Australians can look forward to a bigger nest egg as super guarantee rises to 12%
Australian workers can look forward to a bigger nest egg, with an increase to the superannuation guarantee to add tens of thousands of dollars to the average super account.
From 1 July, employers' minimum required contribution to employees' superannuation accounts will rise from 11.5% to 12%.
It is the latest and last in a series of incremental increases from 9% over more than a decade since they were legislated by the Rudd-Gillard Labor government in 2012.
With the latest bump, a 30-year-old earning $60,000 would have an extra $20,000 in super by retirement, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.
It will add about $300 each year to the superannuation of a worker on a $60,000 salary, or $500 for someone on a $100,000 salary.
'The system foundations are cemented for young, working people to have a comfortable retirement,' the ASFA chief executive, Mary Delahunty, said.
'It's a moment all Australians should be proud of.'
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The association said the cost of a comfortable retirement had increased 1.6% in the past year, while the cost of a modest retirement rose 1.7%.
A 'comfortable' retirement includes top-level health insurance, a reasonable car and leisure activities.
The cost of either outcome was increasing slower than Australia's current 2.4% headline inflation but retiree budgets remained under pressure from rising food, energy and health costs.
Couples on average need $73,900 annually for a comfortable retirement, while most singles require $52,300 a year, ASFA says.
For a modest retirement covering the basics, couples needed $48,200 each year, singles $33,400, or for renting couples, $64,250, and $46,660 each year for singles who rent.
The figures underlined the importance of increasing Australia's housing stock, Delahunty said.
'They also illustrate how super can be the difference between hardship and stability later in life, especially for renters.'
For some workers, the extra contribution would come from their existing pay package, according to CPA Australia's superannuation lead, Richard Webb.
'It's a good idea to check with your employer to see how they view the changes and what it means for you,' he said.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
Workers on contracts with a total remuneration package could see a slight drop in their take-home pay, while those on award or enterprise agreements would likely receive the contribution on top of their current pay.
When compulsory superannuation was introduced in 1992 – in part to reduce government spending on the age pension – only one in 10 Australian retirees listed super as a source of income.
Nine in 10 people between 30 and 50 now have super.
Government spending on the age pension was projected to fall from 2.3% of gross domestic product in 2020 to 2.0% by 2062-63, despite a doubling of the over-65 population and a trebling of over-85s over the same period.
However, the super guarantee increase would not help those who missed out on paid work for extended periods, the Super Consumers Australia chief executive, Xavier O'Halloran, said.
'(For) people who have caring responsibilities or who have been locked out of the unaffordable housing market … increasing SG further won't address those inequalities,' he said.
O'Halloran said there was more that could be done to support people struggling in retirement, when a significant portion of their autumnal years' savings were made.
'Right now, there are no minimum standards for retirement products like there are for MySuper,' he said.
'There is also no performance testing of retirement products, so super funds can still sell poor products.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
I'm a tax accountant and these are the four biggest mistakes you're making on your returns - and it's costing you money
Australians are forgetting to claim work-related expenses and often select the wrong work from home deduction in their tax returns. That's according to a leading taxation accountant who has singled out the top five errors taxpayers make as tax time approaches on July 1. Belinda Raso from Tax Invest Accounting said taxpayers are missing out on hundreds of dollars by making little mistakes. 'They just rush in and lodge way too early and usually don't claim what they are entitled to,' Ms Raso said. WFH deductions One of the most common tax mistakes involves deductions made for working from home. Ms Raso said people who WFH do not always apply for the maximum deductions they can receive. Work from home expenses can be worked out via two different methods: the fixed rate 'shortcut' method of 70 per cents per hour, or the actual cost method, where they calculate their total expenses. 'It is very important that you work out both methods to ensure that you're getting the largest possible deduction,' she said. 