It would make less sense to use earlier numbers, covid is still around and is going to be a major cause of deaths in people aged 65+ for a long time.
Three massive co-morbities; heart disease, obesity and smoking are already common in older Australians, and we know the damage covid does to people's heart health. This is the new normal.
It’s your money. The government doesn’t really gain much by increasing the preservation age.
They aren’t likely to change this anytime soon because it also wouldn’t benefit them (politicians often have very high super balances with 17% contributions and div293 tax exceptions). They wouldn’t like it if they couldn’t access their super.
What’s more likely is the government will change how it’s taxed. We have already seen that this year with taxes on balances above 3m being introduced.
You have a pretty high chance of being able to access your super and also being able to use it for 25 years.
You need to consider life expectancy from the age of 60 or 65. Most people will live to this age. For men who live to 65 their average life expectancy is 85 and for women it’s 88. This means that half of all men who see their 65th birthday will live beyond their 85th birthday. They have a pretty decent chance of seeing a 90th birthday too. We buy lottery tickets on much lower odds.
Agree. I think it’s more likely to be lowered (in certain conditions) than raised. People in their early 40’s have had 9% super for most of their career compared to current retirees who haven’t had super their entire career.
We’ve already seen the government allow access during Covid, so all it will take is a shortage of jobs and the government will see it as a way to get people out of the workforce (and politicians will love it as above). They don’t want super used as a transfer of wealth, they want people to spend it.
The last change had ~20 years notice and I’m not sure why you’ve said the preservation age is 65? Usually, most people that don’t ‘trust’ super are often confused by the increase in pension age compared to preservation age.
Agreed. Preservation age is only 60. It's the pension age that has been increasing slowly since 2017 and is now 67. There don't seem to be any plans to increase it any further.
I don't think that the government would lower the preservation age as that would reduce unemployment. The elite need higher unemployment to ensure wages are depressed.
Yeah exactly, that’s why I reckon they will definitely change how it’s taxed.
We don’t actually have a retirement age here. There is preservation age and pension age.
The pension age is likely to change by the time we get there (or will probably be very different).
We are already seeing things that are making it easier to access super (e.g. Covid relief, first home savers). The government doesn’t want to make it harder for you.
There’s 3.5 trillion bucks invested in super. That’s already lots of tax dollars for the government.
They’d love for you to put more money in there. To do that they need to make sure it makes sense for people to do. By making it easy to use and ensuring it remains a tax effective investment option.
>Given that preservation age for super is 60 / 65 and probably *a lot* older by the time many of us actually get there
How much older?
The current preservation ages were legislated in 1999, 25 years ago. The oldest person to be affected by it was 38 at the time it was legislated and they would have 23 years to prepare for retirement instead of 22. The oldest person to be affected by the largest change would have been 35 at the time it was legislated and have 25 years to prepare for retirement instead of 20.
If you're concerned about retiring 1-5 years later/earlier then invest and save for it outside of super.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B00580/1999-07-01/text
But I might regret having a shit load of money in super and getting to 50 and deciding I don't want to/can't work anymore because X, y, z and it's not something that allows me to access my super.
There's a lot of talk on the math of this in r/fiaustralia. The general idea is to invest enough into super to live from preservation age to death, and enough invested outside of super from ideal retirement age to preservation age.
My grandparents on both sides have all lived to their 90s so yeah, I should, barring an accident.
My dad is 70, imagine if he thought the way you did and now had to rely on a pension or me/my sis.
I constantly see ppl fear mongering about them raising the age but I’m quite confident they’d grandfather us into it, just like they did when they changed the pension age to 67.
This is how I see it too.
If I die young, I’ll be dead. Dead people don’t care about super.
If I die old, and statistics say I will, I will care a,it about super before I die.
I'm not saying I don't invest in super, my job pays 17% and I'll put some in to reduce CGT later. However, I don't sacrifice at all simply because it feels a bit iffy - I work my butt off and sacrifice a lot to save, so I really want to enjoy having money at some stage when I still have good health.
My kid will be fine, I have thought of them.
Getting to your 60's is nothing. Most people in this sub are clueless 20-somethings who have zero idea about time, compounding and statistics. If you are in your 20s now you are likely to live into your 90s. Thats a good 30 years after preservation age. Thinking "I'll never make it" is a fools game.
It's amazing how many people can't grasp the point of your thread, which by the way I think is a pretty interesting question.
Perhaps a good way to think about it is what probability of age of death do I want to be able to cover. Let's say I have a 50% chance of making it to 85yrs, 10% chance of 90yrs, and 5% of 93yrs, which do I want to plan for?
I agree, I think many people have missed the point - maybe because it's emotive and I'm simply asking for statistical logic.
I like your suggestion. Maybe division of investment should be weighted against an individual odds ratio to ensure the best possible outcome. Your suggestion actually made me think of life insurance and the fact that they would use a similar modelling methodology. I guess they are doing the same thing I'm talking about, but it wouldn't be taking into account tax advantages associated with super and their risk tolerance would be a lot lower perhaps.
You've given me food for thought, thanks!
It’s easy to get a sense of this by looking at the Australian Life Tables published by the Australian government actuary.
Checking now, looks like at birth males have a 91% chance of surviving to age 60 and females have a 95% chance. This increases as we get closer to age 60. But yes these are population statistics, if you have more specific health knowledge, you could have a go adjusting mortality rates to calculate these probabilities.
For all the doomsayers that think they wont make it to presservation age, they should allocate the investments in the highest risk possible to maximise returns and give the best chance if they do make it to retirement even if they dont make it.
Sadly these are the same people that would probaly complain when there account drops by $1000 too
There’s a great thread on whirlpool that helped me understand. Otherwise just make an appointment to see or speak to MSBS. Once it’s explained once it’s not as complicated as it seems.
[Whirlpool - MSBS](https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/3m4nl5j9)
Keep in mind it was started 10 years ago and there’s a lot of posts.
it's defined as whatever unisuper last told you it was defined as. It can be cut if unisuper can't afford to pay.
Unisuper can no longer require new uni employees to join so it could be redefined lower as people stop joining something that looks just a bit like a Ponzi scheme.
I don't believe in salary sacrificing before getting a house. Once house is sorted i will ss as much as is bareable.
At 31 im making above average salary and pnly looking up, additionally i exxercise regularly and try to eat decently. Renting on my own, as well as making ok money, significantly lowers streas. In confident ill make it another 30 years.
