Australia’s shameful super gap

“Therefore it makes no sense to keep assets between $314,000 and $695,000 - they are worth-less than the increase in Age Pension if disposed of.”

Dudley, the logic behind your comment above is flawed. I think you implicitly assumed that one’s assessable assets are static through retirement when calculating your 7.8% return.

Whilst you extract some useful insights from the PMT() etc functions, in this case you need a spreadsheet (as suggested by Ross Clare for very good reasons) to model the changing eligibility to a part age pension when assessable assets are in the range $314,000 to $695,000 (based on current assets test).

When this is implemented, you will see that every dollar between $314,000 and $695,000 ADDS to your retirement income**. I expect that deterministic retirement accounts income calculators can be used to will illustrate this. My stochastic one certainly does.

** when determining retirement income resulting in zero assets (or a specified amount) at a target age like 92.

"every dollar between $314,000 and $695,000 ADDS to your retirement income":

Adds to your retirement (capital). Which can be invested to EARN income or spent to ADD to cashfow.

I agree that calculators and tables are more understandable then intricate financial functions calculating Present Value of the cashflow including Age Pension.

Some simpler to calculate specific points:

Start with $695,000 at 67, end with (real) $695,000 at 92, receive no Age Pension, cash flow is:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), -695000, 695000) + 0
= $13,495.15 / y

Start with $314,000 at 67, end with (real) $314,000 at 92, receive $44,855.20 / y Age Pension, cashflow is:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), -314000, 314000) + 44855.2
= $50,952.29

Start with $695,000 at 67, immediately spend $381,000 guilding home expecting 5% / y capital return, end with $314,000 at 92, receive $44,855.2 / y Age Pension, cashflow is:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), -314000, 314000) + 44855.2 + (((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) * 381000)
= $58,350.35 / y

Incorporating Part Age Pension:

First year, constant withdrawals to $314,000 at 92 from $695,000 at 67:
Interest + part pension + withdrawal:
= IPMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (68 - 67), (92 - 67), -695000, 314000) + ((68 - 67) / (92 - 67) * 26 * 1725.2) + ((695000 -314000) / (92 - 67))
= $30,529.35 / y

First year, constant withdrawals to $0 at 92 from $695,000 at 67:
= IPMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (68 - 67), (92 - 67), -695000, 0) + ((68 - 67) / (92 - 67) * 26 * 1725.2) + ((695000 - 0) / (92 - 67))
= $43,089.35 / y

Full Age Pension:
= 26 * 1725.2
= $44,855.2

Saving more than $314,000 Assessable Assets is a waste because the saver pays their 'pension' whereas by converting that in excess or $314,000 to non-Assessable Assets (guilding home), the Commonwealth pays their pension.

Last year, constant withdrawals to $0 at 92 from $695,000 at 67:
= IPMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), (92 - 67), -695000, 0) + ((92 - 67) / (92 - 67) * 26 * 1725.2) + ((695000 - 0) / (92 - 67))
= $73,328.63 / y

Dudley

I’m not sure what you are trying to show in your post commencing with “Incorporating Part Age Pension”, 10 Dec; I have tried to understand it since I find some of your other posts using functions like PMT() quite illustrative.

Having said that, your repeated conclusion “Saving more than $314,000 [and less than $695,000] Assessable Assets is a waste” is still wrong with respect to the income one can obtain through retirement**. If I have misunderstood your conclusion, then my apologies.

It is simple to show the increased retirement income due to increasing assessable assets at retirement age from the range $314k to $695k in, for example, the MoneySmart retirement planner. Hence having assessable assets between $314k and $695k is not a waste.

As you have heard from Ross Clare and I, a spreadsheet can easily undertake this calculation for you; you need to calculate the cash flows year by year since one’s assessable assets will be reducing and hence, inter alia, the partial age pension increasing each year. This is quite simple in a spreadsheet but very very cumbersome using formulas like PMT() etc.

Cheers
Peter
** where income is the age pension (which may vary year to year) plus drawdown (which will also vary if the age pension varies) from your assessable assets including investment returns.

'trying to show in your post commencing with “Incorporating Part Age Pension”':

That a retiree can pay for their retirement with their cash or, with less than $314,000 Assessable Assets, with the Commonwealth's cash.

"the income one can obtain through retirement":

A retiree drawing down savings is spending their capital, which is not income received from Commonwealth as Age Pension.
They are paying with their capital, not with income from the Commonwealth.

Whatever they spend is their retirement cashflow; from their capital, their earnings or income from Commonwealth.

They can increase their cashflow by:
. spending more of their capital and be left with less capital, or,
. by reorganising their capital to be eligible for increased Age Pension payments and spend that instead.

You are considering only which scenario results in the largest cashflow.
You are not accounting for changes in retiree's capital.

" This is quite simple in a spreadsheet but very very cumbersome using formulas like PMT() etc.":

Firstlinks is text only. Can not directly post spreadsheets or images.

The formulae show it is possible to describe relevant calculations in a single spreadsheet formulae, albeit less familiar ones.

Simpler formula; what is preferred to calculate is constant real withdrawal (whether interest and / or capital; not constant capital) plus increasing part to full Age Pension payments:

Last year (age 92):
Yield 5%, inflation 3%, to 92, from 67, initial assets $695,000, final assets $0, 26 f / y, couple homeowner full Age Pension $1,725.2 / f:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), -695000, 0) + ((92 - 67) / (92 - 67) * 26 * 1725.2)
= $80,210.43 / y

Err; full Age Pension at $314,000 assets:

Last year (age 92):
Yield 5%, inflation 3%, to 92, from 67, initial assets $695,000, final assets $314,000, 26 f / y, couple homeowner full Age Pension $1,725.2 / f:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), -695000, 314,000) + ((92 - 67) / (92 - 67) * 26 * 1725.2)
= $70,334.07 / y

Err, err; 314000 [not 314,000]:

= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), -695000, 314000) + ((92 - 67) / (92 - 67) * 26 * 1725.2)
= $70,334.07 / y

Err, err; err; full Age Pension single 1144.4 / f, couple 1725.2 / f:

Single last year:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), -695000, 314000) + ((92 - 67) / (92 - 67) * 26 * 1144.4)
= 55,233.27

Couple last year:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (92 - 67), -1045500, 470000) + ((92 - 67) / (92 - 67) * 26 * 1725.2)
= $83,257.58 / y

I have noticed that in a fleeting period time the sum required from about $60k to now $73k per year but unfortunately government capping the sum that the can have in the pension phase of superannuation at the time of creation. So for academic review I asked co pilot to review sum required to achieve this response.

