Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 570

Rethinking how retirees view the family home

While the Australian superannuation system is one of the most successful in the world, it is still maturing.

After all, the Super Guarantee only commenced in 1992 at 3% of a person’s earnings (or 4% for employers with an annual payroll above $1 million), increased to 9% from 1 July 2002 and is scheduled to reach 12% from 1 July 2025. It will take another decade or two before most employees retire having only experienced superannuation contributions of 9% or more for all of their working lives.

As the system matures, a growing number of Australians will be less reliant on the Age Pension and, as a result, will enjoy a better retirement funded wholly or in part by their superannuation.

While around 60% of current retirees have less than $250,000 in superannuation ‘at retirement’, this percentage is expected to decrease to around 20% over the next 20 years as the compulsory superannuation system matures (Boal & Somerville, 2023).

This is what Treasurer Jim Chalmers calls “the intergenerational genius of super” (Ransley, 2023). But if we look at our ageing population and ‘retirement’ from an intergenerational perspective, we see there are many challenges.

In particular, government-funded health and aged care costs are on the rise while the superannuation system is still immature.

More than just a roof

An important part of voluntary private savings is the family home, with more than 80% of people currently aged 65 to 74 living in their own home (AIHW, 2023).

The property price boom of the past few decades means that even more modest properties have appreciated in value significantly, now accounting for a significant portion of the average homeowner’s wealth. Yet it is also true that many ‘asset rich, cash poor’ retirees live more frugally than they need to.

For these retirees who own their home but have insufficient superannuation or other liquid savings, perhaps the home should be treated and used more like any other financial asset to help fund their desired lifestyle, as long as there are appropriate consumer safeguards in place.

Given these trends, it is reasonable to now ask how we should treat the family home in retirement, in a fair way that supports the sustainability and equity of the retirement system both today and into the future, for homeowners and renters alike.

Key areas of reform to focus on in relation to the retirement phase include:

  • changing the narrative, so that it is more acceptable to access and spend part of the equity that has been built up in the home;
  • improving financial literacy, especially in relation to retirement and longevity, so that retirees understand how they could use their accumulated assets to live a better life in retirement while still managing the various risks;
  • ensuring we have strong disclosure requirements and consumer protections for the range of home equity release and related products, including “debt type” products, to improve the level of community understanding and expectations for these products;
  • improving equity in the system for renters to make renting more affordable, especially in retirement;
  • addressing the financial disincentives to access part of the wealth stored in the home, such as removing or refunding some of the frictional costs associated with downsizing and changing the means test treatment of the proceeds from sale

We must also do more to narrow the gap in retirement outcomes between homeowners and renters.

Gradually including the value of the home above a reasonable threshold into the Age Pension means test, for example, could improve equity in the system and encourage retirees to access some of this wealth. This continues to be a politically sensitive issue. But that doesn’t mean we should fear having a conversation about it.

Given the amount of wealth stored in home equity in Australia, one could reasonably argue that the home is just as important as superannuation and the Age Pension when considering retirement outcomes. As policy makers bed down the legislated objective of superannuation and attention continues to shift to the retirement phase, we must take this opportunity to review our policies.

 

Andrew Boal is a Partner in Deloitte’s Superannuation & Investment Specialists Practice and Chair of the Actuaries Institute’s Retirement Strategy Group. This article is an edited extract from the Institute’s new dialogue paper “More Than Just a Roof: Changing the Narrative on the Role of the Home”.

 

30 Comments
Cam
August 01, 2024

While renters have a tougher retirement than homeowners, not all homeowners are equal either. People living in Sydney/Melbourne retiring today may have $1m or more extra equity than people living in larger regional centres. They've also been paid more for doing the same job, meaning higher super balances.
There are also different health services based on where you live.
I agree with the 'I worked hard and paid taxes' argument, but there's a lot of people who worked just as hard and paid taxes but have a lot less to show for it purely based on where they've lived.

Dudley
August 01, 2024

"Actuaries call to include family homes above $2.1m in pension test":
https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/actuaries-call-to-include-family-homes-above-2-1m-in-pension-test-20240718-p5jupu

Result:
Kids might have their inheritance all spent for them earlier than convenient, or might get an early inheritance.

Alternatively; abolish means tests.
Result:
Age Pensioners not compelled to stuff money into home allowing more productive investment and cheaper housing.
More opportunity for kids to fend for selves.

