Research shows Aussies confused over retirement savings

Australians are underprepared for retirement according to new figures.

Aussies in the dark over super

New research has found that many Australians do not know how much money they have in their superannuation fund nor how much money they will need in retirement.

The research, conducted on behalf ANZ, found that 41 per cent of the population do not feel well informed about their retirement savings and 15 per cent did not know their superannuation balance.

The ANZ research also found that 38 per cent of Australians believe a superannuation balance of $300,000 or less will be sufficient once they stop working.

Current advice from the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) suggests people will need almost double that amount to live comfortably in retirement.

In order to have a ‘comfortable’ retirement, single people will need $545,000 in retirement savings, and couples will need $640,000, according to ASFA advice. These figures are based on the presumption the home is owned outright.

ANZ Wealth’s head of superannuation Mark Pankhurst told news.com.au it was a worry so many people were disconnected from their superannuation.

“People are confused about super and they think it’s complicated,” he said.

“We need to simplify it and make it much easier for people to check their balance, they should get in touch with their super fund.”

ASFA Chief Executive Dr Martin Fahy said Australians should be checking their super balances at least quarterly and contacting their funds if they are confused or have questions.

“The more you get to understand the beauty and simplicity of super as a savings tool, with its tax and compound interest benefits, the more you will realise the dream of living longer and healthier through your super investments,” Dr Fahy said.

Opinion: Poor planning leads to poor retirement results

The fact that so many Australians remain disengaged from their retirement planning is extremely worrying.

Some of our own research at YourLifeChoices has shown the effects of this poor planning.

In our last Retirement Affordability survey from March, 22.96 per cent of retired respondents reported that their standard of living in retirement was worse than they thought it would be.

When we asked retirees whether the information they sought to plan their retirement was sufficient, 24.19 per cent of respondents answered ‘No’.

The ANZ research suggests that rather than people becoming more engaged about their prospective retirement, the situation continues to deteriorate.

At the very least, Australians should check their super balance regularly, contact their main fund and consolidate any lost or missing super.

It also pays to review the insurance and investments within your superannuation fund and assess the fees and charges on your account to see if you can get a better deal elsewhere.

For those of you who have continued to work long past retirement age, tax-deductible contributions to your superannuation are available to individuals under the age of 75, including those who are self-employed or employed and don't meet the 10 per cent income test. The work test still applies for those over 65 years of age.

We are keen to hear your thoughts on Retirement Affordability. Next week we will launch our regular survey so keep an eye on your inbox if you wish to take part. Participants will be in the running to win a $500 wish card.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Rosscoe
    23rd Aug 2017
    10:11am
    Doesn't help when a crooked federal government changes the rules either!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    10:19am
    Rules badly needed changing as it is simply ridiculous that millionaire couples got welfare. More changes are coming too.
    GeorgeM
    23rd Aug 2017
    7:53pm
    You are right, Rosscoe, the crooked Liberal party said No Change to Pensions and then changed the rules! Ignore OG's usual oft-repeated crap, he seems to have a personal beef about others getting any benefits. Or else, may be a a paid Liberal party supporter.

    However, he is right that more changes could be coming - so it is essential to vote out all the Liberal, Greens & Labor bastards by voting them last in preferences. The retirees group are large enough to make a difference in the marginal seats. Then, maybe the pollies may start thinking what caused it.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    9:01pm
    Well good luck getting blood out of a stone.
    Rae
    24th Aug 2017
    7:39am
    Yes George. I agree with not supporting any of the parties.OG millionaire couples are getting welfare. Right now they can leave one partners super in accumulation and receive the full OAP for a few years.
    Only PAYG workers are forced into super funds so many very wealthy can secure funds and still receive welfare.
    The super system is flawed in Australia as it is discriminatory unlike other OECD countries where people are treated equitably.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    5:10am
    Correct, Rae. And OG, most millionaires got to be millionaires milking the taxpayer by claiming huge tax concessions that are legally available to all - but not practically accessible to the battlers. Having milked the taxpayer, millionaires continue to structure their affairs to get ongoing benefits that simply aren't accessible to the honest PAYG worker on low to medium incomes. And the poorest pensioners pay the price, while the moderately comfortable who worked hard and saved well and probably got minimal government help are stripped of pensions and benefits and left with lower incomes than pensioners until they drain all their hard-won savings away for the benefit of the less responsible. The system is patently unfair, unworkable, and unsustainable - and only the selfish with vested interests endorse or support it.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    11:05am
    So Rainey if you are not entitled to the OAP you must be one of those millionaires that milked the tax payer by claiming huge tax concessions. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    11:31am
    Nope, OG. I'm just a worker who is still working and earning well after the age when I could have retired and taken a pension. Not a millionaire. Not even close. And certainly never milked the taxpayer for concessions because I earned a basic wage most of my life, never owned an investment property (could never afford one!), never had employer-funded superannuation (and never contributed enough to claim a tax concession), and wouldn't know the meaning of ''capital gain''. So I don't live in a glass house, and I'm fully entitled to throw stones where they are due.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    12:12pm
    So you trade your time for money instead of collecting welfare and enjoying the time yourself? I know which one I'd prefer.
    Anonymous
    28th Aug 2017
    8:52am
    I'm very fortunate, OG. After 40+ years of struggle, I've found a way to be paid for doing what I love. I'd do the ''work'' I do for no pay (don't tell my employer!). The generous pay is a welcome bonus. I can even work while travelling. I work when I want, where I want, for as little or as long as I want each month. The last thing I'd want is to be idle in retirement. It's been a horrendous struggle to get here, but my life now is fantastic.
    Old Geezer
    28th Aug 2017
    11:19am
    So you work while travelling and miss the best bits. I for one am never idle as there is not enough hours in the day for me.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2017
    2:17am
    No, OG. I miss nothing. I schedule my work so it provides a welcome break from sightseeing and fun stuff. I'd love to have more hours in the day and more days in the week, but I make the most of every minute. The difference between us is that I genuinely care about people who aren't so fortunate and are unable to shape their lives to be as fabulous as mine. I understand their reality and their struggles and I care enough to both offer comfort and help where I can. The cruel, insensitive remarks you make sicken me.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    10:26am
    "In our last Retirement Affordability survey from March, 22.96 per cent of retired respondents reported that their standard of living in retirement was worse than they thought it would be."