"how much total sum would you need in superannuation to generate a regular $72,663.00 per year income based on the industry standard of 7% with allowance of just 4 % inflation effect"
Co-pilot response
To factor in a 4% annual inflation effect while aiming for a 7% return, we'll adjust the required return rate to account for inflation.

Here’s the formula to calculate the adjusted return rate:
Adjusted Return Rate = Nominal Return Rate - Inflation Rate
Given:
Nominal Return Rate: 7% or 0.07 & Inflation Rate: 4% or 0.04

The adjusted return rate would be: 0.07 - 0.04 = 0.03 or 3 %

Now, we use this adjusted return rate to calculate the total sum needed:
Total Sum = Annual Income Adjusted Return Rate
So: Total Sum = 72,663.00 /0.03
Let's calculate this:
Total Sum = 72,663.00 / 0.03 = 2,422,100

You would need approximately $2,422,100 in your superannuation to generate an annual income of $72,663.00, accounting for a 4% inflation effect and a 7% nominal return.

"Adjusted Return Rate = Nominal Return Rate - Inflation Rate":

Adjusted Return Rate = Nominal Return Rate / Inflation Rate

= ((1 + 7%) / (1 + 4%) - 1)
= 2.885%

Indefinitely:
= 72663 / ((1 + 7%) / (1 + 4%) - 1)
= $2,518,984.00

or a very long time, future value 0:
= PV((1 + 7%) / (1 + 4%) - 1, 999, 72663, 0)
= -$2,518,984.00 [- = in fund]

A better approach is to use an online calculator which takes into account receipt of the Age Pension and also the running down of capital to zero at age 92. Investment return does not equate to total drawdown from super plus Age Pension.

I don't know if anyone has asked but in your last graph I note that women's super continues to grow after the age of 60 whereas men's plateaus at age 60 and stays about the same until the age of 74 when it begins to decline. Men and women are nearly equal in the 70-74 age bracket? Can you explain why women's super continues to grow and why men and women end up roughly equal by age 74? I have an idea why but you may have more information than I. Finally, if men and women do end up roughly equal by age 74 is there a super gap after all?

"is there a super gap after all?":

Man croaks earlier, their wife inherits?

Death & divorce the great levellers.

Hi Peter,

I suggest ( with no facts to back up) that a woman in their sixties is more able, more willing and probably has a more pressing financial requirement, to continue to work into their sixties.

Highly skilled jobs diminish with age and particularly for over 60’s. There are abundant service jobs available and age discrimination is less in services than in skills required jobs. Woman will take on services and basic clerical jobs ( for instance) whilst men opt out or won’t lower their job expectation. Just my view.

However, more telling and more significant - from the chart- was the median level of retirement assets. With less than $200k many retirees simply don’t have enough and will rely on the aged pension.

That is the real shameful super gap - for both average or median men and women retirees.

Peter

Thank you for asking a genuine and considered question.

Here are the raw numbers on the median super balances from ASFA; I've included a couple of age brackets prior to highlight a dramatic shift:
55-59yo: men have $57,580 more super
60-64yo: men have $51,700 more super
65-69yo: men have $14,616 more super
70-74yo: men have $2,344 more super
75yo+: men have $4,984 more super

Now let's look at death rates, by those same age brackets (source https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-deaths/deaths-in-australia/contents/age-at-death)
55-59yo: 61% were male
60-64yo: 62% were male
65-69yo: 60% were male
70-74yo: 60% were male
75-79yo: 58% were male

There are a few reasons behind this shift:
1. As Linda has noted, more women are continuing to work as they simply don't have the choice of retirement - which is really what my article is trying to highlight
2. Death is certainly a driver of super balance increases for women; you can see the male death rates above by age bracket
3. Divorce is not as big a driver as you would think at the 70-74yo mark: while it's 6.8 for men at aged 55-59yo, it drops to 4.7 at 60-64 and then 1.9 for 65yo and over. https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/life-insurance/articles/marriage-divorce-statistics-australia.html

It should be noted that a transfer of wealth to the female in the instances of points 2 and 3 assume that the couple is still together.

To your other question: at all age brackets through life (using the ASFA data https://www.superannuation.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ASFA-Research-Account-balances-August-2024.pdf), men have more super. The biggest super gap is in the 55-59yo bracket, where it blows out to $57,580 before steadily decreasing. So in having such a gap - at the age where many women (and men) are actively thinking about retirement - as Linda noted, the opportunity for her to retire is simply not there.

The figures are for those with superannuation. There is a strong survivorship bias in the data (in a statistical sense rather than death of people). With a lot of low balance super balances going to zero and numbers of individuals in the data substantially decreasing both median and average values for those still with super go up over some older age ranges. If you did median figures for 70 and over women (entire population) the median figure for women would be about zero. For both women and men the number with super in age range 70 to 74 is about half the number in the age range 60 to 64. Deaths only play a small role in this. The data for older age groups show that for most people the real issue is super going to zero rather than there being large balances being left for the next generation.

"strong survivorship bias in the data (in a statistical sense rather than death of people)":

'Death' of superannuation accounts, not superannuants.

When super earnings are less than SAPTO tax free threshold, $31,002 / y, it can be rational to withdraw all super and invest it under the former superannuants name.

Thought I should look at the Grow Your Money website and was appalled to see this YouTube video suggesting that this is how to grow your money - the title is "How shop until you drop and build wealth at the same time" (sic)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3-lvuuHTM

Me thinks one would be better off not going so much shopping and saving a bit more might be more useful, instead of promoting more consumption

"shop until you drop":

'10% off, look how much money I saved.'

OldbutSane and Dudley

You missed the concept of Grow My Money altogether in your hasty review of the website, not to mention your speed to judge. The service provides the user with cashback into their super when they shop. It caters for groceries to clothes to electricity providers to airlines etc. Eg spend $500 - which you were going to spend in any case - and receive $50 into your super. Forced saving for retirement. Like SG, but outside of paid employment, and the cash doesn't come from the member's or employer's pocket.

"$1,000 spend, $30 back split with Grow":
= 15 / 1000
= 1.5% off prices of stuff I'd never buy.
Does not excite.