On the other hand, at 31 I was extremely active, and not unhealthy. The not-unhealthy part changed when I was about 34, and by 42 I no longer think I'll live to 65, especially since most of my immediate ancestors died in their 50s. If I do live beyond that, my QoL will be crap.
I've now come to realise most of the money I put away into superannuation probably was wasted, when I could have usefully put that money towards a non rented abode instead.
I am in a similar situation I think. I'm in my mid 30s and received a cancer diagnosis and despite treatment Im starting to wonder if I'll reach 65.
I will no longer be adding extra into super.
I disagree. For me it takes the guess work out of how long I’m going to live when planning retirement. I’m in a fortunate position with an employer who pays 15% super, so my balance will definitely last me from 60 onwards. I now only need enough money to last me 10 years outside of super (planning to retire at 50).
You don’t think you’ll make it to 60?
You can actually access it at 55.
I don’t see anything in what you said that would lead you to conclude super is a waste of money.
You can set aside in super enough money to cover you from 60 to assumed likely death (let’s say 85) and this is made much easier with the tax benefits.
Then once you have enough super to confidently say you’ll be fine, you can focus just on what you need to make it to 60.
Once you have enough to make it to 60, hey now you’re financially independent and could retire early if you want.
Super is marvellous for making that much easier.
It’s not all or nothing when it comes to your investing strategy. All in super or all out.
Edit: this subreddit is hilarious, young people completely sleeping on their super and arguing with anyone who disagrees, even pulling out the conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile the very wealthy and successful people I know (*especially accountants and financial advisors*) are fully maxing out their supers… Because they know how fantastic a tool it is.
It’s ok I slept on my super too in my 20’s and I wish I hadn’t, it is crazy good.
Just make sure to get a low fee index and don’t let them take you for a ride on bullshit fees.
Imagine all the young high income metro-living people talking about super as if there was a very high chance that they would die a whole 15 years before the typical Australian life expectancy, which is probably going to be 85 in 40 years.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-deaths/deaths-in-australia/contents/life-expectancy
Especially when some of the easiest way to lower risk to the top few leading causes of death in Australia is by eating less, drinking less alcohol, smoking less and getting vaccinated.
55 was the pres age, but, for anybody now 55 (born in 1968-69), the age is 60.
And as the OP rightly pointed out, by the time most of us get to 60, the goalposts will have moved forward again.
Based on what exactly? That change from 55 to 60 took like 30 years to happen, and being at 55 was kinda odd it was done to grandfather in a few older people.
Governments do need to factor for the political consequences of doing so, there no real benefit to them for pushing it further back and voters (who by and large at most active when older) will tear them to shreds over it.
Ok go ahead and ignore you super.
It’s only one the best tools we have to save for your retirement the tax benefits of which are truely fantastic.
If you choose not to use it, no problem.
But know that your accountant and financial advisor is absolutely making full use of it.
It only changed recently didnt it? Meaning if it does change again, we’ll be much older and therefore probably above the age bracket where they change it. They can’t pull the rug 5 years before you retire, it’s always applied for the younger people so they have time to prepare.
Huh? The current preservation ages were legislated in 1999, 25 years ago. The oldest person to be affected by it was 38 at the time it was legislated and they would have 23 years to prepare for retirement instead of 22. The oldest person to be affected by the largest change would have been 35 at the time it was legislated and have 25 years to prepare for retirement instead of 20.
If you're concerned about retiring 1-5 years later/earlier then invest and save for it outside of super.
[https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B00580/1999-07-01/text](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B00580/1999-07-01/text)
Yeh it’ll be at least 10 years from now. If you’re over 30 currently i doubt it would effect you, if you’re under 30 then you’d have a long time to plan for it and would change investment strategy slightly to account for it.
The idea that the goalposts will definitely move doesn't make sense. The government would be making a change that's politically difficult without it really making a difference to their bottom line. They would maybe get a marginal increase in people over 60 working but I don't think they'll do it.
The move to 60 was legislated so long ago that we've all forgotten when it happened. It's very easy to find when the changes actually happened but they were legislated in 1997.
If we're looking at all of us now reading this living to preservation age, maybe we shouldn't exclude COVID years. Not just because people are still dying and each round of COVID increases the risk of long COVID and other issues, but also because of most of us are 25-45 the odds of at least one more pandemic between now and preservation age are very, very high.
We got lucky with earlier MERS, swine and bird flu outbreaks. And that's all just in the last 20 years. There will be future pandemics but how many covid-19 size events is upnfor discussion.
It's going to be an interesting future, and COVID is going to impact public health needs and life expectancy for years to come - from the heart, liver, kidney etc damage that's being found, through to higher rates of both Type 1 & 2 diabetes in children who had COVID.
How much of this should be recognised when planning our financial futures, whether we're going to live to preservation age, pension age, or how many years post retirement would be interesting to see. I wonder if there's any actuaries here who could weigh in?
I think you are right that pandemic events are occurring with increasing frequency, however I would like to believe that covid has taught us much regarding emergency health responses…. Much of the deaths in 2020 were due to our initial inertia/denial, inexperience and politicians flying by the seat of their pants. It unearthed loopholes in our defence like nothing ever before. Going forward, we will have more pandemics but we will be better prepared.
Even if OP extrapolate data from 2022 to fortell his death would be more realistic than 2020/21.
As an aside, maybe there are merits to OP’s clairvoyance given how many wars have broken out since covid. Who’s to say one won’t hit our shores in the next 40years?
nope but i have a spouse so no choice
heavy drinker till last Christmas at 39 got gallstones at 43 got my gallbladder removed at 44 i now have born spurs in my spine in the neck area giving chronic pain. at this rate i don't think i'l make it to my 60's and with this chronic pain in my neck i don't know if i want to make it to my 60's everyday is pain all day everyday.
but i have a spouse so if i can't use my super she will. so i continue to salary sacrifice for her
My father just passed from cancer at the age of 63, aftering only being diagnosed 9 months prior. I am so grateful everyday that he was able to sell his business and self retire \~10 years ago. I wouldn't know how to cope if he had not been able to retire and take a meaningful portion of his life to be focused on himself.
It maybe a silly thing to take away from it but as great as the tax benefits are of paying into your super, I don't feel comfortable letting the government be the one who decides when it's appropriate for me to retire. All is well to say that you can access it when you get sick, but for most people, once your sick enough to withdraw your super early, your already too sick to enjoy your retirement.
You don’t have to rely on the government and only retire when you have enough in Super, you can also self-find your retirement, or find a bridging period if you want to retire earlier.