    That's understandable when for a lot of people enough is never enough no matter what they have.
    Rosret
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:29pm
    True OG. I do watch a lot of retirees spend every available cent they have as it comes in. Maybe they are the smart ones?
    However you must admit the huge increase in fixed utilities costs have made life quite unpleasant for a lot of old people.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    5:17am
    OG, you are showing your nasty narcissistic attitude again! What a vile individual you are, to publish such bigoted lies when there are so many aged people suffering genuine hardship. And yes, of course 22.96% would report that their standard of living was worse than expected, because some 92,000 were cheated out of a pension that was promised and therefore denied the standard of living they responsibly planned for in accordance with law. Whether or not you or others think they have enough - or indeed whether or not they do have enough - is immaterial. You can't change the fact that they expected to have more, because for decades they had been promised more. They were defrauded by lying politicians who said ''no changes to pensions''. Take the emotion and bigoted and self-serving opinion out of the discussion and face facts. The cold hard FACT is that 92,000 have been done over and have less than they rightly expected to have - so their living standard is worse than they thought it would be.
    Rae
    25th Aug 2017
    8:42am
    Yes true of politicians as well. They have just had an increase in the very generous daily allowance. Everyone else but CEOs and politicians are losing income. Enough is never enough at their trough. My wage fell in real terms all my working life as it hit a high in 1974 and started falling after that entirely due to neoliberal ideology and the war on the unions and workers.

    But let's slam the 42 000 who got no tax concessions for super contributions and also did not receive the 9% guarantee and so had final pensions discounted to allow a bit of fairness with other super contributors who did receive tax concessions and the 9%.

    The betrayal here is one of unfairness and inequity and mumblings about being satisfied and enough never being enough don't cut it anyway you try to argue the toss. This was a very poor decision by a government hell bent on crucifying unionists nothing more or less, Nasty spitefulness and proved the childishness and ineptitude of the current government.

    They can toss 65 billion at wealthy corporations and business owners but can't stump up a piddling few million to cover promises made that cost workers dearly in after tax contributions for decades.
    gibbo111
    23rd Aug 2017
    11:27am
    I believe that with a super account of around 250000 and owning my home and the fact that I will be close to receiving a full age pension I will be able to live quite well. When we read about how much we need the figures don't seem to take the age pension into account.
    Rosret
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:18pm
    If you intend to live on a full pension you will be living in poverty - except for the $250K you have for the big bills in life.
    Every time I get a $500 -$1000 bill for car, electricity, health cover, rates etc. I remind myself of how few $1Ks I have to last the rest of my life.
    The word "confused" used in this article is more "Gulp". What was easily doable 2 years ago is now not the case at all.
    The government aim was to end the age pension. I must admit I am rather perplexed as to why people don't have to spend their super fund savings before they are entitled to a pension.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:46pm
    I also think that people should have to spend their super savings before they are entitled to welfare too. If they don't spend it in retirement then what is the benefit of super?
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:22pm
    It's surprising how little you need if you live carefully. You can't live and waste like you did when you were working but you can live comfortably. Some people need to learn a little budgeting and you can't afford a wife that thinks "shop till you drop"and "Retail therapy " is entertainment but if you're carful it works fine.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:29pm
    Old Geezer you don't get an age pension if you have a lot of super and the government allows you only a part pension depending on how much you have.
    If everyone had to spend their super first they would only be replacing the pension with their money so most people would spend their super straight away and go straight on the pension which isn't helpful.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:39pm
    Many people now retire at 55 so they can access and spend their super before they are old enough for the old age pension. So I can't see that it would make any difference requiring people to spend their super before they get the OAP other than more jobs being available for our young folk.

    How many buy the new caravan and tug and drive off into the sunset for a couple of years after they retire? By the look of the number of caravans heading north for the winter it's quite a few. Or take a world trip and tick all the items off their bucket list using their super money? By the way the cruise industry is growing it is certainly quite a few there too.

    Is this what super was meant to achieve?
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:44pm
    This ready reckoner just shows that it certainly pays to retire early.

    https://www.superguide.com.au/boost-your-superannuation/superguide-retirement-reckoner
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    6:41pm
    OG I had a look at your super guide but it's not much use because it only goes up to a million.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    8:50pm
    Just multiply it by 10 and you have 10 million. Simple maths that's all.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    9:51pm
    OG no it's not that simple retirement planning takes a bit more thought. 1.6 million is the max for a start. when does the old age pension kick in. How much are you allowed for a couple .You just can't multiply by 10. Oh dear!
    Rae
    24th Aug 2017
    7:59am
    Yes OG. Part of saving regularly is to achieve that retirement plan of caravanning or cruising or travelling in early retirement.

    All our saving is not about saving the governments from their recent folly of too many immigrants, crazy tax cuts and stupid privatisations that were loss deals for taxpayers. Giving resources away for no return and wasting billions of dollars on any number of foolish ideas.

