Why women have to save more super

When we first launched SuperGuide just over 4 years ago, I wrote an article explaining why tax-free super in retirement is a non-issue for most women. The reason for making this statement, and which remains valid 4 years later, was that women, on average, have such low super account balances that tax in retirement was unlikely to ever be an issue. I will explain how this plays out in practical terms later in the article.

I also wrote that many of the superannuation policies in place ignored the unique life circumstances faced by half of the country’s population, thanks largely to a parliament run by male politicians who were remote from the day-to-day demands of a typical family, and due to a superannuation industry and trustee boards of superannuation funds dominated by male leaders who generally led very traditional personal lives. Of course, the superannuation dilemma for women was compounded by endless government tinkering and political expediency on both sides of politics, that cut back existing policies, or dismissed as too hard, possible female-friendly super policies.

Co-contribution was reasonably female-friendly for a little while: For example, one of the more innovative superannuation policies, the co-contribution scheme, promoted as a female-friendly policy because it applies to low-income earners and middle-income earners. Unfortunately, the policy excludes many women, because it is only available to working Australians: the self-employed (since July 2007) and employees. The co-contribution scheme should be widened to include stay-at-home mums (and dads) and full-time carers.

Further the co-contribution scheme originally involved the Government paying a tax-free super contribution of up to $1,000 each year, if an individual makes a $1000 after-tax contribution each year to a super fund. The co-contribution was then increased to $1,500. Since 1 July 2012, the maximum co-contribution has been halved to $500, and the income test for the co-contributions has been savaged, which means many middle-income earners are no longer eligible. For those who are eligible, I still believe the co-contribution scheme is worthwhile: see SuperGuide article Cashing in on the co-contribution rules (2012/2013 year).

Super policy can’t be based on a ‘perfect’ world

In mid-2009, I wrote that notwithstanding the positive aspects of superannuation, ironically, the major flaw with Australia’s super system is linked to the key limb of work-related compulsory super. For our current superannuation system to have the best chance of working properly you need to possess ALL of the following characteristics:

  • You’re male.
  • Your work continuously for 35 years.
  • You never change jobs.
  • You make voluntary super contributions regularly throughout your working life, rather than playing catch-up after you’ve educated your kids and nearly paid off your mortgage.
  • You know a lot about super, tax management and investing.
  • You pay more than 15 cents in the dollar tax on your personal income.
  • You haven’t divorced.
  • You haven’t suffered illness.
  • You haven’t relied on a financial adviser who receives commissions for putting you in a super fund that charges high fees.
  • You believe the super rules aren’t going to change too much in the future, and they in fact don’t change too much.

Sadly, I believe the bullet list above still summarises how the political parties are handling superannuation policy: for a world that clearly doesn’t exist for many Australians, especially for women.

If the bullet list above doesn’t reflect your circumstances, or your beliefs, then the superannuation system is unlikely to meet your needs, unless you take a very strong, and a very active interest in your retirement savings. Taking such an active approach requires more effort but I do believe creating a financially secure retirement is still achievable, notwithstanding the obstacles.

So, how then should the superannuation decision-makers be framing retirement policy, if they are relying on a world view that reflects a working life that exists for a shrinking number of Australians, and for very few women? The answer to this question is easy – accept that men and women have different working lives, on average, and adapt superannuation policies accordingly. How hard can this be?

Women earn less and live longer

In 2010, I wrote my Top 10 super wishlist for Australian consumers, which included creating ‘a better super system for women’. At that time, I wrote that I’m a fan of Australia’s superannuation system (and I still am a fan) because I believe that most of the time the super system helps a lot of people save for a decent retirement, unless you’re a woman with children who spends time an extended period out of the workforce, or you’re an older woman who reared children, and then divorced. Quoting from this 2010 article:

Although we may all like to think women and men are the same, in terms of money and finance, women generally have different life experiences to men such as:

  • earning less (on average)
  • living longer than men (on average); which generally means women need to save more in retirement than men, or live a more modest life
  • taking time out of the workforce to bring up children
  • if divorce occurs, a woman is usually the main carer of children from a marriage or other type of previous relationship
  • raising children while also caring for elderly parents
  • in the case of women in their fifties or older, most women were not given the option of having a super account until much later in life, if at all.