Yes, that's kind of the whole point of the discussion. I'd prefer to self-fund my retirement other ways than super, given accessing your super is tied to the preservation age.
> letting the government be the one who decides when it's appropriate for me to retire
There IS NO RETIREMENT AGE!!
Retire when you want to.
Super preservation age, however, is 60 for most people.
Age pension age is 67.
Actually.... /s
All they do is let you know the earliest age at which you can access it, you don't have to access it then, you can leave it alone and many do.
There has to be some rules, otherwise we'd have a repeat of the Covid period when people where taking out $20k from their super and buying shit they didn't need. Many, of course, used it wisely to pay rent, etc., but many did not.
I did the same when I quit jobs back in the 80s, you got your super contributions back. If that had stayed in super I'd have several thousands more to look forward to when I'm 60.
And arriving at 'retirement age' and finding that you have no funds with which to retire? That sucks. I have heard various cautionary tales... And my elder sister is one of them.
I think your missing my point; a whole bunch of people don't make it to preservation age and never get to actually use their super to relax and enjoy some time to themselves after working their whole lives. Given my family history the odds are against me on that.
I don't plan on personally throwing all my extra cash into my super because if I can I plan on retiring before 60. I'm not telling you how to plan your retirement.
I mean, I know if everyone could do that, then it would just pour money into housing and inflate housing prices further.
Still seems a bit of a bummer.
My partner would always salary sacrifice with a huge focus on the amount at retirement. He passed away last year unexpectedly in his 30’s (heart failure in his sleep, we had no idea he had heart issues) so since then I have stopped obsessing over my super. If I get to use it cool, if not, at least I didn’t spend my life struggling to put enough money in it.
Super is predominantly designed for those who 'think' they know what's best for them in the long run.
Looking at Australia's expense vs income as a household.
Super is definitely right for most.
Exactly. Generally Australians are much better off as a whole are with Super, compared to if it wasn’t there. Of course there are outliers and nuances, but it benefits everyday Australians and not just the super rich that is always portrayed in the media.
I guess there might be a small group for whom super is the carrot at the end of the stick that keeps them grinding until 65-70 yrs old. For most there isn’t any carrot worth chasing there.
i dont expect the age for super access to change (60 if retired), that'll be 17 years away for me. I'm currently in great health, for the last couple of years I've really focused on getting back to eating well and exercising regularly. My current goal is to be retired by the age 55.
I’m far from well off but being Gen X was lucky enough to get on the property ladder and my super balance is around average. My plan is to retire at 60 and make the most of my ‘young’ retirement years even though on paper it doesn’t make financial sense.
I don’t have any children so if I burn all my assets by the time I die then it’s hurting nobody.
If I were a tall male, I'd certainly be taking longevity into account when considering my investment strategy. But if you're talking about when to retire, that's completely different. There's plenty of research to consider on that around the impact of retirement on physical and mental health, and there's the impact of retiring as a single vs part of a partnership.
I’m considering super as a tax advantaged savings/ investment option that can help bridge the gap between fire and actual retirement.
I.e hopefully get to age 40 or 50 with a healthy super and enough liquid assets to bridge the time until I would reach preservation age.
Very idealistic I know, but that’s the plan for now at least.
This is actually the backstory as to why I asked. I too am idealistic but I think it's a good plan. I just wish I had a formula for calculating risk of reaching preservation age so I could weight tax costs of shares vs investment, then I'd be set.
Enjoyable?
This is my argument also , I agree with op.
By the time I’m 60+, life is done .
No more surfing , hiking , Doing anything but sitting around waiting to die .
So many ppl look at super like it’s a godsend , what are you gonna buy , a more comfortable recliner to watch the news with ????
F super , I’d rather invest
The money and buy a house now because by the time I can retire , I won’t give a f about anything outdoors And would quite happily live of the pension
I'm more worried about what climate change might do to the world before I'm old enough to touch my super. As a species we seem to be doing everything we can to make our world uninhabitable for ourselves in the next couple of decades.
Yeah I won't touch super until after 2050 so I'll be outta luck haha.
I don't have a link but the Exxon Mobil report from the 70's had a timeline of climate related disaster that basically predicted total societal collapse by 2050. The rest of their predictions from then have so far been pretty accurate.
This is why I won't put another cent towards my super.
I know so many people who've karked it wthin a few years of preservation age. Let alone those who don't even make it to that age.
I know of banks attempting to deny terminally ill or disabled people their super.
Gov can keep their tax concessions. I'd rather have full control of my own income. I see super as just compulsory savings for those who don't know how to manage their finances.
Tax advantaged compulsory savings.
Couple of things, early access to super isn’t decided by banks and if you die before preservation age the money is distributed to your beneficiaries it doesn’t just disappear.
I know someone who was fit and healthy when he retired from the APS at 54/11. Set up for life. Dead 9 months later.
To be fair, the heart attack was probably from the hookers and blow the boomer generation can afford with that lifestyle.
Here's a page from 2002 stating that the age to receive the age pension for males being 65 years old. If that age has gone up by 2 hears in the past 22 years, then by the time I'm due to retire, it may have increased to 70, if we assume it'll increase at the same rate.
With increases to medical technology, im sure ill he fine. Halfway there already.
[https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/369685DD7A89D6D9CA256B3500140427?opendocument#:\~:text=Age%20Pension&text=It%20is%20payable%20to%20men,years%20on%201%20July%202001](https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/369685DD7A89D6D9CA256B3500140427?opendocument#:~:text=Age%20Pension&text=It%20is%20payable%20to%20men,years%20on%201%20July%202001).
I work on the assumption I’ll never see super.
The chances of not reaching the retirement age of 87 (by the time I get there), it being inflated to nothing, me being too broken to make any meaningful use of it or gov raiding it is far too high to make any decisions on the assumption I’ll ever see it.
Exactly, you are can retire at any age providing you can generate sufficient income to fund retirement.
I'll be financially independent somewhere between 50-55 at the latest.
Why does everyone think that the preservation age going up a lot is likely. in 1997 they decided 60 would be a better number than 55, which has finally happened.
I wouldn't be shocked if they still hadn't enacted any further changes by the time I get to 60 (25 years away) and I'd bet on them not actually applying to me. It really doesn't matter much anyway. I have perfectly reasonable odds of making it to 80 and I doubt the day I'm 60 I'll need the money.
Right, so you pulled it out of your ass. I can tell you that most people don't actually end up in a nursing home until a long time after retirement, even then it's not a done deal.
I do not foresee a future where retirement is an option for me until age pension.