    Why should workers do without their dreams because politicians have stuffed up?
    Tib
    24th Aug 2017
    2:54pm
    Couldn't agree more Rae.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    5:23am
    OG, your logic is as seriously flawed and illogical as that of the inept politicians who created the hideous mess we are in! If you demand that people forego the benefit of their savings, they won't save. It's that simple! People are spending because the stupid government has taken away most of the benefit of not spending. Savers are punished. Money is taken from them to give to spendthrifts. Why would anyone bother to leave money in super if the benefit is to the taxpayer and the spendthrift, and the saver achieves no gain? Honestly, it is utterly ridiculous that the powers that be and the big mouthed fools can't see how stupidly destructive the system is and what logical steps are needed to fix it. But then, the decisions are not motivated by any desire to get it right - but rather by pure self-interest.
    Rae
    25th Aug 2017
    8:57am
    Yes Rainey pointless saving the $600 000 needed to create the income of the OAP yourself and then having all the risks, work, costs involved without any concessions. It just isn't a sensible financial decision for those earning less than very high incomes and able to afford expensive minimisation schemes. The 1915 legislation was a nail in superannuation's coffin but it will be a while before the consequences sink in.
    Jem
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:02pm
    Why isn't there an article about how some baby boomers who have nowhere near these sort of figures bandied about by the finance companies? some advice for them, would be good! A very large amount of us never had the benefits of compulsory contributions by employers in the early parts of our working life, we earned money and spent it to live, some of us saving for things like cars, houses, holidays etc, always thinking the Govt Pension would see us through when we are old!...how wrong was that! Its so depressing to hear about these statistics of at least half a million dollars needed to survive retirement!!! how about a few articles on what us poor buggers can do when we only have $150K in Super and some savings in the bank?...I'me 73 and only just retired from full time work, so my future is obviously very bleak according to the media! real cheery news!....Thank heavens for part time work!....
    Rosret
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:22pm
    Given your age, the pension and your $150K should mean your life is quite livable especially if you have your own home. Its the people who have no home and no reserves that are in trouble.
    PS Take heart, very few people have the money they are talking about.
    Retired Knowall
    23rd Aug 2017
    4:08pm
    Too little - too late. Lets hope your siblings learn from your errors.
    Rae
    24th Aug 2017
    8:14am
    Jem compulsory contributions were not made by employers back in the day. They were made by workers after tax was paid on the money. They were only compulsory in some industries.

    The lump sums after 40 years were not anything like $500 000.

    Simply buying a second house and paying it off for sale in retirement would have cost a fraction of the contributions required and achieved a higher return.

    As I see it the LNP is very good at creating wasteful industries.

    Superannuation supports thousands as does the current private health insurance industry, the energy retail industry and the new communications industry retail arms of the new NBN providers.

    So where once a primary industry served us we now support a second tier and it is becoming unaffordable for many.

    People are quite capable of saving for themselves without needing a "vehicle" to do it through. The truth is that the business leaders, self employed and contractors are not required to join compulsory saving schemes and never have been. It is purely a new industry set up to profit from PAYG workers forced by government to hand over 9% of wages.

    The figures show that anyone earning the median wage or less will never have enough super to live on in retirement. No one wants to talk about that though do they?
    gibbo111
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:07pm
    A while ago I read an article by the barefoot investor who said you could live ok on a super balance of 250000
    KSS
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:26pm
    And he tells people how to get that amount and how to live on it too. It does include also getting the full pension.
    Retired Knowall
    26th Aug 2017
    10:30am
    I wouldn't call it living Ok, I'd call it just surviving.
    Rosret
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:10pm
    Confused?
    Anyone who says they have it figured out must have a crystal ball. You can make the right decision for 23-08-2017 and it will be the wrong decision 24-08-2017.
    As OG says - more changes are coming. We are the biggest population cohort who have saved religiously for retirement and if we have money they are going to take it. "They" being the Government, the Banks, and the Super Fund corporations.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:49pm
    Change is part of life and at our age one knows that if there is a certainty in life it is change. If you have money when you retire you should have to spend it before assessing welfare as the old age pension is there for those who have no other means of support not just for something extra that is jut nice to have.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:37pm
    The old age pension has been a right and those with good super probably paid more tax than you old geezer. They deserve some benefit for the money they saved in super over the tax they paid , though there has to be a balance.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:51pm
    The OAP is not a right at all. OAP has nothing to do with what you earned, how much tax you paid or how many dogs you have. It is welfare that is for those who have no other means of support. So if you spent all your millions as you earned them you get the OAP. if you saved millions from your meagre income you get zilch. That is your balance.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:57pm
    I don't see anyone with millions before or after ever getting near the pension. So I don't agree. It's been a right until this generation.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    3:13pm
    I know many people who have earnt millions but today are on the full OAP. They simply spent the money as soon as they made it which is the norm. No one cares about putting money away for emergencies any more. That's why we have so much debt in Australia today.

    OAP has never been a right and I can remember as a child that is was not seen as good to be on welfare of any kind including the OAP. Seems to have gone full circle now where if you are not on welfare you are a mug.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    6:30pm
    OG no one spends millions so they can go on the pension. Being on the pension is lousy. Barely food money.
    GeorgeM
    23rd Aug 2017
    7:59pm
    You are right, Tib. All taxpayers paid for the pension, however this nasty Liberal Govt changed the rules and made it even harder for those who worked hard and saved to get pensions. What people saved (after paying taxes to enable pensions) is their own money to use as needed, not the Govt's business.

    Ideally, the pension should be paid to all who have been taxpayers (and their spouses) say for 20 years to get the full amount, without any Assets or Income Tests.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    8:57pm
    One can spend many millions before they retire as they have to live at least 65 years before the get welfare. Many spend millions over those 65 years because the have money so spend it and a bit more as well by the level of debt in this country. They live in the now not tomorrow so really don't care how living on the OAP is going to be. World just might end before they make it anyway.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    9:56pm
    OG so you think people spend many millions so their income is low enough to get the old age pension. :)
    Rae
    24th Aug 2017
    8:27am
    Tip that is not what OG said. The stats record that around 64% of all people spend everything they earn each fortnight regardless of how little or how much it is. They just don't bother to concern themselves with saving anything.

    The PAYG workers are required to hand over 9% of income into a saving scheme. Whether the money will be there or grow is entirely up to the markets. Most superannuation fund managers simply follow a set percentage of index investments. The odd one actively manages and charges accordingly.