Coles give me 12.5% to 25% off depending on how immune to their siren songs they think I am.
Additional excitement from fitting grocery requirement to offer minimum expenditure.

New product for you:
"Go Halfies"
'Half Off Stuff, Half In Super'.

Not for me, I 'don't buy stuff-all'.
It only makes more work finding ways to dispose of it.

Actually I had a good look at the Grow My Money website and even read the PDS. For every $ a person gets back, GMM gets a $. Additionally you can only put it to your mortgage or super. If, for example, you use the MyNRMA app (free if you are an NRMA member for roadside assistance), you not only get the money back to your bank account, but in some instances eg Woolworths a 4% discount all the time if you buy their gift cards (so not just online and first time only).

However, my main objection to the marketing was the YouTube video was the entire concept of "shop until you drop" in the title and I think that a lot of these "discount offers" encourage that.

There are many factors which go into the amount of wealth one accumulates into retirement. Divorce rate (52%) is a sure fire way to halve your wealth. Death of a loved on who's not insured. Poor career choices. Unemployment. Underemployment and so much more...My mother is a pensioner. She's 97. She had $35k in super when she retired 30 years ago. I'm her carer. The benefits she gets from an aged care plan are tremendous (up to $50k per annum). She refuses to live with me and lives alone in her home of 42 years. She travelled overseas (when Dad was alive) every three of years. They went on regular trips (once a month) to regional towns in and around NSW (because they benefited from cheap rail travel of $10 per journey). They entertained twice a week with family and friends and had a card night every week. Sure, Dad never purchased a new car but those things were unimportant to that generation. She has now accumulated $100k in savings and I am always trying to convince her to spend it

Oh Pith Boy

Exactly - wealth in retirement has so many inputs, and the divorce rate is a really big component in that as you say. For the elderly women of Australia - of whom 1 in 6 retires into poverty - there is a strong correlation with marital breakdown. This segment particularly has been hit by the double whammy of a) not having much super (due to time out of workforce) and b) marital breakdown when the couple hits their 50s. It's no coincidence that the fastest growing demographic of homeless people in Australia is the older woman, according to The Mercy Foundation.
Other factors are lack of education, social or cultural roles, a promise of being 'looked after financially' by your partner or financial abuse.

Your mum sounds very independent! And she's lucky to have you as a carer.

The Australian super system is not shameful. It’s one of the best in the world. Peter Swan nailed the victim/entitlement mentality so well I won’t say any more.

A family is a partnership. Men will accumulate way more than women in almost all cases where children are involved. Even if only for a short time compounded earnings from the child bearing years will result in material differences over 30 years.

So the man has no contribution breaks and compounds more and this is shameful???

Whilst this Is going on the woman is typically contributing hopefully to well rounded and confident children by being a carer. This is a much better investment than super.

This is what a partnership entails. People have different roles and responsibilities for a positive MUTUAL result. Yes people of both sexes should have more financial literacy but as super is tax free after condition of release who owns vs who benefits are not the same thing.

The other thing the article fails entirely in is to propose any form of rectification for this shamefulness other than maybe education which is the ONLY place to start.

So rather than persistent negativity and making people feel bad how about reframing your worthwhile mission with a positive framing instead?

Look what super can do for you!! How get the most out of the system and have a better life!!

Or you could play the victim card I suppose.

In an ideal world, I agree you would be right that marriage is a partnership. So if one partner is saving more Super than the other, due to child care or any other reason, then the saving pool is for both partners. That’s certainly the way I’ve done it with my wife.
However, there are many women over 65 who are single (due to death of partner, divorce or never getting married).
In act a quick Google search indicates that as many as 50% of women over 65 are single (although I’m sure Pacale (the author) would know better than me.
There are many stories also of marriages breaking down due to debt, failures of businesses or gambling addictions, where there are no savings in retirement.
So while I agree you’re right in an ideal world.
For potentially as many of 50% of all women over 65, they do not live in an ideal world.

"as many of 50% of all women over 65" .. "do not live in an ideal world":

Wait 2 years to be eligible for Age Pension.
No planning, No effort, No investment, No tax.
Inflation adjusted $29,754.40 / y for life.
Just $1,406.08 less than the comfort of the Poverty Line.

Not good enough? Work Bonus $7,800 / y.

As Dudley is often saying. It’s about choices. Not everyone gets that luxury but a lot of people are in a couple situation. Not for one second excusing violence, drugs, alcohol etc as this is not acceptable but a lot relationships end for far less serious reasons. And the ‘freedom’ of that choice comes with consequences. When you take a given set of assets and split it, especially in this country due to real estate prices, both members of a couple will be massively poorer.

Not blaming ANYONE here but all decisions have trades offs. And I’ve seen many relationships end for ‘not the best situation in the moment’ but to massively deleterious financial outcomes.

The ASFA standard makes it quite clear that it assumes home ownership and access to full or part pension.
It doesn't update the amount needed for retirement, and this hasn't changed for quite a while now.
The one line item missing is that of gifts ( Xmas, birthdays etc etc )
We use the quarterly data as a guide only and is one of several tools in the bag. We plug in our own numbers for each quarterly update .
We live a "comfortable" lifestyle , and in our case the numbers and totals exceed our requirements.
Horses for courses folks.

Living in poverty is quite comfortable.

Single: 599.24 * 52 = $31,160.48
Couple: 819.31 * 53 = $42,604.12
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/4961229/Poverty-Lines-Australia-March-Quarter-2024.pdf

Saves a little money relative to Living Modestly :
Single: $32,930
Couple: $47,475
https://www.superannuation.asn.au/resources/retirement-standard/

But spending so much on 'Food – groceries and other fresh food' seems injurious to health and finances.

