Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 3

Do we really need superannuation?

It seems that no matter which way we turn, the government, regardless of which side of politics is in at the time, is stuck in a conundrum. As a nation, we have been told that the tax payer will not fund all our retirement, so we must save for ourselves, but the government has found it difficult to resist the temptation to increase superannuation taxes or wind back contribution limits.

Back in 1983, the Labor Government formalised the tax system on super and, with the cooperation of unions, started 3% award super (non-compulsory at that time). The framework commenced for a compulsory superannuation system which took 10 years to implement. We are better as a nation for it. Our country started down the path of a savings-based future rather than debt-based which we were facing in the days of the ‘banana republic’.

The superannuation era is therefore relatively new for Australia. Compulsory super is only 20 years old, or just one generation. In previous generations, the first investment people made was usually in their own home. This is no longer true. The day someone enters the workforce, their first investment is the 9% of their salary that goes into super. People who are entering the workforce today are the first generation born into compulsory super. We used to be told by our grandparents that in order to retire with the same lifestyle as when you were working, you needed to put away 10% of what you earned. It is little wonder that compulsory super will soon be at that level.

So do we need super? What really is a retirement asset? It’s not just me asking these questions. This was a focus of both the Henry Tax Review and the Cooper Review of superannuation.

A confronting statistic is that for every person on the age pension, we currently have about 7 people employed, but this number will fall significantly over coming decades, reaching about 3.5 people by 2042. After that, it is not expected to fall substantially more because the Baby Boomers will have passed away in large numbers by 2050, and the Gen Xers experienced a birth rate of less than two (ie there were fewer children than parents). Life expectancy depends on many factors such as the extent of further advances in medical science or rising obesity, but we know for certain that we will have a significant retirement funding problem for at least the next 30 years.

To put the outlay into perspective, the age pension for a male retiring at age 65 until normal life expectancy has a net present value cost of $400,000. In addition, it costs $440,000 for health benefits, giving $840,000 in total. This is our current age pension which we are told meets only subsistence living standards. Women are more expensive (no, not shoes!) because they are eligible for the age pension at a younger age and live longer.

We need super to reduce the future tax burden on those employed. Incentives must be provided to help us finance the next 30 years, targeted towards the retirees who this period directly affects. Otherwise, the remaining people who are in the work force will not be able to afford the increased tax required to fund the support system. Do we really want to create a nation where taxes are so high that there is no incentive to succeed, prosper and develop? There is benefit in being a tax payer if the money is well spent, and we must be careful to maintain the balance between overtaxing and taxation which creates value. This is a fine line.

Tax is inevitable, however, our administrators seem to have forgotten that our superannuation system is there to build a retirement asset. The legislative structure of our superannuation pension system says that all the money (plus or minus performance gains or losses) in the fund will be paid back to the people who put it in there and spent over their lifetime. Legislation entrenched that in the Simple Super changes in 2007. However, our age pension system needs to change to ensure people exhaust their own resources before drawing on tax-financed benefits. Tough call but change is needed. The Henry Review discussed this but no one was prepared to confront it.

There is no doubt that a larger tax base will be required over the next 30 years, but where from is the key. There are clear political problems in most alternative revenue raisers, such as an increase in the GST. For example, a 2% change in GST would fund the large majority of the current expenditure proposals but that’s not being considered.

The face of super is changing and will continue to do so. The expectation by 2020 is that we will have $3 trillion in super. Superannuation investments will change. We are likely have access to assets that we did not have before, such as an efficient mechanism for all super funds to invest in government or corporate bonds, or infrastructure projects, or investments that provide natural income streams rather than life offices actuarially creating them in a volatile market. We will have the ability through super to fund all of our banks’ home loans without foreign borrowing. Everyone is learning how collaboratively we can work together to ensure an effective investment and retirement system that benefits all.

So do we need super? Yes, absolutely. We can fund, grow and build a better nation together. We can better provide for the retirement of our people and reduce the burden on workers to support their forebears. Encouraging people to look after themselves, then taxing them for doing so, is not an appropriate answer.

The next five years of superannuation will be the most important of the coming 30 year conundrum. Let’s hope our legislators listen to all sides and create a balanced view.

 

Andrew Bloore is Chief Executive Officer of SuperIQ, a provider of administrative services for Self Managed Super Funds.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Designing a world-class post-retirement system

Why systemic risks from ‘Big Super’ may be overplayed

Should I pay off the mortgage or top up my superannuation?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.