Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 342

Who does compulsory superannuation really benefit?

Whether the Government should be increasing the superannuation guarantee (SG) from 9.5% to 12% has become a topic of hot debate. Our research finds that whether a higher SG would benefit most people is far from straightforward for two reasons.

First, the appropriate SG varies greatly across individuals. We think this supports an argument for more flexibility rather than imposing a higher SG on everyone.

Second, the case for increasing the SG depends on what superannuation policy is trying to achieve. A clear case emerges if the aim is to replace the age pension, but not necessarily otherwise.

Super pushes money from pre-retirement to post-retirement

In a recent study (link below), we identify what might determine the ‘right’ level for the SG, and how it varies depending on the individual and assumptions. The analysis is conducted across nine income levels ranging from $30,000 to $150,000 and differing target spending levels. We apply existing rules that govern tax, superannuation and the pension. The table below presents selected estimates for the ‘optimal’ SG, although this is only a subset.

Our model focuses on the trade-off involved in saving via superannuation, which reduces money available pre-retirement but creates a benefit in terms of post-retirement income. Evaluating super as a trade-off is important. Focusing only on ‘how much super is needed’ to generate adequate income in retirement overlooks the possibility that some people might have better uses for the money.

For example, forcing lower income earners or women to place money in super need not make them better off if they are struggling to make ends meet or could use the funds to help buy a house during their working life.

‘Optimal’ SG estimates per income level and objectives

No single SG suits all

The table illustrates the wide range of SG estimates that emerges depending on income and other assumptions – anywhere between about 2% up to 20%. The lower SGs are associated with the ASFA modest income target which is 85%-90% covered by the pension plus supplements. The higher SGs exclude the pension.

Further, there are dimensions we don’t investigate that add to the potential differences across individuals, including household status, gender, assets outside of superannuation and homeownership. In particular, those who own a home obviously need a lot less income during retirement than those who have to pay rent.

The key point is that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ SG. Further, there is an asymmetry around the SG itself. Individuals can currently do nothing about an SG that is set too high but can contribute more if it is set too low. We think this adds up to a case for not forcing everyone to save more regardless but rather adding in some flexibility.

The SG might be better positioned as a default rather than a hard compulsion, while enhancing scope to vary contributions subject to limits that guard against people opting out too far.

Two conditions justify a higher SG for all

Our modelling also identifies two conditions under which increasing the SG would benefit the vast majority of Australians. Both relate to what the SG is trying to achieve, suggesting that the Government should settle the policy objectives before deciding whether to increase the SG to 12%.

The first condition would be using superannuation to replace the age pension. This implies getting as many people as possible to become self-funded retirees, with the pension acting purely as a safety net. Excluding the pension from our analysis indicates what savings are required without the pension, in which case an SG of 12% may not even be enough. The alternative is counting the pension as an income stream that is broadly available to all. In this event, the need to save for retirement is much lower because the pension supplies substantial income support, especially for lower income earners. Policy makers might be clear on whether the purpose of superannuation is either to substitute or to supplement the pension.

The second condition would be to ensure that people save enough to support themselves through retirement if things don’t pan out as expected, i.e. using superannuation as a self-insurance mechanism. There are three key risks that may lead to savings turning out to be insufficient:

  1. Living to a very old age so that the money runs out, also known as longevity risk.
  2. Retiring earlier than expected, such that contributions stop before the pension becomes available, thus creating a need to fund spending by running down savings. (Career breaks have similar effects, but there is the chance to catch up on super contributions later, and other income sources may be available such as unemployment benefits or paid maternity leave.)
  3. Low investment returns that impair the funds accumulated. The table reports results where we assume living to age 102, retiring at age 62 and lower returns by -1%.

We are not convinced that imposing a higher SG is the best way of addressing these risks. The problem is that requiring everyone to save more ‘just in case’ can result in over-saving if the feared risks do not eventuate. If the additional savings are not needed, then an individual’s pre-retirement standard of living would have been sacrificed without getting commensurate benefit, along with larger bequests for the children.

Other mechanisms to deal with these risks include social security and risk sharing amongst individuals. The latter are known as ‘pooling’ solutions and include annuities and various forms of member collectives. We would prefer to see policy makers explore these mechanisms.

The ‘who pays’ issue

A higher SG could be beneficial for some individuals if is paid for by employers rather than coming out of their take-home pay via some form of wage offset. However, this issue is far from straightforward. Evidence is mixed on whether the SG has been offset by lower wages in the past. And even if the employer pays in the first instance, where the burden ultimately falls is unclear. Profits taking a hit is one possibility, but others include the cost getting slated back to individuals if businesses increase prices or cut employment.