It is good to come across commentary which understands the role of the various Retirement Standard budgets. They are a guide for retirement planning, with every individual and couple having their own specific requirements. Having a starting point is very useful though, as has been demonstrated by the high level of the use of the Retirement Standard budgets over the last 20 years.
A few other comments in response to the article. The figures for haircuts and cinema visits are weekly average expenditure rather than assuming a visit to the cinema or hairdresser every week. Going to Just Cuts or the like every 6 to 8 weeks is well within the budget amounts. Getting your hair coloured or a perm might push the budget though.
Working out lump sums needed really needs a sophisticated spreadsheet which incorporates the Age Pension means test, amongst other things. Simply multiplying annual figures or using a couple of formulas will not get you the right result.
Finally, the great bulk of those currently aged over 65 own their own home or have only a small mortgage. However, this might change a bit in the decades ahead. ASFA will be releasing research in the not too distant future on housing tenure of retirees, mortgage balances of those aged 65 and over, and private rent levels for retirees. Keep an eye out as well for a possible set of budgets for those in private rental.
Getting gender disparities in superannuation will require a range of things to happen, including labour force developments which have nothing to do with superannuation. SG on Paid Parental Leave (recently legislated) will help, as would expanding the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset.

"Working out lump sums needed really needs a sophisticated spreadsheet which incorporates the Age Pension means test, amongst other things.":

Can be accurately simplified.
Between the single homeowner Age Pension Asset Test full pension (< $314,000) and no pension (> $695,500), the Age Pension payment / y is increased by $0.078 for each $1 converted to non-Assessable Assets (guilding home, slow dogs, long travels, ...).
That is a rate of return of 7.8% / y, risk free and tax free.
There is no larger rate of risk free return available.
Therefore it makes no sense to keep assets between $314,000 and $695,000 - they are worth-less than the increase in Age Pension if disposed of.
Preferable guilding home results in value appreciation.

Thus the minimum lump sum to aim for is $314,000.

Ross, thank you for this thoughtful and considered reply.

I agree, the Retirement Standard is a good place to start; it's a template that singles and couples should shape per their circumstances. While the ASFA website itself notes the home ownership comment, the downloadable pdf - the tool most actively downloaded (https://www.superannuation.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ASFA_Retirement_Standard_Budgets_Sept-24_quarter.pdf) - makes no mention of it.
I would urge the ASFA comms team to address this, as it's the item that most people will print out or take to their planner etc. It could be a good idea for ASFA to also review each super fund's retirement calculator to ensure whether they do/don't mention it; in my research for the book, I found a number of the country's leading super funds did NOT mention it at all. Happy to share that information privately.

I understand a person's actual retirement savings calculations will require sophisticated spreadsheets or external independent financial advice (which I also advocate for). What I'm aiming to do with this book is establish awareness of retirement needs for women (and men). To use a metaphor, it's like learning to walk; I'm not expecting them to go a crawl straight into becoming an Olympic sprinter; I want them to be able to walk unaided first.

As for the coming ASFA research, I look forward to it.

Correct - addressing gender disparity in superannuation has to start in the workforce, which then has an impact on super. Making it easier for women to return to the workforce, not to mention making childcare more affordable are just two examples that would help achieve that. I very much welcomed the SG on Paid Parental Leave and we are seeing more corporates paying superannuation on parental leave - more of those please.

This whole article just ignores the fact that some people do not take responsibility for their own decisions (or lack of) and effort to understand their own economic situation. Should the clever few make all the decisions for the supposed not so smart who make different decisions based on different priorities. There will never be equality of outcomes when some people think, plan for the future and make the effort…. and others just go through life living for the moment. After 35 years work and marriage my wife and I now have super within $100K of each otehr after splitting and TTR withdrawals et to even out. It is not that hard to do if you make some effort or simply pay an advisor. Who’s fault if it if people dont plan for they own future as you may think they should. It’s a free society and people need to take responsibility for their own decisions and situations.

"some people do not take responsibility for their own decisions (or lack of) and effort to understand their own economic situation":

They don't.

Might have less obligation and responsibility to help unwilling adults with their insouciance than the public has towards educating children to arm them and willing adults against ignorance and exploitation:

https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/curriculum-connections/portfolios/consumer-and-financial-literacy/

You provide a great summary Dauf. I'm retired with no debt and a capital base of just on $2M. My expenses are $90k per annum which I easily cover with a $10k buffer. You make the primary point, to do what I have done took 25 years of financial planning and discipline. This stuff needs to be taught at school at an early age so people understand what planning for a secure future requires.

"25 years of financial planning and discipline":

= (1 / (1 - 15%)) * PMT((1 + (1 - 15%) * 8%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, 25, 0, 2000000)
= -$58,903.65 / y

Close to two times the recent super concessional contribution cap:
https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/super-for-individuals-and-families/super/growing-and-keeping-track-of-your-super/caps-limits-and-tax-on-super-contributions/concessional-contributions-cap

"capital base of just on $2M. My expenses are $90k per annum which I easily cover with a $10k buffer":
Nominal:
= RATE(25, 100000, -2000000, 2000000)
= 5% / y
Real:
= (1 + RATE(25, 100000, -2000000, 2000000)) / (1 + 3%) - 1
= 1.94% / y

How much to rip out if going for broke in 25 years (tax free super and personal combined):
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, 25, -2000000, 0)
= $101,741.66 / y

If preserving capital at today's value:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, 25, -2000000, 2000000)
= $38,834.95 / y

Derek
'Rich Woman, Poor Woman' highlights the lack of education on financial literacy for our nation as a whole. Women are more impacted by this; according to the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, 63% of men and 48% of women demonstrate an understanding of at least three basic financial literacy concepts. I agree totally that it needs to be taught in schools.

But moreover - 'Rich Woman, Poor Woman' encourages women (and any male readers) to take personal responsibility for their retirement savings, and shows that it CAN be done, despite systemic deficiencies.

"'Rich Woman, Poor Woman' encourages women (and any male readers) to take personal responsibility for their retirement savings":

Sequel:

'Grow Your Children's Money'
'The Bunk of Dad&Mum' - how they can save to buy a home with no mortgage in under 4 years, starting with nothing, while they are lying flat.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=FirstLinks+%22Bunk+of+Dad%26Mum%22

Dudley, clearly you have had the good fortune to have the education and training for these calculations. Now I ask you to imagine that you
- have little financial literacy; and/or
- work in a sector far removed from exposure to financial services; and/or
- you are a fulltime homemaker; and/or
- have been told you don’t need to worry about the household finances; and/or
- your culture deems it not appropriate to be concerned with finances; and/or
- you have been socially conditioned that talk of money and finances is irrelevant; and/or
- you are the subject of financial abuse by your partner.