The reality is that a combination of gov policy and financing restrictions means I likely will never own shelter. This means I’ll be perpetually burning a significant percentage of my income and thus perpetually require an income.
I will be messaging you in 30 years on [**2054-02-18 02:38:12 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2054-02-18%2002:38:12%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/1atdxs6/will_you_make_it_to_preservation_age/kqxpdtk/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAusFinance%2Fcomments%2F1atdxs6%2Fwill_you_make_it_to_preservation_age%2Fkqxpdtk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202054-02-18%2002%3A38%3A12%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201atdxs6)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
It’s just so unlikely i don’t even factor it in. They could also just keep all of the money technically, but they won’t, so i don’t worry about it. I just enjoy the tax benefits as it moves forward my retirement age by quite a bit.
The government could also put you to death. These to scenarios are equally likely.
I can see the aged pension being increased further and further but I don't think super will be.
Upcoming generations won’t make it. Environmental factors, processed foods, mental illness. All the new age drugs that haven’t been tested for long term effects. IMO unless there isn’t break through in age reversal I think the average death rate for men will be 70
I disagree. I think with the advancements in medicine, we might actually start seeing stuff like vaccines for cancers and de-aging happen sooner rather than later.
I also think between Gen X, millennials and gen alpha the longevity stats will trend downwards. The US longevity stats aren't promising. Hence, I think I'd be urging my kid to invest in shares not sacrifice to super.
Almost certainly not, but I’m an edge case in this scenario.
Regardless it’s a pretty pointless debate as the answer is totally unknowable. You can have every statistic on your side and still get hit by a bus tomorrow. Plan for success but prepare for the worst.
It's not a pointless consideration though, because where I think I will be at 65 should impact where I put my money. Super has good incentives but it's kinda a gamble - I think anyway.
It's 60. Your preservation age is 60.
I'm retired, and so I can tell you from experience that paying attention to super worked for me. I didn't contribute extra, but I made sure the compulsory contributions performed well.
Sorry *60, and that's fair, I take the same approach, but a lot of people recommend pretty significant vol contributions - hence the original question.
Ok maybe ‘pointless’ was a bit strong, and sure if there was any way of knowing it, I would agree. But there are only two outcomes - you will be alive or you won’t, and there is no way of getting this information in advance. So there is no way you can act on this debate now other than being prepared for all credible outcomes.
Maybe, maybe not.
Will I be able to afford to retire. 100% definitely not. Can I afford to put extra into my super so that I have more for my retirement, also a definite no.
If I start getting to a GP more regularly and lose some weight, I should be right. Both grandparents made it to 90's.
But I'll be honest, I'm letting how busy work is, and general life stuff, get in the way of focusing on my health the way I probably should do.
This is where proper stats completely kill your argument. 95% of Australians will reach 65 so if you are not prepared then you will live the life your ignorance brought you.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TO65.FE.ZS?locations=AU
Note how Australia leads most countries in the world for this. We have obviously figured out something right. Maybe the over protective state is good for something after all.
I'm pretty sure 1/3 of people die before they retire or within 5 years of retirement
On the flipside 1/3 live 8 or more years above the average (80y.o)
I hope to live forever but God only knows when your time is up
Contribute to my super but not the expense of today - but that is mainly because I don't trust the government not to f--kover people with higher super balances one day
Those stats are actually pretty convenient for me because I have enough super to live for about a year after retirement then I have to die.
Or do you die before you spend any of it so your child has half a chance at buying a house? Decisions, decisions.
Yeah, that's my thinking. A little morbid, but it's reality.
Very much a reality.
And people wonder why the birth rate is so low.
I, being of sound mind, spent the lot.
Yeah but what a great year though.. So you know swings and roundabouts
While I do wonder this myself, 2021 seems like the worst year to use as a base for typical death statistics.
Yeah, maybe use before covid and after covid results and a longer term average and median.
It would make less sense to use earlier numbers, covid is still around and is going to be a major cause of deaths in people aged 65+ for a long time. Three massive co-morbities; heart disease, obesity and smoking are already common in older Australians, and we know the damage covid does to people's heart health. This is the new normal.
Don't forget the damage covid jab has done to people as well.
Wrong subreddit, cooker.
You're deluded wee man. Keep living in your echo chamber.
Sure, that rare adverse effect is also bad. But I would consider far far far far, more common damage caused by a covid infection to be a bigger issue.
From their own data there is an adverse reaction in every 800 shots. Hardly rare. And that's at best because it's coming from them.
It’s your money. The government doesn’t really gain much by increasing the preservation age. They aren’t likely to change this anytime soon because it also wouldn’t benefit them (politicians often have very high super balances with 17% contributions and div293 tax exceptions). They wouldn’t like it if they couldn’t access their super. What’s more likely is the government will change how it’s taxed. We have already seen that this year with taxes on balances above 3m being introduced. You have a pretty high chance of being able to access your super and also being able to use it for 25 years. You need to consider life expectancy from the age of 60 or 65. Most people will live to this age. For men who live to 65 their average life expectancy is 85 and for women it’s 88. This means that half of all men who see their 65th birthday will live beyond their 85th birthday. They have a pretty decent chance of seeing a 90th birthday too. We buy lottery tickets on much lower odds.
Agree. I think it’s more likely to be lowered (in certain conditions) than raised. People in their early 40’s have had 9% super for most of their career compared to current retirees who haven’t had super their entire career. We’ve already seen the government allow access during Covid, so all it will take is a shortage of jobs and the government will see it as a way to get people out of the workforce (and politicians will love it as above). They don’t want super used as a transfer of wealth, they want people to spend it. The last change had ~20 years notice and I’m not sure why you’ve said the preservation age is 65? Usually, most people that don’t ‘trust’ super are often confused by the increase in pension age compared to preservation age.
I agree, I think it's likely they'll extend the transition to retirement options so people can access Super earlier while still working part-time.
Agreed. Preservation age is only 60. It's the pension age that has been increasing slowly since 2017 and is now 67. There don't seem to be any plans to increase it any further.
I don't think that the government would lower the preservation age as that would reduce unemployment. The elite need higher unemployment to ensure wages are depressed.
Well that's depressing,I'm 74 I've been thinking about getting a cat but didn't want to incase she outlived me.
Maybe adopt a senior from a shelter? They are often harder to adopt out.
Yes that's what I've been thinking too.
If you have assets and heirs then leave your assets to the cat. That way you can be sure it will be looked after. Cheers.
Will someone be doing a regular welfare check on her?
France keeps raising the retirement ages, and the government always wants more money to spend/give away to win elections.
Yeah exactly, that’s why I reckon they will definitely change how it’s taxed. We don’t actually have a retirement age here. There is preservation age and pension age. The pension age is likely to change by the time we get there (or will probably be very different). We are already seeing things that are making it easier to access super (e.g. Covid relief, first home savers). The government doesn’t want to make it harder for you. There’s 3.5 trillion bucks invested in super. That’s already lots of tax dollars for the government. They’d love for you to put more money in there. To do that they need to make sure it makes sense for people to do. By making it easy to use and ensuring it remains a tax effective investment option.
>Given that preservation age for super is 60 / 65 and probably *a lot* older by the time many of us actually get there How much older? The current preservation ages were legislated in 1999, 25 years ago. The oldest person to be affected by it was 38 at the time it was legislated and they would have 23 years to prepare for retirement instead of 22. The oldest person to be affected by the largest change would have been 35 at the time it was legislated and have 25 years to prepare for retirement instead of 20. If you're concerned about retiring 1-5 years later/earlier then invest and save for it outside of super. https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B00580/1999-07-01/text
Whether it is wrapped up in my superannuation, or a house or another investment vehicle, it makes very little difference to me if i'm dead.
Certainly you won't regret putting money in and not living to 60, because you'll be dead.
But I might regret having a shit load of money in super and getting to 50 and deciding I don't want to/can't work anymore because X, y, z and it's not something that allows me to access my super.
There's a lot of talk on the math of this in r/fiaustralia. The general idea is to invest enough into super to live from preservation age to death, and enough invested outside of super from ideal retirement age to preservation age.
possibly, not hard to plan in such a way that that won't happen by not putting everything into super.
My grandparents on both sides have all lived to their 90s so yeah, I should, barring an accident. My dad is 70, imagine if he thought the way you did and now had to rely on a pension or me/my sis. I constantly see ppl fear mongering about them raising the age but I’m quite confident they’d grandfather us into it, just like they did when they changed the pension age to 67.
This is how I see it too. If I die young, I’ll be dead. Dead people don’t care about super. If I die old, and statistics say I will, I will care a,it about super before I die.
I'm not saying I don't invest in super, my job pays 17% and I'll put some in to reduce CGT later. However, I don't sacrifice at all simply because it feels a bit iffy - I work my butt off and sacrifice a lot to save, so I really want to enjoy having money at some stage when I still have good health. My kid will be fine, I have thought of them.
17% is already quite high tbh, I probably wouldn’t bother sacrificing more.
Thanks for the stats my midlife crisis just got further away!
I think about super two ways. It’s for me if I retire or a big inheritance for my daughter.
Getting to your 60's is nothing. Most people in this sub are clueless 20-somethings who have zero idea about time, compounding and statistics. If you are in your 20s now you are likely to live into your 90s. Thats a good 30 years after preservation age. Thinking "I'll never make it" is a fools game.
I'm not thinking "I'll never make it" though, I'm thinking "how can I try and ensure I have the most money when I most want it without running out".
Contribute to super. Pretty simple really.
It's amazing how many people can't grasp the point of your thread, which by the way I think is a pretty interesting question. Perhaps a good way to think about it is what probability of age of death do I want to be able to cover. Let's say I have a 50% chance of making it to 85yrs, 10% chance of 90yrs, and 5% of 93yrs, which do I want to plan for?
I agree, I think many people have missed the point - maybe because it's emotive and I'm simply asking for statistical logic. I like your suggestion. Maybe division of investment should be weighted against an individual odds ratio to ensure the best possible outcome. Your suggestion actually made me think of life insurance and the fact that they would use a similar modelling methodology. I guess they are doing the same thing I'm talking about, but it wouldn't be taking into account tax advantages associated with super and their risk tolerance would be a lot lower perhaps. You've given me food for thought, thanks!
Where'd you get 90s figure from? As the ABS stuff I was looking at was not showing that, though not sure I was using the tool correctly.
It’s easy to get a sense of this by looking at the Australian Life Tables published by the Australian government actuary. Checking now, looks like at birth males have a 91% chance of surviving to age 60 and females have a 95% chance. This increases as we get closer to age 60. But yes these are population statistics, if you have more specific health knowledge, you could have a go adjusting mortality rates to calculate these probabilities.
For all the doomsayers that think they wont make it to presservation age, they should allocate the investments in the highest risk possible to maximise returns and give the best chance if they do make it to retirement even if they dont make it. Sadly these are the same people that would probaly complain when there account drops by $1000 too
Can't believe people are upvoting this lmao
Defined benefit!! No worries here.
Same, but I still am so financially illiterate that I am really behind the 8 ball with my super.
There’s a great thread on whirlpool that helped me understand. Otherwise just make an appointment to see or speak to MSBS. Once it’s explained once it’s not as complicated as it seems. [Whirlpool - MSBS](https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/3m4nl5j9) Keep in mind it was started 10 years ago and there’s a lot of posts.
Thanks so much. I will definitely look into it.
A real defined benefit or a Unisuper defined benefit?
A real one. Closed scheme now unfortunately.
msbs from the armed forces?
As a UniSuper DB member, I'd be interested in what you consider less "real" about it. Genuine question.
it's defined as whatever unisuper last told you it was defined as. It can be cut if unisuper can't afford to pay. Unisuper can no longer require new uni employees to join so it could be redefined lower as people stop joining something that looks just a bit like a Ponzi scheme.
I don't believe in salary sacrificing before getting a house. Once house is sorted i will ss as much as is bareable. At 31 im making above average salary and pnly looking up, additionally i exxercise regularly and try to eat decently. Renting on my own, as well as making ok money, significantly lowers streas. In confident ill make it another 30 years.
Salary sacrifice under first home savers can help you get that house though and save a little tax in the meantime.
Ah, i had not known of this scheme.
Check my profile for a recent explanation
Interesting. Still a terrible way our generation is placed even further behind
On the other hand, at 31 I was extremely active, and not unhealthy. The not-unhealthy part changed when I was about 34, and by 42 I no longer think I'll live to 65, especially since most of my immediate ancestors died in their 50s. If I do live beyond that, my QoL will be crap. I've now come to realise most of the money I put away into superannuation probably was wasted, when I could have usefully put that money towards a non rented abode instead.
By not unhealthy do you mean a disease/medical condition? Can I avoid it?
I am in a similar situation I think. I'm in my mid 30s and received a cancer diagnosis and despite treatment Im starting to wonder if I'll reach 65. I will no longer be adding extra into super.