Kerrie
July 28, 2024

Easy fixed. Just make the aged pension a debt to be paid from one estate. Anyone ove pension age can apply.

Pamela
July 29, 2024

I absolutely agree with this. The current system encourages the elderly to live in a totally unsuitable home just to pass on their only asset tax free to their children who offered them no assistance whatsoever. It’s ultimately the children who are supported by the pension!

Simon
July 26, 2024

Hands off my house chamlers. I've endured a lot off pain and gone without to secure my house. We don't want to live in your communist world. People should be rewarded for hard work where they go above and beyond, not smacked by the state. Stick that in your conversation

Steve
July 26, 2024

The real solution is to move to the NZ system which pays a universal Aged Pension, subject to qualification, with no income or asset test. This eliminates thousands of unnecessary Govt Asset inspectors in Centrelink, & solves the problem of asset test disincentives of downsizing in retirement. Plus there is more incentive to work during retirement. Means testing always causes distortions.

Sally
July 28, 2024

Absolutely!
Takes the worry out of having enough in retirement. Tax income from other investments will off-set Govt costs, and no red tape/assetts & income tests etc. will reduce costs associated with Centrelink & other Govt agencies

Pamela
July 29, 2024

I agree with this too.

Mediacritic
July 30, 2024

However universal aged pension comes at a cost. Income tax is levied in NZ from the first dollar earned. You don't get something for nothing. Our Aus welfare state is based on helping the needy not the middle class although this is ever so slowly being eroded in buying votes at the margin.

Dudley
July 30, 2024

Australian single age pension (no tax payable) in $NZ:
= 26 * 1,116.30 * 1.11
= $NZ 32,216.42

NZ pension:
https://www.moneyhub.co.nz/super-rates.html
Before tax (gross)
= $NZ 31,546.84
After tax:
= $NZ 27,012.44

Ratio:
= 32216.42 / 27012.44
= 1.193
After tax, Australian age pension is roughly 19% more than New Zealand equivalent.

Cost of living:
https://www.upmove.com.au/post/new-zealand-vs-australia
'cost of living in Australia is 18% more expensive than in New Zealand'

After factoring in cost of living, the amount of 'age pension' that New Zealand pays to all without means tests is very close to the amount of age pension that Australian pays to only those whose pension is not reduced by means tests.

Chris
July 26, 2024

What about we stop making everything so complicated.
Introduce a universal pension for everyone from age 67 or 70 or whatever age works for the country. No means test but it, along with all other income including superannuation and other retirement income stream income taxed at a flat 30%. No tax free thresholds, deductions for so called work expenses etc; keep it very simple.
Interest and other expenses etc used to generate income from investments - including business operations - is expensed and therefore deductible, but no difference between income from a business or personal exertion and capital - ie no CGT concessions.
Tax all trust earnings, including superannuation earnings at 30% in both accumulation and drawdown phase with some limited incentives for people to save - this could be no tax on contributions, but businesses still get to claim a deduction as a business expense on what is now superannuation guarantee (capped at 12% or 15% or ???).
Phase in an elimination of the CGT concession on the family home. This could be done on the basis of a proper actuarial calculation of the economy wide trade off between removing this tax concession and the benefits of the changes outlined above.
Centrelink could focus on social welfare, most likely in conjunction with administering aged care and NDIS budgets too.
We would need a lot less public servants to police and the tax system would be a lot simpler to administer. Costs would decrease because people would not need to pay for much of the complex advice they currently do - many of the incentives that keep accountants, lawyers and financial advisers employed would disappear and they could focus on more productive (for the country) activities.
Am I dreaming. I don't think so, but some of this would require courage to work through which the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats don't seem to have. It would also require those with vested interests - particularly the funds management/superannuation cohort to shut up, or at least look at what is bet for the country and its population, rather than them.

Ben
July 26, 2024

Wow we were already taxed Cris and you want to tax it again at 30%? Dont give up your day job

Bakker
July 28, 2024

As inflation gradually pushes up the value of the family home , it will come under increasing pressure ,particularly from big spending socialists governments. (“ what’s yours should be made available for all mentally “) Sorry but I busted my asse and made too many sacrifices over too many years to now hand over its value to some unaccountable socialist government .
Also is there anyone out there who really believes that any change to universal system would result in a leaner more productive Public Service ?

Kevin
July 28, 2024

Yes,you are dreaming,you've made it more complicated.Yiu've worked out how to make most of the population pay more tax,and rich people pay less tax.
.

