What Should My Super Balance Be At Every Age? Navigating Aussie Super

[@robsalvv5853]

I was fortunate to start a professional job in 1991 that had a company super. Then not long after that, the SG was introduced. Having super, rolling it into one super fund, choosing a growth oriented investment option and salary sacrificing when I could over my working life so far, has put me well above those tables. And this is exactly what the SG is designed to do, as I will be one of the many who will be retiring in great numbers in the near future but will be able to do so without being a heavy burden on welfare and the tax system. I only wish I’d started *any kind* of consistent post tax investing program at the same time back then, as I probably would have had enough to have a self funded retirement by now! When I started work, I had limited financial literacy. This has to change - and channels like yours Brent, are helping to do this.

[@user-yn4ni8km2t]

Why are there so much about superannuation when the highest number are from government employees, while there is low among workers in the private sector.

[@brett232]

Ive always added a little to my super but the last couple years I really pushed it as I was planning to use the Super savers scheme to save for a deposit for a place, and was salary sacrificing 15% for about 10 months, then realised no matter what I did, I wouldn't be able to borrow enough that way for what I wanted, so replanned, bought a smaller cheaper place and lowered my salary sacrifice to 8%, and didn't touch my super, even after the purchase Ive kept my 8%. the reason I changed to a % base way was I'm not going to be able to afford to max out my contributions, but with commission structure always being paid different each weeks on the weeks I make bank, so dose my super, and the weeks that I don't, it doesn't break the bank resorting to using debt to get by. I've been pushing my super as I don't know if there will be a decent pension by the time I get to retirement, so I don't want to be caught out, and is just one of the parts of my retirement strategy.

[@AnimeReference]

I reckon the 18-24 male lead is probably due to the trades. 25-29 is probably the degrees paying off. 30-34 I agree probably no super during maternity leave. 35-39 maybe compound interest? I wonder if there's data purely on contributions.

[@peter65zzfdfh]

You say people can start drawing at 65, but people can start drawing at 60 with very easy to meet conditions, fully if you stop working or partially for most. (it was younger for many current retirees). 65 is only the age if you're still working full time for the same employer and want to withdraw while continuing to work (which for most people is probably not something they will do anyway as they'll want to still be contributing).

[@BrentColeman]

Yes that's correct. The preservation age sits at 60, from which retired and semi-retired can start accessing their super.

[@Woodland26]

power of compounding. The earlier one save in such a low tax environment the more compounding upon retirement.

[@scottyd2903]

Came here to quickly see if anyone could confirm the column heading on the left of each gender category signifies the number of persons in each age group?

[@BrentColeman]

Hey! Yes it is

[@chillikoala]

There are a few things that need to be considered when looking at the difference in super balances between men and women across the different age groups. It's not accurate or as simple as "systemic issues". - there were proportionally less women in the workforce in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s (stats will show older women to have less super). - coinciding with more women in the workforce, the age when women have children has steadily increased since the 80s from early 20s to early 30s. When women left the workforce for children, this typically meant several years of no super contributions. - women live longer than men and inherit their partner's super when they die (explains the sharp catchup in super balances later in life). - many blue collar workers and labourers are often forced to retire earlier (also contributes to reduced differences in later years). Overwhelmingly, men perform these jobs. - similarly, men/boys (by far the majority) who decide to take up a trade instead of university, are able to build up their super earlier. More recent generations in the workforce are choosing not to have children, and now with similar participation in the workforce by both men and women, we will start to see figures for recent generations to be very similar between men and women.

[@danielc5908]

By the time people are actually using their super the gap between men and women is negligible anyway, so I don't see how there's an issue at all. Probably because people get divorced and women get some of the super in the settlement (fair enough), and/or men top up their wife's super to take advantage or their unused transfer balance cap and concessional contributions. Seems pretty fair to me.

[@tj_5485]

This can't be right. Low income earners and non earners drag the averages down. If you've been working since your 20's you should be well above this scale. But awesome insight.

