Income inequality and retirees

4 min read
4 min read

In recent months there has been considerable attention given to developments in income inequality in Australia.

The Productivity Commission (PC) in a research paper released in August examined recent evidence and trends around inequality, economic mobility and disadvantage across Australian society.

While much of the focus was on those of working age, some of the analysis relates to those aged 65 and over.

While some level of inequality is unavoidable in any society, excessive inequality and entrenched disadvantage can erode social cohesion and hinder growth. More fundamentally, excessive inequality and poverty are not right in a moral sense. Although economists tend to be a bit wary of getting into that territory.

The news however is not all bad. Twenty seven years of uninterrupted economic growth has delivered improved living standards for the great majority of Australians. This has both direct and indirect implications for the accumulation of retirement savings and standards of living in retirement.

More years in paid employment (through lower unemployment), increases in real wages and healthy profits boosting profits (contributing to returns on equity) have helped those in the accumulation phase. Retirees have been benefitting from, among other things, increases to the Age Pension flowing from both discretionary decisions by governments and indexation in line with average growth in wages in the economy.

However, life is not uniformly good for retirees and for some people things did not get that much better over the last 25 or 30 years, at least in terms of how their lifestyle compared to community norms and standards.

Retirees tend to be asset rich and relatively income poor.

Those aged 25 to 34 are over represented among middle and upper income groups. This reflects higher incomes associated with greater workforce experience and higher rates of partnering.

People aged 35 to 44 are also over represented in middle and upper income groups, but less so than those aged 25 to 34. This reflects parents having children and taking time out of the workforce.

Those aged 45 to 54, and even more so those aged 55 to 64, are over represented among the top income deciles. This reflects parents returning to the workforce, workers moving through their peak earning years and savers benefiting from income associated with capital accumulation.

People aged 65 and older are strongly over represented in lower income deciles. This reflects retirement from the workforce, reliance on the age pension and drawing down savings to support consumption. However, once the benefits flowing from home ownership are factored in, the overall position of those over 65 looks quite a bit better.

During working age years there is also movement up and down the income distribution but much less so in traditional retirement ages. On average, each person spent time in five different income deciles between 2000-01 and 2015-16. Close to 90 per cent had a difference of at least three deciles between the top and bottom income deciles they spent time in. Less than 1 per cent of people remained in the same income decile over the whole period.

As I have previously stated, this income mobility means that projections of tax expenditures on superannuation by income decile of the population are likely to be extremely misleading when calculated over a period of 30 years or more. Projections for the top income percentile are even more misleading. Both the Treasury and the Grattan Institute could do well reading the PC research report.

Retirement income mobility is much less common, at least in terms of upward mobility. Not many people aged over 80 win a lottery or inherit big from their parents.

Rates of measured income poverty are also relatively high. Over 10 per cent of retiree households were estimated to be in poverty in 2015-16 based on their level of private consumption relative to the rest of the community. Retirees experience higher poverty levels than working households, but less than unemployed households, reflecting a combination of superannuation income and the higher rates of the Age Pension compared to the Newstart Allowance.

Having a decent superannuation balance in retirement is an important safeguard against ending up in poverty. Compulsory superannuation is clearly a socially progressive policy.

Picture of By Ross Clare

By Ross Clare

director of research

More Reading

Q&A with IFM Investors’ David Whiteley
In-Depth In-Depth

Q&A with IFM Investors’ David Whiteley

Super system can turbocharge productivity on road to net zero
In-Depth In-Depth

Super system can turbocharge productivity on road to net zero

Understanding the Division 296 super tax
In-Depth In-Depth

Understanding the Division 296 super tax

Carmen Beverley-Smith

Executive Director - Superannuation, Life & Private Health Insurance, APRA

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Carmen joined APRA in March 2023 and holds the role of Executive Director, Life and Private Health Insurance and Superannuation.  

She has had an esteemed career in financial services, spanning over 25 years. She has held diverse leadership roles at Westpac and Commonwealth Bank of Australia, including across risk, transformation and change, product and portfolio development, and sales and service. 

Prior to joining APRA, she held the role of General Manager, Risk Transformation Delivery Integration at Westpac. This involved leading the group-wide implementation of a suite of solutions to uplift risk management capability and develop data, analytics and reporting. 

Carmen leads with a values-driven approach and a particular interest in developing and mentoring talent. 

She holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Accounting, is a certified Chartered Accountant and a Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. 

Amy C. Edmondson

Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management, Harvard Business School

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Amy C. Edmondson is the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School, a chair established to support the study of human interactions that lead to the creation of successful enterprises that contribute to the betterment of society.

Edmondson has been recognized by the biannual Thinkers50 global ranking of management thinkers since 2011, and most recently was ranked #1 in 2021 and 2023; she also received that organization’s Breakthrough Idea Award in 2019, and Talent Award in 2017.  She studies teaming, psychological safety, and organisational learning, and her articles have been published in numerous academic and management outlets, including Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Harvard Business Review and California Management Review. Her 2019 book, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth (Wiley), has been translated into 15 languages. Her prior books – Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate and compete in the knowledge economy (Jossey-Bass, 2012), Teaming to Innovate (Jossey-Bass, 2013) and Extreme Teaming (Emerald, 2017) – explore teamwork in dynamic organisational environments. In Building the future: Big teaming for audacious innovation (Berrett-Koehler, 2016), she examines the challenges and opportunities of teaming across industries to build smart cities. 

Edmondson’s latest book, Right Kind of Wrong (Atria), builds on her prior work on psychological safety and teaming to provide a framework for thinking about, discussing, and practicing the science of failing well. First published in the US and the UK in September, 2023, the book is due to be translated into 24 additional languages, and was selected for the Financial Times and Schroders Best Business Book of the Year award.

Before her academic career, she was Director of Research at Pecos River Learning Centers, where she worked on transformational change in large companies. In the early 1980s, she worked as Chief Engineer for architect/inventor Buckminster Fuller, and her book A Fuller Explanation: The Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller (Birkauser Boston, 1987) clarifies Fuller’s mathematical contributions for a non-technical audience. Edmondson received her PhD in organisational behavior, AM in psychology, and AB in engineering and design from Harvard University.

 

Daniel Mulino MP

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Born in Brindisi, Italy, Daniel was a young child when he moved with his family to Australia. He grew up in Canberra and completed his first degrees – arts and law – at the ANU. He then completed a Master of Economics (University of Sydney) and a PhD in economics from Yale.

He lectured at Monash University, was an economic adviser in the Gillard government and was a Victorian MP from 2014 to 2018. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer of Victoria, Daniel helped deliver major infrastructure projects and developed innovative financing structures for community projects.

In 2018 he was preselected for the new federal seat of Fraser and became its first MP at the 2019 election, re-elected in 2022 and 2025. From 2022 to 2025, Daniel was chair of the House of Representatives’ Standing Economics Committee in which he chaired inquiries; economic dynamism, competition and business formation and insurers’ responses to 2022 major floods claims.

In 2025, he became the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services.

In August 2022, Daniel published ‘Safety Net: The Future of Welfare in Australia’, which aims to explore the ways in which an insurance approach can improve the effectiveness of government service delivery.