RIR 'rigged' to cut superannuation

18 March 2021
| By Jassmyn |
image
image
expand image

The Retirement Income Review (RIR) was ‘rigged’ towards a pre-determined outcome that would support the Government’s plans to cut Australians’ superannuation, according to Industry Super Australia (ISA).

ISA said the RIR use unrealistic modelling assumptions that pumped up the annual retirement income of a median earner by over 40%, claiming the median earner would retire with about $40,000 annual income a year if the super rate was kept at 9.5%. Other modelling suggested the average annual retirement income would be just $24,000 as a member of a couple.

ISA deputy chief executive, Matthew Linden, said: “The Retirement Income Review adopted objectively wrong assumptions for their base case that vastly inflates retirement outcomes – the troubling conclusion is that the review was rigged to get an outcome the Government wanted.

“Some sensitivity analysis was undertaken which point to the problems, but this was excluded from the base case and some impacts were materially understated.

“Modelling based on wrong assumptions has real life ramifications, some wish to use the Retirement Income Review’s findings to cut super for millions who otherwise wouldn’t save enough for retirement.

“This would be a terrible outcome as a more realistic working life pattern shows the current super rate is not adequate for most women, low and middle-income earners to fund a secure retirement.” 

ISA said the “only conclusion” was that the review worked towards a pre-determined outcome that would support plans, since flagged, to cut working Australians super, and potentially force retirees to sell their home to make up the shortfall.

ISA noted the review also used assumptions that showed an inherent gender bias as it assumed that all workers received super contributions for 40 years, despite the fact that 75% of women would not and 61% of men would not.

ISA said the RIR’s base case assumptions included:

  • Assigning the entire population continuous 40-year working-life;
  • The assumption that all income cohorts make additional contributions via salary sacrifice;
  • The assumption all benefits are preserved until retirement and ignoring impact of COVID early release;
  • The assumption of no debt at retirement;
  • The use of consumer price index (CPI) deflator to discount retirement income (including the wage indexed pension);
  • The use of an inflexible drawdown of assets that doesn’t reflect observed behaviour or the prudent need for some precautionary saving; and
  • The focus on single person cameos rather than couples which boosts the value of the aged pension.
Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar 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. ...

11 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

11 months 1 week 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 ...

11 months 1 week ago

Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Co...

17 hours 41 minutes ago

Demand from institutional investors was the main driver of growth in Australia’s responsible investment (RI) market in 2023, as the industry continued to gain momentum....

18 hours ago

In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges....

19 hours ago