'Another thing that people forget to do is, if they are going by that fixed rate method of 70 cents per hour... they're forgetting to claim everything else, and this includes computer equipment, it includes furniture, it includes software, the list is endless.' Medicare levy surcharge The next mistake Australians often make is incorrectly recording their liability for a Medicare levy surcharge - the additional charge on taxpayers who do not have private health insurance. Ms Raso said that the tax office will change the return if they have proof workers are liable for the levy. Australians forget to work out the most savings-efficient method for determining their claimable work-from-home expenses, Ms Raso warned 'It is up to you to understand when you are and when you're not liable for this,' Ms Raso said. Work related allowances The experienced accountant said some Australians make a huge mistake by failing to claim work-related expenses, such as claiming goods that they use for both personal and work use. 'As an example, one of the most common ones is a computer or laptop,' Ms Raso said. 'You sit there and think, "well, I use this for both personal reasons and for work, I can't claim it then". That's not true. 'Any expense that you're claiming, you can apportion a personal element to it and just claim whatever percentage is for work. It doesn't mean that you can't claim it.' Logbook Her final tip was for Australians who use a personal vehicle for work purposes. She said workers should ensure they are recording their usage accurately in a logbook. 'If you are travelling over 5,000 kilometres for work, for actual work-related travel, you should be keeping a logbook,' Ms Raso said. 'But this is more than just tracking your kilometres in a logbook.' Workers should also keep records of their fuel and oil costs, or odometer readings. They will also need evidence of other car expenses.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Cringeworthy moment Labor brags about building 17 new homes in seven months in a far cry from 1.2million goal
Labor has been slammed for bragging about building 17 new homes in Canberra in seven months - a far cry from its target of 1.2million homes in five years. 'We're here in Canberra visiting some brand spanking new homes, what do you reckon Chris?' Minister for Housing Clare O'Neil said in a TikTok on Friday. In an awkward game of catch, she tossed the phone to Chris Steel, ACT Minister for Planning and Sustainable Development, who then turned the camera on himself. 'Pretty good, 17 class C adaptable homes for new residents,' said a grinning Steel. He then threw the phone to Labor MP David Smith, who added: 'A great example of two Labor governments working together and taking pressure off housing right here in Bean'. 'And the good news is we're just getting started,' O'Neil said after Smith had tossed the phone back to her. 'This is 17 out of 55,000 social and affordable homes that our government is going to deliver to Australians over the coming few years.' The 55,000 social and affordable homes O'Neil mentioned fall under Labor's broader target of building 1.2million homes over five years from mid-2024. The policy known as the National Housing Accord includes $3.5billion in payments to state, territory and local governments to support the delivery of new homes towards the target, and a one-off $2billion payment to help states and territories to increase social housing stock. Aussies were quick to criticise the video, slamming the lacklustre seven-month timeframe for building just 17 houses. '17 homes in seven months... At that rate it will take you 1,886 years to complete the remaining 55,000 homes,' one said. 'You should reach your target by 2080 - what a joke,' said another. 'Do you realise another major building company has just declared bankruptcy?' a third asked. Critics have labelled Labor's housing target unrealistic, if not impossible, amid soaring construction costs and unfettered immigration. Australia had a record level of construction company insolvencies in 2025, a 24 per cent increase over last year's rate. Labor's policy requires 240,000 homes to be delivered every single year for five years - a significant improvement on Australia's record year of construction in 2017, when about 223,000 homes were built. Leith van Onselen, who formerly worked at the Australian Treasury and is the chief economist at MacroBusiness, said the construction sector was struggling. 'As a result, builders are caught between a rock and a hard place whereby they can't deliver stock at a profitable level, and that has created a major handbrake on housing construction,' Mr van Onselen said. 'We're still seeing lots of builders going under, and they're struggling to make a profit at the moment, which just means this housing construction target from the federal government is completely unrealistic. 'It's just too expensive to build housing in Australia at the moment, for a variety of reasons, and that just means that less housing is going to be built at the same time the government has the throttle on immigration.'
