News

NewsPension age to climb to 70, but progress on Super
Pension age to climb to 70, but progress on Super

Pension age to climb to 70, but progress on Super

Tags: Consumer Action
Last updated by Kayley Harris on

Most older Australians have worked hard all their lives and paid their taxes but now we’re being warned that the retirement age is (again) set to be lifted to 70. 

Ask anyone over 50 looking for work and they will tell you they want to keep working – if only they can find an appropriate job.

In 2015, then-Age Discrimination Minister Susan Ryan found that more than one in every 4 workers over 50 had been discriminated against because of their age which begs the question, what’s the point of raising the pension age to 70 if over 50’s can’t get a job?

Why is business not giving workers with experience and interest a go? Is it because companies maintain a very narrow view of what makes a quality applicant?

Or are we sabotaging ourselves? Older workers can fall for misconceptions by downplaying their energy and motivation so as to lower expectations.

A survey of over 10,000 people found the whole workplace benefits from a spread of ages. Older workers keep a steady pace during busy and quiet periods.

Meanwhile, there is some good news for those saving to fund their own retirement.

Federal Treasury has asked the Superannuation sector to prepare submissions for a review, known as MyRetirement.

When it comes retirement, most of us draw down on a lump sump payment as a regular income and often have a low standard of living and very lean lives because we fear running out of money, according to the Financial System Inquiry (2014).

So are there other options apart from lump sum payments?

The Actuaries Institute believes there should be more options rather than a “one size fits all” approach.

Andrew Boal, head of the Actuaries Institute’s retirement strategy group says it’s about thinking outside the square.

“People get to 50 and decide to think about retirement. We encourage consumers to get income projection statements so they have some idea of how much money they will have when they retire”

The superannuation industry faces the problem that people get to retirement and take a lump sum but don’t have a longevity projection, that is, no protection if they run out of money.

So how do we mitigate that risk?

From July 1, new laws will free up the Super industry for innovation. One of the proposed new products is a Deferred Lifetime Annuity. Basically, if you survive to 85, it will provide you with an income stream no matter how long you live, guaranteed.

Andrew Boal says people should be able to live a comfortable life in retirement and enjoy life without watching every cent. He says consultation is going on now with preliminary results due in 2018... watch this space

We’d love to hear your stories about your retirement planning. How you will cope if you can’t get the pension until 70? Are you worried about staying employed to this age? Do you feel like you’re on track to save enough for a comfortable self-funded retirement? Leave your comments below.

Any information contained in this article is general in nature and does not take account of your individual circumstances, objectives or needs. 

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
Pension age to climb to 70, but progress on Super

Share your views with other members. 

Want to leave a comment? or .
Read our moderation policy here.
Pauline
Pauline from VIC commented:

How do the workers who need to be fit and strong work until they are 70. I am thinking of the police, nurses and other workers who are very active in their daily jobs. 

George
George from NSW commented:

The whole idea of increasing Pension age to 70 absolutely stinks when people cannot have jobs, even if they are healthy & able. First step to stop Age discrimination is to fix the problems created / allowed by Govt by throwing people out of work - forced redundancies (for CEOs to increase their bonus & profits, often hand-in-hand with Outsourcing), Outsourcing to low-wage countries such as India / Philippines, 457 visas (or it's recently proposed substitute) preventing roles at all levels being available to locals, shutdown of most manufacturing (sent off to China). Besides that, how dare these politicians try to stuff everyone else, while they have nicely feathered their own nests for retirement See below: Link to see what current (new MPs since 2004) pollies get: http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits The current system allows them access to GREAT pensions at 55-60 years (latter age limit being phased in by 2025), with NO ASSETS or INCOME TESTS EITHER, after a mere 8 years service, and STARTING at $92,500 based on 50% of current salary of $185,000, and increasing with years of service to 75%!) - FOR LIFE. Also, they can have additional pensions if they are Ministers, etc. No justification whatsoever for their special pensions! Scrap their special pensions, and make them apply under the same rules as everyone else, or else ALL SITTING MEMBERS SHOULD BE VOTED OUT BEYOND ONE TERM to stop them becoming ENTITLED. 

George
George from NSW replied to George:

It would be much better if Age Pensions are paid to all from Age 65 with No Asset or Income tests, with all actual income above that fully taxed- at least for all who have paid taxes here for 20 years, . Those who do not qualify under this criteria could have current pension based on current tests. I think that would be fair to all, and massively reduce Centrelink costs. It's a furphy to suggest we can't afford pensions, Australia being the only advanced country not paying it to all. No problem with the funding if the moron politicians ensure fair taxes are collected from large companies & rich who minimise taxes, by ensuring a MINIMUM TAX is paid on Gross Income by all - similar to "Buffet's rule". 

