Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 595

How much do you need to retire?

How much do you need to save for a comfortable retirement? It’s a big question, and you’ll often hear dire warnings you don’t have enough. But for most Australians, it’s a lot less than you might think.

You spend less in retirement

Australians tend to overestimate how much they need in retirement. Retirees don’t have work-related expenses and have more time to do things for themselves. And retirees, especially pensioners, benefit from discounts on council rates, electricity, medicines, and other benefits worth thousands of dollars a year.

While housing is becoming less affordable, most retirees own their own home and have paid it off by the time they retire. Australians who own their home spend an average of 20–25% of their income on housing while working, largely to pay the mortgage. But that falls to just 5% among retiree homeowners, because they are just left with smaller things such as rates and insurance.


Notes: Housing costs include mortgage interest and principal repayments and general rates for homeowners, and rental payments for renters. Does not include imputed rent. Grattan analysis of ABS (2022) Survey of Income and Housing.

And whatever the income you need at the start of your retirement, it typically falls as you age. Retirees tend to spend 15–20% less at age 90 than they do at age 70, after adjusting for inflation, as their health deteriorates and their discretionary spending falls. Most of their health and aged-care costs are covered by government.

So how much superannuation do you need?

Consumer group Super Consumers Australia has crunched the numbers on retiree spending and presents three robust “budget standards”:

  • a “low” standard (that is, enough for a person who wants to spend more than what 30% of retirees do)
  • a “medium” standard (spending more than 50% of retirees do), and
  • a “high” standard (more than 70%).


Super Consumers Australia (2023) Retirement Savings Targets

Crucially, these estimates account for the significant role of the Age Pension in the retirement income of many Australians. The maximum Age Pension is now $30,000 a year for singles, and $45,000 a year for couples.

To meet Super Consumers Australia’s “medium” retirement standard, a single homeowner needs to have saved only $279,000 in super by age 65 to be able to spend $41,000 a year. A couple needs only $371,000 in super between them to spend $60,000 a year.

To meet their “low” standard – which still enables you to spend more than 30% of retirees – single Australians need $76,000 in super at retirement, and couples $95,000 (while also qualifying for a full Age Pension of $30,000 a year).

That’s provided that you own your own home (more on that later).

Ignore the super lobby’s estimates

Australians should ignore the retirement standards produced by super lobby group, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. Their “comfortable” standard assumes retirees need an annual income of $52,085 as a single, and $73,337 as a couple. This would require a super balance of $595,000 for a single person, and $690,000 for a couple.

But this is a standard of living most Australians don’t have before retirement. It is higher than what 80% of single working Australians, and 70% of couples, spend today.

For most Australians, saving enough to meet the super lobby’s “comfortable” standard in retirement can only come by being uncomfortable during their working life.

Most Australians are on track for a comfortable retirement

The good news is most Australians are on track. The Federal Government’s 2020 Retirement Income Review concludes most future Australian retirees can expect an adequate retirement, replacing a more-than-reasonable share of their pre-retirement earnings – more than the 65–75% benchmark nominated by the review.

Even most Australians who work part-time or have broken work histories will hit this benchmark.

Most retirees today feel more comfortable financially than younger Australians. And typically, they have enough money to sustain the same, or a higher, living standard in retirement than they had when working.

Rising mortgage debt doesn’t change this story

More Australians are retiring with mortgage debt – about 13% of over-65s had a mortgage in 2019–20, up from 4% in 2002–03. But the Government’s retirement income review found most retirees who used $100,000 of their super to pay off the mortgage when they retire would still have an adequate retirement income.

This is, in part, because many would qualify for more Age Pension after using a big chunk of super to pay off the mortgage.

And retirees can get a loan via the government’s Home Equity Access Scheme to draw equity out of their home up to a maximum value of 150% of the Age Pension, or $45,000 a year, irrespective of how much Age Pension you are eligible for.

The outstanding debt accrues with interest, which the government recovers when the property is sold, or from the borrower’s estate when they die, reducing the size of the inheritance that goes to the kids.

But what about renters?

One group of Australians is not on track for a comfortable retirement: those who don’t own a home and must keep paying rent in retirement.

Nearly half of retired renters live in poverty today.

Most Australians approaching retirement own their own homes today, but fewer will do so in future. Among the poorest 40% of 45–54-year-olds, just 53% own their home today, down from 71% four decades ago.

But a single retiree renting a unit for $330 a week – cheaper than 80% of the one-bedroom units across all capital cities – would need an extra $200,000 in super, in addition to Commonwealth Rent Assistance (according to the government’s Money Smart Retirement Planner).

