Industry funds mark both parties down on Age Pension taper

Neither of the major political parties have adequately addressed the Age Pension taper rate, according to industry funds representative body, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST).

In an analysis of the superannuation policy approaches being offered by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal/National Party Coalition, the AIST has surprised no one by giving higher marks to the ALP but has marked both sides down on the pension taper rate.

AIST chief executive, Eva Scheerlinck said neither party had made a clear commitment to addressing concerns with the Age Pension taper rate, which was too steep and denied many retirees with relatively low super balances access to the part Age Pension.

Related News:

“We think the current taper rate is unfair and this need to be addressed to restore integrity in the super system,” she said.

The AIST had produced a policy scorecard rating the ALP’s policies against that of the Government and concluded that “Labor’s policies will have more positive impact on superannuation and the retirement outcomes for most working Australians”.

Scheerlinck said Labor’s package of reforms - which included reforms to improve women’s balances, addressing unpaid super and reducing tax concessions for high income earners – would improve the fairness and sustainability of Australia’s retirement income system.

She claimed key Coalition superannuation policies were more limited and would largely benefit wealthier individuals with the means to make voluntary contributions.

“The nation’s ageing population, changing work conditions, the gender pay gap and falling levels of home ownership are among the key issues that need to be considered in developing appropriate superannuation and retirement policies,” Scheerlinck said. 

“Good superannuation policy needs to be firmly focused on the long-term, with the aim to ensure that all genders and generations get a fair deal. This includes the young and old, those working full-time as well as those working part-time, and those taking time out of the workforce to care for family members, which is the situation for many women in our community.” 

Scheerlinck said AIST particularly welcomed Labor’s commitment to removing the $450 monthly income threshold that currently prevents many women who are working multiple jobs or part-time from receiving super contributions. 

“If Labor is elected, we look forward to it going further to address the gender super gap by introducing a mechanism that targets those most in need with additional super contributions,” she said.




Related Content

Accusation of CIPR ‘cargo cult’

The Federal Treasury is guilty of having allowed Comprehensive Income Products in Retirement (CIPRs) to become a “cargo cult” capable of forcing s...Read more

Super groups unite in push for gender parity

Three major superannuation advocacy groups united last Friday, being International Women’s Day, to call on policy makers to help close the gender ga...Read more

RC didn’t dive deep enough on superannuation

AustralianSuper’s chief executive, Ian Silk, has suggested that the Banking Royal Commission didn’t cast a stern enough eye over parts of the supe...Read more

Author

Comments

Comments

Neither side of politics has taken the superannuation gap between the genders seriously. One simple way to help fix this would be to allow individuals to make an additional up to $25,000 contribution to their partners super accounts. In other words increase the current $25,000 limit to $50,000 but only where the additional $25,000 was directed into a partners account.

"AIST chief executive, Eva Scheerlinck said neither party had made a clear commitment to addressing concerns with the Age Pension taper rate, which was too steep and denied many retirees with relatively low super balances access to the part Age Pension."

You're nor eligible for a part Age Pension when you have assets of $567,250 as a single, or $853,000 for a couple, who owns their own home. Add another $207,000 to those thresholds if not a homeowner.

Relatively low balances? Relative to what?

Add new comment