If the prime minister, Tony Abbott, wants to break a promise, he should break this one: ''We will ensure that no more negative unexpected changes occur in the superannuation system so that those planning for their retirement can face the future with a higher degree of predictability.''



Sure, it was made “in writing” and written promises, as Abbott told us in 2010, are the ones that “need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth”. In fact, it was made on page 36 of the “Real Solutions for All Australians” booklet, the “plan” Abbott carried around the country in the hi-vis vest days of opposition to convince us he actually had one.



But, if he is determined not to break his “budget repair” promise, and therefore has to break at least some of the promises and assurances to the electorate about what he will definitely, absolutely not do, this is the one he should break, because it will actually be worth it.



Instead, as finance minister Mathias Cormann pretty much confirmed on Wednesday, the prime minister will break his “no new taxes” promise with a “temporary” deficit levy on high income earners.

He is breaking that promise for the same reason he might consider breaking the superannuation pledge –the entirely proper goal of sharing the budget “pain” with the wealthy.

Cormann appeals to Australians to “trust” that the government is doing difficult things for good reasons, but the problem is, Australians don’t – according to the Essential poll released on Tuesday, the most popular response to the question “who do you most trust to handle the Australian economy?” was “don’t know”, which was the reaction of 41% of voters. Only 33% said they trusted treasurer Joe Hockey and 27% said they trusted shadow treasurer Chris Bowen the most.

The whole "it’s a crisis/mess/immediate disaster" theme isn’t really resonating either. Of those polled, 56% said “cost of living” was their most concerning economic issue. Only 6% nominated the budget deficit and a tiny 5% were most concerned about the national debt.

And reverting to opposition-style pamphlets about how it is all Labor’s fault – such as the one Cormann released on Wednesday –really isn’t likely to help convince people the Coalition has the whole governing thing in hand.

A temporary deficit tax is both bad politics and bad policy, as noted by many people who have thought about it, including most recently the Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott. She said on Wednesday morning it was “not the right policy to solve the problem” because it was a “temporary” tax, but the budget had a long-term structural problem.



Most tellingly, Westacott noted that the real danger of a temporary levy was that it allowed the government to “paper over” the structural work that is needed on the budget. As I argued on Tuesday, hitting the poor with spending cuts that steadily increased over the time, while hitting the rich with a “levy” that finished in four years, was not most people’s idea of fair sharing.



And calculations by Deloitte Access Economics show the pared-back version of the deficit levy will not raise much money anyway. So the government will either be in the position of not getting the levy through the Senate, making the whole thing a pointless exercise, or getting it through the Senate and finding itself in the position the former government was in with its pared-back mining tax: bearing all the pain for very limited financial gain.



(Interestingly, if the government instead chooses to reduce the threshold for the 45 cent tax rate from $180,000 to $150,000, it will raise almost as much as the original plan for a levy of 1% on incomes of more than $80,000 and 2% on incomes of more than $180,000.)



By contrast, reducing the super-generous super tax concessions is good policy, as noted by pretty much everyone who has thought about it, including business groups, welfare lobbyists and think tanks.



Super tax concessions already cost the budget almost as much as the aged pension, and their cost is rising by 12% a year. As the Grattan Institute and the Australia Institute have pointed out, they could deliver big savings over time, and the vast majority of their benefits flow to high-income earners. But instead the government is heading in the opposite direction, announcing it will not proceed with a policy of the previous Labor government to impose a tax of 15% on superannuation earnings of more than $100,000 a year.



If superannuation changes were flagged to take effect after the next election, the government could point to the fact it was quite clear the original promise in the pamphlet applied only to its first term.



It’s possible, of course, that Abbott may choose to break both promises: the deficit levy in the short term and superannuation concession cuts in the longer term. But if he wants to break only one, he should break his promise on super. Because at least there would be a policy point to that political breach of faith.

