Don't worry, you'll have enough in retirement ... with one big proviso

Sometimes I think I should appoint myself chief ageing reporter for this august organ. Why? Because I’m the only one left around here to know about – and care about – what’s happening to the oldies. But the truth is it’s not a lot more oldies we need to attract to secure this masthead’s future. That’s why we’re training up bright young economists such as Millie Muroi.

But, while we’re having old folks’ day, let me ask you a personal question: are you sure you’ve saved enough to ensure a comfortable retirement? Now, you probably hate being asked that question. Your conscience has long been telling you the answer’s most likely “no”. Ask someone from the superannuation industry, and they’re almost certain to leave you feeling inadequate.

But if you think that’s what I’m on about, you’re wrong. Prompted by an eye-opening article by the Grattan Institute’s super expert Brendan Coates, on my second-favourite website, The Conversation, I’m here to tell you the opposite: the independent experts say the superannuation system will ensure most people retire with enough superannuation to live comfortably and, indeed, many will have more than they need.

It’s only natural to fear you haven’t saved enough, but the sad truth is that the financial market people who earn their living by managing all the money we save via super have gone for many years playing on our fears, giving us a quite exaggerated impression of how much we’ll need.

If you’re trusting enough to ask the Association of Superannuation Funds lobby group how much a couple would need to live at a comfortable standard, it will tell you they’ll need an income of more than $73,000 a year, which would require a super balance of $690,000.

What the lobby group doesn’t tell you is that this “comfortable” standard is higher than what 70 per cent of couples enjoy while they’re working. Nor does it tell you that the only way to have more in retirement is to have less while you’re working.

It makes sense to use super to shift some of your income from your working years to the years when you’re not working. But is it sensible to shift so much you’re denying yourself during your working life so you can have a much higher standard of living in retirement?

Whereas the lobby group represents the interests of the people running super schemes, Super Consumers Australia represents the interests of their members. It calculates that couples who want a “medium” standard of living in retirement – that is, where they’re able to spend more than the bottom half of retired couples – need a super balance of about $370,000 on retirement, which would let them spend $60,000 a year.

Only if a couple wants to be in the top 30 per cent of retirees, able to spend $80,000 a year, would they need to retire with a super balance a bit over $1,000,000.

Do these more honest estimates strike you as too low? That’s probably because people of working age tend to overestimate how much they’ll need in retirement. Coates lists the many savings you make after you retire.

For a start, you don’t have work-related expenses. And retirees have more time to do things for themselves. Don’t forget that most people retire on some combination of super and the age pension. Remember too that, rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my book), the aged pay much less tax on their income than workers do. This makes a big difference to how much you need to live on.

Pensioners get discounts on council rates, electricity, medicines and public transport, and other benefits. These can add up to thousands of dollars a year. And whatever income you need at the start of your retirement, it typically falls as you get older. Coates says retirees tend to spend 15 to 20 per cent less when they’re 90 than they did when they were 70.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed in your own parents – I certainly did in mine – that oldies reach a point where they could afford to go out and spend money (another overseas trip, for instance) but they don’t feel like it. It surprises many that it’s common for oldies to save part of their income, simply because they didn’t have a reason to spend it.

Of course, deteriorating health stops people from spending. But most health and aged care costs are picked up by the taxpayer.

All this says people don’t need to spend as much as you may think in retirement. But everything I’ve said comes with a big proviso: that retirees own their own home. It’s been true for many decades that the great majority of retirees own their homes outright. That’s still true, though less so. These days it’s more common for people to retire still owing money on their mortgage. In coming decades, however, it won’t still be true that most retirees own their homes.

Meanwhile, I’m definitely not saying that people who have to rent in retirement have it easy. Far from it. But when you’re a home owner in retirement your spending on housing is far lower than for people still servicing a mortgage or renting.

The Retirement Income Review conducted in 2020 for the Morrison government judged that anyone with retirement income equivalent to between 65 and 75 per cent of their pre-retirement income would be able to live comfortably. It also found that, by this standard, most retirees will be doing fine.

But that was when compulsory employer contributions to super stood at 9.5 per cent of your wage. By now they’re 11.5 per cent and will rise to 12 per cent in July.

That’s why I say that those retiring in coming years won’t just be comfortable, they’ll be rolling in it.

Read more >>

Unions conspire with bankers to make you pay more super

When is big business most successful at "rent-seeking" – winning special favours – from government? Often, when it’s got its unions on board. That way, both the Coalition and Labor are inclined to give it the privileges it seeks.