It makes more sense to add more flexibility to vary contributions rather than increase the SG. Further, the case for an across the board increase in the SG depends on what superannuation policy is trying to achieve. We see a clear argument if the aim is to replace the age pension, but otherwise the value of an increase is debatable.


Geoff Warren is Associate Professor at The Australian National University. This article draws on research undertaken in conjunction with Dr Gaurav Khemka and Yifu Tang. The full paper can be found here.


Tony G
February 03, 2020

I see the SG as a flawed policy that creates distortions and unfair outcomes. It should be dumped in favour of a one-size-fits-all non-means tested, non-assets tested NZ style old-age pension scheme. This arrangement will be very simple with no deeming rules, taper rates, Etc. and will probably not cost more than the tax concessions within the SG scheme that overwhelmingly go to the better off.

January 31, 2020

One of the problems with having variable rates for different people is that system will very quickly become incredibly complex and will be dismissed as too hard to figure out by the majority of the population, particularly with the government and regulators doing their best to drive up the cost of advice so that it isn’t affordable for most people. There are a lot of flaws with a one size fits all solution, but it does make it a lot easier to understand and administer.

Secondly, left to their own devices most people will save no more than they are forced to for retirement. So if we’re going to have a lower amount that people are forced to save, we’re going to end up with more people on the age pension, and will need to pay for that somehow.

Lastly, it seems pretty clear to me that no matter which party is in power over time they will continue to try to reduce the number of people receiving the age pension, and reduce the amount they are receiving. This will mean that people will have to fund their own retirement, and therefore having more money rather than less would be ideal.

So as much as I agree a one size fits all system has a number of problems, it’s better than a more complex system with variable contributions required.

Darryl Davies
February 06, 2020

Really well said Aussie HIFIRE, I agree with all your statements. I am a self made individual coming from a poor background to being rather well off from gaining an education & investing.

People from a poor social background will spend all there money from pay to pay. A gradual informed increase in Super for all is the way to go. Forget the flexibility argument it would be difficult, costly & frustrating to administer.

January 30, 2020

I quote from the article:
The problem is that requiring everyone to save more ‘just in case’ can result in over-saving if the
feared risks do not eventuate. If the additional savings are not needed, then an individual’s
pre-retirement standard of living would have been sacrificed without getting commensurate
benefit, along with larger bequests for the children.

Doesn’t this hit the nail on the head.

We know the life expectancy of our population peers.

We don’t know when any individual will die.

A cautious person will save, targeting a spend time horizon longer than the (average) life expectancy to ensure they are not adversely impacted by Survival Risk – that is, living longer than expected/planned and running out of money.

If we all behave like this then (approximately) half of us will die “too soon” and have over-saved.

The other (approximately) half may have savings to match their actual life.

Bottom line – it makes sense for all of us to save for that “longer” timeframe. On average, sensible retirees with savings capacity will save too much.

January 30, 2020

I agree with Greg's comments. I am one that saved for that "longer" timeframe only to experience the Government's legislative changes which reduced the SMSF non-taxable pension to a maximum of $1.6m (worth about the same as an Old Age Pension Handout at present interest rates). Self funding incentive reduced!
Superannuation is a bad deal for the lower paid worker who is likely to retire and draw the pension anyway! Locked away savings for such a worker makes his life much more of a struggle. If he could retire with a home mortgage paid off, then the pension might be ok.

Peter Bellanto
January 30, 2020

Does the concessional contribution limit increase from $25K when the SG increases from 9% ??

Kym Bailey
January 30, 2020

Terrific article.
Whilst we are looking at SG, is it about time the SGAA 1992 was given a make-over? It is rooted in the industrial age and in many ways has not moved with the times. It is complicated and too often, judicial interpretation is required (contractors v employees is top of the pops). The new addition, SG opt-out, is too complicated and reminds us all that the problem is the base legislation. It's tying hands behind backs.


Leave a Comment:



The elusive 12%: is superannuation at a turning point?

Helping your children build their super

What is the new work test exemption?


Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Welcome to Firstlinks Election Edition 458

At around 10.30pm on Saturday night, Scott Morrison called Anthony Albanese to concede defeat in the 2022 election. As voting continued the next day, it became likely that Labor would reach the magic number of 76 seats to form a majority government.   

  • 19 May 2022

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Latest Updates


Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?


Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.


Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.