Fairness of outcomes in retirement income between middle and mid-high wealth cohorts has been a hotly debated topic in the media, including in Firstlinks. Now the Retirement Income Review has had its say.
The fairness argument runs along the following lines (using the case study of a $500,000 retirement balance and a $1,000,000 balance):
- The household with $500,000 may have higher ‘retirement income’ than the household with $1,000,000 at retirement when ‘income’ is defined as age pension payments, asset earnings and franking credits.
- This is unfair when the household with the $1,000,000 balance has made more contributions over time.
Income includes drawdown of capital
The Review didn’t just explore this issue: it was probably the most significant finding: households not spending down their capital in retirement is one of the greatest sources of inefficiency in Australia’s retirement system.
To understand the Review’s finding, we need to revisit the definition of ‘retirement income’. The Review’s interpretation is that retirement income should include not only the age pension payments, asset earnings and franking credits, but also the drawdown of accumulated capital.
Ultimately the term ‘retirement income’ has been mis-used and is probably not the correct term. It is really ‘consumption in retirement’, but that is more clunky. Alongside terms such as ‘investments’, ‘savings’, and ‘nest eggs’, we have a framing issue where people experience unnecessarily low living standards due to a restricted definition of retirement income.
A wide range of complex issues
The Review highlights a range of issues which compound this framing issue, including:
- the system is highly complex
- the understanding of how different retirement income sources interact is weak
- little low-cost guidance is available to assist
- consumers may interpret minimum drawdown rules as guidance
- there are concerns about uncertain health, aged care costs and the possibility of outliving savings.
The Review addresses these concerns by identifying that health and aged care costs are heavily government funded and the age pension both provides a baseline and performs a risk management function.
The Review twists the commonly-raised concern about the high age pension taper rate (that the taper rate is too high and provides a disincentive to save for retirement) on its head. It says a high taper rate means that participation in the age pension is available readily to those as they drawdown or experience unexpected losses.
Broadly, it identifies that the retirement system could deliver better retirement outcomes if people spent down their savings more appropriately. System-wide equity issues arise when high balances, which receive significant tax incentives, are bequeathed. In its current state the retirement system is underperforming its potential. Indeed, the Review identifies that a system drawing down effectively at a 9.5% SG will produce better outcomes than one at a 12% SG drawing down as per current practice.
Pointers to solutions
The Review is not pointing the finger at individual households, rather it suggests a range of solutions are necessary:
- Education to dispel some retirement myths, particularly around the definition of ‘retirement income’, the fear of healthcare and aged care costs, and the role of the age pension in retirement. This responsibility lands on many including Government, industry, consumer groups and media.
- Better access to low-cost, accessible financial advice and guidance.
- Superannuation funds need to improve retirement solutions which better manage the risks of outliving their savings, enabling their members to consume with confidence. I anticipate a Retirement Income Covenant will be introduced by Government to formalise this, but I have some reservations about the broad range of solutions which may result.
For those retirees who are actively engaged and living off a restricted definition of retirement income, the message is that you should most likely be experiencing higher levels of consumption. You can investigate further through talking to an adviser, your super fund or using a financial calculator such as ASIC MoneySmart.
David Bell is Executive Director of The Conexus Institute, a not-for-profit research institution focused on improving retirement outcomes for Australians. This does not constitute financial advice.