    It has been very easy to make returns since around 2008 as all that QE money flows into markets. Expecting the future to be like the past is dangerous.

    The article is correct in pointing out that workers should learn about superannuation and actively engage in it. This however requires considerable education and work. The laziness factor cuts in once again. That 64% are always just going to let it all slide and worry about tomorrow when they get to tomorrow.

    You have to sometimes envy that blithefulness.
    Tib
    24th Aug 2017
    2:51pm
    Good comment Rae. You are right a large percentage of the population do spend all they earn. Some people never learn to budget, mostly it's not a lack of education but no will power. I think it's unlikely to be those who are successful in life or those that really make large sums of money.
    I feel for the poor though after all 90 % of their earnings are taken up with living costs, having very little to invest. To a large extent they will never understand the need for an investment strategy. But I don't think that's laziness but more about them just finding it confusing.
    As far as active fund managers very few do better than average and quite often when you take into consideration the cost they do worse.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    5:35am
    So, according to OG, people should scrimp and save for retirement and then hand over all the benefit of their saving to the government to give to people who didn't, and there should be no benefit to the saver. And then some idiots wonder why so many don't bother to save! Honestly, the stupidity of these assertions is mind-boggling! Remove the means test and pay pensions to all and there would be far more retirees with healthy superannuation balances and healthy incomes on which income tax could be levied. Fix the stupid superannuation tax concession system that gives 30c in the dollar to the rich and nothing to the poor and we might actually manage to create a system that works - and a retirement group that spends to generate economic growth, jobs and tax revenue.

    OG, I understand that math and logic are not your strong points, and that all your crap postings are made from pure emotion - motivated by jealousy and greed - but you really should pay attention to the math. A homeowner retiree couple with around $825,000 in assets can qualify for $180,000 in additional pension benefits over the next 10 years by spending $100,000 on a world cruise or home renovations. By anyone's logic, that's patently IDIOTIC, and unsustainable. The changed assets test pays people to spend up big in a hurry and put their hand out for bigger benefits from the taxpayer. It therefore motivates precisely the behaviour that the government claims to want to discourage. Sadly, the morons in government just don't get it - or, like you, don't want to!
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    10:58am
    My maths might be bad Rainey but I know given that $100,000 I would make considerably more than the $180,000 I would forgo in pension benefits if I retired at 65 and lived to only 85. I'd be well in front at 90 or more. What's also good is that I would still have the $100,000 as well. Your maths are certainly very different from my maths.

    If you save enough then as fully self funded retirees the government has done nothing t change your lifestyle. However if you are on welfare and as most OAPs on welfare have not been spending their capital (assets for Centrelink remain the same or increase) then the government has done the right thing as you simply don't need to OAP if you are not spending down your capital.

    Unfortunately Rainey you will either have to spend you capital quickly or wait until you spend it down enough to qualify for the OAP as the rules will get worse for you not better.

    At least I can explain the situation using my maths and logic which many others have failed to do. Instead they just whinge.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    11:40am
    Oh, I get it, OG. You are so self-obsessed and egomaniacal that you can't comprehend that everyone in the world isn't you. Most retirees cannot achieve more than 7-8% return. Many get much less. For most, there is simply no benefit in holding on to that $100K. The $180K extra pension - plus all the benefits that accompany it - is much more beneficial. Now it would be a very stupid politician who would base a decision on the circumstances of a tiny minority and ignore the vast majority!

    It's got nothing to do with what YOU can do. It's about what the legislation incites the vast majority to do, and how that affects the national economy. But I guess you are too self-obsessed to ever understand that - just as you are too self-obsessed to comprehend that I don't have capital to spend and I don't want to qualify for the OAP. I work. I earn. I hope to work and earn until I drop, but if not I hope to save enough to get by independently. But that's me. Like you, I'm NOT typical of retirees. Most are spending down because it's beneficial to do so, and that's hurting the national budget. But selfish, self-serving fools are too busy justifying the unjustifiable and worrying about their personal circumstances to get that.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    12:07pm
    Since you no longer have the $100,000 capital the $180,000 extra pension is not anywhere near 7-8% return. Any financial advisor telling people this needs their licence taken from them.
    Anonymous
    28th Aug 2017
    8:54am
    Wrong, OG. You don't need to have $100,000 capital to get a pension/ It's paid to people with $0, in which case the percentage return is way more than 7-8%. You need to go back to school. The financial advisers are absolutely correct.
    Old Geezer
    28th Aug 2017
    11:03am
    Gee I certainly wouldn't trust those financial advisors at all. No wonder there is so much distrust of them as their maths tells porkies.

    Sure you don't need $100,000 capital to get the OAP but any percentages on zero are just that 0. You need to at least take the $100,000 for the $180,000 as that $100,000 once spent is nothing but memories good or bad.

    I'll keep the $100,000 and forgo the OAP if I had a choice as I would be at better off.
    Old Geezer
    28th Aug 2017
    2:25pm
    If I invest my $100,00 at 7% for 10 years it is worth $200,966

    $100,000 7% for 20 years is $403,874

    $100,000 7% for 30 Years is $811,650

    Even after 10years I have the extra $80,000 and after 30 years I have a considerably lot more.

