Yes, I feel sorry for the younger generation (i.e. people seven years or more younger than me) with the Preservation Age to access Superannuation being raised from 55 to 60. It sort of made sense, that the government didn't want people blowing their lumps sum payouts too quickly, but why not allow people to still retire at 55 if they put their Superannuation into Allocated Pensions, where the lump sums were unlikely to be blown away?
I remember about 20 years ago reading an analysis of US Auto-Workers superfund which was flushed with cash. They had done the analysis and found that those who retired at 50 or early 50s lived the longest and got the most pension benefit from their contributions, while those who retired in their early to mid 60s lived the shortest and were getting the least pension from their contributions. And more members than originally thought were retiring later in life, resulting in a huge cash windfall to the fund.
If the same factors are at play in Australia as was the case back then in the USA, one could argue that raising the Preservation Age reduces average life span.
Is there any sort of Transition To Retirement scheme where you work, that would enable partial retirement in the near future?
Regards,
Renato