This huge gap in our super system that continues to ignore the work and life patterns of most women is a result of slack social and economic policy from successive governments on both sides of the political arena.

The reasons underlying the low payouts for women can be traced back to discriminatory work and superannuation policies over the past 50 years or so. The workplace was unkind to women in the fabulous fifties and the swinging sixties. Only employees in full-time work, and invariably male employees, were offered entry to company super funds. Women in the workforce were mainly single or divorced women, and women were paid half the money that men were paid for the same job until the laws were changed in 1975. Even now, according to countless studies, women are paid less than men in similar roles, although the gap is closing.

Today, family responsibilities, including rearing children and caring for elderly parents, still predominantly fall on women’s shoulders. Women, if working, are more likely to have part-time work rather than full-time work, although female participation in the workforce is increasing.

Superannuation policies reflected, and still reflect to a great extent, the culture of the times. The biggest superannuation issue for women continues to be time out of the workforce because virtually all superannuation policies are linked to work.

So, what has the Federal Government done for women who are seeking to have a better life in retirement? Not much. For example, Superannuation Guarantee still only applies to workers earning more than $450 a month, and women on paid maternity leave are still not entitled to SG.

Using the language of women

At the end of 2011/early 2012, I published a book specifically for women on superannuation, Super Freedom: Create a Worry-Free Financial Future in 6 Steps (Wrightbooks) using practical case studies rather quoting lots of super rules. I emphasised the fact that retirement is not an all or nothing proposition – a little bit of super, or private savings, in combination with the Age Pension can make a huge difference to your lifestyle in retirement. You can choose to do nothing, a little, a lot or heaps. Within that book, I included a chapter explaining what I described as 14 monkeys that stop women taking control of their super savings, which for me, highlights that the obstacles facing women saving for retirement are mainly personal circumstances, but also cultural and a superannuation industry that talks the language of men, rather than women. You can check out the 14 monkeys in the SuperGuide article Monkeys* stop women taking control of super.

In 2013, a federal election year, it is timely to revisit the issues facing women when saving for retirement because, apart from 2 very significant exceptions, the current batch of policy makers are continuing to make superannuation-related decisions that ignore the female half of the population. The 2 significant exceptions, that is, superannuation policies that can really help women, are:

  • Compulsory super increasing from 9% to 12%, starting with 9.25% from July 2013. Although Superannuation Guarantee is work-based, and not payable while a woman is on maternity leave, a higher rate of SG means that when a woman is working (as is the case for men), she will receive a higher rate of contribution each year. Both major political parties (ALP and Liberals) have committed to retaining this SG increase if they win the 2013 election. For more information see SuperGuide article Superannuation Guarantee increases to 12%, eventually.
  • Refunding superannuation contributions tax for low-income earners, from July 2013. The federal government calls this refund of super tax, the Low Income Super Contribution (LISC). This is a fantastic policy that was long overdue. If you earn less than $37,000 a year, and your employer makes concessional (before-tax) superannuation contributions on your behalf, then you can expect a refund of the contributions tax deducted from your super account, paid directly to your superannuation account by the federal government. Until 30 June 2013, anyone paying less than 15 cents income tax is still losing 15% of their employer’s super contributions to the taxman. In other words, lower-income earners, mainly women, are being financially penalised by the superannuation system, rather than being rewarded. The ALP has committed to retaining this policy if they win the 2013 federal election, but the Liberal party have publicly stated that they will remove the LISC if they win the federal election. For more information see SuperGuide article Super tax refund for lower-income earners starts July 2012.

Why is tax-free super a non-issue for most women?

Referring back to the opening statement of this column, I will explain why the carrot of tax-free super for over-60s is currently irrelevant for most Australian women nearing retirement.