[@Cypsky]

Given the median is lower than the average the reality is exactly the opposite of what you are describing. High income earners are skewing the average. (Which is to be expected, there is virtually no limit to how much one can earn). I think part of the reasons why this is relatively low is that its current form is relatively recent. A lot of older people have lost a lot of it in high fee low performance funds. I think there are things the government should fix as well. There house be no cap or tax below a certain super balance for each age (to allow people to catchup when they have a late start). Div293 shouldn’t apply for balances below a certain cap. As a counterpart, they should definitely prevent folding it into an expensive home to “fake poorness” and get the maximum pension.

[@AA.AA.399]

All-in to HIGH RISK till you get 63😊. 🤑🤑🤑

[@divyv20]

Hey Brent , really nice video ! I was wondering if I could help you with Best Quality Editing in your videos better than your Editor and also make a highly engaging Thumbnail which will help your videos to reach to a wider audience ? Pls let me know what do you think ?

[@BrentColeman]

Heya! I'm fine at the moment, but thanks for reaching out!

[@cody4004]

83-67 = 16, not 26 🤣🤡

[@gordonflash8976]

Saying womens is like saying goodera, common your an aussie get it right.

[@BrentColeman]

Sorry, couldn't understand what you meant here

[@gordonflash8976]

@@BrentColeman So you pronounce woman as you did in the video when you are referring to one woman. You do not pronounce it that way when you are referring to more than one woman, it is pronounceed more like wimen, even though it is spelt the same way. The goodera bit is akin to it, we do not say that was goodera when something is better than before, we say that was much better.

[@BrentColeman]

@@gordonflash8976 I mean, one could also highlight the proper use of your and you're above right

[@andrewmackinnon8252]

@@BrentColemanIf they knew what that meant. I’m surprised they can even read.

[@AndyFahey]

You either work for a super fund or dont understand spending habits as people age. It's been proven time and time again that ASFA and the super funds massively overstate what is required for a comfortable retirement. They have a huge vested interest to scare people and get them to contribute as much money as possible to rake in high fees. If these facts were true, the major of Australians currently aged over 67 would be destitute.

[@peter65zzfdfh]

Looks more like they understate it TBH. Though yes, theoretically there are other options, like reverse mortgages which aren't taken into account. If you've been a beneficiary of the last few decades of home price growth you're probably well off regardless. But if you're not a home owner, even a 'modest' figure given here probably leaves you destitute.

[@BrentColeman]

Not sure why you’re coming at me for ASFA’s findings lol everyone has a different perception of what a comfortable retirement is to them. If yours is lower, then that’s fine!

[@trk1973]

I retired last year and did a careful study of my outgoings in the first year to ascertain what my spending exactly looks like. Critical spending (single, home owner, no "pensioner" discounts) was as follows - House expenses : Utilities, rates, household insurance $4100 - Car expenses : rego, insurance, fuel, servicing $3500 - Food & household stuff $4000 - Mobile & internet $1800 - Health insurance $1500 The very basics to survive cost $14900. This did not include household repairs/maintenance/improvements, entertainment (inc alcohol), holidays, doctors or anything to do with having fun. If you're not paying for a mortgage or renting, it is surprising how little it costs to live. But the tradeoff is living is more than just surviving and you need to spend more to have fun with friends/family and do the things that you enjoy. I worked out that without a holiday, it cost another $25000 to do this

[@robsalvv5853]

ASFA’s assumptions are available if you want to give us a genuine critique. The comfortable lifestyle is based on owning your own home, allows for private health insurance, expected medical costs, an overseas trip every X years, house maintenance, eating out occasionally, local holidays, insurances, car maintenance and other things, and at some point later on, the pension kicking in. But yes, it is absolutely possible to live more frugal life.

[@jonv570]

these numbers are super low

[@tonybruce]

bum da tissss

[@xxxhypoxxx]

TDLR - Biological women have children, then once the child is of school age they work harder and close the gap.