Despite the decline in the union movement’s power and influence in recent decades – and all the nasty things the bosses continue saying about unions – it’s very much a product of the capitalist system.

Over the decades, its greatest success has come in industries with some form of pricing power that’s allowing businesses to make outsized profits. The union simply applies pressure for the workers to be given their share of the lolly.

What kept Australia’s manufacturing industry heavily protected against competition from imports for most of the 20th century, before the Hawke-Keating government pulled the plug in the 1980s, was the manufacturing unions’ strong support for the manufacturers’ success in getting the Coalition committed to protection.

In the end, however, the manufacturing unions got screwed. While being protected in the name of preserving jobs, the manufacturers began automating and shedding many jobs. Turns out protection is better at protecting profits than jobs.

In last year’s election campaign, some part of Labor’s ambivalence on the question of new coal mines in North Queensland is explained by the support the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, one of the few remaining powerful unions, has thrown behind the foreign mine owners.

At present, however, there’s no more significant instance of the unions being in bed with the bosses than their joint campaign to have the government increase compulsory employee superannuation contributions.

When it comes to government-granted favours to business, there aren’t many bigger than the one that compels almost all the nation’s workers to hand over 9.5 per cent of their wage, every year of their working lives, to financial institutions which will charge them a small fortune each year to "manage" their money, until the government thinks they’re old enough to be allowed to get their money back.

I’ve supported compulsory super since it began because, when it comes to saving for retirement, most of us suffer from myopia. But it does leave the government with huge obligations to ensure the money’s safely invested, ensure super tax incentives aren’t biased in favour of the highly paid (such as yours truly) and ensure the money managers don’t abuse the monopoly they’ve been granted by overcharging the punters.

And, since most of us also save for retirement in ways other than super (such as by buying a house and paying it off), governments have an obligation to ensure that workers aren’t compelled to save more than needed to live in reasonable comfort in retirement.

Compulsory super is such an easy money-maker for the for-profit financial institutions (mainly bank-owned) that it’s not surprising they’ve gone for years trying to con governments into increasing the percentage of their wages that workers are compelled to hand over. They’ve done this by exploiting people’s instinctive fear that they aren’t saving enough, using greatly exaggerated estimates of how much they’ll need to be comfortable.

What’s harder to understand is why the non-profit "industry" super funds – with union officials making up half their trustees and the employer reps not taking much interest – go along with the for-profit industry lobby groups’ self-interested empire-building.

The main reason compulsory super isn’t a particularly good deal for most union members is that when forced to pay super contributions, employers reduce their workers’ pay rises to fit. This has been understood from the outset, but last week’s report from the Grattan Institute convincingly demonstrates its truth.

The second reason is that, by design and above certain limits, super savings reduce workers’ eligibility for the age pension. Treasury and independent analysts have repeatedly discredited the industry’s claims that the present contribution rate is insufficient to provide workers with a reasonably comfortable retirement.

The present legislated plan to raise the contribution rate to 12 per cent represents the industry funds’ gift to the army of ticket-clippers making their living off the super industry. It’s origins lie in the Rudd government yielding to industry fund pressure because it believed the huge cost to the budget would be more than covered by its wonderful new mining tax.

But, as an earlier Grattan report has shown, raising the contribution rate as planned would force many workers to accept a lower-than-otherwise standard of living during their working lives so their living standard in retirement could be higher than they ever were used to when working.

This is the union movement protecting its members’ interests? Sounds to me more like union officials expanding the union institution at the expense of their members – and delivering for the banks’ "retail" super funds while they’re at it.

Read more >>

Sorry, the government can't make the boss pay for your super

When the government compels employers to contribute to their employees’ superannuation, it seems obvious that it’s forcing the bosses to give their workers an extra benefit on top of their wage. Obvious, that is, to everyone but the nation’s economists.

They’re convinced it’s actually the workers themselves who end up paying because employers respond to the government’s compulsion by giving their workers pay rises that are lower than they otherwise would have been.

But can the economists prove their intuition is right? Not until this week.

The argument about who ends up paying for compulsory employee super is hotting up. The Hawke-Keating government’s original scheme required employers to make contributions equal to 9 per cent of a worker’s pay. But when former prime minister Tony Abbott took over from Labor in 2013, he inherited a law requiring the contribution to be gradually increased to 12 per cent.

The Coalition has never approved of compulsory super, which began as part of the union movement’s Accord with the Labor government. By the time Abbott got around to it, the contribution rate had crept up to its present 9.5 per cent, but he managed to persuade the Senate to delay the next (0.5 percentage point) increase until July next year, with the 12 per cent to be reached in July 2025.

