Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 528

Super concessions to overtake Age Pension costs

My father would be turning in his grave.

Jack grew up in Birdsville, served in WW2 and settled down in suburban Melbourne to raise a family, supporting us by his work as a carpenter. He was big on social equity, having a go, and the government’s responsibility to ensure everyone got a fair go.

So what would he make of the recent Intergenerational Report (IGR)? I suspect he’d see straight through the smoke and mirrors and call it for what it is. A portrait of a retrograde step for the vast majority of older Australians.

How we got here

How is it a retrograde step? First some background.

At this year’s National Press Club launch of the 2023 IGR, both ABC political journalist Laura Tingle and The Conversation’s Peter Martin made joking references to the fact that they had been around way back in 2002 when the first of the series of IGRs was released. I was reporting on retirement income way back then as well.

Let’s face it, regardless of your politics, the establishment of the first IGR was a visionary initiative by the then Treasurer Peter Costello. Such long-term thinking was unusual in Australia and badly needed, but few understood that before the first report was released. Since then, subsequent IGRs have succeeded in informing us of the key indicators we need to make a judgement whether the Australian economy is future fit across the next 40 years.

Most of the IGRs have been sincere attempts to project those future trends which will have the highest impact on the Australian economy. Despite a couple of more overtly political versions, including an at times seemingly willful refusal to even countenance the effect of climate change, the IGRs provide analysis based on statistics which allow us to future gaze and make useful policy changes to meet that future. They often also spark useful debate.

And that has happened at high volume this year. I don’t recall any previous IGR being so selectively leaked in advance, nor receiving such ongoing coverage in mainstream media. That’s a good thing as the major changes needed to shore up our budgets will need popular buy-in.

But this article is not about the five key aspects in the 2023 IGR – namely population ageing, digital and data technology, climate change, increased demand for care and support services and an increased geopolitical risk and fragmentation.

My interest is in exploring the predictions of the sustainability of our retirement income system.

The super sleight of hand

And here’s where I believe we are victims of a certain sleight of hand. If we listen to the words of Treasurer Jim Chalmers and read the summary both in the IGR and media commentary, we can all relax: retirement income is AOK.

That view is based upon a graph which shows the percentage of GDP needed to fund the Age Pension gradually decreasing (from 2.3% of GDP 2022-23 to 2.0% 2062-63). This will happen while total super balances rise over the same 40 year period, from 116% of GDP to a whopping 218%.

And that, of course, leads to statements by the Treasurer that ‘super is delivering on its promise, providing a better retirement for more Australians …’

And headlines such as that in The Australian Financial Review, where super is portrayed as a ‘saviour’ by Phillip Coorey when he declares: ‘Super to ease Age Pension budget burden over next 40 years.’.

But hang on a minute.

The concessions on super (contributions and earnings) are set to increase from 1.9% of GDP 2022-23 to 2.4% in 2062-63. These concessions, as has been predicted by the Australian Institute, will overtake the cost of the Age Pension in the 2040s.

Let’s think about this. Australia already has one of the lowest outlays on its Age Pension (as a proportion of GDP) in the OECD. This is set to reduce even more as super will ‘pick up the slack’. But what will actually happen is that we will spend more on supporting super than on the Age Pension.

Favouring those with more super

Super has worked well but it is far from equitable. The mandated contribution (currently 11%) is calculated as a proportion of wages or salaries. If you earn $50,000 per annum, the contribution is $5,500 per annum. If you earn $200,000 per annum, the yearly contribution will be a minimum of $22,000. Why a minimum? Because unlike your neighbour on $50,000, you will probably have enough discretionary income to consider salary sacrifice contributions.

And you’ll thereby enjoy further benefits from concessions along the way. In the world of super concessions, the more you have, the more you get. Yes, there has been an attempt to cap some of this largesse with the March 2023 ‘Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions’ increase with an additional 15% tax on balances over $3 million, but this is nibbling at the edges.

Meanwhile the base rate of the Age Pension has not been adjusted since the Rudd Government legislated a $30 increase in 2009, some 15 years ago (it's still gone up via indexation). Those on a full Age Pension who rent have been living well below the poverty line for years. Given the current 10% year-on-year increase in rents, their situation is worsening. The rapid increase in homelessness for women aged 55 or over is uncomfortable evidence of this lack of basic shelter.