40 years ago it was brought up,people couldn't work it out then either.i paid 60% tax on earnings over $30K I think.Resource projects pay well for working long hours

Today this will cover most of the population.
Earn $20K from part time work or franked dividends,pay no tax .You want them to pay $6,000 in tax.

Earn $50K you don't really pay a lot of tax. You want them to pay $15,000 in tax.

Earn $100K pay ~ $25K in tax.You want them to pay $30K in tax.

The outlier,earn $1 million and pay ~$450K in tax,you want them to pay 300K in tax.

The reverse doesn't work either,make the person earning $1 million pay more tax ,so most of the population can think that will mean I can pay less tax

The tax system is very easy as it is now.,for the vast majority of the population.

Aussie HIFIRE
July 25, 2024

The biggest change needs to be the entitlement culture that so many retirees have. There is a profound belief that they should get a full or at the very least part age pension paid for by the taxpayer and that they should be able to pass on their house to their children CGT free as well as most of their other assets. The usual refrain is that "I paid taxes all my life so I should get the pension!" and if confronted with the fact that plenty of others paid tax all their lives and often a lot more of it but miss out because they have too much because of the assets test, they manage some mind blowing mental gymnastics and justify those people not receiving age pension despite having paid tax. I would like to see any combination of a far lower assets test threshold, a much more realistic assessment of the value of the family home in the assets test, and paying back some of the pension received via sale of the family home upon death. We could use some of the savings from this to reduce the gap between homeowners and renters by increasing Rent Assistance to a more realistic level.

DarylS
July 26, 2024

Renters can have more assets without having their pension reduced, and they can also gain a rental,allowance. In my case I did pay an awful lot of tax, now don't get a pension and still pay tax. Friends and relatives in other countries in a similar situation get a pension.

Aussie HIFIRE
July 26, 2024

Renters can have another $252,000 in assets which will not buy you a house in pretty much any city in the country, certainly not a good one. They also get roughly $188 per fortnight in rent assistance, so just under $5k a year. Assuming they get a 5% return on their $250k of assets (which they likely don't have anyway but let's be generous) then that gives them about $17,500 a year to rent a place, of $335 a week. Good luck getting a nice rental for that.

Whenever the discussion of other countries systems comes up it is always cherry picked. Oh x country has a universal pension. Which may be true, but usually ignores the extra taxes paid along the way or the reduced amount relative to an Australian pension or various other factors.

Dauf
July 25, 2024

I find it really difficult to argue against including the value of the family home …above a certain value…be it $1 million, $2 million, whatever, into the means testing. Downsize, reverse mortgage etc are obvious options and do need to be discussed. Of course, it’ll never happen, but should be discussed to avoid very capital rich accessing benefits denied to people with much smaller wealth.

Same with super. Alt he silly and complicated rules with some tax free and some in accumulation paying 15%, tax on the part over $3 million etc etc.. Should be simply, you can only have so much in Super (and tax free after 60)…be that $2 million, $3 million, $5 million etc…and the excess must be taken out each year to be invested outside the super system. Seems silly for average people to effectively be subsidising the higher balance tax free

Disgruntled
July 26, 2024

Person A has a $1.2M house and $300k in Superannuation and other assets.

$1.5M Nett worth. Gets a pension

Person B has $1.5M in Superannuation and other assets.

$1.5M Nett worth. Doesn't get a pension

GV
July 28, 2024

Who’s better off?
A invested 300k in a decent fund leads to 24k income pa. Needs pension.
B invested 1500k in decent funds 120k income pa. Arguably B doesn’t need pension to assist.
Statistically, A worked hard, saved and paid bank mortgages, B worked, paid rent and saved in Super.
Arguably, B is better off and should pull head in? Or is A happier, and therefore better off?

Dudley
July 29, 2024

"Who’s better off?":

Person A: Capital free Pension + Yield on capital + capital gains on home;
= (26 * 1682.8) + (((1 + 8%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) * 300000) + (((1 + 6%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) * 1200000)
= $93,267.36

Person B: Yield on capital - rent of house;
= (((1 + 8%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) * 1500000) - (((1 + 4%) / (1 + 3%) - 1) * 1200000)
= $61,165.05

Disgruntled
July 29, 2024

A and B are worth the same. 1 gets a pension the other doesn't. How's that fair?

Person A should sell their house and get the $120K a year then. They don't need a pension

Dudley
July 29, 2024

Person B should live under a bridge. Then they would not need a pension.

