Cheryl the concept of womens average super being lower than men's isn't being disputed as far as I can tell. It's the authors extrapolation of that.

Broadly the arguments against the point the author (and others) seem to make about relative wealth leave out some significant factors
- women with partners generally have access to the benefits of combined wealth regardless of who's name the wealth happens to be in.
- divorced women generally get at least half of the combined wealth if the couple have been together for a significant period of time. Their own super may not be high but that's not the only factor.
- widowed women are likely to have the majority of the combined wealth that the couple had
- many of those points which impact on mothers are not factors for long term single women (other than long term single mothers).

The article would be much more significant if it was backed by figures relating more specifically to the group's mentioned and covered all relevant wealth. Basing a case on the average superannuation of women and extrapolating to specific groups does not help.

R0bert

Wattle, most PAYG tax payers don't contribute to super, their employers do instead.

Then, if you are still able to afford to contribute more, you are limited by age as to how much per year you can contribute, before kissing the tax incentive.

Perhaps high income earners should be taxed more, then, they should also get the perks of the health car card etc etc etc.

Cheryl,
Women having babies is not a great reason why women's superannuation is less. Many women make a choice of working at jobs that pay less wages, they tend to work fewer hours, and they tend to retire early.

I often go to work at 5.00 am in the morning. About 99% of the other drivers at that hour are male, and many are young and not married and have no children. However they tend to be skilled workers going to higher paid jobs, and they may be working 10 to 12 hour days, 6 days a week.

That is how they build up their superannuation.

rehctub,
The employees pay superanuation, the employers simply take it out of their wages.

If the superanuation contribution levy goes up (as is planed), it simply means that the next pay rise isn't so high.

The employers don't grow the money on a magic tree.

If we regard superannuation from the perspective of what an individual employee deserves, then occupational super as it is currently structured may look ok. But most people would need a lifetime of full-time work to accumulate enough to maintain a lifestyle in retirement proportionate to their lifestyle while earning. The trouble is, most people nowadays don’t have that working pattern.

This ABS publication (http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C4C9530A2947002ACA25796400145D56/$File/62380_july%202010%20to%20june%202011.pdf) has some fascinating data on retirement, including:

- More than a quarter of men and more than half of women retire before age 55
- Most retirees are working part-time before they retire
- Among male retirees, the prevalent main source of personal income after retirement is a government pension (53% of retirees), with superannuation the main income source for just 27%
- Some 44% of women report partner’s income as their main source of funds to meet living costs in retirement. 39% of women had no independent source of personal income (pension, super or other)

Even allowing that compulsory super should give more people more super in future, vast swathes of the population will be relying on the pension for most if not all retirement income. That means pensions will be a growing burden on taxpayers as baby boomers retire, and pension levels will have to stay low. This is what compulsory super was supposed to avoid.

It may be the harsh reality that people who don’t earn, can’t save. But the current system makes it hard for many people who CAN save to provide towards their own retirements. The self-employed don’t have to pay super. People not in the labour force have only limited access to favourably taxed occupational super accounts.

Add to this the cruellest con of all. Unless you have lots of super and are self-supporting, there is a fierce poverty trap for those with superannuation savings. Taking into account taxes and the withdrawal of benefits, each extra dollar of super saving yields only a few cents net extra income in retirement.

The super system was badly designed, and many hapless baby boomers anticipating a comfortable retirement are in for a shock.

The simple answer is women have less retirement income because they work less, retire earlier and live longer.

One way to fix the problem would be for women to retire 5 years later than men. However, I suspect the multitude of taxpayer funded women's groups will convince us that men who work longer, harder and in more dangerous positions only to die younger should be responsible.

I'm sure we'll do anything except ask women to take responsibility for themselves.

Wow, lifestyles of the rich & famous.

My mother lived as a single pensioner, with virtually no support than the pension, for 24 years.

For most of it she lived in a self contained granny flat she bought herself, installed on my property. This was rent free, but she funded all living costs, including power, phone etc, from her pension. It would only have cost $30,00 a week more to sight the thing in a trailer park.

In the last 3 years, [from when she was 96], due to her prudish son not being able to handle the job, she funded in home help with bathing, & cleaning, government subsidised at $96 per week.

She did not go without, but during that time she squirreled away over $50,000 out of that pension, into her bank account.

I am retired, with no debts, & what I call my hump. That's a home in good repair, 3 sports cars, almost as old as me, but simple tastes. I am living the life of Riley on less than $38,000 a year, & a health care card. I really can't see how one could actually need more.

My only future problem is maintenance. I hope the rain water tanks will last a few more years, before I have to replace them. Provided I can keep up with that, what more could one want?