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 3 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

A number of measures, including super on Paid Parental Leave, funding to recover unpaid super, and frameworks to encourage investment in the energy transition, have been ...

14 hours ago

A professional says all roads will lead back to superannuation in the next election....

14 hours 32 minutes ago

Iress has said that incident involving the unauthorised access reported this week extends beyond what was initially reported....

16 hours 34 minutes ago