According to the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, women in Australia are less financially literate than men:
Gender gap: In Australia, 63% of men and 48% of women demonstrate an understanding of at least three basic financial literacy concepts.
Age gap: Financial literacy declined more for people under 35 than older people.
Time decline: Financial literacy declined between 2016 and 2020.
Poverty: Low financial literacy can lead to poor financial well-being, which can result in more women retiring into poverty.

Rich Woman, Poor Woman understands that this landscape of very low financial literacy is the backdrop for the majority of Australian women. Explaining how to take ownership of their retirement savings - and how to calculate retirement requirements - in a very digestible way is the point of the whole book (not just a chapter)

"education and training for these calculations":

I educated and trained myself by finding arithmetic solutions to questions of obvious relevance to me.

I offer the calculation methods here because I see debilitating "very low financial" numeracy and "literacy".

I expect to be mostly ignored by those who might benefit, just as they ignored all before, despite relevant information being readily available.

To calculate the answer to many relevant financial questions, there are 5 quantities to consider :
1. Present value,
2. Future value,
3. Return,
4. Payment,
5. Time.
Need to know 4 can calculate the remaining one with spreadsheet functions:
1. PV,
2. FV,
3. RATE,
4. PMT,
5. NPER.

Lean / teach how to apply those 5 calculations and '99%' or finance is within the readers' grasp.

Always amuses me when I read that lack of funds will mean little exercise, or to quote this story 'Infrequent exercise'

Are people that brainwashed that they think you need money to exercise?
A walk around the block costs money now?

Let's assume that both parties remain married throughout. Chances are then that they would pool their retirement incomes much like they did when they were both working and live happily ever after. If they separate then the difference in super is taken into account by mediators or the Family Court - she gets the house, he keeps his super and now lives in a one bedroom flat. I know which I would prefer.

The budget approach is only part of the story. If you want to avoid a lifestyle shock when you retire the best target is between 80% to 100% of your pre- retirement, after tax income from all sources.

Most people are adjusted to their income. If you can’t match it in retirement it maybe uncomfortable.

I can see in the future where there is going to be a collective anger at governments from a large group of retirees where their retirement income does not meet their lifestyle expectations. We have very high expectations in Australia of what our governments should provide for us where we are unable to provide for ourselves. I could start writing some headlines now for the newspapers and Current Affair.

So as a male I’m lucky to die 3 years earlier! Aboriginal men must win retirement lotto in your mind with their shorter life expectancy.
I also didn’t get the chance to take a year off with my young kids.
I’m betting your solution to fix the gender gap of 67 year olds today is more handouts for Gen Y women (millennials).
Have you researched the gap in savings based on geography. Guessing no as it’s not your demographic. People outside Sydney and Melbourne also have much less home equity and less quality health services. People get paid less for the same work based on geography.

Cam, I'm not gloating about anyone's life expectancy; that would be completely inappropriate. I don't know how you managed to surmise that based on the above.

Interesting that your answer to the gender super gap is that the answer is 'more handouts'. Where exactly in the text does it say, let alone infer, that? In fact, I'll quote page 46 of Rich Woman, Poor Woman, which states: "A poor woman relies on the government to resolve her wealth shortfall; a rich woman relies on her initiative and taking action."

The point of the extract is that the super system did not cater for women in its design. Super is an amazing product and it works brilliantly if you earn like a man, work fulltime like a man, for the entire length of your career. I cannot make that same statement when it comes to the majority of women. The Australian government has been aware of this system design flaw since for some 20+ years. In typical glacial pace, it's only in the last few years we've started seeing meaningful change with regards to the gender super gap. And those women aged 55yo+, who were out of the workforce when super was invented and therefore didn't have the chance to accrue it, have been the ones most badly impacted with 1 in 3 women retiring into poverty.

Pascale
You have entirely missed the point of superannuation. It is not a universal welfare system but a form of deferred income saving! It only works if you have worked and saved. There is a community funded pension but it is means tested so many superannuants are excluded.

Finally superannuation is not a free good it represents consumption of deferred savings; the more you saved the more you get back on retirement.

Thanks Pascale
I know you didn’t propose more handouts. I started my sentence by saying I’m betting.

What irks me about so many discussions about retirement gaps is where solutions are proposed it’s always been super on maternity leave. That doesn’t help anyone within 20 years of retirement age, or anyone already retired .
It should come as no surprise that the gap at retirement will continue for over 20 years if no one is trying to close it, or offer any solutions.

Calling the system shameful seems harsh. No one offering any solutions to solve it though may be shameful. Maybe the $16b of HECS debt proposed to be forgiven could be allocated to this issue. The HECS measure goes to the same generation benefitting from the huge increases in childcare subsidies and super on maternity leave. I’m not saying these policies are wrong. It’s just that there’s a generation above getting nothing and they’ll be the ones suffering the gender retirement gap through to 2050.

I found the reference to Sydney cinema and dining out costs tone deaf. You get paid more for the same job in Sydney. Your home equity increase in the last decade is more than the cost of a home in regional centres.
The geographical gap in super at retirement is much bigger than the gender gap. It affects both members of a couple. And the gap in home equity is bigger again.
I know you’ve weren’t gloating about women living longer. I didn’t say you were. I also appreciate your article was about super and not health and longevity. Stating the average life expectancy of a female is a fact. It’s one that can benefit from some sympathetic language for those which a shorter expectancy.

Comments above are spot on, particularly Peter Swan.

As a retired female who made certain life choices, I retired at 49 and live on my super pension plus investments in my own name. And, no, I did not have a high paying job, just average income.

To say the system discriminates is not true, it's people's life choices. Couples can always increase the super of a non-working spouse by transferring super contributions to the non-worker, but how many do it (and more importantly how many women bother to ask!). Right from when I first started work I put extra money into superannuation.

The lack of financial literacy seems to me to be because people can't be bothered and/or are not interested. Putting the onus back on others for what are essentially personal decisions achieves little. People need to take more responsibility for themselves.

I also had to laugh about the comment re hair, dining out, snacks, chemist, etc. Maybe the author needs to take a hard look at her discretionary spending as I spend less than most of the amounts in the tables and way less than the items she identified. Indeed, my total spending this year will barely be above the $50,000 singles amount and that includes a 7 week trip to Europe and a couple of 2-3 week domestic holidays! That's why the tables are averages and given as a guide, so people can plug in their own figures to see what they need.

Also, if anyone hasn't paid off their mortgage by retirement age or is renting then they simply need to adjust the figures.