Henry
Henry from SA commented:

It is nothing short of a disgrace that the Government intends to up the retirement to 70, and either party will do the same. Jobs are dwindling as we speak what with employment sources always cutting staff through advanced automation, robotics and a general efficiency drive. Furthermore hardly anyone is going to employ you when you're past 55 let alone past 65 and if they did, we'd be doing younger people whose future is at stake out of a job - I'd feel bad enough about shutting them out and I think they'd resent the oldies as well. Also, if the very rich were taxed properly and the high earners dropped their income significantly, this would free up enough money to pay what is a paltry pension anyway, to all eligible people 65 or more. I personally believe the Super system is a farce, only designed to protect the Governments of the day to not have to provide a more lucrative package for retirees, most of whom have diligently paid taxes throughout their working life and deserve to be generously catered for in their dusk years. As it is they've been virtually forced or even scared into banking considerable sums into Super, which has compromised their spending power in that time knowing that at maturity, these income streams only serve to lessen their pensions anyway! Give us a break. Once again, the whole system favours the well healed, who don't have to suffer the rigours of Super and any burden at retirement time. 

Julie
Julie from NSW commented:

It is all very well to look to the future for those coming up to retirement, what about the retirees who were hit by the asset changes. We made plans to retire in 1990 and directed our efforts to that end. What happened, the government, the government changed the rules and we lost 25% of our income. We saved our money and had invested in C B A shares to provide an income to supplement our savings & small superannuation funds. WATCH OUT THE GOVERNMENT WILL CHANGE THE RULES AGAIN. CHARLES 

Patricia
Patricia from QLD commented:

Instead of making us older hard working people suffer, why not retire us at 65 and make the dole bludgers get a job. Some of them have never worked in the workforce. Only had babies and lived off the workers. Enough is enough. Tackle the welfare problem head on and make the young get a job and stay out of mischief!!!!!! Patricia. Qld 

Shane
Shane from VIC replied to Patricia:

I agree with you Patricia, but lets not stop at 65 lets go down to 55-60 & then there would be plenty jobs out there. When all of the Baby Boomers die out, this country is going to be up shit creek without a paddle, & they know it. It's the baby boomers that get the blame for everything, too much money, good homes, healthy life. But they tend to forget we all had jobs, to buy a house worked 2 jobs to save for a deposit, & that was a basic home, no butlers pantry, no theatre rooms, no swimming pools, all that sort of thing came later in life. BUT WE ALL WORKED. Let the young ones take up the roll. And as you say get them off the streets. When you have a pay packet you don't need to rob peoples homes 

danny
danny from VIC replied to Patricia:

I agree with the point about letting people retire Patricia. I think you're wrong about them all being bludgers, there are plenty of people who want a job but can't get one. The Govt have got the policies back to front. Let people retire EARLIER at 60 and let the younger people into the job market. What's the difference ? Pay an older person the pension or a younger person the dole ? I'm 60 in a couple of years and would gladly give up my job for someone younger. 

John
John from QLD replied to danny:

I don't think Patricia means that all people on the dole are bludgers, I am on the dole, but I'm not old enough to retire yet, I have 1 & 1/2 years to go. But I do Voluntary work for my money. Younger people are not allowed to do voluntary work, they must be 55 or older, so they walk the streets, while we all still work. If the young ones don't work, by the time they get to 65 - 70 they are not going to have Super anyway, & there will be a lot more of them, then than us now. So it only make sense to lower the retirement age ???? 

Sharen
Sharen from QLD commented:

I find that the government wants us to be less of a burden in the over 60. Yet they tax savings, decrease the amount we can salary sacrifice, and are increasing the age of the pension. Those of us who were late into super due to raising our children, in industries that didn't have super before it was mandatory or have gone through divorce etc have reduced super anyway. In the USA part of a person's tax is held for their retirement/unemployment; perhaps instead of managing tax dollars in the current fashion, we could look at funding our older generation, vets and other deserving Australians. Perhaps ensure that politicians also have to wait until they are 70, be means tested and have the same rules apply to them. The original reason that the retirement benefits for politicians were set up in such a manner no longer applies and should be done away with, bring on equality. 

Nicolle
Nicolle from ACT commented:

I plan to retire at 65 and be self funded. I don't trust governments to get it right especially when they keep changing the rules! I am 55 now and intend to stick as much cash as I can into my super. I have discounted accessing any age pension from the government as I believe that they will up the access age to 75 by the time I retire in 10 years. The message it that we can't trust the government! 

Ian
Ian from NSW replied to Nicolle:

Good on you for not trusting our government. Remember this promise? ''We will ensure that no more negative unexpected changes occur in the superannuation system so that those planning for their retirement can face the future with a higher degree of predictability.'' Tony Abbott, 28 January 2013. 

Julie
Julie from QLD commented:

what about those non workers in Australia ?? those who care for ageing /disabled family members 24/7 we arent workers so we dont get a wage let alone superannuation. 

Comment Guidelines