Add new comment

Submitted by Stewart on Thu, 08/20/2015 - 13:33

I note that male life expectancy at birth is 80.1 years, so if retiring at age 67 he will have 13.1 years in retirement.

Of course a (typically 2-3 younger) woman retiring at the same time as her partner will have less super, having perhaps already spent a couple of years out of the workforce. Does she expect that the government (i.e. taxpayers) should subsidise her to have over 20 years of retirement (to age 84.3)?

Obviously the solution is that she should remain in the workforce until she also has 13.1 years of life expectancy, i.e. until age 71.2.

(How long until a cougar calls me a misogynist?)

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

4 months 4 weeks ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

5 months ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

5 months ago

Iress has issued an update denying the validity of “certain statements” made today by an alleged threat actor....

1 day 21 hours ago

The research house has offered a silver lining after super fund returns saw the end of a five-month streak last month....

2 days 22 hours ago

A survey of almost 6,000 fund members has identified weakening retirement confidence, particularly among those under 55 years of age, signalling an opportunity for super ...

2 days 22 hours ago