Everything about this scheme’s history says Prime Minister Scott Morrison wouldn’t want the contribution rate to go any higher. It’s likely he’s hoping the looming inquiry into super will recommend this, and so help him persuade the Senate to change the law accordingly.

The superannuation industry has been campaigning for years to convince you and me that 9 per cent or so isn’t sufficient to pay for a comfortable retirement, and to get the contribution rate greatly increased. In this, the non-profit “industry” super funds (with much union involvement) are at one with the largely bank-owned, for-profit part of the super industry.

Apart from some important reports by the Productivity Commission, the most authoritative independent analysis of super comes from Brendan Coates of the Grattan Institute. Grattan has argued that raising the compulsory contribution rate would be contrary to employees’ interests, forcing them to live on less during their working lives so their incomes in retirement could be higher than they were used to and more than they needed.

To strengthen the case for continuing to raise the contribution rate, the industry funds have commissioned a couple of studies purporting to show that the conventional wisdom is wrong and contributions do indeed come at the employers’ expense.

So this week Grattan issued a paper providing empirical evidence supporting the economists’ conventional wisdom that, in the end, workers have to pay for their own super.

If the notion that employees pay for employers’ contributions strikes you as strange and hard to believe, it shouldn’t. Consider the goods and services tax. Have you ever sent the taxman a cheque for the GST you pay? No, never. The cheques are written by the businesses you buy from. So, does that mean they pay GST but you don’t? Of course not. Why not? Because the businesses pass the tax on to you in the retail prices they charge.

Economists have long understood that the “legal incidence” of a tax (who’s required to write the cheque) and the “economic incidence” or ultimate burden (who ends up paying the tax) are usually different.

It’s convenient for the government to collect taxes from a smaller number of businesses rather than from a huge number of consumers or employees. Economists know that businesses may pass the burden of the taxes they pay “forward” to their customers or “backward” to their employees. Only if neither of those is possible is the ultimate burden of the tax passed from the business to its owners.

Naturally, the business would like to pass the burden anywhere but to its owners. But whether it’s passed forward or backward (or some combination of the three) will be determined by the market circumstances the business finds itself in.

That is, the question can’t be answered from economic theory, but must be answered with empirical evidence (experience in the real world). Theory (using the simple demand and supply diagram familiar to all economics students – see page 12 of the Grattan report) can, however, clarify the exact question.

Theory suggests that the ultimate destination of the burden depends on how workers and employers respond when super is increased. There are two “effects”. First, when workers value an extra dollar of super, even if they value it less than an extra dollar of wages, then some (but not all) of the cost of super will come out of their wages.

Second, if workers’ willingness to work doesn’t vary much when wages change – that is, if labour supply is relatively “inelastic” – then they’d be expected to bear a larger share of the cost. Similarly, if employers’ willingness to hire people doesn’t vary much when wages change – labour demand is inelastic – then more of the cost will fall on the bosses.

Most overseas studies have confirmed the economists' conventional wisdom. But what about us?

Coates and his team examined the details of 80,000 federal workplace agreements made between 1991 and 2018. They found that, on average, about 80 per cent of the cost of increases in compulsory super was passed back to workers through lower wage rises within the life of an enterprise agreement, usually two to three years. (This leaves open the question of how much of the remaining 20 per cent was passed forward to customers in higher prices.)

Only about a third of workers are covered by enterprise agreements. For the many wages linked to the Fair Work Commission’s annual adjustments to award wages, it has said explicitly that when super goes up, award wages grow more slowly. As for workers covered by individual agreements, it’s a safe bet which way the employers will jump.

Whatever it suits the superannuation industry to claim, increased super contributions are no free lunch.

Read more >>

Why we don't get more joy out of our super

When one of our top econocrats gives a speech about behavioural economics, you know we’re making progress. Take the ever-present problem of income in retirement. “BE” explains both why it’s a major area of government intervention in our lives and how that intervention can be made more effective.

One of the greatest limitations of conventional economics – based on the “neo-classical” model, which focuses on how prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand – is its assumption that people are unfailingly “rational” – calculatingly self-interested – in their response to the prices they face.

Behavioural economics accepts that we’re not the financial automatons the model assumes us to be, and uses insights from the more empirical sciences of psychology and sociology to gain a much more realistic picture of the many non-monetary factors that also affect our behaviour in economic matters.

Behavioural economists draw on the long list of “heuristics” – mental shortcuts or biases in the way we think – developed by cognitive psychologists. In a recent speech, Dr David Gruen, top economics guy in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, outlined the cognitive biases that limit many people’s ability to make adequate provisions for the income they’ll need in retirement.

