Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 585

The rising tension between housing debt and retirement balances

Strongly rising residential property prices have increased the wealth of home-owning households significantly over the past two decades, resulting in Australia now sitting comfortably in the top three nations globally for median household wealth.

This national bias toward holding wealth in bricks and mortar may, however, have consequences for those approaching retirement in the form of growing mortgage debt levels being carried into later life.

At the end of the 2024 financial year, the value of ‘land and dwellings’ on household balance sheets stood at $11.2 trillion, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

The superannuation system was $3.9 trillion at the same point, made up of some $2.7 trillion in APRA-regulated funds and $990 billion in self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs), with the balancing $225 billion held in exempt public sector super schemes and life office statutory assets.

Elsewhere, the combined valued of all companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (the market capitalisation of the ASX) totalled some $2.9 trillion at the time.

In essence, the value of residential land and housing is 2.9 times greater than the entire super system at present, and 3.9 times greater than the stock market. That in turn shapes how the composition of household wealth shifts with age, as the Retirement Income Review illustrated in 2020 below.

Figure 1: Composition of Household Balance Sheets by Age Cohort

The key takeout is that from the 30s onwards, owner-occupied dwellings (the purple segment above) dominate the median (middle) household balance sheet over other asset types, and by a clear margin.

A median national dwelling price of some $800,000 will have that effect.

The growing debt burden

As at June 2024, the total amount of long-term loans sitting on household balance sheets (primarily mortgage debt) was around $2.9 trillion, identical in size to the ASX market cap and some $200 billion more than the assets held in APRA-regulated super funds.

The final Retirement Income Review report acknowledged housing’s importance in Australia’s retirement income system, noting that “outright home ownership supports retirement by reducing ongoing expenses and acts as a store of wealth that can be accessed in retirement.”

The difficulty, increasingly, is in attaining ‘outright ownership’ unencumbered by mortgage debt prior to retirement. The evidence points instead to more Australians entering their pre-retirement years (broadly 55 to 64) significantly mortgaged.

For example, the ABS Survey of Income and Housing (SIH) shows that for this age group, the percentage of homeowners with a mortgage has risen, from a low of under 20% in 1996, to sit at 54% in the (latest) 2019 iteration. The average mortgage then held by the typical homeowning 55 to 64-year-old was around $230,000.

In short, more than half of all pre-retiree homeowners (around 77%, the remainder are renters) are now still dealing with non-trivial mortgage debt as retirement approaches.

According to SIH data, the mortgage debt-to-income ratio for mortgagors aged 55 to 64 years rose from 72% to 138% between 1990 and 2020, while aggregate household debt has also ballooned, as the below chart illustrates.

Figure 2: Household debt as a percentage of disposable income

Source: Treasury, Retirement Income Review, 2020

The upshot of all this, as noted in the Retirement Income Review, is that:

“Increasing mortgage commitments have coincided with more owner-occupier households holding a mortgage at older ages. The median age for paying off a mortgage increased from 52 in 1981 to 62 in 2016.”

Or in layperson’s terms; half of owner-occupiers aged 62 or older still had a mortgage in 2016. The median age of mortgage extinguishment is only likely to have increased since then.

Lump sum withdrawals – the joker in the retirement income pack?

Households approaching retirement with material mortgage debt outstanding have three main choices: extend their time in the workforce in a bid to reduce/extinguish that debt; accept they can’t and aim to service it in retirement; find a source of capital to extinguish it at or prior to retirement.

There is a growing pool of evidence that many retirees are choosing the third option and using their super to do so.

The survey of retirement and retirement intentions conducted by the ABS provides insights into the retirement plans for people aged 45 and over, and shows a clearly accelerating trend of Australians withdrawing their super to meet property related expenses.

In 2013 around 25% of lump sum super withdrawals were used to pay off a mortgage, acquire a new home or renovate an existing one. By 2017, that had increased to 29%.

The latest survey data shows the main uses of super lump sums, across all participants surveyed, as follows.