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
How Rachel Reeves prioritised growth over Britain's pension savers
When Labour swept to power last year, around half a million pensioners held their breath. Members of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) had spent years fighting for their full pension entitlement. Months earlier, the Tories had indicated they might finally be restored. The PPF and the FAS step in to pay people's pensions when their defined benefit schemes can no longer afford to, often because a firm has gone bust and cannot afford to keep it running. The increasing costs of such schemes, partly due to increased life expectancy, have also put them under pressure. Over the past 20 years, more than 2,000 schemes have been bailed out. However, the payments members receive are rarely the same as the entitlements they had built up – for some, it isn't even close. Strict rules mean that when a scheme goes bust, anyone who is not already drawing their pension will only be entitled to 90pc of it when they retire. Crucially, payments for any years built up before 1997 also won't rise with inflation, while any after that are capped at just 2.5pc. As a result, some members' pensions never increase, while others fall as low as 50pc of what they should have been. Savers were hoping a Tory intervention would rescue them from retirement poverty while others could have seen six-figure losses reversed as they finally received the full pensions they'd worked decades for. In July 2024, the power to change lives fell into the hands of the Labour party, bringing fresh hope that a battle stretching across two decades could finally be won. Yet 12 months on, Chancellor Rachel Reeves continues to ignore their plight, instead choosing to hand a major financial boost to pension providers in her relentless pursuit of growth. A fortnight ago, she announced plans to tweak rules that would mean they no longer have to pay a multi-million pound levy to sustain the scheme, which has raised £10bn over two decades. Those whose pensions rely on the PPF and FAS called the decision 'shameful', 'morally corrupt' and 'pandering to the industry' as they continue fighting for their full payments. After years of lobbying, campaign groups are animatedly pointing to the £13.7bn in reserves that the PPF now holds. It would cost just £10.1bn to restore the pensions of its 293,000 members, including awarding inflationary increases of up to 5pc and repaying arrears. However, the fund is powerless without a change in legislation. After the election, with hopes growing that Labour would make that change, eyes were keenly trained on the Pension Schemes Bill. When it was published earlier this month, it did contain a major legislative change – but for pension schemes, not members. The Bill gives the PPF greater powers, but only to reduce the levy that pension schemes pay to sustain it. First collected in 2006-07, it has already fallen significantly since its record level of £720m in 2010-11. It now sits at just £45m, and the PPF will soon be able to reduce it to zero. The levy can be reintroduced again if needed. The move will give schemes extra cash at a time when they are being pushed into increasing their UK investment by the Chancellor's recent Mansion House reforms. Saving wealthy pension schemes money when individuals are struggling doesn't sit well with Maurice Alphandary, 70, from Abingdon, near Oxfordshire. He worked as a chemical engineer for AEA Technology, the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which was privatised before going bust. He now runs the AEA Technology Pensions Campaign, which has spent 13 years fighting to restore pensions. The current PPF rules will cost him around £100,000. He said: 'It just shows how toothless the PPF is in protecting the interests of its members against the Government. The Government can just ride roughshod over them. 'On the one hand, the Government says, 'We really care about our pensioners', but they don't. They're just pandering to the industry and it's a way of just running down the surplus instead of giving to the people who have suffered. There's enough money to compensate us.' His former colleague, 73-year-old Andrew Turner from Abingdon, receives just £18,000 per year from a pension that should pay £29,000. He said: 'For a Labour government who are supposedly focused on those who are less well off, this seems to be exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. 'The question is why should pension companies be rewarded when we're being penalised. If the Government or the PPF had any moral responsibility, it's those who are in greatest need should have first call on this surplus.' The Bill contained no news for the 140,000 FAS members either. With no levy, any changes would be funded by the public purse. David Page, 73, lives in Chelmsford and worked for Bradstock Group, a commercial insurer that went bust in 2003. He only receives around half of the pension he paid for, and is not confident of any progress. He said: 'It still hurts. It's typical of governments. They don't want to spend money. This one will be the world's worst. It's morally corrupt, but morals don't count do they?' Terry Monk, 81, from Camberley in Surrey, also worked for Bradstock. He said the Government's decision to pursue growth with members' money was 'shameful'. He said: 'What they're forgetting, or choosing to ignore, is how that surplus has arisen in the first place and it was a combination of schemes' assets and members' contributions. 'They're trying to get money that they don't own to fund projects. I'm suspicious of the people we have in power at the moment.' For its part, the Government is expected to address retirement poverty in part two of its pensions review. It has already given £1.5bn back to retired miners and is considering handing over £2.3bn more. Ministers have also met with PPF and FAS members to hear their concerns, and accepted it was an 'important issue'. A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesman said: 'The Government is continuing to consider what we have heard from the PPF and FAS members on this issue.' A PPF spokesman said it welcomed the fresh consideration that the DWP was giving to compensation levels. They added: 'Given our financial strength, we think it's the right time to reduce costs for levy paying schemes and their employers and to consider the levels of indexation we pay our members.'