For more than a century the government has provided the age pension, of course. But in the 1990s people began to worry that it wouldn’t be sufficient to meet the aspirations of the rising generation. So the Keating government introduced compulsory employee superannuation.

In those days before the spread of BE, most economists accepted the imposition of compulsory saving as a correction to the “market failure” of “myopia” – most of us are too short-sighted to save enough towards our retirement.

The BE way of putting it is that we suffer from “present bias” – we overvalue the present relative to the future. Gruen takes the idea further, noting that “while choosing a retirement plan is likely to influence literally decades of our lives, many of us spend little time – sometimes less than an hour – choosing our plan”.

Then there’s “confirmation bias” – we tend to remember events that confirm our existing views, but forget developments that cast doubt on those views. Gruen uses this to explain why many of us spend what little time we have set aside to choose a retirement plan looking for one with an investment strategy that supports our existing investing approach.

And “cognitive overload”. This occurs when people find it too hard to process a mass of information in order to make decisions. In the context of planning for retirement, it leads many of us to stick with choices we have arrived at by default.

“Together, these cognitive biases create a big gap between our intentions and our actions: although people intend to save for their retirement, they often don’t translate that into action. For most people, how much to save, and in what form, are difficult cognitive problems – because of both our limited calculation powers and the apparent enormity of the task,” Gruen says.

When the compulsory super system was first set up, the government adopted the conventional economics view that savers were rational economic agents who knew their own business best. So all it had to do was require the super funds to reveal relevant information about their investment options, and diligent savers would do the rest, ensuring they picked the option that best suited their circumstances.

Yeah sure. At the time of a review of super in 2009, 80 per cent of super fund members were invested in the default fund chosen by their employer. Of that 80 per cent, anecdotal evidence suggested that only about 20 per cent explicitly chose the default option, with the rest making no active choice whatsoever.

“When complicated decisions are required, people often stick with the status quo and take no decision at all. In that case, the default option becomes very important,” Gruen says. (This is actually one of the key “insights” of BE.)

So the review panel recommended creating a default option – called MySuper - with features that would promote the wellbeing of those who didn’t actively choose another option. MySuper funds must be simple and cost-effective, with a diversified portfolio of investment.

Of course, there are remaining challenges in the compulsory super system, which the latest review of retirement incomes, instigated by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, will consider. Let’s hope it takes full advantage of the behavioural insights available to it.

As Gruen says, BE allows all government policymaking to be improved by starting with a richer understanding of human behaviour and building this into the design of measures.

Read more >>

Don’t worry, you’ll have plenty in retirement

Some years ago I went to an investment adviser, gave him my financial details and asked if I had enough super to do me in retirement. He didn’t answer, just laughed. I think he thought that someone with my amount of savings shouldn’t have needed to ask.

Truth is, no matter how high or low the standard of living we’re used to, just about all of us worry that we haven’t saved enough to keep it going in retirement. No matter how much we’ve put away, it’s only human to feel a twinge of guilt that we could have saved more. And how much is enough?

The superannuation industry has spent decades convincing us our savings are inadequate, and pressing the government to raise the rate of compulsory super contributions. The “retail” super funds run by the banks keep doing this, but so do the not-for-profit industry funds.

It was they who persuaded the Rudd government to phase the rate up from 9 per cent of wages to 12 per cent by 2025.

But now, at long last, a report by John Daley and Brendan Coates, of the Grattan Institute, has hit the headlines exposing the Great Super Lie. In the words of its title, Money in retirement: More than enough.

The report’s careful and detailed analysis finds that, contrary to everything we’ve been told, the vast majority of retirees today, and in future, are likely to be comfortable financially.

The institute’s own modelling shows that, even after allowing for inflation, most workers today can expect a retirement income of at least 91 per cent of their pre-retirement income. This is way above the 70 per cent level that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recommends its member-countries aim for.

But how can reality be so at variance with our perception of it? Because the super and investment-advice industries have laboured long and hard to convince us we should be saving more.

Why have they done this? Because every extra dollar we save through super, whether voluntarily or compulsorily, is a dollar they get to take a small bite out of – every year until we eventually take it and spend it.

They call it “clipping the ticket”. The financial services sector abounds with people who’ve thought of another reason to clip our ticket. That’s why its top people are the highest paid of them all, the envy of medical specialists and barristers.

How have they misled us? As the report explains, by exploiting our inability to anticipate how much we’ll need to last us in retirement.