Figure 3: Main uses of super lump sums, 2022-23

Source: Author’s calculations from ABS Cat 6238.0 (Retirement and Retirement Intentions) – Table 8

Of the individuals surveyed, around 63% had taken some amount of super as a lump sum withdrawal during 2022-23. As before, paying off a mortgage or acquiring/renovating a home was the most cited use of super withdrawals.

A thorny issue for super funds

To be clear, mortgage debt approaching retirement is unlikely to concern the top 20% of near-retirees by wealth and income. Particularly so SMSF members aged 60 – 64 with, according to the most recent Australian Taxation Office (ATO) data, combined couple median balances close to $1.8 million.

But for median homeowning 60 – 64-year-old couples in APRA-regulated funds, with combined super balances closer to $400,000, material mortgage debt at retirement will increasingly be the norm, not the exception.

As the Treasury noted in its 2023 Intergeneration Report, the fact that a non-trivial amount of this combined super appears to be extinguishing/reducing mortgage debt clearly “impact[s] patterns of how superannuation is drawn down”.

It is very likely that many APRA-regulated superannuation funds will, depending on the sociographic nature of their membership base, increasingly be impacted by Australia’s growing mortgage indebtedness.

Super funds would do well to revisit the long-held industry presumption of unencumbered home ownership at the point of retirement and adjust their retirement solutions accordingly. They should also be looking at ways to obtain, estimate, forecast or otherwise establish the home ownership status/equity of their members.

Factors such as whether a property is likely to be owned outright or with a mortgage at the point of retirement, or whether a member is more likely to be renting, are insights that forward-thinking funds should be developing as part of their retirement income covenant obligations.

Armed with this data, funds might be able to forecast a ‘Net Pension Generating Super’ (NPGS) value for members; that being the total forecast accrued super at the point of retirement less any likely property-related withdrawals, ideally at the household level.

That’s a more pragmatic starting balance from which to make retirement income projections for most fund members today.

Housing equity will continue to dominate household wealth into the future, with super narrowing the gap as the system reaches full maturity over the next few decades. We need to stay vigilant to the interplay between the two; ensuring that mortgage debt doesn’t negate super’s retirement income enhancing ability for everyday Australians.

 

Harry Chemay has over 27 years of experience in both wealth management and institutional asset consulting. Initially a private client adviser with an SMSF focus, he has since consulted across wealth management, FinTech and superannuation, with a focus on improving post-retirement outcomes.

This article broadly encapsulates the key themes of a presentation delivered at the recent 2024 IBR Post-Retirement Conference entitled ‘Housing and Retirement: In Search of a Unified Approach’.

 

37 Comments
Jon Kalkman
November 11, 2024

If I use my super to eliminate my mortgage to live rent free in retirement, I receive more age pension because the family home is not an assessable asset, the government will also pick up the tab for my aged care because I’m a pensioner, and my kids inherit my house tax-free on my death.

If I choose to store my wealth in my super, I don’t receive the age pension, saving the taxpayer almost $30,000 per year for 25 years, I also pay more for aged care because I’m wealthy with money in super and my kids pay a death benefits tax on any super they inherit.

I wonder why people use their super to pay down their mortgage.

James
November 11, 2024

I doubt that it's a deliberate plan by most people to retire mortgage debt with super lump sums on retirement. More likely a reflection of poor or no financial planning/awareness or discipline or life misfortune!

That said, those in the twilight zone of not having enough super to be better off than a full pension and assets just below the pension reduction threshold, may deliberately choose to spend some capital on renovations or an expensive world trip extravaganza to get a 7.8% return on a $100k spent!

Leonie
November 13, 2024

I think you need to look again at the aged care system. Once you are no longer living in it your house becomes an assessable asset for both pension and aged care, you won't be able to get both a free ride in a nursing home and keep the house.

But outside of that the preferential treatment of the residence definitely creates a huge inequity between homeowners and renters.