    So you spend you $100,000 and I'll invest mine instead.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2017
    2:26am
    But you can't invest it, OG, because you have to live on it.
    That's where the flaw lies in the assumption that $825,000 in assets is enough for a couple. If their returns are less than the government-stated average of 5%, taking into account that significant assets are non-returning (furniture, cars, personal possessions), the yield is less than the aged pension and you have to spend your capital to live. Far better to spend that capital on the trip of a lifetime then draw $180K in extra pension than to use your $100K to live on so others can have more.
    Lando
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:17pm
    Careful, this survey was conducted on behalf of one of the big four banks. Maybe industry super funds have a different perspective.
    Rosret
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:23pm
    :)
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:44pm
    Maybe you should look at it as a positive instead of this continually bashing banks for doing their job.
    GeorgeM
    23rd Aug 2017
    8:00pm
    Agree there is a vested interest behind such surveys.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2017
    2:31am
    Yes, but the result is not surprising and obviously correct. Over 92,000 retirees were stripped of pensions and benefits. Other changes have rendered retirees worse off than they would have been under previous rules. It doesn't matter whether the changes are deemed right or wrong - good or bad - the fact remains that vast numbers of retirees are worse off than they expected to be. And that's without considering hikes in power costs, rent, etc.
    Old Geezer
    30th Aug 2017
    6:29pm
    It's a pity then Rainey that were given the OAP in the first place. Yes I even know of those who lobbied for it so I know the complete background behind it. I also know about the lobbying for the benefits to be paid if you only for a $1 of the OAP. I disagreed with both and still do. One gone one to go.
    Anonymous
    31st Aug 2017
    6:51am
    OG, the assets test is the cruellest and most unfair part of the OAP system. It is patently WRONG. One's assets do NOT determine one's ability to be self-supporting. Firstly, people's capacity to obtain returns vary according to education, health and personal background. Secondly, $800,000 is a lot more in the hands of a couple in their 90s than in the hands of a couple under 70.

    The assets test should be abolished completely and only income and deemed income (at a rate commensurate with current interest rates) should be counted. Or, more to the point, give the pension to everyone equally, as happens in other nations. That was the original intention of the OAP and the money was collected to fund it. It's not the fault of pensioners that corrupt politicians defrauded the Australian people.

    As for benefits - they should be universally granted. It is patently WRONG to give them to people who were irresponsible and wasted their money and refuse them to people who, in many cases, are more needy but have been frugal and responsible. Forcing people to spend their hard-earned money and sell assets while others are given handouts is unsustainable because it encourages people to be irresponsible and spend all they earn. Dependence on the OAP is increasing and more people are applying for the DSP - because those who stand on their own two feet are heavily penalized. Increasing the penalty for being frugal and responsible will simply increase dependence on the taxpayer and further strain the economy. Only an irresponsible fool suggests such ridiculous policies.
    Anonymous
    31st Aug 2017
    6:54am
    BTW. I also know the history of the change in the assets test. It was changed in recognition that with falling rates of investment return, couples with $820,000 in assets often ended up worse off than couples with far less. It should never have been changed back while investment returns are low. It is patently unfair and stupid to suggest that a couple with $500,000 is entitled to a better standard of living, without touching their capital, than a couple who saved $350,000 more. It is economically irresponsible to create an environment in which saving more is detrimental.
    KSS
    23rd Aug 2017
    12:37pm
    Frankly I am surprised that 85% of people said they know their super balance, and that 59% said they understood their super! A much more positive outcome than the negative slant reported here.
    floss
    23rd Aug 2017
    1:03pm
    Once you catch up with the rules they are then changed again.Confused I know the Federal Government is. With all the new rules I bet there will be no change to the over generous Pollies super.This is from a Government that said no changes.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    1:06pm
    Pollies have super whereas the old age pension is not super but welfare. One is earned the other is merely welfare given to those who have no other means of support.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:42pm
    Old geezer are you the liberal government rep on this site? I don't see the old age pension as welfare. Especially with all the benefits pollutes get.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:48pm
    Pollies get a pension as part of their salary package. Those on the OAP get welfare as they have no other means to support themselves. It has nothing to do with being Liberal, Labor, Green or Red politically as it is fact not anything else. You don't see the OAP as welfare because it doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside that's all.

    For the umpteenth time I have nothing to do with the Liberal government and as I don't vote I don't even vote for them either.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    3:05pm
    What's up old geezer are you bitter because you don't get the pension or are you jealous because other people have more money than you?
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    3:08pm
    Neither I couldn't care less who has more or less money than I have. What ever gave you that idea?
    GeorgeM
    23rd Aug 2017
    8:05pm
    Yes, tib, it must be sour grapes for OG as he seems to have missed out! Also, his excessive enthusiasm to support Liberal party crap decisions, as well as excessive unjustified Politicians pensions, has to have a motive behind it - which he hasn't revealed yet.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    9:00pm
    Maybe OG just might be trying to tell you what you really don't want to hear instead.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    5:42am
    OG is peddling the age-old lie repeated by the greedy, self-serving elite who want to justify their evil. Pretend that somehow the rich are entitled, and that the work of useless, inept, bludging seat-warmers who lie their way into positions of power and privilege is somehow deserving of greater reward than the work of the real workers who are paid bugger-all to build our civilization and provide the comforts that the useless rich can't live without.

    No, OG! You have it backwards! Pensioners EARNED their measly retirement income a million times over. working their guts out for peanuts. Bludging incompetent politicians and bureaucrats STOLE their retirement riches by making immoral laws that feed their insatiable greed.
    Retired Knowall
    26th Aug 2017
    10:37am
    How do you explain the Drones that never worked so never paid tax, lived in Govt. housing and bred more Drones getting the pension.
    Old Geezer
    26th Aug 2017
    11:30am
    I guess that those pensioners who earned their measly retirement are mainly the drones. It takes a lot of effort to produce more drones in the number they do.
    ex PS
    28th Aug 2017
    11:19am
    There is no such thing in Australia as someone who pays no tax, if you breath and eat you pay tax, any comment to the contrary is either a lie or is propaganda that is being used to prop up a useless government.
    floss
    23rd Aug 2017
    1:12pm
    To the fool that said banks are doing a great job have they not been following the CBA scandal.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    1:39pm
    Yes and it's just more bank bashing which only a fool would believe.
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:52pm
    Yeah floss what are you thinking. What's a bit of money laundering between friends. The way you go on you'd think it was illegal or immoral. They're just looking after their customers. You are so foolish.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    5:44am
    Looking after OG - who clearly gains from their scandalous conduct and therefore cares nought that it's illegal and immoral, much less who it hurts.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    11:02am
    I believe there is a class action for us investors so investors will lose little from this.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    11:43am
    You would have to be as dumb as OG to think investors will win from a class action. Who will pay? The bank? If so, its value will fall further. The executive? Highly unlikely! But the lawyers will get a massive windfall. It will settle out of court for a miserably small sum that will be an insult to most shareholders and the lawyers will party.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    12:29pm
    Yes Rainey but even a small return is a bonus on our investment that no pays more in dividends per share than what we paid for it.