ASFA – the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia – is the chief offender. It publishes and updates a measure of the minimum amount you’ll need at retirement to live at a “comfortable” standard. If you don’t have that much then, by implication, you’ll be un-comfortable.

Trouble is, it’s designed to reflect a lifestyle typical of the top 20 per cent of retirees today. So, in truth, it’s telling the bottom 80 per cent they haven’t saved nearly enough to have in retirement a standard of living far higher than they ever enjoyed while working.

Obviously, when estimating how much you’ll need, you have to allow for inflation over the likely period of your retirement. Some in the industry exaggerate this by using the expected growth in wages – rather than prices – as their inflation measure, knowing that wages grow faster than prices and living standards rise over time.

After being misled for so long, you probably find it hard to believe your savings are – or will be – more than adequate, so let me explain.

First, most people will have more income than they realise. Most people will be eligible for a full or part age pension, which is increased in line with wages rather than prices, meaning it grows faster than inflation over time.

By now, most people are retiring with a significant amount of super saving. It was always envisaged that most people would retire with some combination of age pension and super.

About 80 per cent of people over 65 own their own home (a huge saving) and most have savings and investments outside the super system.

Second, people spend less money in retirement than they used to, and than they expect to. That’s why the OECD says you need only 70 per cent of your pre-retirement income to be comfortable.

The retired pay less income tax on the same income, whatever it is. They don’t make super contributions, they don’t have mortgages (though those who rent privately are the big exception to the rule) and they don’t have kids to support.

They eat out less (partly because they have more time to cook), drink less alcohol, spend less on transport (no trips to work) and replace clothing and furniture less often. Medical costs are a lot higher, but are largely covered by the government.

And it’s not just that when you’re retired you have less need to spend than when you’re working. It’s also that you spend less as you get older. Spending tends to slow when you reach 70, and decreases rapidly after 80.

Still not convinced? Get this: surveys show the retired worry less than the working about paying bills, many actually save some of their income and often leave a legacy almost as large as their nest egg on the day they retired. Sounds comfortable to me.

Read more >>

Our oldies have never had it so good

Don’t let anyone tell you Scott Morrison is out of touch. When he says that, if he had the money, he’d increase the age pension rather than the dole, he’s reflecting the views of most older Australians. Everyone knows it’s the old who are the deserving poor.

Except it ain’t true. It was true once, but not for many years.

You might expect the Prime Minister to be better informed than the average punter, but Morrison is from the new breed of politician who see a leader’s job as to reflect the voters’ misperceptions back to them. Read the focus group reports, not the briefing notes.

Something Morrison clearly hasn’t read is the research briefs published last week summarising the findings of the Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research – an outfit funded by the federal government to ensure it (and the rest of us) are well-informed about matters such as the adequacy of the age pension.

According to the centre’s director, Professor John Piggott, of the University of NSW, “our analysis shows that standards of living of older people have improved over the last decade . . . Households reaching retirement age today have incomes about 45 per cent higher than those reaching the same milestone 10 years ago.”

That’s a real increase of 45 per cent, after taking account of inflation. How could it be possible? Because the pension is indexed to wages rather than prices, and wages grow by a per cent or two a year faster than prices (until recently, anyway).

As well, the Rudd government made a discretionary increase in pensions on top of indexation.

The centre’s figures show that 62 per cent of age pensioners get it at the full rate, with a quarter getting a part-rate pension because of their other income, and another 13 per cent on a part-rate because of the high value of their non-housing assets.

The centre finds that the rate of poverty (measured as less than half the median household disposable income) among everyone aged 65 and over is only a fraction higher than for everyone aged 15 to 64.

Even so, by now it’s wrong to think of many people retiring with nothing to support them but the pension. Our retirement income system rests on three pillars, with the means-tested, flat-rate age pension being only the first.

The second pillar is compulsory employer superannuation contributions under the “super guarantee”, which began formally in 1992 and reached 9 per cent of wages in 2002. Today it’s 9.5 per cent.

By now, therefore, most people should be retiring with some super savings, maybe quite a lot. The centre says that, in 2016, the median (most typical) super balance for individuals aged 60 to 64 was $68,000, whereas the arithmetic average was three times that, at $214,000 – pushed up by a small number of very much higher balances (including mine).

The median is held down by the typically much lower balances of women, which average 64 per cent less than men’s. Even here, however, the centre says the gap has almost halved over the past decade.

The retirement income system’s third pillar is voluntary super contributions, which are “tax-advantaged”.

