https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/misc/what-s-the-average-superannuation-balance-at-retirement-in-australia/ar-BB1lzAh6?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=68a28fbf15e64b75f37ada84bf308f0a&ei=13

"For those born on or after 1 January 1957, the retirement age in Australia is 67 years.

The retirement age is generally defined as the time of life when you become eligible for the age pension.
According to the latest available figures from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the average superannuation balance for an Australian aged between 65 and 69 years is $428,738.

The median is $207,540.

If we break the numbers down by gender…

The average balance for men is $453,075 and the average for women is $403,038.

The median for men is $213,986 and the median for women is $201,233."

Simple rule of thumb (Grappler style) - and let's just look at the medians:-

5% of $214 = $10,700

5% of 201(ish) = $10,000

Round figures for ease ... so NOBODY except the well off or the fat super cats has anywhere near enough in super to retire without at least a part pension.

Some are doing very well.... others are doing very badly.... so much for Keating's fantasy of $300,000 in a super fund at 1992 standard, when you could buy a house in Sydney for $185k and most people were on $12 an hour or so.  So on that basis of home ownership you'd need at LEAST $3m in a super fund.... or on the wage basis you'd need at least $750k in the super fund ....... which only shows how far real wages have fallen behind costs of living with homing being the highest cost.

As for the 'gender gap' here - pumping women into the fattest super jobs in masses will turn that around very shortly - and by the time the full lifespan of super - say 52 years age 15- age 67 - has expired, women will be way in front after mostly spending a lifetime in the soft jobs, while blokes increasingly, requiring to gain contracts and such and taking menial work at lower rates (as shown by the REAL gender wage gap figures) will be way behind - and that's after a lifetime of paying for family that they often do not even have a say in.

Well - once the social scientists with their utopian fantasies get their hands on the till - we are all doomed - but hey - rest assured those fantasists will not retire with $10k a year of super.... more like a few hundred grand.

HELLO, AUSTRALIA!  You Awake yet... Truly Woke?   8-)

I can't be here forever to hold your hands as you throw that bleach in your own eyes.

Anyone can retire whenever they want. Your retirement age is up to you.
The age many are eligible for a pension is 67.
The 2 things are entirely different.

I retired at 62, my wife at 64. We have no debts and 2 old cars.
It depends what you want in life.

A friend of mine bought a $70K EV. It depreciates at about $300 a week. He could have put $50K into his Super, bought a Camry/Mazda and retired a few years earlier.

And your super balance is?  How much he pay you one fortnight?

My super balance is pretty good, thanks.
I worked for 40 odd years and looked after my super when it counted.
Salary sacrificed into it as much as I could for 6+ years, same as my wife.

We live an unpretentious life. We buy what we want, we just don't 'want' a lot of stuff.
One of our friends always has a new phone, new watch, new laptop, new car, many tv services, personalised number plates .
I have a S9 phone, 7 year old laptop, no watch, no pay tv services, 16 year old camry.

We make lots of meals at home because they are nicer.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 3:00pm:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/misc/what-s-the-average-superannuation-balance-at-retirement-in-australia/ar-BB1lzAh6?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=68a28fbf15e64b75f37ada84bf308f0a&ei=13 "For those born on or after 1 January 1957, the retirement age in Australia is 67 years. The retirement age is generally defined as the time of life when you become eligible for the age pension. According to the latest available figures from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the average superannuation balance for an Australian aged between 65 and 69 years is $428,738. The median is $207,540. If we break the numbers down by gender… The average balance for men is $453,075 and the average for women is $403,038. The median for men is $213,986 and the median for women is $201,233." Simple rule of thumb (Grappler style) - and let's just look at the medians:- 5% of $214 = $10,700 5% of 201(ish) = $10,000 Round figures for ease ... so NOBODY except the well off or the fat super cats has anywhere near enough in super to retire without at least a part pension. Some are doing very well.... others are doing very badly.... so much for Keating's fantasy of $300,000 in a super fund at 1992 standard, when you could buy a house in Sydney for $185k and most people were on $12 an hour or so.  So on that basis of home ownership you'd need at LEAST $3m in a super fund.... or on the wage basis you'd need at least $750k in the super fund ....... which only shows how far real wages have fallen behind costs of living with homing being the highest cost. As for the 'gender gap' here - pumping women into the fattest super jobs in masses will turn that around very shortly - and by the time the full lifespan of super - say 52 years age 15- age 67 - has expired, women will be way in front after mostly spending a lifetime in the soft jobs, while blokes increasingly, requiring to gain contracts and such and taking menial work at lower rates (as shown by the REAL gender wage gap figures) will be way behind - and that's after a lifetime of paying for family that they often do not even have a say in. Well - once the social scientists with their utopian fantasies get their hands on the till - we are all doomed - but hey - rest assured those fantasists will not retire with $10k a year of super.... more like a few hundred grand. HELLO, AUSTRALIA!  You Awake yet... Truly Woke?   8-) I can't be here forever to hold your hands as you throw that bleach in your own eyes.

