Your shortfall – your fault?

Understanding why you have a retirement funding shortfall may help you redress the balance.

Your shortfall – your fault?

You may feel overwhelmed by the prospect of a retirement funding shortfall, but understanding why it’s happened may help you redress the balance.

The impending release of the next intergenerational report is bound to increase the chatter on how an ageing population is a drain on our economy and future funding of retirement. In her article published at TheAge.com.au, Kaye questions the rhetoric that you are personally to blame for not having enough money to see you through retirement. 

Read more at TheAge.com.au.





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    12th Feb 2015
    11:17am
    Funny how this government is wanting to blame Baby Boomers for all the problems in the economy. Whilst this fundamentally unture it reminds me of the same rhetoric used by Adolph Hitler to make Jewish people scapegoats and thereafter go after them with the support of the electorate.
    This sort of talk will be shown to be incorrect and speaking for Baby Boomers I need to say that boomers were until recent times a very frugal lot, unlike the current batch of Australians. They dod not line up for social security, they worked hard and SAVED...a word which is poison to many genY people these days.
    Cheezil61
    12th Feb 2015
    9:08pm
    I would have to agree, mick tho I'm not quite a baby boomer! What are the younger/coming generations going to do to fund retirement if they are not prepared to work as hard as the older ones have worked? With so many relying/drawing from the system/taxpayers (NewStart, Supporting Parent Benefits, etc) who is going to fund/keep them into old age I wonder?
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2015
    6:53pm
    I have no idea Cheezil...if there are more drawing welfare than those working there will be none.
    MICK
    12th Feb 2015
    11:52am
    A great and well written article Kaye.
    The only issue is the add underneath: for a "miss bum bum". Don't you just love the Murdoch publications.
    mangomick
    12th Feb 2015
    1:10pm
    Didn't a previous Government once introduce a levy that was to be used for pensions and a successive Government eventually rolled the levy into the General Income tax system and spent what was already in the kitty for pensions. Hardly the fault of baby Boomers if the money that was supposed to be used to fund pensions has been mismanaged by politicians from both sides and flittered away. Maybe in keeping with LNP policy we could sell the Gold Coast and Tasmania to the Chinese to help fund a new pension scheme.
    Blossom
    13th Feb 2015
    3:23pm
    That was my understanding. My Dad used to talk about that over 40 years ago. I joined Super as soon as I could and gradually increased the amount I put in. A lot of the baby boomers saved to buy things they needed/wanted. In most cases the only thing people owed money on was their house. It was such a thrill to save up to buy what we needed/wanted. The only things I ever charged to an account was because if you paid your account before the due date you got discount. The wierd part was if you paid cash when you bought the goods they didn't give as much discount at the Dept. Store I sometimes bought at. I knew I had the money in the bank to pay for them. The only things I ever paid a deposit on was a holiday, a new car and a large toy I didn't have room to store where it couldn't be found. The car was paid for in full when it was collected, the holiday was paid for after final bookings were confirmed and the toy was paid off and stored until nearer the time of the child's birthday.
    mangomick
    13th Feb 2015
    5:01pm
    Think labor introduced it as the Social Services Contribution scheme in 1945 and 5 years later liberals under Menzies rolled it into the general Income Tax revenue stream. So in effect all baby boomers have pre- paid for their right to a pension entitlement.
    KSS
    12th Feb 2015
    1:17pm
    Basically anyone born after the mid 1970s has no excuse for not having enough in their superannuation for their pensions. They are the ones who would have had a full working life of super contributions and have really no excuse for not saving enough even if that means adding a few dollars extra each week as we have been told for years.
    mangomick
    12th Feb 2015
    6:58pm
    Good one KSS. You should be able to rubbish any one born after mid 1970 all you like because they are all too young to post on this site. But yeah, basically what you say is right.
    Anonymous
    13th Feb 2015
    7:57am
    Those born after mid 70s may have had superannuation all their working life, but the small percentage isn't nearly adequate for lower wage earners to save enough for retirement. And what of those who have been out of the workforce for extended periods through no fault of their own? My daughter was born post 70's and trained as a teacher. We would have expected she would be well able to fund her retirement, but she can't work because she had a disabled child. Of course she could have dumped him into care and gone back to work to look after her own interests, but she chose to take responsibility for him and give him the best possible chance to overcome his problems.