Disgruntled
July 30, 2024

They can both live under a bridge.

dan
July 25, 2024

OMG!
This wreaks of an incumbent left wing socialist govt, speaking through a consulting firm that is desperate to win favour.
Nothing but long winded seed sowing.
Doing the govts bidding and attempting to influence the narrative around attacking the family home - and poorly disguised.

Phillip
July 25, 2024

If you are going to look at home ownership as part of the pension what about looking at the pension of all politicians...are they means test ....why do millionaires that are politicians get a pension....their is discrimination in the pension and supported my every political party ...the pension is for people that need it not politicians...make every politician have a means test and use their super before they get the pension like the rest of the Australian population

Peter
July 25, 2024

Phillip,
My understanding is that the pension the pollies receive is not the age pension. It is a pension from the public service defined benefit plan adjusted for inflation. Any change to the pension eligibility would not affect that entitlement. I know that eligibility rules have been tightened in recent years but most of the long serving members of Parliament would still be eligible.

Peter

Rob
July 26, 2024

Peter, while you are correct in that it's not an "aged" pension, it is nevertheless a fully paid pension (with no financial risk attached) funded by the public purse. Same difference I reckon!

Robert G,
July 28, 2024

My understanding is that the taxpayer funded contributions into the pollies' nest eggs is at a higher rate than that of the taxpayers'.
Independently determined of course.

Stewart
July 30, 2024

Indeed Robert and Peter. A classic example of do as I say rather than do as I do, as with the other govt proposals to sink their claws into the super system.

 

Leave a Comment:


RELATED ARTICLES

Solutions to unite the three pillars of retirement funding

Pension Loans Scheme should have much greater use

There’s more than one way to fund a retirement

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Warren Buffett changes his mind at age 93

This month, Buffett made waves by revealing he’d sold almost 50% of his shares in Apple in the second quarter. The sale not only shows that Buffett has changed his mind on the stock but remains at the peak of his powers.

Wealth transfer isn't just about 'saving it up and passing it on'

We’ve seen how the transfer of wealth can work well, with inherited wealth helping families grow and thrive for generations, as well as how things can go horribly wrong. Here are tips on how to get it right.

A health scare changes my investment plans

Recently, I spent time in hospital for pneumonia. Health issues can clarify what really matters, and one thing became clear to me: 99% of what we think is important is either irrelevant or doesn’t need our immediate attention.

CPI may understate the rising costs of retirement

Rising prices have a big impact on retirement outcomes yet our most common gauge of inflation – the consumer price index – misses several important household costs for retirees.

The tortoise wins in investing

For decades, it’s been a truism that taking greater risks with stocks should equate to higher returns. New research casts doubt on that and suggests investing in ‘boring’ stocks and industries may be a better bet.

Rethinking how retirees view the family home

Australia faces a wave of retirees at a stage where the superannuation system is still maturing. Better and fairer policy on the role of the family home as a retirement asset might help.

Latest Updates

Shares

Why I'm a perma-bull on stocks

Investors overestimate the risk of owning stocks and underestimate the risk of not owning them. In the long run, shares crush other major asset classes, yet it’s one thing to understand this, it’s another to being able to execute on it.

Shares

Australia: Most listed stocks per capita and biggest gamblers in the world

Australia has more listed companies per head of population than just about any other country on earth – and many times more than the US. This explores why that is and whether it's connected to our well-known love for a punt.

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Winding up SMSFs paying a pension requires care

It’s common to assume that once a member decides to wind up their SMSF, it should happen as quickly as possible. But sometimes slowing down can be important, particularly if there are pensions involved.

Property

Will house prices crash?

Absent much higher interest rates and or unemployment, a house price crash in Australia looks unlikely. However, a failure to boost affordability risks a further slide in home ownership and rising inequality.

Investing

Is the passive investing dream waning?

There are signs that passive investing is struggling to keep up in a world that's rapidly passing it by. To understand why, we need to talk about how private equity has revolutionised the investment landscape.

Shares

What performs best after peaks in market concentration?

US market concentration in large technology companies has captured investor attention. Here explores how this concentration compares to history and what typically follows periods of extreme concentration.

Investment strategies

Why investors will continue to pay up for the US market and Mag 7

Recent volatility has reflected nervousness about tech stocks in the US and whether they can deliver returns on massive AI investment. With rates set to fall, these stocks and the broader US market should continue to find favour.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 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.