left alone if you do, don't assume your fund is looking after you.
But then I guess you can always take comfort knowing that your manager is highly literate.
Read David Potts in Weekend Money, with The Sun-Herald every Sunday.
Twitter @moneypotts