Dudley
November 13, 2024

"look again at the aged care system":

'The average age of residents is 85 years and length of stay two and a half years.'
https://www.palliaged.com.au/For-the-Community/Older-Australia/Residential-Aged-Care/Entering-Residential-Aged-Care

A home owner couple, combined assets $470,000
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/assets-test-for-age-pension?context=22526

How much could an average Aged-Care-in-Own-Homer couple afford to spend on In-Own-Home-Care and receive full pension:
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-age-pension-you-can-get?context=22526
Assume home capital gain 6% / y:
= PMT(0%, 2.5, -470000, 0) + (26 * 1725.2) + (6% * 1000000)
= $292,855.20 / y
Should be able to afford cook and bottle washer plus butler and maid.

Dudley
November 13, 2024

Be paid to knock down and rebuild a better, cheaper home?

. "Australia builds fewer homes per hour worked today than in the 1990s"
. "across the rest of the economy, productivity expanded by almost 50 per cent over the same period"
. "It remains difficult to attract, skill up and retain the workers to build the housing we need."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-13/new-fund-to-encourage-states-to-slash-housing-red-tape/104590500

Assume rebuilding cost is the difference in Age Pension Asset Test thresholds:
= (1045500 - 470000)
= $575500
and that increase in capital value of home is 50% of rebuild cost.

Return on rebuild:
= ((26 * 1725.2) + (6% * 50% * 575500) / 575500
= 10.8% / y

Owner imputed rent on improvements not included.

Should be able to afford servants quarters.

Ron Bird
November 11, 2024

Yes, mandatory super contributions do have a direct impact on home ownership and have been doing so ever since they were introduced over 30 years ago. You cannot take 11.5% out of people's salaries and expect it to not seriously affect their ability to buy a house. Hence it comes as no surprise that we see a continuing fall in home ownership and an increase in the level of outstanding mortgages for those lucky enough to at least have got into the housing market.
Hence one very telling consequence of introducing compulsory superannuation is an increase in superannuation balances at retirement and a decrease in the net investment in their own homes by retirees. In simple terms, we have substituted investing in super for investing in our own home. Recognising they are both investments is important with housing returning a dividend in the form of rental payments avoided plus also the capital appreciation of the property. Hence, it is interesting to ask which has proved to be the best investment. Well, it is housing where an owner's equity investment has realised a return about double that of the super funds over the last 30 years. The disturbing implication of this is that the majority of us are worse off as a result of our mandatory contributions to superannuation - the welfare of the poorer amongst us being reduced by something like 25% with the only winners being the wealthy because of the excessive tax subsidies that they enjoy.
If this analysis is any near right, then why is it that (almost) all of us believe we have a great compulsory superannuation scheme. Well, the primary reason is a consequence of government creating for the private sector an ever-growing pool of money that has to be managed. As a consequence, a huge industry has developed with a great incentive to create the myth that our system is among the best in the world and that they are doing a great job in implementing it. Of course, these incentives are not restricted to the industry but extend to those who created the scheme such as Keating who refuses to admit to any of its flaws.
Indeed, we see the effectiveness of the brainwashing in some of the responses to this article. One response said that super contributions are paid by the employer and so come at no cost to employees. This reflects the popular view that super is something like a magic pudding with the contributions magically appearing and so we get all of the benefits for free. Sadly, this is not true as evidence supports (as expected) that employees are trading off super contributions for lower salary. This magic pudding idea proliferates with the Mercers CPA Institute Global Pension Index judging schemes around the world purely on the basis of what they deliver and ignoring what they cost. Judged on this basis, the Australian scheme has to perform well given the high contribution rates that are required. The misconceptions are also embedded in the recent objectives for super advanced by the government which state that its purpose is to preserve savings to deliver a dignified retirement. Again, no concern for the cost incurred by the members along the way and particularly the consumption that they have had to forgo in order to accumulate a balance of funds on retirement. It is just wrong to judge a retirement income system on the basis of what it delivers in retirement while ignoring the costs imposed along the way. To get a handle on this, we can look at three pieces of research conducted at the time when consideration was being given to extending the contribution rate beyond 9.5%. The studies by the Grattan Institute, Geoff Warren (ANU) and me (UTS) all found that for the majority of us the contribution rate was already too high at 9.5% as it already badly distorting consumption through time.
In summary. we have a retirement income system that fails the majority of the population for a number of reasons with an important one being that it distorts consumption pattern over a person's/household's lifetime. We see an important example of this highlighted in this article with an ever-increasing proportion of us never being able to own our own home. The self-interest of the industry is no better illustrated than by the outcry that occurs when the possibility is raised of allowing members to use some of their super balance to purchase a first home. The sad thing is that we are stuck with the current system as the industry (and one side of government) has done such a good job in brainwashing us that no future government will have the fortitude to undertake the necessary changes.