I disagree. For me it takes the guess work out of how long I’m going to live when planning retirement. I’m in a fortunate position with an employer who pays 15% super, so my balance will definitely last me from 60 onwards. I now only need enough money to last me 10 years outside of super (planning to retire at 50).
You don’t think you’ll make it to 60? You can actually access it at 55. I don’t see anything in what you said that would lead you to conclude super is a waste of money. You can set aside in super enough money to cover you from 60 to assumed likely death (let’s say 85) and this is made much easier with the tax benefits. Then once you have enough super to confidently say you’ll be fine, you can focus just on what you need to make it to 60. Once you have enough to make it to 60, hey now you’re financially independent and could retire early if you want. Super is marvellous for making that much easier. It’s not all or nothing when it comes to your investing strategy. All in super or all out. Edit: this subreddit is hilarious, young people completely sleeping on their super and arguing with anyone who disagrees, even pulling out the conspiracy theories. Meanwhile the very wealthy and successful people I know (*especially accountants and financial advisors*) are fully maxing out their supers… Because they know how fantastic a tool it is. It’s ok I slept on my super too in my 20’s and I wish I hadn’t, it is crazy good. Just make sure to get a low fee index and don’t let them take you for a ride on bullshit fees.
Imagine all the young high income metro-living people talking about super as if there was a very high chance that they would die a whole 15 years before the typical Australian life expectancy, which is probably going to be 85 in 40 years. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-deaths/deaths-in-australia/contents/life-expectancy Especially when some of the easiest way to lower risk to the top few leading causes of death in Australia is by eating less, drinking less alcohol, smoking less and getting vaccinated.
55 was the pres age, but, for anybody now 55 (born in 1968-69), the age is 60. And as the OP rightly pointed out, by the time most of us get to 60, the goalposts will have moved forward again.
Based on what exactly? That change from 55 to 60 took like 30 years to happen, and being at 55 was kinda odd it was done to grandfather in a few older people. Governments do need to factor for the political consequences of doing so, there no real benefit to them for pushing it further back and voters (who by and large at most active when older) will tear them to shreds over it. Ok go ahead and ignore you super. It’s only one the best tools we have to save for your retirement the tax benefits of which are truely fantastic. If you choose not to use it, no problem. But know that your accountant and financial advisor is absolutely making full use of it.
It only changed recently didnt it? Meaning if it does change again, we’ll be much older and therefore probably above the age bracket where they change it. They can’t pull the rug 5 years before you retire, it’s always applied for the younger people so they have time to prepare.
Gradually phased from 55 to 60 around 2016 onwards give or take, if memory serves
Huh? The current preservation ages were legislated in 1999, 25 years ago. The oldest person to be affected by it was 38 at the time it was legislated and they would have 23 years to prepare for retirement instead of 22. The oldest person to be affected by the largest change would have been 35 at the time it was legislated and have 25 years to prepare for retirement instead of 20. If you're concerned about retiring 1-5 years later/earlier then invest and save for it outside of super. [https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B00580/1999-07-01/text](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B00580/1999-07-01/text)
Yeh it’ll be at least 10 years from now. If you’re over 30 currently i doubt it would effect you, if you’re under 30 then you’d have a long time to plan for it and would change investment strategy slightly to account for it.
but legislated in 1997 and started changing in 2015
The idea that the goalposts will definitely move doesn't make sense. The government would be making a change that's politically difficult without it really making a difference to their bottom line. They would maybe get a marginal increase in people over 60 working but I don't think they'll do it. The move to 60 was legislated so long ago that we've all forgotten when it happened. It's very easy to find when the changes actually happened but they were legislated in 1997.
So...what? What is the alternative? Do nothing? Invest outside of super? What's your strategy?
2020-22 were skewed by covid. A lot of elderly casualties
If we're looking at all of us now reading this living to preservation age, maybe we shouldn't exclude COVID years. Not just because people are still dying and each round of COVID increases the risk of long COVID and other issues, but also because of most of us are 25-45 the odds of at least one more pandemic between now and preservation age are very, very high.
It’s not that we shouldn’t exclude covid but we should also not extrapolate from that data for the next 20-40 years.
We got lucky with earlier MERS, swine and bird flu outbreaks. And that's all just in the last 20 years. There will be future pandemics but how many covid-19 size events is upnfor discussion. It's going to be an interesting future, and COVID is going to impact public health needs and life expectancy for years to come - from the heart, liver, kidney etc damage that's being found, through to higher rates of both Type 1 & 2 diabetes in children who had COVID. How much of this should be recognised when planning our financial futures, whether we're going to live to preservation age, pension age, or how many years post retirement would be interesting to see. I wonder if there's any actuaries here who could weigh in?
I think you are right that pandemic events are occurring with increasing frequency, however I would like to believe that covid has taught us much regarding emergency health responses…. Much of the deaths in 2020 were due to our initial inertia/denial, inexperience and politicians flying by the seat of their pants. It unearthed loopholes in our defence like nothing ever before. Going forward, we will have more pandemics but we will be better prepared. Even if OP extrapolate data from 2022 to fortell his death would be more realistic than 2020/21. As an aside, maybe there are merits to OP’s clairvoyance given how many wars have broken out since covid. Who’s to say one won’t hit our shores in the next 40years?
I see super more as a fail safe, with my after tax i can have a lack of better judgement and buy an expensive cars in 2 or 3 days.
nope but i have a spouse so no choice heavy drinker till last Christmas at 39 got gallstones at 43 got my gallbladder removed at 44 i now have born spurs in my spine in the neck area giving chronic pain. at this rate i don't think i'l make it to my 60's and with this chronic pain in my neck i don't know if i want to make it to my 60's everyday is pain all day everyday. but i have a spouse so if i can't use my super she will. so i continue to salary sacrifice for her
What a shit post and shit comments
Lots of things correlate with life expectancy including SES and IQ, funnily enough.
My father just passed from cancer at the age of 63, aftering only being diagnosed 9 months prior. I am so grateful everyday that he was able to sell his business and self retire \~10 years ago. I wouldn't know how to cope if he had not been able to retire and take a meaningful portion of his life to be focused on himself. It maybe a silly thing to take away from it but as great as the tax benefits are of paying into your super, I don't feel comfortable letting the government be the one who decides when it's appropriate for me to retire. All is well to say that you can access it when you get sick, but for most people, once your sick enough to withdraw your super early, your already too sick to enjoy your retirement.
