Should the government top up low income earners' super more?

Advocacy group Women in Super’s new policy platform wants the government to add $1000 each year to low income earners' super until the balance hits $100,000.

The policy is designed to make sure those on low incomes or caring for others are not left behind.

Currently the government can contribute up to $500 a year to your super if you earn less than $57,016 per year.

Women in Super policy chair, Robbie Campo said: “Australia’s superannuation system is built on the inherent gendered inequality that compulsory super is paid on wages. As women earn on average less than men, and are more likely to take time out of the workforce for caring responsibilities, the system doesn’t work for them in the same way.”

Is this the way forward? Will it be cheaper in the long run than having people on the Age Pension?

8 comments

No!  The government should not be propping up low wage earners, employers should be made to pay decent wages.  We shp ujld not be paying wellfare to business.

Definitely not. If you're not earning enough money in your employment get a second job, there are an abundance of jobs out there. The priority should be hospitals and the general health of the Australian public. The Government already throws away way too much money on nonsense. Jacka.

YES....I support that!

They already do. It's called an aged pension!

 

I agree with KSS.

Can we afford it? I thought we had a trillion dollar debt now, hardly the time to be forward paying people's pensions. It also seems to be a double take on the pension.  Would recipients be able to withdraw this money to spend at Harvey Norman during the next medical emergency?

As a woman I feel qualified to speak on this subject. I studied at school, went to TAFE and got a certificate that enabled me to get a job which paid a reasonable wage for the time. Over the years my certificate and experience in previous employment gave me the chance to get work when my children were able to fend for themselves. I received super which totalled a lot less than my husband but then he had worked continuously whilst I had time off to raise our children. As I see it, I made choices and accept the consequence of those decisions. I was also able to make voluntary contributions to my super fund when the children left home. Other women haven't had the same chances as me but that's life and I don't support giving anyone, male or female, extra money just because they are poor. Women in Super’s new policy platform should be honest and say that they want taxpayers to pay more money to low income women, not government.

Agree and I don't believe in giving money to women just because they are women either!

I don't believe in giving men money, just because they are men either!

Well said Sue, couldn't agree more.

At least the removal of having to earn $450 per month from one employer for over 18's has gone.  But there are a lot of people who are working more than 1 job, so are way behind with super because of that rule.  I fully support the $1,000 as there will be many people who will be struggling by the time they retire.  There will always be poorer people who get left behind, so as a community they need to be helped.  

8 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment