20 January 2025

Government should help retirees spend more of their super, says new think tank report

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
43

Australian retirees aren’t drawing down on their superannuation like they should be, says a new report. Photo: File.

Superannuation in Australia is becoming a “massive inheritance scheme” because too many retirees don’t draw down on their savings for fear of outliving their money.

The Grattan Institute has called on the Federal Government to step in and change the system to introduce a lifetime annuity giving retirees a fixed monthly income for life from their invested super savings.

In a report released Sunday night (19 January), the think tank found the superannuation system wasn’t working as intended because it was too complex.

Retirees find the system stressful and are not confident to spend it as they should.

The report, Simpler super: Taking the stress out of retirement, shows that about 80 per cent of Australians find retirement planning complicated and about 60 per cent expect their retirement will be financially stressful.

Retirees are ‘net savers’ and allow their super balances to continue growing for decades after they retire.

What little guidance Australians are offered about spending their superannuation is unhelpful. Yet, how they use their super in retirement is one of the biggest decisions Australians will ever make, the report states.

READ ALSO Federal Court and its ‘entity’ in firing line over the cost of judges’ social functions

More than four in five retirees are steered into account-based pensions, which require retirees to manage their spending to try to avoid the risk of outliving their savings.

Half of those using an account-based pension draw their super at legislated minimum rates, which leave 65 per cent of super balances unspent by average life expectancy.

“This is turning Australia’s multi-trillion-dollar compulsory superannuation system into a massive inheritance scheme,” the Grattan Institute’s Brendan Coates said.

“This is not how it was meant to be. Too few retirees are enjoying the benefits of the savings they built up during their working lives.

“The Grattan Institute blueprint for better old age in Australia would let retirees stress less, spend more, and truly enjoy their retirement years.”

The report recommends a three-pronged reform strategy to simplify super in retirement.

Firstly, the Federal Government should offer all Australians a lifetime annuity, which would pay them a guaranteed income for life.

Retirees should be encouraged to allocate 80 per cent of their super balance above $250,000 to the government annuity.

This reform could boost retirees’ incomes by up to 25 per cent, the institute’s report states.

Secondly, the government should create a top 10 list of the best super funds, and then steer retirees towards those funds.

The Grattan Institute says the government should ask the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to assess and performance-test all account-based pensions.

These reforms could boost the incomes of future retirees who continue to opt for an account-based pension by up to $70,000 over their retirement.

And thirdly, the government should establish a free, high-quality guidance service to help retirees, and people approaching retirement, to plan their retirement incomes.

The service should also assist eligible retirees to apply for the age pension.

The report’s modelling says such a service would cost about $360 million over its first four years and should be funded by a levy on all super account balances.

READ ALSO Unemployment rises and so do calls for an interest rate cut

“For most Australians, retirement represents a big life change. Instead of being paid a wage, retirees must draw an income from their savings, together with the age pension,” the report states.

“They must do this while managing the uncertainty of how long they will live and how their investments might perform, as well as navigating the complex interactions of their savings with the means-tested age pension.

“And they have to try to get value for money from their super fund. This puzzle is too hard for retirees to solve alone.

“Many other countries automatically offer retirees an income that lasts the rest of their lives, but Australian retirees get little guidance about how to use their super.

“While we’re working, key decisions about our super are typically made for us – such as how much to contribute and how those savings are invested. But once we retire, the super system casts us adrift.”

The institute calls on the Federal Government to offer retirees a suite of annuities called ‘Lifetime Super’.

This should include a simple lifetime annuity as the baseline offering, as well as alternatives such as investment-linked annuities.

“These annuities should be priced at fair and sustainable rates and managed by an independent agency,” its report states.

“A government option would boost take-up, leverage economies of scale, and could be designed to better integrate with the age pension.”

Join the conversation

43
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Capital Retro9:03 am 22 Jan 25

We don’t have to spend our money to reduce our savings.
The government is doing that for us by keeping inflation, which erodes wealth, high.
Albo just announced another $2 billion to be wasted on “green” aluminum industries despite the RBA regularly commenting that governments have to curtail their spending.

ill hopefully be retiring later this year at age 55. 54/11 cant come soon enough, by the looks of things ill be earning more than if i stay at work, so its a no brainer for me. it will also mean a fortnightly pension for life………

Incidental Tourist5:35 pm 20 Jan 25

What problem are they solving? Do people save too much in their super or do they spend too little?

PS I asked ChatGPT and it said tat males median super balance at retirement is $211K and Women’s $158K. So. Do we have a problem of over-saving or under spending… ?

You asked Chat GPT for an answer?

This explains a lot.

Agreed, what problem are they trying to solve? If people need to be better informed about their investment choices then fair enough but don’t tell me how much I must withdraw or spend. If I’m forced to take more money each year I’m simply going to put it in a savings account or term deposit. I thought we boomers were responsible for pushing inflation up by spending too much?

Nothing at all. But we provide tax breaks to allow you to live a good life in retirement. Its not a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise inheritances

Capital Retro5:18 pm 20 Jan 25

The tax that super funds paid through contributions and earnings has subsidized the taxpayer funded pensions to others so, your point is?

GrumpyGrandpa6:14 pm 20 Jan 25

Dolphin,
If you had $200,000 in your bank account when you died, you could leave that money to your adult kids tax-free.

If you had $200,000 in your Super fund, only the “tax-free” component gets to your kids, without the government collecting taxing your estate.

The “taxed” component of your Super is any Concessional Contributions aka Salary Sacrifice, Superannuation Guarantee Contributions AND earnings within the fund. If you had made Non-Concessional Contributions aka money from your after-tax income, they aren’t considered “taxed” for estate purposes, however, the earnings are!

Over a lifetime, it’s quite feasible that the percentage of “taxed” dollars in your Super could be very high, because the lifetime of earnings are also classified as “taxed”.

While you can draw down a tax-free pension, those who might inherit your Super will probably be subject to a whack of tax.

It’s a bit inequitable that you can draw out your $200,000 from your Super and put it in your bank account, and the kids pay no tax on it, but if you left it in your Super, your kids would pay tax.

Do you really think that tax should be payable by your kids, if they inherit your Super? Or are planning to pull out all of your Super, just before you pass away to ensure they get it tax-free?

Anyway, I’m just an old Grumpy guy with no financial qualifications, so feel free to seek a 2nd opinion.

Capital Retro,
They are still receiving concessional taxation treatment that is designed to support retirement incomes, not inheritances. Even though i don’t agree with these proposals, bad policy outcomes are still bad.

People working also don’t get Jobseeker payments.

What exactly is your point?

Capital Retro12:01 pm 21 Jan 25

My point is chewy is that it is too simple for your superior intellectual ability to comprehend.

CR,
Are you the “it” you’re referencing?

Capital Retro2:35 pm 20 Jan 25

I have yet to meet “retirees” like the ones featured in the image heading this article.
Depicting vital and attractive couples is a favourite ploy of the retirement industry as we will all find out in due course.
Blatant misinformation.

pink little birdie12:35 pm 21 Jan 25

Really? Must be who you hang with. I know several of my mum’s friends are like this, my old neighbours were like this. Active community members not bitter old people sitting in front of computer screens.

Capital Retro1:45 pm 21 Jan 25

If you are suggesting I am a bitter old person you are wrong. And what does “active in the community” mean?
By the way, what is your reason for sitting in front of computer screens?

Capital Retro2:26 pm 20 Jan 25

Sounds a lot like a plan to confiscate private superannuation as a cash strapped Argentinian government did in 2008, with disastrous consequences.
Labor governments have already found a way to plunder the future fund and this is just another way to steal other people’s money.
I am recalling when the Whitlam Labor government (I think) mandated that every super fund had to purchase government bonds as part of their investment strategy.

@Capital Retro
“I am recalling when the Whitlam Labor government (I think) mandated that every super fund had to purchase government bonds as part of their investment strategy.”
Possibly not a bad investment strategy for any super fund, given the strenght of government bonds back then, CR.

Mind you it’s not all plundering. You might also recall, that the Keating Labor government mandated a leg up, for all future retirees, by introducing the compulsory superannuation guarantee – which has been maintained, and the %ge of contributions subsequently increased, by governments of all flavours.

GrumpyGrandpa2:03 pm 20 Jan 25

I’m continually annoyed with these know-all Think Tanks pushing their views to Government.

In this case, the issue is that superannuation is being used as a tool to pass inheritance to the next generation. The solution is that us superannuants should be required to convert a portion into an annuity – spend it while you are alive.

A couple of big problems here Think Tankers:
1. Government already taxes non-financial dependents up to 32% on receipt of the proceeds from inherited superannuation (from taxed sources) – non-taxed sources are tax free. To Government, this is already the equivalent of Death Duties. I guess what the Tankers might be suggesting is that instead of the tax on superannuation in an estate, maybe 100% of the the remaining balance, upon death would be surrendered to the Government?
HELL NO!!!
2. The Tankers want us to spend our money (yes, our money) now. It wasn’t that long ago that Boomers were being blamed for causing inflation (and pushing up interest rates), because we were spending too much!

We need less Think Tankers and less Government in our lives! It’s our money, butt out!!!

Sure. As long as you give us the taxbreaks back if you dont spend it in retirement

GrumpyGrandpa5:47 pm 20 Jan 25

G’day dolphin,
When you are talking about giving back “tax-breaks”, I assume yoy are referring to things like Salary Sacrifice; aka Concessional Contributions.

For inheritance purposes, the “taxed” portion of your Super does include Concessional Contributions, however, it also included the earnings within your fund.

But let’s say you put in a bucket of cash from your after-tax income (particularly if you were fortunate enough to have a big bucket 😂) that you wanted to put into Super, the earnings from your after-tax money would also be classed as “taxable” for the purposes of inheritance for your independent adult children.

@Grumpy, who said you had to spend it?

I completely agree with you. Leave your super to your children upon your death and they pay “death” tax. So much for Australia not having a death tax!

With an election coming up, I wonder what/who prompted the Grattan Institute to push annuities? It wouldn’t have been Peter Dutton by any chance?

Prior to my retirement I compared annuities with account based pensions and decided that annuities simply didn’t measure up.

Grumpy and trudi, is there something wrong with taxing earnings?

You can avoid the “death tax” by taking the money out and putting it in the bank, sure, and it is taxed there too, while earning less.

Me, I invest money I have that is not in Super just like I invest that which is in. You do you.
(which appears to be “complain”).

I have no interest in annuities, private or public, but those are my circumstances not those of other people.

Capital Retro11:57 am 21 Jan 25

If you “invest” in super you pay tax up front called contributions tax. You also pay tax on earnings during accumulation mode.
There are a few concessions like the $250,000 tax-free downsizer one which was badly drafted. It was designed for people already in “pension mode” who needed to get a smaller dwelling but in order to get it into your super fund an accumulation account has to be opened and then it has to be transferred into pension mode which costs hundreds of dollars.
All these concessions are not limited to SMSFs either.

Water is wet.

There will be more from Capital Retro tomorrow folks, once he is over the dreadful shock of expending “hundreds of dollars” to get “250,000” (i.e. about 0.1%-0.2%) into an accumulation account in pension phase where it can be drawn upon completely tax free, including the untaxed earnings.

Capital Retro7:10 pm 23 Jan 25

The money was tax free to start with if it came from proceeds of the sale of the principal place of residence, as you would be aware.

Incidental Tourist12:25 pm 20 Jan 25

What’s wrong with being net savers and passing inheritance to children? If saving is bad habit (?!), then why not to lower the compulsory super % and pay more wage?

The Governments reasoning on this is that Super is taxed at a lower rate to help people provide for their retirement. It’s not meant to be a vessel to make wealth to pass on to your children.

I educated my children and I intend to enjoy retirement and if I spend it all, well good. If not, the kids can have the scraps along with my house. They can make their way in life.

I generally agree with your comment here Elf. Any inheritance ought to be a bonus, one not significantly tax-advantaged through Super. Some steps have been taken toward this despite the awful wails and shrieks over the extra tax on balances > $3M. The proposed scheme would principally be there to help those less confident or capable of their own financial management, with a background notion of giving them a safe enclosure away from sharks.

Nothing at all. But we provide tax breaks to allow you to live a good life in retirement. Its not a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise inheritances

Incidental Tourist6:12 pm 20 Jan 25

Median super balance at retirement today is $211K for men and $158K for women. Do we have a “wealth problem”?

I asked ChatGPT to estimate average tax saving per year for super contributions and it said it is $350 per year per average person. Is this too much?

Also remember “concessional tax” is still tax and it is not a cash handout. Without super contributions there would be no tax paid at all. So this is simply cheap narrative for turning super contribution to super tax discouraging any saving and limiting productivity.

‘“concessional tax” is still tax and it is not a cash handout’
If the concession improves your position from 70c in the $ to 85c in the $ then you have more cash. If you think you do not, give it to me because you just said you won’t notice.

“Without super contributions there would be no tax paid at all”
Please do not be silly. Without Super the money does not vanish. It would be taxed outside Super, returning more to the government and less to you.

Tax breaks are incentives to activity, for better or worse. They do nothing in themselves for productivity.

Arithmetic is really not that hard. I guess self interest rules.

Incidental Tourist11:07 pm 21 Jan 25

Without super the money will not vanish from investors but they will vanish from you. Australia has always been capital exporter because of higher tax regime and low manufacturing base. Unless you claim to be smarter than a treasurer, Google “Keating’s ‘banana republic’ speech back to 1986 pre-super time.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact I correctly called you out on tax concessions and on your claim that without super there would be no tax taken. It would be equally silly to assume there would be no investment. There are specific incentives to private investment in this country.

“Australia has always been capital exporter”
Absolute tripe. Australia has been a net capital importer for most of its history. We have been exporting capital since 2019. Speak to the Liberal governments of the previous decades.

Good to see you think we should move away from resource industries to manufacturing.

I cannot see the point of this scheme.

So, instead of drawing a “fortnightly pension” from my super balance, which is paid into my everyday bank account, and allows me to live a comfortable lifestyle, I will ‘purchase’, from the government, using my super balance, an annuity, which will be paid into my everyday bank account, and (hopefully) allow me to live the same comfortable lifestyle.

Sounds like a bureaucratic train crash waiting to happen.

I’m sure there are others out there who can see a benefit, and happy to be educated on that – but as one who might be affected I’m not seeing how it would ‘encourage’ me to spend more.

No what they’re saying is, people are afraid of spending their Super because they might run out before they die. The scheme they propose is a lifetime annuity which are already available anyway with Challenger offering the best. That way when they run out of Super, they still have the annuity which with the Aged Pension hopefully provides for reasonable standard of living.

I would buy one in part as insurance in running out of money but not 80% of over 250K.

@Elf
Thank you for your feedback.

While I can see your point about ‘insurance’, this has the makings of ‘a cost blowout and bottomless money pit’, similar to the old APS CSS and PSS (and parliamentarian) super schemes, which the government simply couldn’t afford, even with the Future Fund, and subsequently, had to be shut down.

We already have a safety net for retirees, both for those who don’t have super and for those who run out of super – it’s called the aged pension.

PS @Elf
I will definitely concede that I am probably viewing this through “I’m alright, Jack” eyes, but, as I said, I think it could be a budget nightmare.

The difference in this is the CSS & PSS payouts are based on final salaries, length of service & allowed extra contributions. That’s what makes then unaffordable. Annuities on the other hand pay on how much you invested and the interest rate. As an example I have a quote from Challenger who are the best of a sorry lot for a 400K investment at 63 returning a little under 22K per annum year one so a smidge over 5.4% . My return increases each year by 2.5% so at 10 years my return is 6.8% per year then after 20 years 8.7% return. They obviously invest my money presumably in stock market so they’d have an expected return which I won’t guess, so they’d make money early in the arrangement which compounded over the years makes its able to cover my payments should I live too long. My estate also gets back my 400K if I croak it in the first 11 years then it reduces over the next 10 years to zero. I do agree the Government would be best left out of running this arrangement.

@Elf
Thank you. I can see you have definitely done your research.

For some the idea of an annuity, as you have described, would provide a degree of assurance and income guarantee in retirement.

Personally, despite it’s reliance on the fickle stock market, I’m happy with the return I’m getting on my pension account balance from my industry fund provider – currrently averaging an acceptable, for me, 8% over the last 10 years or so.

Absolutely agree – can’t see a need for government, irrespective of its flavour, to get involved in something that the super industry seems to be already providing.

If you want people to spend more in retirement. Give them the book (Die with Zero) by Bill Perkins.

By all means help, but my concern is that it will creep into being compulsory and become another pot for the Government to dip into.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.