Dudley
November 11, 2024

"no concern for the cost incurred by the members along the way and particularly the consumption that they have had to forgo in order to accumulate a balance of funds on retirement.":

Those who will commence full Age Pension at start of retirement can spend everything they receive, plus a bit.
Especially if inheriting a home.

Concern around super is for adequacy in retirement for those who will never receive Age Pension due to Tests.

So working back from adequate super at retirement expressed in units of real average income:
nominal return 3%, inflation 3%, to 87 from 67, initial super capital as multiple of average income -30 [- = in fund], final super capital 10 (to be sure and to avoid Age Pension):
= PMT((1 + 3%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (87 - 67), -30, 10)
= 1.0 times average income / y
because capital withdrawal of 1.0 per year = (30 - 10) / (87 - 67) = 1.0 = average income.

Nominal rate of return which must be achieved over the entirety of accumulation:
To 67 from 27, super guarantee -0.115 [- = into fund], multiple of average income at retirement 30, inflation 3%:
= (1 + RATE((67 - 27), -0.115, 0, 30)) * (1 + 3%) - 1
= 11.27% / y.

Current super guarantee: 11.5%.

Dudley
November 11, 2024

adequate super at retirement expressed in units of real average income, another way:
To 87, from 67, capital withdrawal / y 1, future value 10:
= PV(0%, (87 - 67), 1, 10)
= 30 times average income / y

Former Treasury policy maker
November 11, 2024

Except its not "11.5% taken out" of people's salaries. It's on top of their wages or salaries.. Do you really think that if we didn't have our super system that everyone's take home pay would be 11,5% higher than it is?
No. And speaking personally, every SGC increase I've had has increased my super contributions without reducing my weekly pay packet because it's on my employer to pick it up.

Dudley
November 11, 2024

'its not "11.5% taken out" of people's salaries':

Out of 'Total Compensation' for some,
In addition to 'Wages' for others,
according to how their employment contract states it.

Either way is a cost to employer who must also pay administration costs and payroll tax.

Disgruntled
November 11, 2024

For most, wages would be higher as SGC is taken into account when pay rises are given, it's still a cost to business..

Giving a $50pw pay rise or $45 pay rise and 11.5% into SGC is the same for the company..

(Dudley, I'm using rounding for simplification)

Many companies when they do pay rise calculations take that SGC into account so you only get the $45 to account for the SGC, you don't get the $50 and the SGC

Disgruntled
November 11, 2024

Blaming falling home ownership on the SGC is a bit of a stretch.

There are multiple reasons for home ownership decline and whilst the decline is low averaged, declines are quite large in specific age groups.

Cost of living

Poor wage growth

Large Capital Value increases in major cities (would likely be exasperated by higher incomes from lower SGC. Borrowing power is a multiple of income, Higher income = more borrowing power = Higher prices bid for same properties.

Nick Callil
November 11, 2024

G’day Ron. Allow me to question a couple of points in your argument:

1. you state "owner's equity investment has realised a return about double that of the super funds over the last 30 years". Looking forward, should compulsory super be discontinued (as seems to be your argument), surely the additional flow of savings channelled into residential housing would inflate housing values further and thereby depress future long-term returns? Or is residential housing a golden goose that will keep providing abnormally high returns forever?

2. Super for most Australians is a diversified investment vehicle. If we are seeing super substituting for home equity (noting that, on Harry’s numbers, super is still around only a third of residential housing on household balance sheets), doesn’t that shift represent a sensible diversification of investment risk for Australians’ retirement savings, in line with basic diversification principles?