This is why raising Commonwealth Rent Assistance to help renting retirees keep a roof over their heads should be an urgent priority for the Federal Government.

Australians have been told for decades that they’re not saving enough for retirement. But the vast majority of retirees today and in future are likely to be financially comfortable.


This article is part of The Conversation’s retirement series, in which experts examine issues including how much money we need to retire, retiring with debt, the psychological impact of retiring and the benefits of getting financial advice. Read the rest of the series here.The Conversation

Brendan Coates, Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, Grattan Institute and Joey Moloney, Deputy Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

32 Comments
Stella
January 27, 2025

It's clear neither of the authors is retired. Saying "And retirees, especially pensioners, benefit from discounts on council rates, electricity, medicines, and other benefits worth thousands of dollars a year," is simply not true, unless one is a pensioner. Those of us who are not pensioners get a negligible amount.
Stella

Ramani
January 24, 2025

Given the marked difference between home owners and renters, I can foresee how future retirees looking forward to the day their home owning parents (family home plus an investment property or two) falling off their earthly perch, as there is no estate duty (except for the 17% tax including Medicare on taxed super).
Longevity can be daunting, but will eventually be overcome. Onto the reading of the will, if you will…

Fact checker
January 24, 2025

What the Grattan research doesn’t appear to answer or explain is whether retirees are spending less in retirement than ASFA’s theorised benchmarks largely because they are actually living comfortably within their elected spending levels, or their assets are such that these will only support a certain (ie very modest) level of expenditure, and they’ve simply adjusted to living within these means.

I suspect the former is more realistic and in line with anecdotal evidence.

Fact Checker
January 25, 2025

Apologies, I meant latter, not former.

Jack
January 23, 2025

Can someone please explain why retirees taking a chunk of super benefits at retirement to pay down mortgage debt and thus reduce their housing costs and increase their age pension entitlement is regarded as normal accepted practice, but for young people to access their super for a home deposit to reduce their housing debt in retirement and increase their age pension entitlement is somehow a financial disaster.

Dudley
January 24, 2025

Because everyone would use all their Super savings to buy a Principal Place of Residence.
Instead of paying 47% tax on income used to buy PPoR [capital and interest on any mortgage], they would pay 15%.
PPoR prices inflates, tax collection deflates.

Ian Lange
January 24, 2025

Correct, Super is to be used to accumulate assets during a working life, to support one's retirement, not purchase a home when young. I know it's tough to buy a home these days, but dipping into Super is not the way to do it. Minimize your Super contributions in order to maximize your after tax dollars to use as a home deposit.

Philip - Perth
January 24, 2025

It's not a "financial disaster", Jack, but it would be an abuse of the tax system. The concessions on super contributions (taxed at 15% rather than at the taxpayer's marginal tax rate) would need to be paid back and it would also ignore the fact that the whole point of super is to have it at retirement. If you'd like to suggest that super should not be compulsory...which would take us back over 30 years...then that would at least be an honest argument to make, but I suspect that you (and the rest of us) would see it as retrograde. Also, the "reserve" of super would then not be available, either along the way (for family, if you die and yourself if you become disabled) and the other aspects/benefits of super (ability to have insurance, etc.) would also be lost. We've been there a generation or two ago and we decided we needed to build-in a retirement incomes policy into our tax system. BTW: it's only been the past 20-odd years that we've seen retirees moderately well funded and it will take another 20 for most of them to become fully-funded. Another BTW: those retirees paying off their mortgage at retirement (as you mentioned) are the minority. Most have done that ahead of retirement, but even so, that's a choice they (and you) would almost certainly make rather than continue to pay interest on a mortgage. Nothing will suit everyone and those on low incomes contributing to super are most definitely penalised by having to pay the same rate of tax on their contributions as those on much higher incomes. Now THAT's something we could address to help those who you're mentioning...unable to fund a deposit.

Jack
January 24, 2025

If super is to be restricted to retirement, it should not be available for housing, even after age 60. To be consistent, therefore, super should be restricted to income streams in retirement and no more lump sums. Is that what we are suggesting?

Dudley
January 24, 2025

"If super is to be restricted to retirement, it should not be available for housing, even after age 60.":

Best to abolish Super and taxes on inflationary part of income plus full Age Pension for all eligible.

Far fewer wrinkles to tip over.

Disgruntled
January 25, 2025

@Jack I've touched on this a few times in this forum. We will have limits on Lump Sum withdrawals on Superannuation to stop people taking it all out and spending it then going on the Pension 5 years later.