    That said nothing is going to come of it anyway.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    12:29pm
    Yes Rainey but even a small return is a bonus on our investment that no pays more in dividends per share than what we paid for it.

    That said nothing is going to come of it anyway.
    Rae
    28th Aug 2017
    9:26am
    Just a windfall for the lawyers.
    Not a Bludger
    23rd Aug 2017
    1:16pm
    Doesn't surprise me in the least that so many people don't know, don't care and have no interest in finding out.

    This is the worst aspect of today's welfare state - no worries, someone will thrust free money into my mit and all will be well and if not try Go Fund Me or some charity or some talk back radio show or some bleeding heart community law outfit (aka my taxes at work).

    Why should I be made to feel guilty or in any way responsible for those who refuse to help themselves or take any steps to plan for their retirement?

    As ye sow so shall ye reap, I say.
    floss
    23rd Aug 2017
    1:55pm
    O G please read the article in SUPERGUIDE by Sean Corbett and you will realise how little you know about super all you say is just not true and is misleading.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:01pm
    Well I guess one's ignorance of super is certainly showing here.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:09pm
    Interesting that the cheapest fund he says costs 0.46% whereas mine cost me 0.16%.

    Return on best performing fund over 5 years is 8.7%. I would be very unhappy if my fund did that.
    Old Man
    23rd Aug 2017
    2:13pm
    Of course people are confused and much of the confusion is caused by articles like this. The first thing I'd like clarified is the definition of the word "comfortable" as used in this article. There are some people who don't want to travel and are content to stay where they live and enjoy a game of golf or bowls each week. They probably think of that as the definition of "comfortable". On the other end are those who want to travel the world continuously and have the funds to do that. That would be their definition of "comfortable". I agree with Gibbo111 as I have read similar articles and have heard knowledgeable people on TV express the same figures on how much is needed to enjoy retirement for the average person.

    As KSS has pointed out, the article zooms in on the negative even though the negative percentages are, in fact, the lower figure. The more I log into this site, the more I think it has the aim of frightening the elderly as most of the articles project doom and gloom. We keep reading about what the government may be thinking about ripping off age pensioners. Statements hypotheisising without a shred of evidence to back the suggestions. This article has been posted before albeit in a different format but with the same figures and percentages. In fact, it's very rare to get an article that hasn't appeared time and time again.

    23rd Aug 2017
    3:18pm
    Article only confirms that the average Aussie is pretty dumb or happy to rely on taxpayer handout when retired
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    3:25pm
    Exactly. One day those handouts wont be available.
    ex PS
    23rd Aug 2017
    5:00pm
    What government is stupid enough to take away Pension Entitlements, even this mob of idiots know that it would be political suicide. People pay for their Super and Pensions as part of their salary package, it is called tax.
    If the government has mismanaged the tax funds by giving tax cuts in order to win elections, that's its problem not ours. As for tax payer handouts, how can you give a handout to yourself? Most Pensioners were and still are tax payers.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    5:35pm
    OAP has nothing to do with people paying for it at all. You can get it by having paid no tax in your life time or don't get it having paid lots of tax. Problem is it is not sustainable in it's present form. Something has to give but no body wants to believe it. No matter who is in power hard decisions are going to have to be made which could happen sooner rather than later if our economy collapses due to the popping of some big bubbles in housing and equity markets.

    So it's not a case of who is stupid enough but who will be in power when hard decisions have to be made. The day of reckoning is coming.
    Anonymous
    23rd Aug 2017
    5:37pm
    ex PS - most of the buggers on full OAP have paid no where near the taxes you say they are meant to reap back in pensions

    and just fyi - taxes are for healthcare, defence, infrastructure, education, and other nation building expenses and services
    Janran
    23rd Aug 2017
    6:45pm
    Wow, Not a Bludger, anyone'd think you were the only person to ever pay tax! with your "This is the worst aspect of today's welfare state - no worries, someone will thrust free money into my mit and all will be well and if not try Go Fund Me or some charity or some talk back radio show or some bleeding heart community law outfit (aka my taxes at work). Really? Do you think your taxes will be paying for "Go Fund Me or some charity or some talk back radio show or some bleeding heart community law outfit (aka my taxes at work)."?

    Let me tell you this for free - it's extremely difficult to live on the dole. Worse if you live in Sydney paying rent. Still awful if you live in the regions where there are no jobs (although rents are generally cheaper, but still a ridiculous % of income spent on housing). Young people have never known about job security like our generation thrived on.

    Wake up! We all pay tax (except the mega-rich who think paying tax is for losers) and those who couldn't get paid work or who have worked for nothing having babies - the taxpayers of the future.
    Rae
    24th Aug 2017
    8:47am
    Yes If we all did what the past few governments have done and sold all our investments, give back income in the form of Cuts and wasted money hand over fist we'd be broke too I suspect.

    I have no sympathy for foolish politicians who have wrecked a fine economy that did have numerous taxpayer funded assets returning good dividends and employing public servants each of whom supported another 5 to 6 workers.

    You couldn't have planned better destruction of the economy which is why I suspect the IPA of being actively engaged in the current and ongoing destruction of our previously successful mixed economy.
    ex PS
    24th Aug 2017
    10:39am
    I have one question for the people that say taxes have nothing to do with funding O.A.P, where does the money come from, is there a tree out the back growing money where all Pension Entitlements are paid from? How convenient to make the claim that Pension Entitlements are somehow removed from the tax structure. It is just a myth invented by those that wish to make excuses for bad government.
    As for people paying no tax in this country, the assumption is incorrect and naive, if you buy stuff you pay tax, have you ever heard of a little thing called GST?