Dudley
November 10, 2024

"When the SGC increased, my salary went down, the larger percentage super was taken from my salary so I was left with less take home pay.":

Reads as though your salary was unchanged and you saved more into super.

Jack
November 10, 2024

It’s entirely possible that rational people approaching retirement take on more debt, safe in the knowledge that the lump sum withdrawal from super is available in a few years to extinguish that debt.

Disgruntled
November 11, 2024

That was not the original purpose of Superannuation.

P Keating. Superannuation is to help people fund or part fund their retirement and to create a pool of national savings.

More recently to be defined as such.. the objective of super being 'to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way.

It also wasn't meant to be a wealth creation tool, well not in the sense of Howard and Costello allowing million dollar deposits into it.

Yes, there is the contribution allowance from selling your PPoR and a couple putting $300K into Super (downsizing contribution) but for most people this won't equate to million dollar plus balances.

Last time I looked it's around 200k Superannuation accounts with more than $2M balances. So it was mostly the already wealthy that could take advantage of the higher contribution limits and even no contribution limits that were available.

It became a tax minimisation strategy for the well off.

Personally I think they should cap Super balances at $3M (indexed) That is more than sufficient to fund ones retirement. (Up to $6M for a couple is plenty) Wealth over that amount should be out of the Superannuation system,

Jon Kalkman
November 10, 2024

Gosh, and we are told constantly that super is for retirement not for paying off the mortgage. Just think how much smaller the mortgage could be and how much quicker it could be paid off, if young people could access their super for housing earlier.

Yes they would have less super in retirement, just like a large proportion of retirees do now. The difference is, of course, the super fund would have lower super balances for longer from which to extract fees. Maybe that tells us something.

Dudley
November 10, 2024

"Just think how much smaller the mortgage could be and how much quicker it could be paid off, if young people could access their super for housing earlier.":

And how much that might increase prices and mortgages when super withdrawals as for home purchase (Initial_Equity) is multiplied by:
= (Initial_Mortgage + Initial_Equity) / Initial_Equity
= (80% + 20%) / 20%
= 5 times.

How much smaller mortgages (and home prices) might be if mortages were abolished and saving to buy all cash was 'empowered'.

GeorgeB
November 09, 2024

Spot on Disgruntled, and as my son recently found out when looking for a new job, it is not uncommon for employers to include the superannuation component in a “total” compensation package offered to a prospective employee.

Disgruntled
November 08, 2024

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Government in time will limit lump sum withdrawals to stop people using all their Superannuation to pay off the mortgage.

The Superannuation (Objective) Bill enshrines the objective of super being 'to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way.

Andy R
November 09, 2024

Or use proper lending standards and not allow banks to refinance persons PPOR beyond the government retirement age ;)




Dudley
November 09, 2024

"Or use proper lending standards":

Or use proper saving standards to allow people to buy homes with cash - without borrowing.

Disgruntled
November 10, 2024

There is no retirement age though.

You can keep working as long as you are fit for work.

There is a pension age but it's not compulsory to go on a pension at that age.

Peter C
November 10, 2024

Personally I think your proposal is wrong. I got a 30 year loan at the age of 59. I was on long service leave pending retirement at the time and I retired once I turned 60. Naturally I did not intend to work until I was 89.
I could have withdrawn money from my super fund to pay off the mortgage but that did not make financial sense.
Instead I retired at 60 and commenced a tax free account based pension.
I worked out the (tax free) return on my super over the longer term would be higher than the interest payments on my admittedly small mortgage. Of course, as I continue to make repayments the interest burden reduces.
So far the strategy has worked and my super balance has grown whilst taking a pension and my mortgage has reduced, and thanks to paying more than the minimum I am a couple of years ahead on my repayments.
I also have some assets outside of super earning me income and I am slowly selling these and using the proceeds to pay off the mortgage. The 30 year loan will be paid off in fewer than 15 years.
All this could not have been achieved if I was not able to take out a 30 year loan at 59.