Compulsory and voluntary super contributions are already sufficient to mean that 40 per cent of people on the age pension have super and investments as their main source of income. And 20 per cent of older people have so much other income as to make them ineligible for the pension.

But the system actually has a fourth pillar: home ownership. (And a fifth: assets and other savings outside the first four pillars.)

Get this: three-quarters of age pensioners own their home. The centre estimates that, on average, living rent-free in your own home yields a saving of more than $10,000 a year. (As well, the oldest households receive health-related savings averaging about $25,000 a year.)

So significant is the fourth pillar of home-ownership that it’s implicitly assumed in judging the age pension’s adequacy – meaning the quarter of age pensioners who mainly rent privately are justified in complaining about the trouble they have making ends meet.

About 40 per cent of renters aged 65 and over are below the poverty line. And, among those of them living alone, the poverty rate rises to 60 per cent.

If Morrison really cared about the elderly poor, he’d raise the pension rent supplement, which wouldn’t cost much.

In truth, however, his remarks last week were probably more about signalling: the aged – particularly the better-off aged; those dreading Labor’s plan to abolish unused dividend franking credits - should see themselves as part of his party’s “base”, whose interests he represents and will fight for.

Renters of any age aren't part of the base. Nor are the young part of it – and others with a greater risk of finding themselves on the dole – so their interests take a lower priority. Don’t say he didn’t tell you.

Read more >>

Times get tougher for the oldies

Glenn Stevens, governor of the Reserve Bank, is used to getting letters from angry citizens. Aside from the ones demanding to know why the Reserve can't solve all our problems by just printing more money, in days past most would have come from small-business people complaining about the latest increase in the official interest rate, which had taken their overdraft rate to ruinous levels.

These days, most come from angry retirees complaining about yet another cut in rates. Doesn't he realise people are trying to live on the interest on their savings?

That's the trouble with interest rates, of course, they cut both ways – a cost of borrowers, but income to savers. The media assume we're all borrowers, so they boo rate rises and cheer rate cuts, adding insult to the oldies' injury.

Like all central banks, the Reserve raises interest rates when it wants to slow the economy by discouraging borrowing and spending, and cuts rates when it wants to speed things up – as now. It jumps that way because households' and businesses' debts total a lot more than their savings.

When I was a young economic journalist in the 1970s, the retired were always complaining about high inflation. Their cost of living was rising rapidly, but they had to live on "fixed incomes" that didn't keep pace.

We eventually solved that problem. Interest rates caught up with higher inflation and, as well, we moved to adjusting pensions regularly in line with prices and then with wages. By the early 1990s we finally had inflation back under control.

How times change. These days, most people retire with superannuation or other savings, which they use to supplement – or occasionally replace – their pension. And since they need to live on the earnings from their savings, they need those earnings to be steady, not go up and down like the share market.

Thus the retired like to put most of their savings in interest-bearing bank accounts, term deposits or pension funds that have most of their money in bonds. So these days a lot of retired are back to living on "fixed incomes", meaning they hate to see interest rates falling.

Our official interest rate is down to 2 per cent, a record low, having been cut 10 times since late 2011. The rates paid to savers are only a little higher. Even so, our rates are relatively high compared with most advanced countries. They're near zero in most developed economies, and in parts of Europe you actually have to pay the bank a tiny percentage to persuade it to hold your money.

I'll let you into an open secret: Stevens will be retiring as governor next September, though since he'll only be 58 – just a boy, really – I doubt he'll be putting his feet up.

He said a few things last week that make you think he's turning his mind to retirement. And he doesn't like what he sees.

"My guess is that global interest rates are still going to be very low for a good part of the decade ahead," he told the Australian Business Economists.

It's likely the US Federal Reserve will raise its official interest rate a fraction this month. But Stevens doesn't see US rates rising far. The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan were "a long way from even thinking about higher interest rates". And the Europeans are openly contemplating further cuts.

So the average official interest rate in the major money centres may be very low for quite a while, he said.

Trouble is, "in a low interest-rate world, the problems of providing retirement incomes will become ever more prominent".

The very low level of yields (returns) on government bonds and other fixed-interest securities means the prices of such securities are very high (it was actually rising bond prices that caused yields to go so low).

So these days it costs you or your pension fund a lot just to buy securities that pay such low amounts of interest. Which is another way of saying you now need to retire with a lot more savings than you did to maintain a given standard of living.

Added to that, we're living longer and so need our savings to last longer.

Stevens said the retiree can, of course, respond to the reduced attractiveness of fixed-interest securities by holding more of her savings in dividend-paying shares. This involves accepting more risk of volatility, of course.