    The bottom line is that life doesn't always go to plan, and not everyone is capable of EARNING enough to fund their own retirement. It's not necessarily about saving. And the Government now admits that the nation can't afford the luxury of raising super contributions to the necessary level to enable lower income earners to fund their own retirement. It's just not possible. What we need to do is recognize the purpose of progressive taxation and welfare and acknowledge that a higher degree of socialism is needed if we are to have a healthy society. We can choose to accept a high degree of poverty, and all the ills that go with it, or we can choose to tax the rich more to pay for a generous welfare system. We can't have it both ways. Currently, the rich don't pay their fair share - and that's where the problem lies. Cut superannuation concessions for the very rich and clamp down on tax evasion and corporations basing overseas to avoid tax and we'd solve the deficit problem WITHOUT hurting the aged.
    mangomick
    13th Feb 2015
    11:56am
    Pretty sure KSS did say "basically everyone."No doubt there will be some who won't have accrued sufficient super to get by, on a half decent retirement, but then again that is what Social Security was actually meant for. Not for all and sundry who decide that the world owes them a living.
    Couldn't one argue that a society with subsidised/free child care for people who are in the same position as your daughter, has "that "higher degree of socialism" that you refer to.
    I would have loved to have stayed home on social security so I could have enjoyed watching my 3 kids grow up but someone has to work those week-ends and 12 hour shifts to pay for that higher degree of socialism and child care.Guess it comes down to life's choices.
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2015
    6:56pm
    You are right KSS but if the younger generation keep spending the way they do now....have to have the latest gadget even if the old one is still fine. Speaking to a friend at Probus today...admired her phone. Said it was about 6 years old given to her by son. He apparently has had six new ones since she gave this one to her secondhand. The new model comes out he buys it.
    Rosebud
    12th Feb 2015
    1:21pm
    Might I just add that Baby Boomer mothers in particular did not have any benefits to have babies, when they decided to have a family they mostly accepted the fact they would give up work until such times it seemed appropriate to return. Their jobs were not held for them because their was no maternity leave let alone PAID MATERNITYT LEAVE FOR US and we accepted the fact we would have to live and manage on just one wage.
    We also did not have any FIRST HOME BUYERS GRANTS extended to us, we skimped and save until we had the deposit along with any other thing we needed....and not just wanted and the list goes on.
    Women usually did not go back to work until such time as their children were partly independant, and our emphsis for having to save for a half descent retirement was always foremost in our minds and applied to when financial matters were dealt with.
    Yes we were very frugal through those times and the hue and cries directed at us nowdays is certainly uncalled for.
    Golfer
    12th Feb 2015
    1:35pm
    Absolutely spot on Rosebud.....well said.
    aly_rob60
    12th Feb 2015
    1:41pm
    spot on Rosebud!......and we all seemed to manage ok, back in the good old days.
    It seems that even though me have more people living here and (potentially) paying their taxes to boost Govt coffers, that we are no longer entitled to a comfortable retirement!
    CindyLou
    12th Feb 2015
    10:57pm
    I don't particularly like to see criticism of young families /young people, they have their challenges that are different to years previously. The world is a different place and I'm so over people grumbling about perceived advantages of current young families...I'm sure lots of people would prefer to ease back on work and enjoy their children but it's just not possible.
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2015
    6:59pm
    First home owners grant...what is that! Never had one either.
    particolor
    12th Feb 2015
    3:20pm
    Sorry for being Born :-(
    LMY
    12th Feb 2015
    4:25pm
    KSS....as a divorced Baby Boomer with 2 children to raise I worked hard just to survive. No super for me - no fair wage either as a female. But generalizing - as you did for those 'born after the mid-70's" - is dangerous if you wish to be accurate. There are those who divorced and lost everything, both men and women, those who had periods of illness and couldn't work and accumulate a deposit or other savings and were/are forced to pay rent. Those who tried to succeed in business and had the rug pulled out from under them with government red tape and arbitrary policy flips, some I know who have had to pull their super out for huge medical costs that weren't covered by their funds....and very likely many other situations where 'one size definitely does not fit all'. I have seen several comments of yours which i think are thoughtful, or thought-provoking. Would be great if you could continue that style.
    Rosebud
    12th Feb 2015
    6:26pm
    Particolor, to make a comment like that on this Senior site you are either rolling in it or you are a smart arse
    mangomick
    12th Feb 2015
    6:50pm
    Are you new to this site Rosebud? That's just particolor being particolor. His comments are always like that. I just assumed it was the Lambrusco but maybe he is just rolling in it . Just not sure what "it " is.
    particolor
    12th Feb 2015
    8:38pm
    No I'm sorry for being born and working for 50 Years and now have the hide to get a pension Draining Public Moneys !! I get about as much for a Year as Polly's spend on Lavish Lunch !! :-)
    Pamiea
    12th Feb 2015
    8:58pm
    JUST LEAVE THE BABY BOOMERS ALONE - MOST OF US HAVE DONE OUR BIT AND I HAVED WORKED SINCE I WAS 14 YEARS OLD AND NOW ENJOY RETIREMENT. FORTUNATELY I SOCKED A BIT OF EXTRA MONEY AWAY BUT AM CERTAINLY NOT FLUSH BUT IF YOU BUDGET CORRECTLY AND NOT EXTRAVAGANT ONE CAN LIVE OK. I WORKED IT OUT I HAVE $35 A DAY TO SPEND ON CLOTHING, ENTERTAINMENT, PETROL AND FOOD AFTER ALL NECESSARY BILLS ARE PAID AND IF I OVERSPEND ONE DAY I STAY IN THE NEXT. SIMPLE - NOT TOTALLY ENJOYABLE BUT IT CAN BE DONE. SO LEAVE US ALONE - WE HAVE DONE OUR BIT - PERHAPS LOOK AT THE GROSS WASTE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND ASK THE Y GENERATION NOT TO EXPECT EVERYTHING IMMEDIATELY AND TO WORK THEIR WAY UP AND NOT EXPECT TO START AT THE TOP!!! OBNOXIOUS GROUP TO WORK WITH!!
    particolor
    12th Feb 2015
    10:34pm
    I might be Arrested fir Gluttony soon! So Ill make this brief ! On Pension day I buy a Chocolate (On Special) A tub of Ice Cream (On Special) and a Coles Cheapy $5 Mince for the fortnight ! I know this is Living High but it will be Many more days until I can repeat it again !! ..Forgive Me ....
    CindyLou
    12th Feb 2015
    11:19pm
    Chill Pamiea...also it's not appropriate to use caps for the entire posting.
    wally
    13th Feb 2015
    11:03pm
    parti, I see you have already abandoned the hunger strike. Or are you loading yourself up before starting a new one?
    particolor
    13th Feb 2015
    11:31pm
    No the Hunger Strike is over They Weakened and we are coming to the Mainland to Rule You ! :-)
    CindyLou
    12th Feb 2015
    11:13pm
    In response to the question posed relating to this topic, I had a bit of a game plan so to speak, plan a, b or c, depending on how things panned out. I was thinking about the future decades before retirement...you can't sit on your hands, eyes closed and hope for the best.