Disgruntled
November 11, 2024

Peter C Which financial institution did you manage to secure a mortgage from at that age?

I ask because I am 57 and intend to retire at 60 when I can access my Superannuation.

I have a significant Superannuation balance and am weighing up my options.

Keep all my Superannuation and continue to rent post retirement date.

Purchase a PPoR with some of the funds from Superannuation, reduced income but more security

Borrow around 50% of a PPoR and fund payments with income from Super. (sufficient balance to have an exit strategy) However I have been told it is difficult to get financing when retired on a Super Pension as Banks typically don't see it as Income in the normal sense, IE Income derived from working and taxable.

OldbutSane
November 10, 2024

More importantly it will stop retirees spending it all on travel, home improvements, depreciable assets (cars, caravans) etc, so they still get a pension. The sooner the family house is included in the pension assets test the fairer the system will be.

Sketchp
November 10, 2024

I don’t think that’s happening any time soon.
Govts like to get re-elected!

Dudley
November 10, 2024

"The sooner the family house is included in the pension assets test the fairer the system will be.":

Abolishing the Age Pension Asset and Income Tests would be fairest to all, especially those who pay for it all.

Disgruntled
November 11, 2024

OldbutSane

Including the family home in Asset and income test for pension purposes has been mooted, property above a certain value and area related as possible calculation base line.

IE A property in Sydney or Melbourne would have a higher dollar amount than one say in Broken Hill

James
November 11, 2024

@OldbutSane: you're obviously a fan of big government micromanaging our lives! The deal is super is compulsory and in return for a concessional tax rate on contributions and earnings access is denied until preservation age. That's it, no mention of NOT being able to withdraw the lot and spend as desired or put in all into bank accounts or even under the mattress, if that's your desire!

It's our money, not the governments. Lest they forget!

If this really upsets you, then I guess very wealthy parents getting childcare support, the non means tested NDIS monster, bloated commonwealth and state public services sucking up inordinate sums of tax payer money, and many other wasteful, vote buying boondoggles government indulges in.

OldbutSane
November 12, 2024

Actually stopping lump sums will do nothing to stop people taking their super and paying off the mortgage. Why? Because Costello changed to sensible rule that limited pension withdrawals and made it so you could take all your super out as a pension payment!

And, by the way, this is absolutely no justification for suggesting those below retirement age should be able to access super to buy a house/pay a mortgage. It's a problem with the super lump sum and pension rules that needs fixing. Perhaps count the lump sum/excess pension payment as an asset for 10 years for the pension assets test?

Also many comments suggest a super lump sum shouldn't be used to pay off a mortgage, but what difference does it make if you blow you lump sum on an overseas holiday or new furniture (given the generous "fire sale" values applied by Centrelink). As long as the family home is not included in the pension assets test the system will be unfair.

And as I've said before if you are desperate to get a part pension (not sure why this is so important) your best strategy is to put as much into your house, keep enough cash to let you get the age pension, use that to top up your pension then sell down every 10 years or so to top up your cash reserves.

Carolyn
November 08, 2024

An alternative not mentioned, and that I have seen implemented from time to time, is the sale of the large family home (generally speaking) and the move to a property that is smaller and aligns with a retirement lifestyle. This clears the outstanding mortgage & retains money in super to fund a good lifestyle in retirement. Ceasing work means that wanting a location 'close' to employment is eliminated, allowing people to relocate to an area they may not previously consider due to the commute.

Further, banks/brokers are issuing 30 year loans to people who are 50 years of age, who theoretically have 17 years of employment ahead of them. Unless they are high income earners, the bank sees the exit strategy to be property sale or lump sum withdrawal from super. Often, this is not clear to individuals who are older who are 'surprised' to be told to significantly increase their mortgage payments to ensure the loan is repaid by age 65 / 67.

Dudley
November 07, 2024

"Figure 2: Household debt as a percentage of disposable income":

Nothing that a sustained dose of large, after tax, after inflation, interest rates would not solve.

"median homeowning 60 – 64-year-old couples in APRA-regulated funds, with combined super balances closer to $400,000, material mortgage debt at retirement":

Super to extinguish mortgage, Age Pension, no worries until mortality cliff at 87.