    Politicians have mismanaged the budget and yet again are trying to make up the shortfall by sticking it to the people who can least afford it.
    To argue that an individual has to some way put in as much as they take out in regard to Pension Entitlements is also stupid, the money that is payed in taxes is the same as money that is put into a private fund, no one puts $250,000.00 into a private fund and expects to only draw $250,000.00 out, the fund provider is expected to manage that fund and grow it. In the same way, taxpayers have an expectation that the government takes the money it has been given and manages it. This mob managed it by storing it up and buying votes at election time by handing out tax cuts. Maybe if they did not do this and looked at long term planning they would not have had to invent a Pension Entitlement crises.
    Old Geezer
    24th Aug 2017
    11:58am
    Wrong if you are an OAP then you are paid by the taxpayers of today as there is not pot of money put away for your OAP. So you have not paid for your OAP at all. So stop thinking such rubbish.
    GeorgeM
    24th Aug 2017
    12:25pm
    What rubbish you write, OG. You claim to be financially smart, and yet you peddle such nonsense! The taxes paid should be INVESTED and used to pay pensions later. The politicians who destroyed that method have responsibility to set that up again.

    Also, using your logic no past politicians should receive pensions now, or current ones in the future! Hope you agree - based on your logic!
    Old Geezer
    24th Aug 2017
    1:21pm
    Past pollies are not on welfare so that myth is busted. It is part of their salary and is funded from the future fund.

    OAP is welfare and is funded by the taxes collected today so if that doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy like what you say then you will have to grit your teeth and take your medicine instead.

    It doesn't take much financial know who to work this one out.
    GeorgeM
    24th Aug 2017
    4:23pm
    You clearly don't like to see logic, OG. All pensions were funded by a 7.5% tax out of Salaries since late 1940s, hence it is paid for and NOT welfare. Politicians have stuffed it up and didn't invest that money separately. But, how considerate of them to have a future fund for themselves? That should also be rolled into general revenue if they wanted to be fair to everyone else, and they should apply for pensions just like everyone else.

    The system is broken, and needs to be reviewed and replaced with a system fair to everyone. That's the bottom line.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    5:53am
    What is missing from these ill-informed and self-serving comments about who pays tax and what funds pensions is recognition of what creates money in the first place. In our society, people work for varying rates of pay. Sadly, the most productive are often paid the least. Wage-earners are paid much less than their production is worth so that business owners can make profit by hiring workers. The bottom line is that a person's income has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH HIS CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY. Those who contribute most are often paid least and those who contribute least are often paid most. Politicians contribute very little. Actually, they've stuffed up hideously so for the most part their contribution is negative. Therefore, the taxpayer is funding political pensions to unproductive people who didn't contribute and therefore didn't ever legitimately EARN anything, while low-paid workers who retire on pensions receive far, far less - over a lifetime - than they morally EARN, so the pension is a MORAL ENTITLEMENT and politicians' superannuation is an immorally and unfairly granted unearned benefit for which there can be zero moral justification.

    Lose the feudal elite's ''entitlement'' complex, OG. You are WRONG - and NASTY. Pensions were earned a thousand times over by most of us. Sadly, we've been cheated of our earnings and moral entitlement by the greedy, self-serving elitists.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    12:31pm
    What a lot of rubbish!
    ex PS
    28th Aug 2017
    11:21am
    Yes it is O.G, and most of it coming from you.
    Old Geezer
    28th Aug 2017
    2:27pm
    Nope my rubbish goes in the bin where it belongs! I don't put it all out for everyone to see.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2017
    2:21am
    OG, what you display is your vile and disgusting egotistical, cruel, selfish, self-serving, uncaring attitude toward those less fortunate than you and your elitist mentality - the filthiest and most disgusting rubbish there is, but you display it proudly for all to see. What a horrid individual you are!
    ex PS
    23rd Aug 2017
    5:06pm
    Good Super Funds keep their members informed and have online reporting facilities. I get several invitations a year for various information sessions from mine. It caters for those who are still working and those who are taking a self funded pension.
    I can see how my funds are growing at any time day or night by going on line, Super was the best decision I ever made, too bad this government is doing everything they can to stuff it up by creating uncertainty.
    Florgan
    23rd Aug 2017
    5:44pm
    The government is also making it very hard for the self employed to get a decent super too.
    Sick to death of the goal posts being moved all the time.
    Anonymous
    23rd Aug 2017
    6:44pm
    How is that ?

    Self employed can contribute pre tax income same way as wage earners
    Janran
    23rd Aug 2017
    6:52pm
    Raphael: As well as paying our quarterly PAYG? You have no idea what it's like for people on low incomes. I'd have to take out an overdraft to pay my PAYG as WELL AS contribute to Super. My cash flow would be totally buggered if I had to pay both.
    Anonymous
    23rd Aug 2017
    6:57pm
    But Janran - thats my point exactly.

    If you sacrificed what you normally pay in quarterly PAYG - you add to your super at only 15% tax.