Also expect OAP age to rise to 70 and Preservation Age for Super rise to 65 in time as well.

The last of the Baby Boomers are now 60 and eligible to access Super subject to meeting a condition f release. (not hard to do)

Early GenX are hitting 60. These 2 groups have on average higher balances, it is not in the Governments interest or Superfunds interests to see large withdrawals occurring.

Dudley
January 25, 2025

"limits on Lump Sum withdrawals on Superannuation to stop people taking it all out and spending it then going on the Pension 5 years later.":

Spend all but $470,000 on home improvement, then go on full Age Pension immediately is better for couple aged 67+. Assets <= $2,310,043 ['SweatSpot']. Age Pension for all eligible eliminates incentive to do that; abolishing Super eliminates ability to do that.

Saving 90% of after tax income to buy home with cash, no mortgage, is better for non-home owner aged 67-. Typically "Bunk of Dad&Mum".

GeorgeB
January 24, 2025

Some people have trouble seeing that every time you give a home buyer a helping hand all it does is increase the bid price that the home buyer can afford.If you multiply this by every young person who has super you get an explosion in home prices. People advocating replacing stamp duty with an annual tax are also guilty of this same sin thinking that it will somehow make homes more affordable when in reality the opposite will be the case because not only will the home be more expensive but there will be an additional annual impost to compensate the loss of stamp duty.

Ken L
January 23, 2025

Considering the SCA income figures are from 23 and should really be indexed for price increases, I don't feel that they are worlds apart from the ASFA numbers.

Also, the assumptions that you are employed to 65 and own your home outright don't hold for many people. I think around 50% retire before, 65 so it seems prudent to save more to give yourself a buffer/options.

Rob W
January 23, 2025

Ahh....the lack of aspiration should not be surprising given the author's organisation. I am not politically affiliated, but Grattan's mantra always seems to be "everyone should aim for mediocrity and just let the public purse carry the can!" Very uninspiring stuff.

CC
January 25, 2025

Anything put out by Grattan I immediately ignore, otherwise it sends my blood pressure too high.

John N
January 23, 2025

I would agree. After reading enough previous articles from them I find now the best option is to disregard anything they go to print on.

Choo Lee Khor
January 24, 2025

??

John S
January 23, 2025

The authors do not mention big potential costs arising from needing care in later life, whether in-home care or necessary moves to some sort of residential care. Nor do the comments I can see (the first five) . And, bear in mind that an individual may need a succession of types of residential care. Each such move is likely to involve large transfer costs, because the institution being exited will certainly not refund the full amount paid to enter, let alone any allowance for inflation at the rate experienced by aged care institution fees.
These failings seem to be universal in comment on retirement costs. I hope the Grattan Institute will take the lead in doing better.

Kevin M
January 24, 2025

Great Point John. My wife has just had to move into residential care as her health deteriorated quickly. We had just sold our home and moved into a retirement village (independent living unit) so had money left over from the sale. As a result we have assets that exceed the cut off limit for government assistance we are faced with a Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD) of $495,000 and daily fees totaling over $40K per year. Some will come out of her Aged Care Pension (partial) but the rest of our money will need to be used to pay for my living expenses, petrol, etc.

Dudley
January 24, 2025

"big potential costs arising from needing care in later life":

See
. 'SolaceSpot'
. 'SweatSpot'
below.

Capital >= $1,045,500 at end of retirement phase, start of dying phase.

Annon
January 23, 2025

So I could save less in super and be highly dependent on the Govt age pension to support my quality of life in retirement, or I could save more in super and have greater choice, flexibility and self determination in retirement? Hmmm - I know who I would rather be.

It would also be interesting to know whether the people that publish these kinds of reports are happy to sign up to the former - or if they are all madly building their super balances as much as possible.

Alan
January 23, 2025

Our biggest cost in retirement is travel. Because the Australian dollar is so weak a 3 week trip to Europe or US will cost you at least $15000 to $20000. I suggest your costs of running an older house are too low - rates, insurance, water, electricity, maintenance are probably at least $10000 a year. I would suggest that you would now need at least $1.2-$1.5m in super to fund a comfortable retirement. This depends on how much risk you want to take in your investments. Most have their funds in balanced funds. If there is another GFC they could suffer substantial losses. Sequence of return risk is greatly underestimated! The buy and hold strategy is great but will you be able to sleep well at night if your funds are down $50000 to $100000!!