Yet the Australia Institute reports that the top 20% of earners receive 50% of the benefits of super concessions, with men receiving 71.6% of these benefits.

Put simply, the gap between rich and poor in Australia continues to widen. This is then exacerbated by a fundamentally skewed system of reward for higher super balances in retirement.

I doubt Jack would have seen this as fair go at all.

 

Kaye Fallick is Founder of STAYINGconnected website and SuperConnected enews. She has been a commentator on retirement income and ageing demographics since 1999. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any person.

 

36 Comments
Bill
October 30, 2023

As far as I am aware, you CAN take whatever you like out of your superannuation if you are in pension phase.

Vincent
October 18, 2023

Change the system! Someone in the comments raised the point of the massive cost of administering our pension system. It is a horrendous expense on the economy (see chart 7.21), and I would suspect the Govt. would be very coy in disclosing just what that dollar cost would be, it being the complex and convoluted system that it is.
There is a far better option. If you look at the New Zealand system, it is far more simple. Every tax payer, on reaching pension age, automatically moves on to the pension scheme and from that point on, receives their fortnightly pension payments. The net amount paid is the full pension amount less whatever the recipients tax rate is, or was, prior to reaching pension age.
If the pensioner's income falls below the threshold, then they receive the full pension. If they continue working, or have income from other sources, they are taxed at their normal rate. So, if the pensioner is wealthy or poor, retires, or continues working, everyone is treated equally. In addition, there is no 'Means test' rubbish, so that eliminates any stress approaching pension age. It is a smooth and seamless transition.
The benefits are huge. Folks approaching pension age have no concerns or stress as to what they should, or should not do, life just carries on with the knowledge that they will be taxed at their normal rate.
The administrative cost saving to the Govt. is massive.
Pensioners can remain in the workforce, with no concerns, for as long as they wish, being taxed at whatever their threshold rate is. And, by staying in the workforce, they continue to pay tax into the Govt coffers!
Simple, refined, cost effective, and beneficial to both parties.


Ben Haines
October 09, 2023

The article does not even touch on the considerable difference between an actual expenditure (like a pension) and a theoretical cost of a potential tax revenue forgone (such as "superannuation tax concessions").

John
October 07, 2023

When claiming that superannuation tax concessions are "favouring those with more super" because they get greater tax concessions, it would be more balanced to also observe that the income tax system is "favouring those with less income" because they pay less tax. See how ridiculous the former sounds once you hear the latter? The point is that "those with more super" got there through paying more tax, due to their higher average income enabling higher superannuation contributions. So, the current system seems reasonably fair over a lifetime, unless you are a one-eyed socialist re-distributor.

The Carer
September 30, 2023

What about people who are full time carers? Not all of us are going to have huge amounts of money in super when we get to 67 years of age. Carers save the government and the community billions of dollars each year but we do not get super. I have a super balance of about $30K. I'm in my mid 50's and with the money that the government pays full time carers there is no hope for us. It would be so nice to have $3 million in my super. I'll just have to dream on. The only option left for people like me is the pension.

Dianne marcus
September 30, 2023

I agree with you. I am a full time carer, caring for my son for 25 years. Also I cared for my husband for 20 years with a very long illness who passed away. Us carers go without ourselves to care for the people we love. We really get very little to live on and u don't save anything. It's sad the government only thinks of themselves.love to put them in our shoes. We need more money to survive. When will the goverment understand? It's a different story when u have a caring job 8 hours a day compared with people like us 24 a day. Yet people who care as a job 8 hours a day get paid heaps more. Why can't the 24 hour carers get paid more. Very unfair and when we retire we get nothing more than a old age pension.

Peter
October 01, 2023

Carers should be forever grateful to the taxpayer for funding. Is it the taxpayers responsibility to compensate you because you have a sick, disabled or aged relative? Where does it stop, enough is never enough and yet you want more and more. 