    No one is asking you to contribute more, just contribute what you pay as PAYG into your super and reduce your PAYG bill

    Bloody hell. Some people !!!
    Tib
    23rd Aug 2017
    7:01pm
    Janran sounds like you don't belong in business it's time to get a job.
    inextratime
    23rd Aug 2017
    6:57pm
    OG - Wrong yet again re OAP payments.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Aug 2017
    8:54pm
    Definitely not wrong about the OAP being welfare that should only be paid to those who have no other means of support. Yes it is wrong for those who can support themselves to be paid the OAP.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    5:57am
    No, OG, it's RIGHT for all who contributed far more to society than they were fairly paid for to be cared for in retirement by the society that benefits. What is wrong is for inept, lazy seat-warming bludgers who stuffed up society and contributed nothing to be claiming entitlement to benefits they did nothing to earn or deserve, but acquired by immoral law-making.
    Kathleen
    24th Aug 2017
    12:00am
    I think people should spend down to a small reserve of money before getting the pension. It is possible to manage on the pension especially if you own your own home. You need a budget wherein you apportion money to various needs. YourLifeChoices provide one that can be used. $669 per week for a couple allows for a decent lifestyle. If you do not drink or smoke or own more than one car or eat out at restaurants it is doable.
    ex PS
    24th Aug 2017
    10:50am
    Right again Grandma, it constantly amazes me the amount of people I come across who have no idea about setting a budget. If they earn $80,00.00 a year they feel compelled to spend it all, if they drop to earning $70,00.00 they feel compelled to spend $80,000.00.
    We had always intended on being Self Funded Retirees until the end, but due to the constant changes to Super Rules and the instability that comes with it, I no longer see that as an attainable goal.
    We will spend what we want when we want and if we have to take a Pension Entitlement we will, we will make sure that when the time comes that we are eligible we will have just enough in reportable cash and assets to qualify for a $1.00 Pension just so we get all the entitlements and can increase the amount drawn when required. This government is pushing more and more people into doing the same thing.
    It just means our son will get his inheritance a bit early.
    Old Geezer
    24th Aug 2017
    11:55am
    It is extremely wrong that you only need to get a $1 in OAP to get the benefits and a good reason why the pensioner benefits should only be given to those on the full OAP. There are fully self funded retirees who get less the OAP but still have to pay the full amount plus extra to pay for those who cheat the system.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    6:02am
    The very least of the wrongs in a system designed by self-serving inept bludgers to serve inept self-serving elitists with an entitlement complex! All retirees should get the benefits. Only an idiot supports positioning retirees such that it's more beneficial to have less savings and claim more from the taxpayer than to try to be independent. Morons have created a stupid unsustainable system and morons continue to support and excuse it. OG, only a total idiot would further reduce the lifestyles of the responsible savers and encourage yet more people to be totally dependant on the taxpayer. We need more incentives to save, not fewer.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    10:43am
    I certainly don't want the benefits as why should others pay more so I can get a discount? Any person with enough to pay full price is being greedy wanting a discount. That is simply not fair at all.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    11:47am
    But some fools think it's fair for those who had plenty and wasted it to get discounts while those who had little but saved it get none. Some fools think there should be no reward for effort and no incentive to strive, and then wonder why the world is in a mess because too few bother. Keep on with your idiotic nonsense, OG. The nation is in hideous debt and the economy is collapsing because of the stupid policies you endorse. And while fools continue with their folly, it will keep getting worse. But I suspect that's what the greedy elitists want. Then we'll see a return to the master/slave days and the greedy rich will be delighted.
    Old Geezer
    25th Aug 2017
    11:59am
    It will get even worse under a Labor government with what our opposition leader wanting to stifle effort too. That will only make things worse.

    Daily I hear of people selling properties and other Australian investments as it is becoming too risky to do business here now. So if the rich leave or batten down the hatches who is going to pay welfare for the masses?
    john
    24th Aug 2017
    12:14pm
    How many Australians will have 600,000 dollars in Super and own their home. Not many. If we can't handle ourselves now how are the next two generations going to do it. They aren't.
    And our nation will be on a downward spiral unless something is changed and some competent people take charge , not elitist political career builders but genuine people, where do you find genuine people, maybe Nick Xenaphon he seems about the only real person in that filthy game. Super rules changed all the time, doesn't matter what breed of politics is in , then the Libs and Labor destroyed the Retirement special fund , we're not sure how , but they did, they spent it, both sides, so what kind of scumbags do that.
    I think we in our family are some of the luckier ones, but we are not totally set up as well as we thought we'd be.
    SO GOD HELP THE REST.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    4:23pm
    Most Australians could have that much if they didn't piss their savings away while working
    ex PS
    28th Aug 2017
    12:25pm
    Agreed, so why is the government doing its best to discourage young people from putting extra into Super by destabilizing the industry. Who in their right mind is going to invest in a scheme that is subject to change at the whim of the government.
    You can not guarantee that you will be able to cash it in at a certain age, you can't guarantee that you will be able to take out a lump sum if needed, no guarantee that you can leave the balance of funds to your kids when you pass on.
    No one in there right mind would invest money in such a shaky scheme. I did well out of my Super as did my wife, we were both big supporters of the concept of looking into the future and planning to look after ourselves. Under the stewardship of this current government I would not advise any young person to invest extra money in Super.
    Cheezil61
    25th Aug 2017
    6:32am
    Quote: "In order to have a ‘comfortable’ retirement, single people will need $545,000 in retirement savings, and couples will need $640,000, according to ASFA advice. These figures are based on the presumption the home is owned outright."

    What does this mean? If I retire at 50 this will be enough? If I retire at 67 when I can get the pension it will be enough??

    What hope have I got of having this much super even by the time I'm 60? (still paying a mortgage at 56 due to relationship separation - x 2 - & paying out both ex's - & still putting every cent I can towards that mortgage that has ALMOST been paid out about 3 times now (& working 12 hour night/12 hour day alternating shifts including every 2nd weekend to do it is killing me at 56!).. I have only worked this job for the last 15 & a half years & only been able to put in a limited amount of super (do to trying to become debt free) - there is not much energy left to enjoy retirement if I am ever going to be lucky enough to afford it & there is not much enjoyment striving for it either.. I know I am better off than many women (& possibly men) my age, but I hate my life, it can be so cruel!!
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2017
    4:24pm
    You married 2 losers

    Usually it's the male that gets screwed
    Old Geezer
    28th Aug 2017
    2:28pm
    Why do people continue to put their money where gold diggers can get it?


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles