Women the big losers in our super system

Women retire with $113,000 less super than men.

Superannuation system fails women

The superannuation system is failing women.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) reports that on average men retire with an average of $113,660 more in super than women.

And this is despite an increased number of women in the workforce in recent decades.

Women are “generally worse off”, according to a three-year project funded by the Federal Government and led by the University of South Australia.

“Women are more likely to have fragmented work histories, earn less money than men, have fewer advancement opportunities and retain primary unpaid work and care-giving responsibilities, all of which contribute to a reduced capacity to accumulate assets over their life course.

“The gender pay gap, the high proportion of women who work part-time and their years spent out of paid work providing care, means that a new frontier of inequality has opened up in Australia – a gender gap in superannuation and other assets.”

The most recent breakdown of Australia’s $2.3 trillion superannuation industry is no surprise. Women who retired in 2016 averaged $120,000 less than men in their super accounts, but the gap is closing – slowly.

University of South Australia Centre for Workplace Excellence researcher Justine Irving says the super system is designed for and around men.

“It assumes an average of 40 years spent in continuous full-time employment to accumulate sufficient retirement funds,” she says.

“It doesn’t take into account that many women spend long periods out of the workforce while raising children.

“In addition to facing sexist and ageist attitudes in the workplace, older workers’ health, caregiving responsibilities and the type of work they do has a significant impact on whether they are able to retire with sufficient funds.”

Ms Irving rejected criticism that women did not understand the superannuation system, saying the imbalance was “simple economics”.

She told Nest Egg: “It's the common expectation that women themselves resolve this and work this out, and that if there's something that they can do, then that will reduce the gap and then increase their superannuation balances.

“When in actual fact it's probably a bit unfair, because the issues are systemic and they're not necessarily due to any fault of the women themselves.

“Obviously the less you earn the less you're able to contribute to your retirement.

“It's not the fault of a woman that she is unable to earn equal pay in some circumstances, or that she is more likely to engage in casual or part-time work.

“She's not able to accumulate superannuation at all in some cases, so I guess it's hard for individual women themselves to fix it without broader support.” 

The chairman of Challenger Limited’s retirement income arm Jeremy Cooper told an audience in Sydney last week that there was a “serious question” about whether Australia’s superannuation system was “fit for purpose in retirement”.

The good news for women is that their super balances have jumped 53 per cent in the past two years. Men’s super balances have increased by 35 per cent.

ASFA chief executive Dr Martin Fahy says the disparity between the super balances of men and women is a key driver in social equality.

"While women can look forward to retiring with more superannuation than their mothers and grandmothers, the ongoing issue of broken employment patterns and a troubling, persistent gender pay gap means we cannot afford to be complacent," he says.

Is there a solution to the imbalance?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    10:11am
    N-o-o-t again!! We all know why some women end up with less than some men in super - they generally work fewer hours (same percentage/men as the 'wage gap' - funny that), take time off, have broken work life, but most of all - because the super system hasn't yet had the opportunity to run a Lifetime of fifty working years - so MANY PEOPLE will not have a heap.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    10:20am
    Oh - and if we keep pumping women through the higher paid jobs as some sort of 'right', handing them public service jobs, and offering affirmative action unto infinity in education, promotion etc - is the same question going to be raised in twenty five years time about MEN having less in retirement?

    Leave the bloody super system alone until it bears fruit - don't be like those idiots with their 'commission of audit' who worked out that retirees would be too big a cost, long before the scheme had a chance to bear real fruit... and let people earn with a fair opportunity what they earn.

    The REAL issue today is how many jobs there will be in the future and how they will be distributed.

    Utter propagandistic nonsense this whole issue.
    Rosret
    28th Nov 2017
    11:10am
    Yes Trebor - but this article is about women's plight.
    Indeed they will soon be a self sufficient power force in the community and the men will be home barefoot and minding the kids. However the generation that is retiring at the moment didn't see it coming and have relied on their husband's super.
    I wonder if the young women in the future will treat their men with the same disdain.
    MICK
    28th Nov 2017
    12:08pm
    Rights? Ever seen who nearly ALL of the news and current affairs presenters are these days? That's different!
    The problem with equality is that women do not want the 'right' to access the high paying jobs, they just want the high paying jobs. There is a difference.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    12:20pm
    In many cases it was the 'norm' to have a 'primary breadwinner', so that was inevitable - that women would end up on the short end of the stick once they 'gained their freedom'.

    It is a sad thing that families seem to no longer make it together, and the nation and groups in it are so divided against one another... government policy that...

    I come from a totally disintegrated and dysfunctional family, so I view this with concern, since I feel I know the value of a good family.

    It works two ways - my daughter had a nice man, engaged et al, but he was damned lazy around the house, while she worked long hours making movies (like her mother).

    Since the Guv hasn't allowed the super scheme to finish a 'lifetime' of fifty years working life yet - before those fools hit the panic button (on purpose to push their stupid ideology) - my view is that they can pick up the slack.... for the next twenty five years until the super scheme hits its straps.... first stop is working for REAL employment for the majority and reducing costs of living.
    MICK
    28th Nov 2017
    1:45pm
    If I get a bit worked up it is because the feminist movement is all over men like a rash and coming at blokes from all sides. They never acknowledge changing societal norms but always cry discrimination and victimisation. Don't know why I bother.
    Ella
    28th Nov 2017
    2:33pm
    On the whole found this article quite true. I worked all my life till my job disappeared at 60yrs when i decided to just retire as i wouldn't have been able to get another job. I had tertiary education the same as my husband and had only taken maternity leave back in the 80's (unpaid). My super was a third of the amount of my husbands (at the same age) and his wage had always been double mine
    I've always felt there is definitely a double standard btn males and females regards wages and super. I have single female friends in the same boat who are struggling and although grateful I'm in a stable marriage i still feel the discrepancy is wrong as I've worked hard in full time work as well as run a home and raised children. .
    Cautious
    28th Nov 2017
    4:00pm
    Ella
    What was his job and what was yours?
    Ella
    29th Nov 2017
    9:13am
    Cautious i was a level 2 Clinical nurse and he was a Draftsman . Both of us had degrees. I had post graduate diplomas as well.
    inextratime
    28th Nov 2017
    10:59am
    So Trebor are you intimating that women do not take time out of the work force to have children and to look after them and not earning super during that period ?
    Or are you just trying to be smart ?
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    12:27pm
    When they do that, they're looked after by MEN.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    12:44pm
    My dear fellow - I AM smart... please re-read....

    What part of "have broken work life," do you NOT understand?

    What has that to do with super? Do you expect that women will receive higher wages for the same work to compensate and higher super as well to compensate?

    Yeah - that'll work....
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    4:43pm
    I doubt many men put money into the wife's super when she's at home looking after children, Knows-a-lot.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    7:10pm
    Yes - but the earnings are covered.... and if she's a good girl and sticks around, she'll get her share when they retire...
    inextratime
    28th Nov 2017
    10:59am
    So Trebor are you intimating that women do not take time out of the work force to have children and to look after them and not earning super during that period ?
    Or are you just trying to be smart ?
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    2:42pm
    I said - is there an echo in here?

    I said is there an echo in here?...................
    Tib
    28th Nov 2017
    3:52pm
    :)
    Rosret
    28th Nov 2017
    11:04am
    Its not just women but rather singles with a bias toward women. The tax perk of husbands and wives sharing the superannuation tally and then taxed on the half share meant single women totaled even less super. I don't know if that is still the case.
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    12:28pm
    Don't forget that men do the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs - in the "Glass Cellar".
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    12:47pm
    You hit a point There, Rosret... women and men in 'couples' SHARE super, and thus the women in those don't miss out... singles do.

    KAL - I prefer 'Glass Gutter' - that's where divorced men end up - they can lie there with nothing, look up at everything passing them by, and be trodden on by all..... like that silly feminist thing about sitting at the table and not being able to eat - the Glass Gutter is exactly the same thing - but don't expect 'feminists' to understand that.
    Anonymous
    29th Nov 2017
    3:41pm
    @TREBOR. I don't expect anything positive from feminists. I prefer to call them wimminists (they're always bleating about 'wimmin').
    MICK
    28th Nov 2017
    12:06pm
    This is the ongoing routine lament from women demanding equality. Maybe discuss some of the reasons WHY women have less super than men rather and mention that if divorced women get a half share of the hubbies super anyway. Inconvenient facts? I thought so.
    Given the current witch hunt women are conducting against those awful awful men who spoke bad ly to them or looked sideways at then up to half a century ago you might want to add this one on to the list Janelle.
    Sorry to not be supportive but men in general are fed up with the whining of women who are apparently little princesses being hard done by even as they soak up much of the health budget with their personal ailments (breast cancer) and give men not one thought and are happy for them to die early. Be careful you do not end up like Germaine Greer, a bitter old man hating woman.
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    12:30pm
    It's MEN that need equality. Women have it better than men in so many ways: longevity, not dying in huge numbers on battlefronts, being looked after...
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    12:31pm
    Whinging Wimminists. Bah!!!
    Tib
    28th Nov 2017
    12:42pm
    You're right there Mick. This business stopped being fair to men a long time ago, and now it's being really unfair and tedious. There's just so much BS we men can stand from complaining women.
    MICK
    28th Nov 2017
    1:48pm
    I don't want to see a giha against the fairer sex like is being waged against men but I would like to see an end to the continual lament. Maybe discuss the areas where men are being dudded by women. No interest in that.
    Welcome to gender wars. Don't know why I bother.
    Charlie
    28th Nov 2017
    12:15pm
    So women would be financially better off to marry a man, not another woman
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    12:32pm
    Marry another woman? Nah! It ain't "marriage".
    Old Geezer
    28th Nov 2017
    4:24pm
    Definitely as women live longer than men and thus can have the advantage of using both supers for themselves. Marry another woman and you might just be the loser.
    Charlie
    28th Nov 2017
    8:00pm
    I agree knows-a-lot, a woman to marry another woman ain't marriage, but our government is saying that it is marriage.
    This is just to show homosexual people they have the same rights as everyone else, but why take it marriage.
    Only the love part fits into the picture. When it comes to families, homosexual differences are going to show more than they ever did before, because the families they form under the marriage bond will be quite unconventional to say the least. Then the equality and discrimination arguments will start all over again and we will all be accused of not being trans-sexual enough.
    Old Geezer
    28th Nov 2017
    9:42pm
    I know of couple of blokes who want to get married but also have a third partner who is a woman. Their biggest problem is the woman doesn't like the middle of the bed. They are now planning a family I hear. So looks like next step is lots of wives and husbands of either sex. Well if the Muslims can have 4 wives why not?
    Tib
    28th Nov 2017
    10:18pm
    OG at least with 4 wives they can fight amongst themselves.
    Cautious
    28th Nov 2017
    12:15pm
    Buses carry more people than cars.
    People who work longer, on the same pay rate, earn more money and super.
    Make cars bigger with more seats.
    Work as many hours.
    Oh but yout can't because you had kids.
    You and your husband wanted to have kids and planned it that way and knew there was going to be less money.
    Yes its all a part of what happens in a family.
    Stop telling us about it.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    12:53pm
    I've argued this elsewhere - when a women takes time off for kids, she doesn't suffer a drop in income.................. (waits for those who do not or cannot read) .... her family unit suffers a drop in income, and that means her hubby does too. He, after all, carries the bills....

    Same applies to super and all ....... you split the super is split - and what the family unit has earned is the sum total of it.

    Get with the times, some of you.
    LiveItUp
    29th Nov 2017
    8:13am
    No Trevor she suffers a big drop income and has to ask her hubby for money. It's a big let done having to justify every cent spent.
    TREBOR
    29th Nov 2017
    9:02am
    Nonsense - she doesn't have to ask her husband for money - the bills are paid and what's left over is apportioned according to need first - one would think, though that depends on the individuals involved.

    You make it sound like men are wolves and women are lambs.

    You can leave that feminist ideology propaganda gun at the door...
    Tib
    29th Nov 2017
    9:04am
    Bonny must be terrible for a women to have to work within a budget. Or explain why she emptied her husband's account and spent the mortgage money. Being bored doesn't really cover it if you have to make do on his money.
    Rae
    29th Nov 2017
    9:28am
    Or she hires a baby sitter and pays up for a few years then goes on with her career. This staying in to mind children isn't necessary. People are just too greedy to pay anyone else these days.

    The way people fuss about paying wages is ridiculous. Besides childcare is also government sponsored now. Wish I'd had that. I just paid a heap of my after tax money and I hate the idea of being dependent on anyone, am not very trusting at all and value my freedom. That means earning for myself even if I have to pay wages to other people and do without for a few years.

    Possibly playing dolls and mummies wasn't my thing either.

    These are rules and fallacies developed by society and that can change. Kid's cope well with whatever they get used to. Leaving a baby is hard on mum but doesn't hurt the bub one bit if the carer chosen is a loving person. Just hurts the bottom line for a while.

    But you can't be lazy either and you work like a dog or some men do to make it all work.
    Tib
    28th Nov 2017
    12:21pm
    I'm sick of hearing this. For all the reasons above they do end up with less super. Work less hours get less super. If they remain married they live on their super and their husbands. If they divorce they win the marriage game and get most of the assets in divorce. Not always most of the super but just about everything else. Women also live longer so they are more likely to be there when the super runs out.
    Women should stop complaining. If you want to solve the wage gap and super problem get a job and work more hours. Even better don't get married and don't have children. More men every day are going off the whole marriage thing, less men are interested in being a working drone for some witch and her brats.
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    12:36pm
    Bravo!

    There's now a movement: MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way. They're fed up with all the crap coming from women, and will have nothing to do with them relationship-wise. Thanks, you misandrous feminists (who are the antithesis of feminine).
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    1:13pm
    Couldn’t have said it better myself Tib
    Stupid ignorant article
    Rae
    29th Nov 2017
    10:29am
    I'm a woman and I agree. If a couple want kids then pay for them for a few years and share the home living needs. It's not rocket science. Kids are expensive.

    Get a job or two and run a business as well. Just work hard and save and yes it works and the kids are terrific with very good work ethics as a side benefit.

    As an aside I wonder what problems the same sex couples will have when they marry. It seems we have these inbuilt ideas of what a spouse should be and should do that do not apply to other relationships.

    Can't say I blame men these days for walking away. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
    Tib
    29th Nov 2017
    12:48pm
    Rae whatever we do we cant stop what is coming. In the US I've seen numbers that suggest 70% of y gen Aren't getting married. Young men are seeing married men as losers, and don't want to be one. Where we heard positive things about marriage when were young the message they get from their fathers is negative. It feels nice to spend all your money on yourself. They make comments about married men such as no one cares about the donkey that pulls the cart. I think women will be paying their own way wether they like it or not which is alright for those who have a nice career but if you have a lousy job good luck.
    TREBOR
    29th Nov 2017
    12:49pm
    Excellent arguments for beginning to dismantle the MADIF - the Mandatory Dual Income Family - that is the yardstick for so very much in society these days - not least of all home-owning.

    It is not secret (to me, anyway, since I was there) that you could buy a house in Marrickville for $45k, but once the 'market' (read hungry real estate people) got on to the idea that the Dual Income Family was something of the 'norm' and could 'afford' it (though it lead in part to rising costs of living/costs of employing labour of any kind) - guess what - prices doubled, and haven't looked back since. It's been a Space Race ever since....... and singles were always behind the eight ball - at least until couples had kids etc - then we saw the advent of the demand for childcare etc...another factor in rising costs of living, taxation and upward pressure on incomes..... another Space Race with no end in sight.....

    So when one member is forced to take time off - they'd better have a good income coming in and a good plan.... s'all I can say these days.

    *allusion to the Space Race was in regard to the massive and rising costs of that race in the 1960's-70's....

    28th Nov 2017
    12:25pm
    Of course women are worse off. They don't work as many hours or years as men do, taking time off to have kids etc. I'm sick of YLC's special pleading and whingeing regarding women. 'Wimmin': one of the sacred cows of the 21st century!
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    7:14pm
    It's all complaint and no solution....

    What exactly are the advocates for 'women being ripped off' offering as an alternative to their ONLY receiving what is their due for hours and years worked?

    Higher pay for women? A 'tax' on those nasty men to go into funding women's super and retirement? Higher super benefits for women?

    There is nothing of value to be derived from this kind of discussion - only negatives, and if you only have negatives to offer, you have no contribution to make to the discussion.
    TREBOR
    29th Nov 2017
    9:04am
    I know - alter the education system, offer affirmative action in education and employment and promotion, and give the girls all the sweet jobs with the good money!! If that fails give them PPL.

    Easy as pie!! Been going on since the early 1980's, so there's plenty of money in the till.
    KSS
    28th Nov 2017
    12:42pm
    If two people in a partnership decide, one way or another, to have children then part of that decision must be who looks after the child and how it will be paid for - including any super shortfall for the partner left 'holding the baby'.

    This all feels suspiciously like there is about to be a push for 'special treatment' for women for no other reason than they are women! So what could that be? Well how about a higher employer super contribution? Or mandatory super payments for every woman over the age of say 16 working or not? What about women who can't have or don't want kids? Do they get the same payments because they are 'women'? More welfare?

    What about men who have interrupted careers? What about men who can't work? What about the men who also work at casual and part-time jobs? What about the men who stay home to look after children and sick relatives? What about the men who have to give up work to look after their kids when their partner dies?

    And where will be super benchmark be set? Because clearly the standardised same percentage for all is now being touted as 'unfair'. And 'unfair' because some people earn more or less than others! So how about we pay everyone exactly the same regardless of the job, hours, education or skill level. Would you be satisfied then? No I didn't think so.
    MICK
    28th Nov 2017
    1:52pm
    And I thought you were a gal KSS.
    I get your point about earning power. Probably the real issue is the distorted money at either end. The wealthy at the top are criminals with legal protection whilst the other end are slaves masquerading as workers. What a mess we have made of the world. Will need to reread Animal Farm again but I suspect Orwell had it about right.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    2:04pm
    I always said - way back in the 1960's - that Orwell had it right NOW in 1984.... it's just more subtle... there are more ways of keeping people in line than threatening life and limb....
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    3:36pm
    Or go for the Trebor scheme and have a minimum contribution per fortnight... in short fortnights the guv tops up the contribution from consolidated revenue - WHICH IS PARTLY THERE TO COVER FUTURE PENSIONS (hello!) - and in doing this into a fund that is self-sustaining via investment, is achieving a BETTER result than if it (The Guv) waits until that person retires. Putting that extra into a fund now, that generates 10% (some claim that), but under the Trebor Scheme with smaller fees and costs -will mean less pension payout in the future.

    This scheme, of course, is the usual one stop shop out of the grasping hands of politicians and 'business' people... and run by an elected body which also handles applications for investment in solid infrastructure for the nation while providing employment for 754 Visa holders (born here - last in line for a job)....

    28th Nov 2017
    2:56pm
    Wrong, Jana wrong! (Apologies to Joh) The superannuation system is not failing women down, women are failing women. How many times do we have to put up with the lies about equality of pay before the truth can appear? Women are on equal pay in most, if not all, of the awards struck in the Australian workplace. Those women who are working under non-award conditions such as executive positions where an agreed pay scale is struck have accepted the offers and must also accept the pay should it be less than a male counterpart. There is also the incorrect comparison made that annual incomes are higher for men than women. Men work more hours than women on average and the system dictates that those who work more hours will get more pay.

    Should women choose to give up work to have a family, albeit short term, it must surely follow that no work equals no pay and therefore no superannuation. I would love to see the comparative figures of a man and a woman, in the same industry, where they have both worked from leaving school until retirement. It's a safe bet that there won't be a struck match between the superannuation figures. What this article is really about is comparing apples with oranges.

    Whilst on the subject of remuneration, there is also the lies being spread that wages are stagnant. In the past 10 years, wages have risen 35% for those subject to FWA deliberations. Those who work under an EBA may not have received a wage rise depending on how their EBA has been structured. To add to the lies, we are also told that something has to be done about "bracket creep" as workers are being pushed into higher tax brackets and paying more tax. Sorry folks, either wages are stagnant or workers are being pushed into a higher tax scale. Both scenarios are not compatible.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    3:43pm
    I think the argument about wages not keeping up' is about the actual value on the ground of a dollar - that dollar now buys proportionately less than it did in times past. It isn't a discussion that says the same number of dollars buys less - but that the higher number of dollars does not now buy what the old amount did.

    I've long ago posted from a census that showed that the EXACT percentage difference claimed in the 'wage gap' myth, was the same percentage of the hours women work compared to men.... ergo - there is NO wage gap, only an hours worked gap.

    The figures were precise - women were claimed to 'only' be receiving 78% of men's wages - in that census women worked 78% of the hours men worked.

    All this stuff is a series of lies.
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    4:02pm
    Thanks TREBOR, I agree that wages are not keeping up with inflation but that has more to do with how the CPI is measured and which products are ruled in or out. Politicians regularly talk about wages being stagnant and no increase in wages rather than telling the truth about how wages are increasing but falling behind the buying power. It doesn't suit their narrative. Thanks for the census figures to support my thoughts.
    Old Geezer
    28th Nov 2017
    4:32pm
    One partner should give up work and look after the kids. Why have kids if you palm them off for someone else to look after. People should be paid to stay home and look after their own kids instead of paying childcare for others to mould into factory workers of the future.
    Knight Templar
    28th Nov 2017
    4:46pm
    In September 2014 the UK Office for National Statistics reported the following on male and female employment: 14,240,000 men and 8,130,000 women were in full time employment. 2,130,000 men and 6,100,000 women were in part time employment.

    I am sure that the Australian statistics would be broadly similar. Clearly fewer hours at work results in less pay and lower superannuation contributions.

    Women, with the similar qualifications, experience, working at the same classification level and identical hours as men, in the same public sector or business, are remunerated at the same prescribed rate. There is no wage gap.

    There is an INCOME gap due to the factors mentioned above. It has nothing to do with discrimination.
    Old Geezer
    28th Nov 2017
    5:57pm
    Why does it always have to be the woman who looks after the kids? We took it in turns to look after our kids while they were young.
    KSS
    29th Nov 2017
    7:45am
    Why should people be paid to look after their own kids Old Geyser and who should pay them? More welfare?
    TREBOR
    29th Nov 2017
    9:06am
    Plenty of money in the till for social engineering of that sort, KSS - until a bunch of ideologues want to whine about retirees costing too much....suddenly it's a different ball game... those old bastards cost too much but PPL etc doesn't..... very odd thinking there.
    Rae
    29th Nov 2017
    10:38am
    I disagree OG. My mother ran businesses and my mother in law worked. Both my husband and I had babysitters or Nanas mind us.

    My kids had Babysitters too. Thank goodness for that when my husband died in an industrial accident and at least I had a job and could save the family from poverty.

    It wasn't easy sharing the income but pays off in the longer term.

    Having working parents never hurt me or my kids one little bit.
    TREBOR
    29th Nov 2017
    12:54pm
    Thanks for the lead-in, Rae - my kid's mother worked humungous hours in movies etc, while I was either tied up eighteen hours a day or off and gone...

    My kids are doing fine.... I think it's a basic middle class-y kind of upbringing.... secure anyway. So I suppose that the quality of the upbringing depends on many factors - too big an issue to cover without a book... a learned tract from some Learned Professor in Social Sciences.... (ho-hum)...
    Tzuki
    28th Nov 2017
    3:13pm
    Haahaa I never cease to be amused by the regular chauvinistic comments.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    3:43pm
    *sighs* there always one......
    Tib
    28th Nov 2017
    3:48pm
    Well these views are growing in the community, we are completely sick of the feminist view. So your opinion doesn't matter at all. You're irrelevant.
    Sundays
    28th Nov 2017
    4:07pm
    Definitely chauvinist and in some cases a step too far. However, I had a well paid career but many of my female colleagues chose not to seek promotion. Sometimes through lack of confidence, often because they felt a career would affect their homelife. Many opted to work part time. There may have been pressures to do this from their partners, but mostly it was personal choice. Valid reasons. However, many then had marriage breakups and reality has hit in old age. They didn’t work as long as men, they didn’t seek promotions, they thought they would be a couple forever but now are going to have less super. These are the facts, but I do not see how changes can be made to substitute for individual choices.
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    4:08pm
    What do you advocate Tzuki ?
    Government topping up womens super ???
    Anonymous
    28th Nov 2017
    4:34pm
    Sundays - when their marriage broke up - the property settlement would have taken into account the husband's super account balance

    So all those women agreeing with this nonsensical article are talking crap .

    and please stop the calling us chauvanists for who are just speaking the truth
    Tib
    28th Nov 2017
    4:51pm
    Name calling is common for those with nothing to say.
    Anonymous
    29th Nov 2017
    3:45pm
    @Tzuki. Yeah - feminist chauvinism.
    Kathleen
    28th Nov 2017
    9:56pm
    At the end of the day if you are in a happy marriage it is not his or hers it is theirs or ours. It does not matter once you are both retired it belongs to both of you. It is not about women being looked after by men financially or he has more than she does. Who cares? It is only an issue if you are a single male or female, then there may be discrepancies.
    TREBOR
    28th Nov 2017
    11:08pm
    Got it in one!! The wisdom of women!!
    Anonymous
    29th Nov 2017
    3:48pm
    Grandma, whilst your post is laudable, those days are GONE. Men are fed up with being ripped-off by women.
    Cowboy Jim
    29th Nov 2017
    7:49am
    My mother never had a paid job after she got married, father paid her dues for the age pension which was compulsory. After 65 is is a universal pension and there is no means or
    assets test. The difference is one has to get to the age first and if one dies shortly after
    the money is gone. Dad died long ago but Mum still gets her pension (ca $4000) per month and she is now 95. Pension provision for old age was never meant to become a vehicle for wealth transfers to the kids. That is probably the reason the system is sustainable over
    in the old country. You only get to be in front if you live long enough.
    Early 70s my consulate informed me that I should no longer pay any money into the old fund as Australia is working on an agreement with them to get the Australian pension
    instead since I live here now and pay all my taxes here. Then in the 80s the pension became a welfare payment and now I have become a social payment recipient. Nothing
    stays the same. Spend your dough on a holiday if you are able.
    TREBOR
    29th Nov 2017
    9:12am
    Good thoughts and info, Jim - not sure about that 'wealth transfer to kids' though. Not sure what that means since 'wealth transfer' to kids is generally inheritance and a pension hardly provides massive savings or a share portfolio.

    Pension should be asset and income free, but all income, arranged 'gifts' such as free flights on your company's private plane etc, and defined fringe benefits should all be taxed at the income tax rates, to prevent rorting by those with already sufficient and hidden 'incomes' in retirement. Of course, our 'government' has stuffed it up now since that would include tax on super ........ and of course politicians would 'suffer' with all their retirement perks.

    If it's a matter of providing income sufficient to enable a pensioner to live in their own home etc, and pass that on - where is the problem?

    Not chopping your feet off here - just seeking clarification.
    Boomah52
    29th Nov 2017
    9:52am
    Where is the gender pay gap? All the gov jobs I had you were on a level and were all paid the same no matter how well you performed lol. Smokers get daily time off as do women who get paid maternity leave. Not a woman or smoker you worked more hours. As for private enterprise; you get paid what you're worth... some people actually are smarter than others... apparently the logic is same qualifications equals same jop performance. Nievity and delusion and... keep smiling.
    Cowboy Jim
    29th Nov 2017
    10:02am
    Trebor - just read the article that came on these pages a while back - our pension is NOW a handout but was not always so.
    https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/age-pension/age-pension-guide/age-pension-meaning-changes#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=5a1de90aa35bfff3&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1
    TREBOR
    29th Nov 2017
    12:56pm
    Been on to that one for ages, Jim - I was asking about the hand-down of wealth to kids aspect in isolation. totally on side with the view that governments respective have stolen the retirement fund and spent it on the political version of pokies...

    1st Dec 2017
    11:36am
    Poor old women again.
    Golden Oldie
    1st Jun 2018
    11:25pm
    Well, I read the comments, and was perturbed about the groaning and whining by the male participants. Glad I got divorced 43 years ago and had the sense not to get married again. Instead, waited until both kids were at school and went and got an education for myself. In case you don't know, this was at a time when there was no superannuation if the private sector unless you were in management. Mental cruelty and adultery were enough grounds to get divorced. It takes 2 to make a decent marriage, have you ever thought about how your attitude is causing the wife to be bitchy?