Certain well-known Aussie companies pay big, steady dividends, which usually come with refundable income tax rebates (known as franking credits) attached. Most people would also be hoping to see these dividends grow over time, as inflation continues.

"It certainly seems that many Australian listed corporates feel the pressure from shareholders to deliver that, even some whose earnings are inherently volatile," Stevens said.

Can the corporate sector realistically promise growing dividends over a long period? Not without being prepared to take on greater risk by investing in new projects.

"How much of that risk an older shareholder base will allow boards and managements of listed entities to take is an important question," he said.

"Overall, in a world where a bigger proportion of the population wants to be retired and living (even if only in part) off the return on their savings, those returns are likely, all other things equal, to be lower."

A good argument for delaying retirement.

Read more >>

Compulsory super without protections is a rip off

A few weeks ago, when I offered my list of our top 10 economic reforms of the past 40 years, I was surprised by the number of people arguing I should have included compulsory employee superannuation in the list. Really? I can't agree.

It is, after all, merely a way of compelling people to save for their retirement. That's probably no bad thing in principle, countering our all too human tendency to worry excessively about the here and now and too little about adequate provision for our old age.

But compulsory saving hardly counts as a major reform. I suspect some of my correspondents see it as a boon for workers because it extracts a benefit from employers over and above the wages they're paid.

If so, they've been misled by appearances. Economists are in no doubt it all comes out in the wash: that when the government obliges employers to contribute to workers' retirement savings, the employers eventually make up for it by granting smaller wage rises than they otherwise would have.

It's true that compulsory super contributions - and the subsequent earnings on them - attract tax concessions, being taxed at a flat rate of just 15 cents in the dollar. But while upper income-earners do disgracefully well out of these concessions, people on incomes around the average gain little advantage, and those earning less than $37,000 a year gain nothing. Hardly sounds fair to me.

My other reservation about compulsory super is the way it compels employees to become the victims of the most shamelessly grasping, overpaid industry of them all: financial services. These are the people who made top executives and medical specialists feel they were underpaid.

Compulsory super delivers a huge captive market for the providers of investment services to make an easy living from and for the less scrupulous among them to prey upon. The pot of money the government compels us to give these people to manage on our behalf has now reached $1.6 trillion.

Most of us have little idea how much these people appropriate from our life savings each year to reward themselves for the services we're compelled to let them provide to us - and little desire to find out.

We should be less complacent. For many workers it's more than we pay for electricity each year. Think of it: we put so much energy and passion into carrying on about the rising price of power - and Tony Abbott used our resentment to get himself elected - while the men in flash suits dip into our savings without most of us knowing or caring.

To be fair, industry super funds dip into our savings far more sparingly than the profit-driven "retail" funds backed by the big banks, insurance companies and firms of actuaries. Since most workers do have a choice, you'd need a very good reason not to have your money with an industry fund.

But even this worries me. It means the union movement - the people whose job is to protect workers by being full bottle on the tricks the finance industry gets up to - has divided loyalties. Those who should be holding the industry to account are also part of it.

For years the industry campaigned for an increase in the super levy of 9 per cent of salary, arguing it was insufficient to provide people with an adequate income in retirement. This is a dubious argument, rejected by the Henry taxation review.

But look at it another way: here is a hugely profitable industry arguing the government should increase the proportion of all employees' wages diverted to the industry for it to take annual bites out of before giving us access to our money at age 60 or later.

This is classic rent-seeking. The Howard government was never tempted to yield, but as part of the Labor government's mining-tax reform package, it agreed to boost compulsory super contributions to 12 per cent by 2019. Why? I don't doubt Labor was got at by the union end of the financial services industry.

Contributions increased to 9.25 per cent last July, but the Abbott government came to power promising to defer the phase-up for two years. I'd lay a small bet this deferral will become permanent - though probably not before contributions rise to 9.5 per cent on July 1.

I wouldn't be sorry to see the phase-up abandoned. The Henry report recommended against it, arguing that action to reduce the industry's fees could produce a similar increase in ultimate super payouts. And it's doubtful that low income earners are better off being compelled to save rather than spend their meagre earnings.

The government's policy of compelling workers to hand so much of their wages over to the finance industry surely leaves the government with a greater-than-normal obligation to ensure the industry doesn't exploit this monopoly by misadvising and overcharging its often uninformed customers.

This - along with the millions lost by investors in Storm Financial and other dodgy outfits - prompted Labor's Future of Financial Advice reforms, which focused on prohibiting or highlighting hidden commissions and requiring advisers to put their clients' interests ahead of their own.

But now Senator Arthur Sinodinos is seeking to water down these consumer protections in the name of reducing "red tape". The financial fat cats live to rip us off another day.

Read more >>

Self-funded retirees are kidding themselves - and us

One thing that gets me going is comfortably-off people who feel sorry for themselves: those who complain how hard it is to get by on $150,000 a year, or retired people who profess to be "self-funded".

Someone once asked me why I was so disparaging of self-funded retirees when, from what they could see, I was going to end up as one myself. It's true. Or, rather, it's true my superannuation is too generous for me to get even a smell of the age pension.

But I'd never claim that made me "self-funded". Why not? Because I know damn well other taxpayers have contributed mightily to funding the vastly bigger private pension I'll end up on.

The other thing that annoys me about the self-proclaimed self-funded is their motive for making this false claim. They say it because they've got their hand out. I'm too well-off to get the pension, therefore you owe me.

So how about a seniors' card that entitles me to pay next-to-nothing on public transport not because I'm poor but just because I'm old? How about charging me the same nominal fee for pharmaceuticals you charge pensioners but deny to the working poor?

The so-called self-funded - the Howard government's favourite charity - enjoy all these perks. But they don't seem to realise that, the more successful they are with their begging bowl, the less true their claim becomes.

The notorious superannuation "reforms" Peter Costello announced in 2006, which centred on making super payouts tax free for people 60 and over - and which successive governments will have to laboriously unpick at great political cost in coming years - included significantly liberalising the means test on the age pension.

Suddenly, there was a sharp fall in the number of people not receiving the pension and a sharp jump in the number receiving a part-pension. But did all those with their mouths now firmly clamped on the pension teat stop referring to themselves as "self-funded"? I doubt it.

The way the numerous spruikers for the super industry tell it, governments impose iniquitous taxes on those independent, prudent, frugal, virtuous souls who struggle to save for their retirement. Rubbish.

For working people, all the additional income we earn is taxed at rates of 19?, 32.5?, 37? or 45? in the dollar depending on how much we earn. But the 9 per cent - eventually to be 12 per cent - of our salary that employers are required to pay into superannuation is taxed at a flat rate of just 15? in the dollar. Ditto for extra contributions made through "salary sacrifice".

So super contributions are, in fact, taxed concessionally. Just how concessional varies inversely with your need - the higher your income, the more you save per dollar. People like me save 30? in tax on every dollar they put into super (plus the 1.5? Medicare levy). What's more, income earned on money in super funds is also taxed at no more than 15 per cent, no matter how high your income.

Super is taxed in a way that yields little benefit to the needy, but grossly favours the better off. As someone said, for he that hath, to him shall be given.

The cost to the federal budget in revenue forgone is huge and rapidly rising. It was $30 billion last financial year and is projected to reach $45 billion by 2015-16.

But whenever this unfairness is pointed out, those who benefit (including those who benefit by managing super funds or providing advice to them) are quick to fly to the defence. It's terribly unfair to look at the gross cost of the super tax concessions without taking into account the saving to the budget from all those people who won't be getting the pension.

A study by Richard Denniss and David Richardson, of the Australia Institute, Can the Taxpayer Afford "Self-funded Retirement"?, to be released today, advises that by 2015-16, the $45 billion forgone on super concessions is expected to equal the cost of the age pension itself. (It will dwarf federal spending on education or on Medicare, and be almost double what we spend on defence.)

So just how much will the super concessions save us on pension payments? Treasury could have estimated this but, if it has, it hasn't been made public - presumably because its paucity would cause too much embarrassment to a government game only to nibble away at super's unfairness to those whose interests Labor (and Bruce Springsteen) professes to represent.

Even so, Denniss and Richardson give us a fair idea. Treasury does project that, by 2047 - 35 years' time - the proportion of people of pension age not receiving the pension will have risen by just 3 percentage points to about 20 per cent.

The main effect of all the concessions will be to increase the proportion of people receiving only a part-pension by 15 percentage points to about half of those on the pension.

From this, the authors estimate the saving on the pension bill in 2047 will be about $14 billion a year in today's dollars. That's only about half what the super concessions are costing - meaning the other half represents clear cop for the better-off superannuants (including my good self).

Treasury estimates that just the top 5 per cent of income earners collect 37 per cent of all super concessions. The authors quote a representative example of someone on the top tax rate retiring with a payout of $780,000, 60 per cent of which comes from tax concessions.

So, please, let's have a bit less hypocrisy on the great favour well-off retirees are doing the taxpayer.

Read more >>