    (an analogy... It's like preparing to run a marathon, time, maybe months or years are devoted to getting ready to run a marathon...you don't just wake up one day, put on the runners and compete in a marathon). Life is like that, basic principles...of course SOME folk experience dreadful setbacks and hence there is welfare
    particolor
    12th Feb 2015
    11:52pm
    Some have run a Marathon all their lives but don't expect to be still running one at 70 ?
    mangomick
    13th Feb 2015
    12:08am
    I've always found if you have to go 42 kilometres it's easier to just get in the car and drive.
    particolor
    13th Feb 2015
    9:34am
    Cheating Maybe ? But that's Ok now ! You won the Marathon ! You'll probably be Knighted next Australia Day ? :-)
    Blossom
    13th Feb 2015
    3:32pm
    Particolor, there is no need to be sarcastic
    mangomick, I agree with you 42km is a long way to walk unless you are super fit and have been doing it for a very long time.
    This site is not supposed to be a personal mud slinging match.
    mangomick
    13th Feb 2015
    4:56pm
    Think you might be reading all this wrong Blossom. Fair bit of difference between "mud slinging " and a bit of " light hearted banter".
    Rosebud
    13th Feb 2015
    10:28am
    Particolor, Ha Ha Ha !! You are a smart arse stirrer.!!
    If you run out of Mince Meat recipes just ask me, I know more things you can do with Mince Meat imaginable,........ I think I could have even taken
    out the " Mince Meat Queen" title. Ha!
    Poor you, you have worked for 50yrs just like the rest of us (well most of our era).
    Remember, even the "BOOMERS" who have saved for retirement may need at some stage to
    seek the "Age Pension" but in the mean time they are enabling others to do so.
    I am happy that you are able to AFFORD a COMPUTER though so you can amuse yourself with your repartee`.
    particolor
    13th Feb 2015
    12:45pm
    The Computer is one of the only pleasures I have left in life ! :-0 Until Tony wakes up what goes on in the Net ! and bans it ! :-( We will only get Mickey Mouse Cartoons on Here !! Telstra's Charges are a bit Rugged thou!:-<
    So I might dump it when the Contract becomes Extinct ! And give You people some Peace !!
    Abby
    16th Feb 2015
    7:46am
    Particolor
    Before your Contract runs out, why not have a go at Crowd Funding, people have raised money for all sorts and I am sure you could frame your plight so it would bring a positive result.
    particolor
    16th Feb 2015
    3:35pm
    No I'll see the Contract out and pull the Plug ! Cant afford a Hundred a Month for Telstra on a Pension !! :-(
    The CEO can buy His own Bloody Lunch !! :-)
    BElle
    16th Feb 2015
    9:50pm
    To blame retirees for their predicament of trying to survive on the aged pension is like trying to blame the iceberg for sinking the Titanic. People currently in retirement had little or no pension/superannuation. Based on the facts they did not have availability to superannuation contributions, they did not have a substantial base on which to earn. Most women currently retired either did not work, worked part time and had low paying employment. As a consequence they have little or no retirement fund. Pensioners over the age of 80 would have had - no access to super at all- yet they are being penalised by the current proposals of the Federal Government in a completely false premise. Without the Aged Pension they would be living in penury, any cuts to this pension would be cruel and unwarranted. I thought this was the country of "The Fair Go", lets live up to that expectation.
    indiana Jones
    1st Mar 2015
    10:39pm
    I have just retired at 74, it took me quite awhile to fill in the application form for the pension. There were so many personal questions, I'm surprised they did not want to know when you went to the toilet. What gets me, no matter which party is in power, they never take a reduction in their pension, as far as I know they do not have to declare their assetts so there are no deeming rates for them or reduction in pension if they have to much money in the bank or have their property inspected if it's on more than 2 hectares. Why is'nt there an uproar about government double standards? I believe the minimum pension for a polly is around $100,000 with perks such as an office plus free trips wherever, what's good enough for the gander should be okay for the goose , so to speak.

    Kind Regards
    particolor
    2nd Mar 2015
    7:56am
    Have You forgotten that they are 15 times better than You after Retiring ? :-)
    35 times better before retiring !! That's hard work nodding off during the Prime Ministers Speech !! :-)


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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