Jack
November 07, 2024

Housing debt for retirees is less of an issue now than it will be in 10-15 yrs time. It makes you wonder though why there was so little resistance to recent increases in superannuation contributions. It's forced people to take on even more leverage than they would have otherwise.

Andy
November 08, 2024

Increases in superannuation contributions are borne by employers, not employees. No employee has had their ability to repay their mortgage reduced by an increase in Superannuation Guarantee Contributions. There is a disturbing level of misinformed opinion (misinformation ?) purporting that increases in the percentage of SGC are debited from employees' earnings, when in fact those increases are an additional nett cost to their employer.

Disgruntled
November 09, 2024

I disagree, on some level anyway. When the EBA is up for renegotiation at the workplace, the company are already counting the SGC cost in the calculations for the pay rise.

Janine
November 10, 2024

Are increases really borne by employees? When the SGC increased, my salary went down, the larger percentage super was taken from my salary so I was left with less take home pay.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

The sheer hypocrisy of different access to super rules

Is 'The Great Australian Dream' a sham?

Is the Retirement Income Covenant really the right answer?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Vale Graham Hand

It’s with heavy hearts that we announce Firstlinks’ co-founder and former Managing Editor, Graham Hand, has died aged 66. Graham was a legendary figure in the finance industry and here are three tributes to him.

Warren Buffett is preparing for a bear market. Should you?

Berkshire Hathaway’s third quarter earnings update reveals Buffett is selling stocks and building record cash reserves. Here’s a look at his track record in calling market tops and whether you should follow his lead and dial down risk.

US election implications for investors and Australia

The return of Donald Trump to the US presidency brings the prospect of more US tax cuts and deregulation, but also more tariff hikes, trade wars and policy uncertainty. Here's what it means for markets going forward.

Avoiding wealth transfer pitfalls

Australia is in the early throes of an intergenerational wealth transfer worth an estimated $3.5 trillion. Here's a case study highlighting some of the challenges with transferring wealth between generations.

Taxpayers betrayed by Future Fund debacle

The Future Fund's original purpose was to meet the unfunded liabilities of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. These liabilities have ballooned to an estimated $290 billion and taxpayers continue to be treated like fools.

The rising tension between housing debt and retirement balances

Australians are taking more mortgage debt into their 60s than ever before. Retirement planning assumptions haven’t adapted and could result in future income projections that ultimately disappoint retirees.

Latest Updates

Shares

Australian stocks will crush housing over the next decade, one year on

Last year, I wrote an article suggesting returns from ASX stocks would trample those from housing over the next decade. One year later, this is an update on how that forecast is going and what's changed since.

Superannuation

Addressing the gender super gap

The harsh reality is that most women retire with significantly less superannuation than men. There are many reasons for the gender super gap and here are some possible solutions to fix the long-running issue.

Superannuation

Meg on SMSFs: Where are the risks in our major super sectors?

Given the amount of money in super, it’s not surprising that there is a lot of focus on risk. SMSFs are often portrayed as the riskier option for the community as a whole, but does that tell the full story?

Superannuation

Global pension reforms and how Australia can improve

With plans to retire next year, Mercer's David Knox looks back at the global pension index he helped create, the key trends and developments since inception, and what Australia can to do to get better.

Shares

Cyclical stocks will drive markets higher in 2025

Magellan's Head of Global Equities, Arvid Streimann, thinks that although stock price momentum will slow next year, cyclical companies will lead the pack. He outlines the risks to his forecast and the stocks he likes best.

Economy

How this GDP per capita recession compares to history

GDP was 0.3% for last quarter but the real story is this was Australia’s seventh consecutive quarter of negative GDP per capita growth. How does this economic drought compare to past ones, and what can we expect in future?

Investing

The mispriced investment opportunity in global defence

Markets benefitted from peace for 40 years, but a military resurgence is now underway, fuelled by geopolitical tensions and technological advancements. Defence spending is soaring, offering potential opportunities for investors.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.