Hi Old but Sane

Be good to know what life choices that you made for 30 years, so average wage earners ( particularly woman) can learn from you.

That is one of the greatest gifts - sharing knowledge and experience.

Retire at 49. Possibly not ever married or divorced? No children? No pesty private school fees.

No inheritance? No windfalls or luck? No settlements?

Lived at home till? Bought property - when and where? Average salary so can’t borrow too much!

Just an average wage for 30 years? No university degree so no HECs? Private health insurance or just public coverage.

7 weeks overseas and 4 weeks domestic travel? Staying with family ( no cost) and caravan parks!

And still money to burn from the super account earnings and private investments from meticulous investing.

Sounds like serendipity - but well done!

Some great points there Linda.

To me, 'certain life choices', is code for 'no children'. And why not? After all, it costs anywhere between $237k - $548k to raise a child to the age of 18. And that's just the expenditure outlay, it doesn't factor in the cost to your career, your income, your super. No wonder that more and more women are following in OldbutSane's footsteps: the proportion of women having no children has risen from 9% in 1986 to 16% in 2016. Similarly, the enumber of women have 1 child has increased from 8% in 1986 to 14% in 2016. And then we complain about our declining birth rate!

As for the comment people need to take more personal responsibility for themselves - I couldn't agree more. My book is designed to both i) raise awareness of the systemic issues at play and ii) provide strategies on how to counter them. I quote p46 of 'Rich Woman, Poor Woman' which says 'A poor woman relies on the government to resolve her wealth shortfall a rich women relies on her initiative and taking action."

But here is the wicked problem OldbutSane: if a woman hasn't had any education regarding superannuation, either within her social or educational environment (it's not like super school exists), and she is not aware of the deficiencies in the system, then why would she think such deficiencies exist in a first-world country as progressive as ours?

Better to pay off her house then and retire with less superannuation!

The current full pension is $1,144.40/fn = $29,754 p.a. Achieving >$650,000 in superannuation to draw a pension of $32,915 p.a. (as per the article) is inefficient. Essentially you're barely better off than the pension (part pension would be $136.40 f.n ($3,546.40 p.a.)), aside from of course having access to the capital if needed. The winner is the government (tax payer): less aged pension to pay.

Better to accumulate near to maximum allowed and still get a full pension. For single homeowners: $314,000.

Total tax free income about $29,754 (full pension) + $15,700 (super $314,000 x 5%) = $45,454 p.a. Puts her over midway between single modest and comfortable lifestyle as per the above (silly) tables!

Those unable to accumulate a significant amount of assets in super are better off paying off a home before retirement and targeting the pension sweet spot!

"As a Sydneysider, the estimates around hair services, cinemas, snacks and dining out caused me great amusement.":

Double Pay. Both sides of ledger.
Better to earn 'comfortable', spend 'modest'.

This article embodies a deeply flawed worldview, driven by an outcomes-based narrative that undermines individual responsibility and perpetuates a sense of victimhood. Its argument relies on the false premise that disparate outcomes in retirement savings between men and women are inherently indicative of systemic discrimination. This worldview not only misconstrues the nature of superannuation but also fuels an unsustainable entitlement mentality, demanding government intervention to subsidize personal life choices.
1. Misrepresentation of Gender Disparities as Discrimination
The author leans heavily on the notion that the "gender super gap" is a systemic failure, yet fails to substantiate any claim of deliberate discrimination. The gender disparity in superannuation balances reflects differing life choices, not discriminatory practices. For example:
• Women are more likely to choose career breaks or part-time work for child-rearing, a personal decision that naturally impacts earning potential and retirement savings.
• Superannuation is directly tied to income and workforce participation; it is not a redistributive system designed to equalize outcomes, nor should it be.
Blaming the system for outcomes rooted in individual agency diminishes personal accountability and reduces the credibility of the argument.
2. Life Choices Have Consequences
Child-rearing, while noble and valuable, is fundamentally a personal choice. Expecting the government or superannuation framework to neutralize the financial impact of such choices is misguided.
• Everyone makes trade-offs in life. Those who prioritize caregiving over uninterrupted careers must accept that this will likely result in reduced financial accumulation.
• Suggesting that the government should intervene to compensate for these trade-offs shifts responsibility from individuals to the state, promoting dependency and eroding self-reliance.
A robust system does not absolve individuals of the consequences of their choices but provides a neutral framework within which they can act. The current system already achieves this, and any further adjustment risks tipping into the realm of wealth redistribution under the guise of fairness.
3. The Problem with an Outcomes-Based Narrative
The article promotes an outcomes-based worldview, which assumes that equal outcomes across demographics are both achievable and desirable. This perspective is fundamentally flawed:
• Outcomes are, and should be, the result of personal decisions, effort, and priorities. Attempting to enforce parity disregards the diversity of life paths and preferences.
• An outcomes-based approach ignores merit, effort, and the natural variability in individual choices, instead prioritizing arbitrary equity metrics that do not reflect reality.
The insistence on "fixing" the so-called super gap ignores the fact that superannuation balances are a product of earned income. There is no inherent injustice in differing outcomes when those outcomes reflect freely made choices.
4. The Entitlement Mentality and the Welfare State
The underlying message of this article is clear: the government should step in to subsidize life choices. This entitlement-driven mindset is the cornerstone of the suffocating welfare state:
• Proposals to "fix" the gender super gap, such as additional government contributions or adjustments to superannuation, would penalize those who make different choices—particularly individuals who prioritize uninterrupted careers.
• This approach breeds resentment, creates perverse incentives, and inflates government expenditure at a time when fiscal responsibility is paramount.
Rather than fostering independence, the article's recommendations encourage reliance on state support, further burdening taxpayers and undermining the principles of fairness and responsibility.

Exactly! Couldn't agree more!

Peter,

Way too many words and provocative statements by you to fully comment. But these two stand out:

“Child-rearing, while noble and valuable, is fundamentally a personal choice. Expecting the government or superannuation framework to neutralize the financial impact of such choices is misguided.”

As is well known across the developed world the birthrate has declined dramatically over the last 25 years. The cost of living ( when working) and the associated risk of not sustaining oneself in retirement, are arguably the main factors. Without government assistance then Australia’s birthrate will decline further. It is not only superannuation assistance ( which is fairly insignificant) but ( for example) child care, healthcare and education assistance that remains the key support mechanisms. Aged pension entitlements will support low income workers in retirement. Without it the economic framework would collapse.