When was the last time you met someone who intended to retire on their super alone? This is the mindset that lead to super being imposed on us against our will in the first place. People should be expected to save their own money. Not only save money if the government steps in and forces their hand.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 6:07pm:

When was the last time you met someone who intended to retire on their super alone? This is the mindset that lead to super being imposed on us against our will in the first place. People should be expected to save their own money. Not only save money if the government steps in and forces their hand.

Near right - that was the basis on which it was SOLD as the surefire way to reduce the 'cost' of pensions - it's not a mindset - it's the reality for far too many and shows the pure paucity of political prognostication on peripheral points such as retirement funding for the majority. (phew - that was a lungful!)  If governments could rightly expect people to save their own money, they would not put so many barriers in the way of people earning money.... ergo - the game plan is NOT to permit the peasants sufficient discretionary income to save adequately towards a future retirement - but to use economic forces to create an environment of master/serf, as they all secretly dream will one day be the reality.

Most people I know would prefer to put that 12% into investment, rather than having it removed sideways so the vultures can pluck at its guts...  politicians, in the main, are grifters and neo-Fascists (whether they be Nazi or Stalinist)...

NOTE:-  NO 'part-time casual' will EVER have a super balance worth mentioning.... so without major changes in the approach to national economy and service to the people, many will still retire with only pension.

Sinn Fein, my son - we, as a nation, must stand together alone.... and tell the international and global parasites to stick it.

This kind of internationalist investment is not the answer - it's a handout and most likely to be wasted.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/hope-they-pull-it-off-655-million-unlocked-for-nt-indigenous-investments/ar-AA1pZ4JN?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=d9e13dc7872849a1cfee62daa95f4c30&ei=31

Australia's gas 'crisis' is another example of 'investment' and 'policy' going totally off the rails, and not in the national interest.

People are living beyond their means. That's all it boils down to. You get the same problem in the richest countries on earth and the poorest.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 6:55pm:

People are living beyond their means. That's all it boils down to. You get the same problem in the richest countries on earth and the poorest.

Yes - but they are also forced, unless they are very fortunate or are excellent grifters, to live beyond their means due to never-ending rises in costs of living...  if they merely work for a living, they are doomed to be in the latter category.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 6:55pm:

People are living beyond their means. That's all it boils down to. You get the same problem in the richest countries on earth and the poorest.

Wouldn't that be a good argument for state-mandated savings... Because so many people don't do what they should?

The alternative would be having the state pick up the tab in their retirement years.

Quote:

Wouldn't that be a good argument for state-mandated savings... Because so many people don't do what they should?

It's a good argument not to tell them that in exchange for paying taxes, the government will fund their retirement. It will take a generation or two for that mindset to change.

Compulsory super costs each Australian wage earner about $1000 per year in administration fees alone. Probably more. Then add in the fact that they make poorer investment decisions. Someone just starting out should put their super into their home loan instead, or save for a deposit. Until they have a lot of spare money, they are not going to put the mental effort into investing wisely, so they get taken advantage of. That $1000 goes into the pockets of the people who keep loudly advising the public and the politicians that 10% super simply is not enough, with a scare campaign that we all need millions of dollars sitting in an investment account or we will starve when we retire. Plus we have the unions who seem to think that increasing superannuation is a free pay rise that would never end up coming out of salaries.

Australia also exacerbates the problem by making it difficult for our poorest to live within their means. It is illegal for example to sell or rent a cheap house to a poor person if it does not meet a 'standard' decided on by a politician, who is being advised and funded by all the people who profit from the approvals process. Australia keeps trying to replace freedom of choice with welfare.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 7:25pm:

Australia also exacerbates the problem by making it difficult for our poorest to live within their means. It is illegal for example to sell or rent a cheap house to a poor person if it does not meet a 'standard' decided on by a politician, who is being advised and funded by all the people who profit from the approvals process. Australia keeps trying to replace freedom of choice with welfare.

Are you making an argument for slum lordship?

The thread is a confused mismatch. The topic "average super at retirement", it gives that and then  morphs into the "median".

lee wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 8:15pm:

The thread is a confused mismatch. The topic "average super at retirement", it gives that and then  morphs into the "median".

Median superannuation is more representative of the general population than average superannuation which is slanted towards the wealthy.

My dispute with it is that it is severely unbalanced in favour of some and not many others, and particularly against the PTCs who never generate enough super in fund to make the charges and fees worthwhile.  You need to look at that on a proportional basis... one man's $10 bill is another man's fortune.....

Then there is the question of outlandishly unbalanced super schemes.. but we all know that already.

I bring you - again - the Grappler One-Roof One Set Of Rules Fund, with hoarded cash available to state and federal and maybe local governments for approved solid infrastructure projects at a fair return in interest.  That way we should see the country actually go ahead in one small way.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 8:17pm:

lee wrote on Sep 5th, 2024 at 8:15pm: The thread is a confused mismatch. The topic "average super at retirement", it gives that and then  morphs into the "median". Median superannuation is more representative of the general population than average superannuation which is slanted towards the wealthy.

You're good when you're not slapping yourself around the head ...

median may be more meaningful, but it is not the thread topic. ::)

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 8:07pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2024 at 7:25pm: Australia also exacerbates the problem by making it difficult for our poorest to live within their means. It is illegal for example to sell or rent a cheap house to a poor person if it does not meet a 'standard' decided on by a politician, who is being advised and funded by all the people who profit from the approvals process. Australia keeps trying to replace freedom of choice with welfare. Are you making an argument for slum lordship?

No. I am making an argument for affordable housing. For choice. But unlike the Greens policy, mine would mean that there is actually housing available.

People don't live in slums because the government fails to outlaw slums and force them to live in McMansions instead.

super ?

when i was really grinding in my 40's i was basicly working 51 and 1/2 weeks a year.
didnt have time for a haircut

accountant would tell me to take more out of the business but myself and my wife always understood that

'your happiness is the differnece between what you have and what you want"
and its much easier to just want less (the best things in life truly are free).

anyway, the accountant always said that rather then pay tax on the business surplus funds, dump it in super .

and john howard let you dump 50 k a year
(effectively at the marginal rate, you only lost 25 k and the government chipped in 25 k)
i think for a few years there , you could even dump 100k  and same went for the wife

(there may or may not have been a 15 % contributions tax back then.)

either way , for about 10 yrs i dumped the max.

never thought about it
i was totally focused on the business

and (gods truth) i didnt look at the balance for 10 yrs
it was with HESTA as my wife was with hesta and i thought the nurses union wouldnt rip off nurses and they were happy to take my cash (despite me not being in health).

anyway i did look at the balance a few years back and i was stunned

i thought it would be about a mill, it was close to 2.

i dont need it
i dont want it
the idea of retiring to a beach and lazing about is poisonous to me

it may well tank if the stock market tanks
who knows

the only thing i like about it is if i fall off a horse the kids get a house each

but the daughter already out earns me, so now i really dont need it

the missus has a profoung hate for noisy neighbours with loud cars and loud trail bikes

so i have told her if we ever get neighbours like that we will move and buy a place on 500 acres with the house in the middle of the block so we can have peace


so it does give me some peace of mind

other then that, its just a number

who cares

buying a lot of crap i dont need would deplete my quality of life because then you have to spend time looking after "said crap"

you never want a dollar you didnt earn and i dont even see how i earned it

it doesnt feel like the money i got from my customers

it feels like a ponzi scheme of funny money and if it goes, i shant miss it  ;)

Albo's 100,000 homes are mainly FVS - Future Vertical Slums, also known as DLT - Drug Lord Turfs... where twenty years down the track little old ladies are locked behind steel bars listening to the gunshots and washing away the blood next morning... part of their rental agreement .... their residency tax to the Drug Lord... and each terrace has secure meshed in balconies so people owing drug money won't be thrown over as examples...

Last night I heard the shooting
Didn't get no sleep at all...
Another sleepless night for me
It don't do no good to ca-all
The poli-ice...
Never come late
Never come at all......



                               Welcome to Dark City, Sydney.... a great place to visit... and get out of in one piece if you can....  never come late....... never come at all............ and never ........  ever ...... come after dark .....    A Grappler Studios Production ............. coming soon ......

https://static.vecteezy.com/system/resources/thumbnails/035/592/208/small/ai-generated-the-cityscape-is-over-the-building-towers-free-photo.jpg

aquascoot wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 9:28pm:

didnt have time for a haircut

So that was you and your son, then!

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/9/images/split-image-of-big-rich-and-sidak-chahal-758799.jpg

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 9:02pm:

People don't live in slums because the government fails to outlaw slums and force them to live in McMansions instead.

Slums exist because governments do not enforce reasonable minimum housing standards.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 10:51pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2024 at 9:02pm: People don't live in slums because the government fails to outlaw slums and force them to live in McMansions instead. Slums exist because governments do not enforce reasonable minimum housing standards.

You would prefer the people went homeless?

Do you really think you should have the right to tell people they are not allowed to decide for themselves what standard of housing they buy or rent?

BTW, that has nothing at all to do with why genuine slums form.

In a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, stories are legion of contractually and/or politically mandated government-owned social housing being crowbarred into property development approvals where the result is often the creation of antisocial and crime hubs, where the only permanent resolution for the afflicted location is property sale or demolition.

Quoting Thomas Sowell: there are no solutions, only trade-offs: cheap housing at the cost of potential local antisocial- crime-hubs vs homelessness.

Letting people choose for themselves seems like a simple solution.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 10:51pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2024 at 9:02pm: People don't live in slums because the government fails to outlaw slums and force them to live in McMansions instead. Slums exist because governments do not enforce reasonable minimum housing standards.

Slums exist because the people in them can't get jobs so they resort to crime such as:
drug dealing, prostitution, stealing and selling stolen goods.
Also the places don't get repaired when they are damaged by idiots on drugs.
You'll find holes in walls and graffiti everywhere.

The government funded pension age of 67 should be lower.  A pension age of 65 is more than enough.   :(

whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 3:59pm:

The government funded pension age of 67 should be lower.  A pension age of 65 is more than enough.   :(

It should be 55.

The grubberment wants you to die at your workplace of old age.
They want to work you to death.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 3:42pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 5th, 2024 at 10:51pm: freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2024 at 9:02pm: People don't live in slums because the government fails to outlaw slums and force them to live in McMansions instead. Slums exist because governments do not enforce reasonable minimum housing standards. Slums exist because the people in them can't get jobs so they resort to crime such as: drug dealing, prostitution, stealing and selling stolen goods. Also the places don't get repaired when they are damaged by idiots on drugs. You'll find holes in walls and graffiti everywhere.

How many slums have you been to Bobby?

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 4:07pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7th, 2024 at 3:42pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 5th, 2024 at 10:51pm: freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2024 at 9:02pm: People don't live in slums because the government fails to outlaw slums and force them to live in McMansions instead. Slums exist because governments do not enforce reasonable minimum housing standards. Slums exist because the people in them can't get jobs so they resort to crime such as: drug dealing, prostitution, stealing and selling stolen goods. Also the places don't get repaired when they are damaged by idiots on drugs. You'll find holes in walls and graffiti everywhere. How many slums have you been to Bobby?

None - I avoid them -
I've only seen them on TV -
places in Chicago, Marseille, the North of Paris, Calcutta  etc.

You can't go there - you'd be killed in 5 minutes.

Those are completely different phenomena Bobby. A lot of the places in the US are pretty much the opposite of a slum. The buildings are run down because everyone left down. The drug dealers and homeless people then moved in, because there was basically free housing, or close to it. But that does not mean they caused the problem by hanging around making the place look untidy or punching holes in the wall.

You wouldn't go near a genuine slum, because of the smell.

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 4:17pm:

Those are completely different phenomena Bobby. A lot of the places in the US are pretty much the opposite of a slum. The buildings are run down because everyone left down. The drug dealers and homeless people then moved in, because there was basically free housing, or close to it. But that does not mean they caused the problem by hanging around making the place look untidy or punching holes in the wall. You wouldn't go near a genuine slum, because of the smell.

That's one way it happens.
In France and in Chicago they Govt set up social housing for
the disadvantaged and new immigrants.
We are talking about 10 story high tenements that go on for mile after mile -
quickly turned into slums, housing 100s of 1000s of criminals
who would rob you and kill you for your watch or shoes or even $2.