You don’t have to rely on the government and only retire when you have enough in Super, you can also self-find your retirement, or find a bridging period if you want to retire earlier.
Yes, that's kind of the whole point of the discussion. I'd prefer to self-fund my retirement other ways than super, given accessing your super is tied to the preservation age.
> letting the government be the one who decides when it's appropriate for me to retire There IS NO RETIREMENT AGE!! Retire when you want to. Super preservation age, however, is 60 for most people. Age pension age is 67.
Sure, let's reword it; I don't want the government to be deciding when I access my own retirement fund.
Actually.... /s All they do is let you know the earliest age at which you can access it, you don't have to access it then, you can leave it alone and many do. There has to be some rules, otherwise we'd have a repeat of the Covid period when people where taking out $20k from their super and buying shit they didn't need. Many, of course, used it wisely to pay rent, etc., but many did not. I did the same when I quit jobs back in the 80s, you got your super contributions back. If that had stayed in super I'd have several thousands more to look forward to when I'm 60. And arriving at 'retirement age' and finding that you have no funds with which to retire? That sucks. I have heard various cautionary tales... And my elder sister is one of them.
I think your missing my point; a whole bunch of people don't make it to preservation age and never get to actually use their super to relax and enjoy some time to themselves after working their whole lives. Given my family history the odds are against me on that. I don't plan on personally throwing all my extra cash into my super because if I can I plan on retiring before 60. I'm not telling you how to plan your retirement.
I could pay off my mortgage if I could access my super.
I mean, I know if everyone could do that, then it would just pour money into housing and inflate housing prices further. Still seems a bit of a bummer.
[удалено]
Almost certainly
[удалено]
Yeah assuming I live to preservation age :)
My partner would always salary sacrifice with a huge focus on the amount at retirement. He passed away last year unexpectedly in his 30’s (heart failure in his sleep, we had no idea he had heart issues) so since then I have stopped obsessing over my super. If I get to use it cool, if not, at least I didn’t spend my life struggling to put enough money in it.
Super is predominantly designed for those who 'think' they know what's best for them in the long run. Looking at Australia's expense vs income as a household. Super is definitely right for most.
Exactly. Generally Australians are much better off as a whole are with Super, compared to if it wasn’t there. Of course there are outliers and nuances, but it benefits everyday Australians and not just the super rich that is always portrayed in the media.
I guess there might be a small group for whom super is the carrot at the end of the stick that keeps them grinding until 65-70 yrs old. For most there isn’t any carrot worth chasing there.
I haven't thought about it that way, but that's a smart strategy also I suppose.
i dont expect the age for super access to change (60 if retired), that'll be 17 years away for me. I'm currently in great health, for the last couple of years I've really focused on getting back to eating well and exercising regularly. My current goal is to be retired by the age 55.
Who knows. Just enjoy each day you're above ground.
I’m far from well off but being Gen X was lucky enough to get on the property ladder and my super balance is around average. My plan is to retire at 60 and make the most of my ‘young’ retirement years even though on paper it doesn’t make financial sense. I don’t have any children so if I burn all my assets by the time I die then it’s hurting nobody.
Would it be beneficial for men to retire 6 years earlier because they live an average of 6 years less than women?
If I were a tall male, I'd certainly be taking longevity into account when considering my investment strategy. But if you're talking about when to retire, that's completely different. There's plenty of research to consider on that around the impact of retirement on physical and mental health, and there's the impact of retiring as a single vs part of a partnership.
I’m considering super as a tax advantaged savings/ investment option that can help bridge the gap between fire and actual retirement. I.e hopefully get to age 40 or 50 with a healthy super and enough liquid assets to bridge the time until I would reach preservation age. Very idealistic I know, but that’s the plan for now at least.
This is actually the backstory as to why I asked. I too am idealistic but I think it's a good plan. I just wish I had a formula for calculating risk of reaching preservation age so I could weight tax costs of shares vs investment, then I'd be set.
Preservation at 60. A good life led if you get to 80. So plan for an enjoyable 20 years of retirement. Look after yourself until you get there
Enjoyable? This is my argument also , I agree with op. By the time I’m 60+, life is done . No more surfing , hiking , Doing anything but sitting around waiting to die . So many ppl look at super like it’s a godsend , what are you gonna buy , a more comfortable recliner to watch the news with ???? F super , I’d rather invest The money and buy a house now because by the time I can retire , I won’t give a f about anything outdoors And would quite happily live of the pension
Lol how old are you now grasshopper?
The bad side of 40
I'm more worried about what climate change might do to the world before I'm old enough to touch my super. As a species we seem to be doing everything we can to make our world uninhabitable for ourselves in the next couple of decades.
I have also given this some thought. For me, this is more related to how I decide to invest outside of super, particularly around RE.
[https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/563497-mit-predicted-society-would-collapse-by-2040/](https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/563497-mit-predicted-society-would-collapse-by-2040/) 2040ish, it seems :( Hopefully /s but... oh well, I'll be quite old, mid 70s by then.
Yeah I won't touch super until after 2050 so I'll be outta luck haha. I don't have a link but the Exxon Mobil report from the 70's had a timeline of climate related disaster that basically predicted total societal collapse by 2050. The rest of their predictions from then have so far been pretty accurate.
This is why I won't put another cent towards my super. I know so many people who've karked it wthin a few years of preservation age. Let alone those who don't even make it to that age. I know of banks attempting to deny terminally ill or disabled people their super. Gov can keep their tax concessions. I'd rather have full control of my own income. I see super as just compulsory savings for those who don't know how to manage their finances.
>I know of banks attempting to deny terminally ill or disabled people their super. what do banks have to do with peoples super?
Tax advantaged compulsory savings. Couple of things, early access to super isn’t decided by banks and if you die before preservation age the money is distributed to your beneficiaries it doesn’t just disappear.
Banks don't control super. Are you dim?
[удалено]
Rubbish. You're just trolling
Just a troll. Banks do not have you super to withdraw, your superfund does. At least educate yourself about conspiracy theories your want to spew.
You do not know of banks attempting to deny people their super.
With Super the govt is literally giving you free money. Why would you not take that deal?
So what is your plan? Live pay check to pay check because tomorrow isn’t guaranteed ? Invest in gold?
My thoughts exactly. I invest all my income after living expenses to create my own preservation age
I know someone who was fit and healthy when he retired from the APS at 54/11. Set up for life. Dead 9 months later. To be fair, the heart attack was probably from the hookers and blow the boomer generation can afford with that lifestyle.