Sandra de ‘Fries
October 01, 2023

I totally Agree. Absolutely appalling. The government in this country should be ashamed with itself. I was actually a disability support worker for approximately 12 years and we DID get paid very well at the time that is for sure. I am now unfortunately on the aged pension and what a difference it is to have to manage on. I take my hat off to you to think you are caring and have cared for your loved ones at home instead of putting them into a group home or similar. People like yourselves should be “Looked After” by this Government NOT penalised.

Sean
October 02, 2023

Totally agree.
Under NDIS the person who takes my Son for a few hours is paid around $63 an hour ( on ABN) but as a carer you are paid around $5 an hour.

Jake
September 30, 2023

Peter, you clearly haven't thought through what you are saying. If relatives don't take care of the ill at home, these people will end up at aged care facilities and others, which will cost multiples more.

It's called second order thinking.

Davidy
October 02, 2023

Wow Peter, pretty harsh statement there and really not acceptable on a forum like this

Kaye
October 04, 2023

I think this is a really important point - the caregivers are so often sidelined by a system that recognises paid work. Yet it is often the unpaid work that keeps the wheels of society turning. I am not sure how this can be addressed, but noticing it and sparking a conversation is at least a start ...

Chris
October 01, 2023

Having super concessions exceed the pension is on the face of it fantastic. Imagine everyone had adequate super and nobody needed the pension. That would be great right? 

Geoff R
October 02, 2023

Chris has nailed it. Having super concessions exceed the pension spend is something to be celebrated. And yet we see articles like this implying it is a bad thing.

Carolyn
January 06, 2024

Exactly the government saves a fortune by having carers do the hard slog but leaves them high a and dry at retirement.

Dan
September 30, 2023

Australia’s gap between rich and poor is among the lowest in the world. With a gini co-efficient of 0.32, the author should direct her outrage elsewhere

Jon Kalkman
September 30, 2023

Super was designed to reduce the cost of the age pension, that’s why we have compulsory super. So we shouldn’t be surprised to see the cost of super increasing as the cost of the age pension decreases.

The Retirement Income Review identified the lifetime government support for the retirement income system and aggregated the cost to the taxpayer of the age pension and the tax concessions to super for individuals, analysed by income percentiles. As people on lower incomes receive more age pension and those on higher incomes receive more tax concessions to their super, it found that the total cost to the taxpayer is almost constant for all incomes up to the 80th income percentile. However, compared to the government support provided to the lower income levels, the top 20% of incomes receive almost twice as much. (page 42).

For the IGR, nothing has changed and it arrived at the same conclusion. The fact remains that the volume of these tax concessions flowing to high income individuals distorts the debate about the perceived inequitable distribution of tax concessions flowing to super as a whole.

To address this issue, the government has announced a proposal to subject super balances above $3 million to an additional tax. The proposed methodology is highly contentious because it proposes a tax on unrealised capital gains and the threshold is not indexed. But the effect of this initiative will be to exclusively impact the super tax concessions flowing to high income earners. One of the consequences, intended or otherwise, may be to strongly encourage people to remove money from super altogether. Such a reduction in tax concessions is hardly “nibbling the edges”.

As the legislation has not yet passed, it is impossible to predict the effect it will have on reducing the government support for the retirement of high income earners. Until then, it would be wise to reserve judgement on the comparative costs to the taxpayer, of the age pension and tax concessions to super.

Gwen
October 01, 2023

The government already administers a tax on unrealised capital gains, which are also unrealisable capital gains by indexing the value of a residence which is rented by an elderly part pensioner to the mother of a high needs great-grandchild. The part pension of the elderly person is reduced every time Centrelink declares that the Market Value of that property has risen.
How's that for Capital Gains Tax?
No amount of arguing has altered the mindset of any at all. Every Centrelink contact spoken to has seen the unfair advantage taken by Treasury but the indexation still occurs. No wonder Centrelink and Medicare workers are poised to go on Strike

Lisa
October 02, 2023

Does the mother of the high needs great grandchild get Centrelink rent assistance to help pay the great grandmother her rent? If the great grandmother didn't want her pension reduced she should have gifted the property years ago.

Mr Ed
September 30, 2023

Tell 'em they're dreaming

James
September 29, 2023

"Put simply, the gap between rich and poor in Australia continues to widen. This is then exacerbated by a fundamentally skewed system of reward for higher super balances in retirement."