Dudley
January 26, 2025

"now need at least $1.2-$1.5m in super to fund a comfortable retirement":

If comfortable cashflow is equal to Age Pension payments [ = 26 * 1725.2 = 44855.2 / y ]
Then real capital must be withdrawn and / or return on investment must be greater than risk free return of:
. nominal 5%,
. real 1.942% [ = (1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1 ]:
Because:
= 1.942% * 1200000
= $23,300 / y [ real ]
is less than full Age Pension payments.

'SolaceSpot' is where:
. capital always exceeds Age Pension cutoff $1,045,500 (Age Pension payments always = $0),
. risk free returns are less than Age Pension payments,
. withdrawals of returns and capital equal full Age Pension payments,
. capital is sufficient for withdrawals of capital to makeup withdrawal of returns shortfall.

Present Value of sufficient initial capital for 'SolaceSpot':
= -PV((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (87 - 67), (26 * 1725.2), 1045500)
= $1,449,263
Total of withdrawal of returns and capital being:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (87 - 67), -1449263, 1045500)
= $44,855.20 / y [ = Age Pension payments / y ]

With $1,200,000 initial capital, the non-riskfree return required:
= RATE((87 - 67), 44855.2, -1200000, 1045500)
= 3.272% / y real,
= (1 + 3.272%) * (1 + 3%) - 1 = 6.370% nominal.
That to produce cashflow equal to full Age Pension without receiving any Age Pension.

If comfortable cashflow exceeds full Age Pension then larger rate of return and / or initial capital required.

rob
January 23, 2025

20 times your "after tax cost of living" has always been a good proxy for "Capital Required at Retirement" - effectively the "5% rule" made simpler and much more personal! To me, academics telling me what numbers represent a "low, medium and high" standard of retirement is, just that - academic!

Dudley
January 23, 2025

"20 times your "after tax cost of living":
Fair first cut, but who pays?

Median household disposable income: $80,262 [unadjusted ABS 2019-20?]
https://grattan.edu.au/news/what-do-australians-earn-and-own-grattan-institutes-2024-budget-cheat-sheet/

"20 times":
= 20 * 80262
= $1,605,240

Cashflow using only own coin: return 5%, inflation 3%, to 87, from 67, initial savings value 1605240, final value 1045500 (Age Pension cutoff):
= PMT((1 + 5%) / ( 1 + 3%) - 1, (87 - 67), 20 * -80262, 1045500)
= $54,341 / y

Cashflow using mostly government's coin, initial savings value 470000:
= (26 * 1725.2) + (((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) * 470000)
= $53,981 / y

Dudley
January 24, 2025

Investing $1,605,240 produces no more income than investing $470,000.
Difference:
= 1605240 - 470000
= $1,135,240
invested to produce income is worthless.

Invested in home it becomes Age Pension non-assessable assets; full Age Pension paid and home appreciating - both tax free.

Tony Dillon
January 25, 2025

These numbers of Dudley's, with both scenarios providing $54k income p.a., stack up. In fact, under the aged pension route, the $470k remains intact after 20 years. Add that to the $1.135m invested in the family home growing at say a very modest 2% p.a., and you have $2.157m instead of the $1.045m had you not invested in the PPOR. Leaving an extra $1.112m after 20 years to draw down on, for aged care or whatever.

Steve
January 23, 2025

I think you have pretty well nailed it Rob. A simple Excel spreadsheet which shows initial balance, initial withdrawal rate and calculates new balance as initial + growth - withdrawal, and increases withdrawal by nominal inflation is easy to set up. A couple of really obvious point come from this. Balance will never fall if withdrawal is less than or equal to growth - inflation. eg if growth is 8%, inflation is 3% and withdrawal is 5%, the capital will grow so that a constant 5% withdrawal of the new balance can be taken ad infinitum. Secondly if withdrawal is slightly greater than "growth-inflation" for example 5.5%, the balance keeps growing initially (as the net gain of 2.5% on the larger principal still exceeds the 3% increase in the initial withdrawal rate (ie 2.5% of $1M is greater than 3% of $50,000), but eventually the growth rate of the withdrawls catches up with the slower growth of principal and eventually the principal declines. But it takes many years. In the above example it takes nearly 30 years before the balance peaks and begins to fall, with funds fully depleted by year 50! So the simple rule is the withdrawal rate should be close to Growth - Inflation. Over the last 10 years the Growth of typical balanced portfolios has been around 8%. If we take 3% for inflation, the difference is 5%. There's that number again! So a withdrawal rate around 5% should last quite a long time. Even a 6% withdrawal rate only runs out of funds after 37 years. If you go for a more conservative investment with say 6% return, you need to be closer to 3% withdrawal rate (with 3% inflation). If you jump to 4% your money will still last around 50 years, but you have taken out less (4% instead of 5%). If you stay at 5% withdrawal your money will still last 30 years. Of course this does not allow for the aged pension, just suggesting a way to estimate a sensible withdrawal rate. One last thing I would suggest - if you can take most of the withdrawal from cash flow (dividends/interest), even if the market has a down period, if you are not forced to liquidate assets at low prices you can alleviate the sequencing risk to a degree.