Yes Bobby right again, but I cant see the government funded pension age, going down to 55.  Then again though, at least the greens, support a pension age of 65.  Think I will vote green at next election.   :(

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 4:24pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2024 at 4:17pm: Those are completely different phenomena Bobby. A lot of the places in the US are pretty much the opposite of a slum. The buildings are run down because everyone left down. The drug dealers and homeless people then moved in, because there was basically free housing, or close to it. But that does not mean they caused the problem by hanging around making the place look untidy or punching holes in the wall. You wouldn't go near a genuine slum, because of the smell. That's one way it happens. In France and in Chicago they Govt set up social housing for the disadvantaged and new immigrants. We are talking about 10 story high tenements that go on for mile after mile - quickly turned into slums, housing 100s of 1000s of criminals who would rob you and kill you for your watch or shoes or even $2.

You can learn a lot of TV shows, can't you Bobby?

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 4:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7th, 2024 at 4:24pm: freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2024 at 4:17pm: Those are completely different phenomena Bobby. A lot of the places in the US are pretty much the opposite of a slum. The buildings are run down because everyone left down. The drug dealers and homeless people then moved in, because there was basically free housing, or close to it. But that does not mean they caused the problem by hanging around making the place look untidy or punching holes in the wall. You wouldn't go near a genuine slum, because of the smell. That's one way it happens. In France and in Chicago they Govt set up social housing for the disadvantaged and new immigrants. We are talking about 10 story high tenements that go on for mile after mile - quickly turned into slums, housing 100s of 1000s of criminals who would rob you and kill you for your watch or shoes or even $2. You can learn a lot of TV shows, can't you Bobby?

Video is a powerful tool -
you see it with your own eyes.

whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 4:26pm:

Yes Bobby right again, but I cant see the government funded pension age, going down to 55.  Then again though, at least the greens, support a pension age of 65.  Think I will vote green at next election.   :(

When the pension age at 65 was introduced the life expectancy was about 58.
Anyone who reached 65 was 'old'

Now the life expectancy is about 85. It is a different world

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 4:24pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2024 at 4:17pm: Those are completely different phenomena Bobby. A lot of the places in the US are pretty much the opposite of a slum. The buildings are run down because everyone left down. The drug dealers and homeless people then moved in, because there was basically free housing, or close to it. But that does not mean they caused the problem by hanging around making the place look untidy or punching holes in the wall. You wouldn't go near a genuine slum, because of the smell. That's one way it happens. In France and in Chicago they Govt set up social housing for the disadvantaged and new immigrants. We are talking about 10 story high tenements that go on for mile after mile - quickly turned into slums, housing 100s of 1000s of criminals who would rob you and kill you for your watch or shoes or even $2.

It happens in Australia, although on a much smaller scale relative to major cities worldwide.

It's the unavoidable trade-off: social housing and/or removing mandated minimum housing standards, risking their becoming antisocial and/or crime hubs, or their otherwise would-be tenants homeless living in the streets and parks.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia says a single person needs $595,000 in super at age 67 to generate a comfortable retirement income using super and a part age pension. Couples require $690,000 between them.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:

whiteknight wrote on Sep 7th, 2024 at 4:26pm: Yes Bobby right again, but I cant see the government funded pension age, going down to 55.  Then again though, at least the greens, support a pension age of 65.  Think I will vote green at next election.   :( When the pension age at 65 was introduced the life expectancy was about 58. Anyone who reached 65 was 'old' Now the life expectancy is about 85. It is a different world

Guess what?  We oldies couldn't give a rat's.  Take it out of the politician's early resignation scheme... pension for life at an early age for not retiring... bewdiful.

Look at Poor Billy Shorten - won't make ends meet on $1.8m pa in his new 'job', so he desperately needs that top-up ... poor bastard.... all those years of service at first class rates ... it's a tough life.... no way could he have put enough away to cover his RESIGNATION....

I say put the bastards all on the chain gangs they designed for everyone else and make them work for a change - and not at taking a wrecking ball to this country.... put everyone on the same super scheme and salary and perks and tax deductions ... bit extra to take the family on a jaunt... (wink, wink) .... you know...

Now what about we put everyone on the same perks. Go on a work trip - boss pays to take the family along..... travel to work - fully paid and costs tax deductible.... heavily subsidised top range food.... mega-rich retirement fund.... all assistants paid for...

---