For goodness sakes! You earn more, you pay a lot more tax under our progressive tax system but yes you have more left over than lower income earners and more gets paid into your super! So what?

Our system should provide equal opportunity, a fair and good level of protection for the poor and vulnerable but not guarantee equal outcomes! We are not a socialist country!

Of more concern is the fact that government and other agencies are eying off your super to fund national age care costs or worse control what you get to spend your super on!

From an AFR article 28 Sep 23 titled "Government advances plans to use Super for Aged Care":

"The Albanese government has invited superannuation industry representatives to the next meeting of its aged care task force, as it steps up its push for the use of retirement savings to help meet the aged care funding challenge....."

"While the government is open to suggestions on what role super funds can play, options under consideration range from pressing for more direct investment in the aged care sector, to designing specific insurance products, to hypothecating a portion of super to fund a retirees’ aged care....."

"The taskforce has already met three times and considered a tax increase to fund aged care, and also a user pays system in which those with the means would pay more, especially for higher quality care...."

"An issues paper released by the Aged and Community Care Providers Association has canvassed several options including an inheritance tax on super if not used for retirement; additional superannuation contributions specifically to fund aged care and; using the super system to quarantine money for age care, either voluntarily, using compulsion or by offering incentives."

Well off people already pay considerably more for aged care (it is means tested) and will no doubt pay more once capped thresholds are adjusted. Changes beyond this are probably excessive!

And you thought it was your money!!!!!

Jason Mc
October 01, 2023

There's plenty of government spending on NIAA and it's offshoots that is obviously achieving little. How about halving that and sorting aged care instead. More taxes not needed......how about spending wiser.

Rev171
September 29, 2023

George B, your contribution is one of the most cogent I have ever read here. It has made me reconsider many assumptions I had made that (after reading your contribution) seem inadequately analysed. I shall read more widely and, quite possibly, revise my opinion.

In any case, thanks for your data supported and clear arguments, which stands in happy contrast to the poorly reasoned biases that masquerade as analysis in some of the commentary to be found here. Give away cliques:

Any reference to green-left political correctness socialism (which is political caricature in the Australian context and is simply plagiarising Sky after dark); lauding any prominent politician (irrespective of party); "doing it tough" (don't we all - that's the human condition); 17% interest rates (join the club sister); "Getting to keep your own (hard earned) money" usually followed by implications of treasury theft/government largesse (tabloid vaudeville writ large). Fellow traveller is implicit downward envy of pensioners ('nuff said), not to mention the almost total acknowledgement of luck in one's life. Just saying.

Anyway, thanks again George B, food for thought.

Georgina Cane
September 29, 2023

You are giving equivalence to forgone revenue (ie when the government kindly chooses to let us keep some of our money without taxation) with the direct cost of actually paying out pensions. The reduced cost of the age pension, which is decreasing because of the growth in super savings, must also be more fulsomely acknowledge. With population growth out to 2062 as shown in the graph what does the author think would happen to the pension spend (shown as decreasing) if there was less super saved.

Kelvin Schmidt
September 29, 2023

You have hit the nail on the head. But it is not the only occasion that we see that false comparison. One frequently hears for example refsrences to a tax cut as "a spend".
It might be accurate for the purposes of a double entry a counting system, but it is a misrepresentation - perhaps intentionally - that it is one and the same. But is not. One (a ctax cut) is a measure of relief from what the citizen is paying the Government. The other is an actual spend by the Government to a citizen.
And this talk in relation to Superannuation Concessions and Pension Payments is also a misrepresentation.
That is not to say that it is wrong to make a particular level of Pension Payments is wrong - or that it is right or wrong to have a particular level of Superanuation Concessions - it is just to say it is wrong - and a misrepresentation to make the comparison as it presented.

Andrew Smith
September 29, 2023

Agree, super settings can be changed, but the overarching idea in my opinion is to protect budgets into the future with more retirees tugging on the same for more services, especially health; especially as the two decade baby boomer 'bomb' hits retirement (preceded by oldies living longer).

