Add new comment

Submitted by Stewart on Thu, 08/20/2015 - 13:33

I note that male life expectancy at birth is 80.1 years, so if retiring at age 67 he will have 13.1 years in retirement.

Of course a (typically 2-3 younger) woman retiring at the same time as her partner will have less super, having perhaps already spent a couple of years out of the workforce. Does she expect that the government (i.e. taxpayers) should subsidise her to have over 20 years of retirement (to age 84.3)?

Obviously the solution is that she should remain in the workforce until she also has 13.1 years of life expectancy, i.e. until age 71.2.

(How long until a cougar calls me a misogynist?)

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

4 months 1 week ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

4 months 2 weeks ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

4 months 2 weeks ago

Blue Owl Capital, a US asset manager with its eye on ‘marquee investors’ like super funds, has announced the appointment of a senior Future Fund executive as its newest m...

4 days 15 hours ago

Australia’s second-largest super fund has confirmed it is expanding its presence in the UK following significant investment in the region....

5 days 7 hours ago

While the Financial Advice Association Australia said it supports a performance testing regime “in principle”, it holds reservations about expanding this scope to retirem...

4 days 22 hours ago