Obviously, it is not possible for the majority of people to comfortably retire without government support. Account based superannuation dies not work for the majority of retirees. Today 70% of retirees will claim a full or part pension. I suspect most had children during their lives. If only they didn’t then how much better off would they be?

The population has to replenish to sustain an economy. If woman don’t have children then the alternative is we just immigrate people and hope it works! The corollary of your argument would suggest that immigrants can come here and also receive no support. Their choice - so to speak - good luck!

Then ….

“Everyone makes trade-offs in life. Those who prioritise caregiving over uninterrupted careers must accept that this will likely result in reduced financial accumulation.”

Do you suggest that we close public hospitals, aged care, child care. Let’s tell nurses, aged care, child care, cleaners, charitable support workers etc to get a real job and also please don’t have children.

A society that is guided towards the greater good is far more desirable than one that cares little for those that greatly contribute based more on their sole and values rather than a manic desire for wealth accumulation.

Child rearing is just a personal choice. No advantage to society. What would the Nordic countries know about welfare. Peter you sound like a reasonable, empathetic person. You have had made good choices and avoided
with skill any accidents, disease or illness. Well done!

Peter
Well done!
Until I read your reply I was formulating a similar response. I agree with your input 100%. Lifestyle choices are made by individuals. In our family there is an equal gender balance in our superannuation accounts because of decisions we made 20 and 30 years ago. This included compensating for the time when my wife was not working as a teacher whilst raising children.

Greg - if only there were more people like you. Spousal splitting is not well known at all. And even SMSF expert Meg Heffron says "It often surprises me how rarely we see ‘spouse contribution splitting’."

As mentioned in the article, I've spoken to thousands of women about their super. If there's a common thread, it's that the level of financial literacy about super is extremely basic. I've even been asked 'Is super mine?'. So, understanding how spousal splitting works - and then to actually execute it - is in the realm of the few, not the many.

"understanding how spousal splitting works - and then to actually execute it - is in the realm of the few, not the many":

Easier when not required to pay Super Guarantee; such as when income is dividends, interest, distributions, capital gains, ..., where there is director or trustee discretion as to where which can be dispersed.

That leads to looking for ways to reduce tax on such income, which leads to income splitting with spouse, which leads to maximising super contributions and minimising personal net income exceeding tax-free threshold through retained profit.

Super contribution splitting:
https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/superannuation-contributions-splitting

In the event of divorce, super capital will be split.

Well said, fairness and responsibility is needed. That is why Australia has Negative gearing, 50%Capital Gain tax and tax free super when 60 yrs old. We have chosen well.

Peter

Most couples - both men and women - go into parenthood without being aware of its consequences on the longer term, particularly on her super. The issue here is not one of a lifestyle choice but of awareness.

If we flipped the situation on its head and asked “hey women! Before you have kids, how would you like to 1) have a 40% chance of not returning to the workforce and 2) have a 1 in 3 chance of retiring into poverty?” I can’t think of a single woman I know who would take on those odds. The birth rate would decline dramatically and in turn, this would mean far fewer citizens to pay the taxes required to keep Medicare going, etc.

For that matter, if you asked any man if they were prepared to take on a 1 in 3 shot of retiring into poverty, they would decline the offer. Oh wait…they don’t have to run that risk!

The answer here is awareness. If women were aware of the potential pitfalls when it comes to their super, they can take action to avoid them.

Your statement that this article encourages reliance on state support - where is that in the extract? I don’t see it.

As for not fostering independence - I suggest you read the book, as I have. It advocates for women to create wealth into super by using all the avenues available to them so that they are NOT reliant on government support.

Well said Annie,

I had to reread the article after seeing Peter’s comments.

The article merely stated that there is a significant chasm between what an average person has in super on retirement and what is assessed as the amount needed to live modestly in retirement.

It also noted the chasm is greater for women.

With $4 trillion sitting in super it is surely reasonable to question as to why so many have so little in super?

Those who don’t like the question invariably are those in the minority who have too much - defined as more than reasonable - in super.

I agree with most of your comments about personal responsibility. Having four kids certainly didn’t allow my wife to accumulate much super. After a big promotion and when caps on super we're $100,000 annually I salary sacrificed big time. At retirement my wife had more than me in an accumulation account. This is one example of personal choice, frugality and planning for the future.
The system will mature and in a related article today it is mentioned that super income will overtake the age pension in the future.

Eddie - well done and bravo to you and your wife. Hopefully you can share your success story with others in your circle, and with your kids. We all need more of this type of example.

Peter, James and Greg

Thank you for your responses; I believe there are several important points worth addressing.

Gender Disparities and Systemic Discrimination
It’s important to acknowledge that the choice to have children is not made in a vacuum. Societal norms, workplace structures, and broader gendered expectations shape the decisions that women make around caregiving and career progression. The extract does not claim that all disparities in retirement savings are due to deliberate discrimination, but rather highlights that systemic factors—such as unequal access to opportunities—can contribute to the gender super gap.

Life Choices and Personal Responsibility
We need to consider not all life choices are made on equal footing eg women face greater societal pressure to take on caregiving roles, which can limit their career progression and earnings potential. The argument isn’t about eliminating the financial consequences of these choices but about creating a system that better accounts for the realities of unpaid care work.

Nowhere in this extract, nor the book, do I claim that we should create an entitlement culture; I don't understand how you concluded that from the extract provided. In fact, I actively encourage the reader to take personal accountability for creating their own wealth, and not be reliant on the government. I quote p46 of 'Rich Woman, Poor Woman' which says 'A poor woman relies on the government to resolve her wealth shortfall a rich women relies on her initiative and taking action."

Outcomes-Based Narratives and Equality
Again, the issue at hand is not about achieving exactly equal outcomes but ensuring fair outcomes. A fair system would allow people to achieve a reasonable standard of retirement savings, regardless of gender, while acknowledging the personal choices that individuals make.

The Role of Government and the Welfare State
The current system is not adequately supporting those who are disproportionately impacted by caregiving responsibilities. We need to ensure that the system recognises the broader social contributions of those who make different choices.

In conclusion, we are where we are. 1 in 3 single women retires into poverty. 80% of people seeking refuge from homelessness are women. These are undeniable proof points that the system has not worked, for 51% of the population.