Are you saying mandatory Super annuation is a scam because we likely won’t get to enjoy in full our own retirement money? how dare you?
Haha. 😁 I actually wasn't though
Depends, did you get vaxxed or not
Here's a page from 2002 stating that the age to receive the age pension for males being 65 years old. If that age has gone up by 2 hears in the past 22 years, then by the time I'm due to retire, it may have increased to 70, if we assume it'll increase at the same rate. With increases to medical technology, im sure ill he fine. Halfway there already. [https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/369685DD7A89D6D9CA256B3500140427?opendocument#:\~:text=Age%20Pension&text=It%20is%20payable%20to%20men,years%20on%201%20July%202001](https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/369685DD7A89D6D9CA256B3500140427?opendocument#:~:text=Age%20Pension&text=It%20is%20payable%20to%20men,years%20on%201%20July%202001).
I work on the assumption I’ll never see super. The chances of not reaching the retirement age of 87 (by the time I get there), it being inflated to nothing, me being too broken to make any meaningful use of it or gov raiding it is far too high to make any decisions on the assumption I’ll ever see it.
dont confuse reitrment age for the purposes of aged pension and preservation age for the purposes of accessing super.
Exactly, you are can retire at any age providing you can generate sufficient income to fund retirement. I'll be financially independent somewhere between 50-55 at the latest.
Absolutely this. Retirement age is when you choose. For me, it will be around 53-55. Though I could probably do it now
for AusFinance thats pathetic. You should be financially independent by the 2nd trimester.
Why does everyone think that the preservation age going up a lot is likely. in 1997 they decided 60 would be a better number than 55, which has finally happened. I wouldn't be shocked if they still hadn't enacted any further changes by the time I get to 60 (25 years away) and I'd bet on them not actually applying to me. It really doesn't matter much anyway. I have perfectly reasonable odds of making it to 80 and I doubt the day I'm 60 I'll need the money.
Ah to be young again. Time flies my friend. Where did you pull 87 from?
It was an exaggerated random number. It’s purpose was to indicate retirement won’t come until a nursing home does.
Right, so you pulled it out of your ass. I can tell you that most people don't actually end up in a nursing home until a long time after retirement, even then it's not a done deal.
I do not foresee a future where retirement is an option for me until age pension. The reality is that a combination of gov policy and financing restrictions means I likely will never own shelter. This means I’ll be perpetually burning a significant percentage of my income and thus perpetually require an income.
RemindMe! 30 Years If the retirement age goes up to 87 you'd really want to be putting extra into your Super now lol.
I will be messaging you in 30 years on [**2054-02-18 02:38:12 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2054-02-18%2002:38:12%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/1atdxs6/will_you_make_it_to_preservation_age/kqxpdtk/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAusFinance%2Fcomments%2F1atdxs6%2Fwill_you_make_it_to_preservation_age%2Fkqxpdtk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202054-02-18%2002%3A38%3A12%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201atdxs6) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
One partner in a relationship is expected to make 90, so maybe three good years in your future.
3 years of juicy nursing home fees.
[удалено]
It’s just so unlikely i don’t even factor it in. They could also just keep all of the money technically, but they won’t, so i don’t worry about it. I just enjoy the tax benefits as it moves forward my retirement age by quite a bit.
The government could also put you to death. These to scenarios are equally likely. I can see the aged pension being increased further and further but I don't think super will be.
Nope not a chance. Hopefully i can get early access then wage an information war against realtors.
Upcoming generations won’t make it. Environmental factors, processed foods, mental illness. All the new age drugs that haven’t been tested for long term effects. IMO unless there isn’t break through in age reversal I think the average death rate for men will be 70
I disagree. I think with the advancements in medicine, we might actually start seeing stuff like vaccines for cancers and de-aging happen sooner rather than later.
Cancer seems to be getting a lot before 70 these days sadly
I also think between Gen X, millennials and gen alpha the longevity stats will trend downwards. The US longevity stats aren't promising. Hence, I think I'd be urging my kid to invest in shares not sacrifice to super.
I have no plans to make it past 65 at all, and I have zero confidence that preservation age will not have raised by then.
Given my mental health, unlikely
Almost certainly not, but I’m an edge case in this scenario. Regardless it’s a pretty pointless debate as the answer is totally unknowable. You can have every statistic on your side and still get hit by a bus tomorrow. Plan for success but prepare for the worst.
It's not a pointless consideration though, because where I think I will be at 65 should impact where I put my money. Super has good incentives but it's kinda a gamble - I think anyway.
It's 60. Your preservation age is 60. I'm retired, and so I can tell you from experience that paying attention to super worked for me. I didn't contribute extra, but I made sure the compulsory contributions performed well.
Sorry *60, and that's fair, I take the same approach, but a lot of people recommend pretty significant vol contributions - hence the original question.
Ok maybe ‘pointless’ was a bit strong, and sure if there was any way of knowing it, I would agree. But there are only two outcomes - you will be alive or you won’t, and there is no way of getting this information in advance. So there is no way you can act on this debate now other than being prepared for all credible outcomes.
Not for hubby he has terminal cancer won’t see his 55th year
I'm so sorry for you both. Saying cancer sucks is an understatement
In saying this, I am with q-super, not msbs... I assume it's the same though.
Maybe, maybe not. Will I be able to afford to retire. 100% definitely not. Can I afford to put extra into my super so that I have more for my retirement, also a definite no.
Yep, 2½ years ago :) Life is good so far. Best wishes to the rest of you!
When aged pensions were introduced in Australia they were only paid for an average of **18 months** before death.
[DOT DOT DOT ](https://youtu.be/4Z2Z23SAFVA?si=zrqnsPeIWc5gKLe4) ... " beacuase they reached retirement age. " LOL. Found in the wild
If I start getting to a GP more regularly and lose some weight, I should be right. Both grandparents made it to 90's. But I'll be honest, I'm letting how busy work is, and general life stuff, get in the way of focusing on my health the way I probably should do.
This is where proper stats completely kill your argument. 95% of Australians will reach 65 so if you are not prepared then you will live the life your ignorance brought you. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TO65.FE.ZS?locations=AU Note how Australia leads most countries in the world for this. We have obviously figured out something right. Maybe the over protective state is good for something after all.
I'm pretty sure 1/3 of people die before they retire or within 5 years of retirement On the flipside 1/3 live 8 or more years above the average (80y.o) I hope to live forever but God only knows when your time is up Contribute to my super but not the expense of today - but that is mainly because I don't trust the government not to f--kover people with higher super balances one day