Since July 2007, Australians aged 60 or over and retired receive their superannuation benefits tax-free. What the super experts and the federal government don’t say is that you need a lot of superannuation to take advantage of the tax-free super rules for over-60s. If you hold less than $175,000 in super (for the 2012/2013 year) you would have received your super benefits tax-free anyway under the old super rules that applied before July 2007. If you retire before the age of 60, and you have less than $175,000 in super, then you can still receive this super as a tax-free lump sum under the current super rules (for the 2012/2013 year).

For the average Australian woman thinking about retiring now, they hold nowhere near $175,000. Although alarming, my statement is not surprising considering that the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) system was only introduced in 1992, and only required employers to make super contributions representing the equivalent of 9 per cent of an employee’s salary from 1 July 2002. Further, the SG system only helps you if you’re in the workforce.

Also, for most men retiring today, who relied only on SG, they will be seriously underfunded for their retirement and they can also expect to rely mainly on the Age Pension.

Wouldn’t it be great if the major political parties considered a bipartisan solution to the structural flaws of the superannuation system, if not before the 2013 federal election, perhaps in the months following the September 2013 election.

© Copyright Trish Power 2009-2014

Copyright for this article belongs to Trish Power, and cannot be reproduced without express and specific consent.

IMPORTANT: SuperGuide does not provide financial advice. SuperGuide does not answer all questions posted in the comments section. SuperGuide may use your question or comment, or use questions from several readers, as the basis for an article topic that we publish on the SuperGuide website. We will not disclose names or personal information in these articles. Comments provided by readers that may include information relating to tax, superannuation or other rules cannot be relied upon as advice. SuperGuide does not verify the information provided within comments from readers. Readers need to seek independent advice about their personal circumstances.

Comments

  1. Wendy Donald says:

    I could not agree more with all you have to say. In the past few days I was having a conversation with a friend, where we raised these very same issue. We both have known we had to do our best to get together enough superannuation to give us some sort of reasonable life in retirement.

    What we were discussing was that we (as women) were accepting the bulk of the burden on partly supporting adult children, and in my friend’s case helping out a very elderly parent who lives on the basic pension plus her two disabled siblings. These things have played havoc with our efforts to work towards our own old age. In my case I have retired from work, and having thought I had it all worked out, have now found with the extra calls on my meagre income, that the only way to be able to live is to draw down on super in lump sums or to run up debt. I have had to radically re think my super and cannot see how I can change things enough to be in the position I had thought I would be in at this point. Over 65 I have started up my own business to try to find away to support myself and help out my son and grandsons.

    I have been affected by the world financial crisis and just have not been able to claw back.

    Unlike many of my workmates, in the 1970s and 1980s I was aware that I needed to think about being in pension schemes, whereas most said they had a husband and he had the pension. Of course, as you mention, it was impossible for a married woman to be in the ‘proper’ pension schemes (in my case) and when it was possible we started from a very low position. Once we left work (before maternity leave was possible) everything was cashed in and you receive your contributions plus interest only. Starting and stopping was the story of a woman’s effort to look toward retirement.

    Divorce has further eroded things for women. After working from the age of 19, managing to hold onto my job for birth of a child (granted 2 months leave without pay), then having to retire on ill health in my late 40s, with a husband who never really worked (another story) I still managed to put together enough in and out of super to feel I would be OK. A divorce changed that – suddenly there is only half of what there was, and yet my costs to live where the same. Regardless of health concerns it was back to work in my early 50s, and into my 60s. Just as I got myself back into a comfortable position the world economic downturn once again took care of that.

    I have heard stories where adult children tell their mothers they should have planned better and made sure they had enough for their old age. This to women who spent most of their life in the work force, but were paid less than men, often on short contracts and seldom offered superannuation until compulsory super came into affect. These older women were sacked from their teaching jobs in the early days once they married (taken back on as ‘temporary’ for the rest of their career). It is impossible for another generation to understand how impossible it was for women to put together enough for retirement.

    I endorse your views and wish it was talked about more. When I speak to accountants and advisors they are clueless about how it is for women.

Leave a Comment

*

Loading...

60 second poll - What is important when choosing a financial adviser? Take part