In a parallel universe our misunderstood 'immigration' headlines and numbers, reflect increased temporary churn over of long term residents (12/16+ month residency test), especially international students, the majority will depart after contributing to demand, keeping working age cohort up/young and paying taxes to support budgets; 'net financial contributors'.

Alternatives are increasing PAYE taxes (on a declining permanent working age cohort), corporate or GST, or a decline in services and delivery?

Jack
September 29, 2023

From the government’s viewpoint there is an equivalence. A dollar paid out on age pension is the same as a dollar not collected through a tax concession. The opposite is true for the individual - a dollar not received in age pension is the same as a dollar paid in tax. I am a self-funded retiree with a tax-free pension from my super fund. I don’t pay tax but I also don’t receive an age pension. Therefore, I am saving the taxpayer $28,500 per year for a single age pension. So I’m paying the same tax as an employee earning more than $120,000.

To illustrate, imagine the age pension was paid to everyone over age 67 regardless of assets and the age pension and super pension were combined and taxed as normal income. My total income would then be less than $120,000. I would be better off because I would pay less tax then than I do now.

Please don’t try to tell that self-funded retirees pay no tax.

Tina Routh
September 29, 2023

. I am in the same position as you. Thank you for your excellent explanations

Dudley
September 30, 2023

"saving the taxpayer $28,500 per year for a single age pension" ... "paying the same tax as an employee earning more than $120,000":

$28,514.20 / y
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-age-pension-you-can-get?context=22526

Loss of Age Pension equivalent to tax on personal income of:
Gross $110,282.00 y
Tax $28,514.64
Net $81,767.71 / y
https://paycalculator.com.au/

James
September 30, 2023

"Therefore, I am saving the taxpayer $28,500 per year for a single age pension."

Probably a lot more by the time you factor in Centrelink's eligibility assessment, administration, on going monitoring and adjustments to self reported changes etc.

Has anyone ever been able to quantify the "cost" of the aged pension administration bureaucracy?

Excellent explanation by the way Jack!

Heather Wilson
September 30, 2023

We should have a universal pension system like the Canadian one, everyone contributes and everyone receives a pension on retirement and it is fully taxed and by extension we all contribute to Medicare.

June
September 29, 2023

Wouldn't it be great if politics could be taken out of the equation of superannuation and provision for retirement? We spent much of our working life without much access to super, then did our best to maximise what we could within the rules, when we could, so that not only could we provide our own "dignified" retirement, but that retirement would not be funded by the Government. I note Ms Fallick's comments on a working class and patriotic background and would venture that many of us also fit this mould.....we can remember a time when it was either fuel for the car, or food for the table -- and that was 50 years ago! The fuel won, to get to work, pending next pay packet and no buses to catch. Shortly thereafter, when we could afford to build after borrowing a deposit from family, we were paying 17% mortgage interest. No maternity leave, no paternity leave, definitely no "pawternity" leave and child endowment of $2. Is it only me who is extremely frustrated with comments about how we should all be on the same footing? Join your local bowls club and really see retirement, volunteering, spending and scrimping and going without in action!

Argus
September 28, 2023

Some of the factors that need to be considered here is to get away from the socialist perspective and recognise the fact that a disproportionate amount of taxes paid by men that as a consequence the benefits of tax concessions in superannuation also flow to men.

It should also be noted that the majority of men are married to women and that families consider superannuation income as joint income.

In addition the reduction in age pension outlays is a reflection of a higher level of superannuation saving across the spectrum and lower reliance on the residual pension income over time.

Of course anything emanating from the Australia Institute will have a green left bias.

Finally the aged pension is indexed and sheltered from any negative market impact on superannuation balances.

Cam
September 28, 2023

I reckon everyone agrees with the issue. Just not the solution of the current Government.
Maybe an idea is to ask the industry and public for ideas and listen.

Disgruntled
September 28, 2023

If you have more than $3M in Superannuation, you should be allowed to take that extra out of Superannuation regardless of age.

CNR
January 27, 2024

.....but wasn't it taxed less going in and taxed less on its earnings (than your marginal rate) ?

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Super wars: who needs to do what for retirees?

Time to smash the retirement nest egg - but how?

What I know now about retirement income

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.