"she retires at 68" ... "$650,000" ... "40- to 44-year-old" ... "current super balance" ... "$107,000"

How much to contribute to super in today's money?
Earnings tax 15%, super total return 8%, inflation 3%, to 68, from 44, present super -$107,000 [- = in fund], future value $650,000:
= (1 / (1 - 15%)) * PMT((1 + (1 - 15%) * 8%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (68 - 44), -107000, 650000)
= -$12,363.93 / y [- = into fund]

How much to earn for Super Guarantee of 11.5% to equal $12,363.93:
= $12,363.93 / 11.5%
= -$107,512.42 / y
"In May 2024, the average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults in Australia was $1,923.40, which is equivalent to an annual salary of $99,996."

Don't cry. Do arithmetic. Ensure income.

Even better, do meaningful arithmetic and avoid deluding yourself and others with inappropriate statistics.
As of 2024, the median salary in Australia is $67,600 per year, or $1,300 per week. Yes, the average was $99,996 per year. I'm sure you know why such a large difference exists and why using the median is the best option in this case.

"do meaningful arithmetic":

Using median salary of "$67,600 per year", what portion work income must be invested in super to arrive at Age Pension age with single homeowner Assessable Assets of $314,000 using other inputs from article?

Contribution tax 15%, earnings tax 15%, returns 8%, inflation 3%, to 68, from 44, present super $107,000, future super $314,000:
= (1 / (1 - 15%)) * PMT((1 + (1 - 15%) * 8%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (68 - 44), -107000, 314000)
= -$1,839.56 / y [- = in/into fund]

Portion of work income ti invest:
= 1839.56 / 67600
= 0.027212426
= 2.7%

Super guarantee is currently 11.5%.

What would the future (real) value of super be with 11.5% of "$67,600 per year" invested?
= FV((1 + (1 - 15%) * 8%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (68 - 44), (1 - 15%) * 11.5% * -66700, -107000)
= $500,158.05

"$650,000":

Inflation adjusted interest:
= ((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) * 650000
= $12,621 / y.

Cash wise, better to retire at Age Pension age with single homeowner Assessable Assets of $314,000 and receive Age Pension of $1,144.40 / f = $29,754.40 / y inflation adjusted indexed for life.

= 29765.40 + ((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) * 314000
= $35,862 / y.
Tax:
= $343.79 / y.

To have $314,000 future value Assessable Assets starting from present super -$107,000 [- = in fund] requires saving:
= (1 / (1 - 15%)) * PMT((1 + (1 - 15%) * 8%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (68 - 44), -107000, 314000)
= -$1,839.56 / y [- = into fund]
Income to produce super guarantee of $1,839.56 / y:
= 1839.56 / 11.5%
= $15,996.17 / y.

Dudley & Dean
I'll leave you two to duke it out as to who has the more relevant arithmetic.
However, I must respond to the instruction of 'ensure income.'
When the cost of 2 children in childcare is greater than the average take-home pay for a woman, why would a women return to work when it sends her/the family unit backwards economically?
This plain and simple fact - alongside other factors such as cultural and social expectations of a woman's 'role' - are why we have 38% of the female population aged 15-64 yo who are not in the paid workforce. And are therefore simply unable to 'ensure income.'
I'm sure if you found yourself homeless through no fault of your own, you'd be crying too.

"When the cost of 2 children in childcare is greater than the average take-home pay for a woman, why would a women return to work when it sends her/the family unit backwards economically?":

The rational way to 'ensure income' is to have a spouse who is a good provider and / or work from home, possibly self-employed, with kids under foot.
Before 'Work-from-Home' became a 'thing', women 'Worked-at-Home' as full-time housewives; which has become too dreary after mechanisation eliminated much of 'Women's-Work' and marketeering of labour saving goods and services and fancy and mortgaged housing vacuumed money from the home. Now social media makes work socialisation less 'necessary'.

"I'm sure if you found yourself homeless through no fault of your own, you'd be crying too.":

I chose to live with a swag for 10 years - did not consider myself homeless - the bush was my home.
But I did not have the obligation to look after kids - which would have cause more than a little grief, especially in the absence of diligent spousal help.

"the more relevant arithmetic":

This would be the topic of a chapter in a book about super.

And:??“The rational way to 'ensure income' is to have a spouse who is a good provider”

In theory - yes. But then a woman is called a gold digger. And how to mitigate against life’s misadventures? Redundancy, separation, critical illness or death?

I am comforted by your acknowledgement that a diligent spouse is required to help with child rearing. Thank you. You might be interested to learn that Pwc produced a great report measuring the value of this on the economy: 72% of unpaid carers are women. If we monetised all the child care, the domestic duties etc, we would add another $2.2 trillion to the economy every year.

"then a woman is called a gold digger":

In some circles; in others an 'income ensurer'. Used to be that 'no marriage vows in full public view, no kids'. Now kids no vows, family Law holds ratbags accountable, creating a 'Moral Hazard'?

"mitigate against" ... "death": Faith in hereafter?

"monetised all the child care, the domestic duties etc, we would add another $2.2 trillion to the economy every year.":

Mandatory wages for contract child bearers, carers, cooks, bottle washers, butlers and maids? Gold diggers. Alternate is child bearer is housewife, bread winner is husband; each agreeing to barter their respective services.

"When the cost of 2 children in childcare is greater than the average take-home pay for a woman, why would a women return to work"

For decades I have thought the government should do away with complex subsidies on childcare and simply make it a tax deduction.

The argument against that is that childcare is not just child minding and children benefit from socialisation prior to starting school. To that end I would suggest one day per week government paid childcare (ie. free to recipient) and any childcare beyond that is not subsidised but is tax deductible.

The other thing to change is that couples should be taxed as a couple. At the moment if one person earns $200k and the partner does not work, the couple pay far more tax than if both partners earned $100k each. Similarly, any compulsory superannuation guarantee payments should be split equally between both partners' super accounts. This way there would be less difference in super balances between the sexes given women often do more "domestic duties".

To be fair though, the lower super balance of women in a typical (hetero) relationship is probably less of a concern as a couple's assets are generally thought of as "shared" and typically the man dies earlier and the woman inherits the remaining super anyway.

Sure there are lots of generalisation in all the above and the typical family of the 50's or 60's is less common these days. Blended families often cause complexity.