Rob
January 24, 2025

Steve - "simple" is good! My spreadsheet has gross earning assumptions of 7.5%, inflation at 3%. It all comes down to 3 columns:

- Min draw in Pension mode - 6% in my case
- minus Cost of living
- = Surplus or deficit!!

As long as the "third" column remains "green" and in projected surplus, till age 100, I really don't care!

Dudley
January 23, 2025

"Australians should ignore the retirement standards produced by super lobby group, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia [ASFA]":

Not much difference between ASFA 'Modest' and Super Consumers Australia [SCA] 'Low'.

Homeowner couple cashflow <= full Age Pension:
'StickySpot': <= $0
'SweetSpot': $470,000
'SourSpot': $1,045,500
'SolaceSpot': = -PV((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1, (87 - 67), (26 * 1725.2), 1045500) = $1,449,263
'SweatSpot': = (26 * 1725.2) / ((1 + 5%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) = $2,310,043

Dean
January 23, 2025

Hi Dudley,
I like the way you present the numbers.
Just checking, is the 5% growth rate and 3% inflation? If not, what are they?
TIA - Dean

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

A close look at retiree fears and expectations

Grattan’s Super Savings flawed but essential reading

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 594 with weekend update

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

What to expect from the Australian property market in 2025

The housing market was subdued in 2024, and pessimism abounds as we start the new year. 2025 is likely to be a tale of two halves, with interest rate cuts fuelling a resurgence in buyer demand in the second half of the year.

The perfect portfolio for the next decade

This examines the performance of key asset classes and sub-sectors in 2024 and over longer timeframes, and the lessons that can be drawn for constructing an investment portfolio for the next decade.

Howard Marks warns of market froth

The renowned investor has penned his first investor letter for 2025 and it’s a ripper. He runs through what bubbles are, which ones he’s experienced, and whether today’s markets qualify as the third major bubble of this century.

9 lessons from 2024

Key lessons include expensive stocks can always get more expensive, Bitcoin is our tulip mania, follow the smart money, the young are coming with pitchforks on housing, and the importance of staying invested.

2025: Another bullish year ahead for equities?

2024 was a banner year for equities, with a run-up in US tech stocks broadening into a global market rally, and the big question now is whether the good times can continue? History suggests optimism is warranted.

The 20 most popular articles of 2024

Check out the most-read Firstlinks articles from 2024. From '16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever', to 'The best strategy to build income for life', and 'Where baby boomer wealth will end up', there's something for all.

Latest Updates

Shares

The challenges with building a dividend portfolio

Getting regular, growing income from stocks is tougher with the dividend yield on the ASX nearing 25-year lows. Here are some conventional and not-so-conventional ideas for investors wanting to build a dividend portfolio.

Retirement

How much do you need to retire?

Australians are used to hearing dire warnings that they don't have enough saved for a comfortable retirement. Yet most people need to save a lot less than you might think — as long as they meet an important condition.

Economics

Why a deflationary shock is near

Strategist Russell Napier says central banks have lifted interest rates too far and a deflationary shock is coming. He believes Governments will react radically and investors should avoid bonds and US stocks, and own more gold.

Economy

Federal budget forecast errors need greater scrutiny

The discrepancies that are appearing between Treasury budget forecasts and actual outcomes need closer examination. The inaccurate forecasts are impacting economic projections and investment decisions.

Investment strategies

A reluctant investor’s guide to understanding bitcoin

As every aspect of our lives has been transformed by digitisation, the changing nature of money and currencies should come as no surprise. But while bitcoin is here to stay, many investors still lack a clear grasp of what it is. 

Investment strategies

Unearthing small and mid-cap gems

Small and mid-cap companies aligned with long-term trends like security, climate and digital media can offer compelling growth opportunities. Here are three US stocks that are set to take off in 2025.  

Shares

Decoding the DNA of exceptional companies

Successful companies depend on management decisions, with bold choices, long-term vision, and calculated risks driving growth. Luxury brand, Hermès, exemplifies this, resulting in it creating immense shareholder wealth. 

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.