Alex,

Thanks for your article. I think some of the figures used in this discussion can be misleading. My wife and I have been married 40 years and are now retired. The imbalance in our super accounts is entirely irrelevant to us as along term married couple. The imbalance results from choices over the years like having children and on the most beneficial salary sacrifice at a particular time. Our finances are totally joint and any imbalance a historical fact only. I suspect that many of the women in the statistics would be in similar partnered situations meaning that the national imbalance, although important, may be overstated.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

I'd like to also add that things aren't that simple and should not be taken just at face value. I went through an unexpected grey divorce with kids and got 40%, basically kept my own super (not DFB) and the formally "unhappy" ex got 60% which went into a nice house. Her total assets (wealth) have boomed compared to mine - of course she has less super and I have much, much less property in a lesser suburb which no one talks about. I believe that I am not alone and this has become somewhat of a trend in the last decade or so. Sorry " Lies, damn lies and statistics".

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Thanks for your feedback Rod. We agree with you that if couples stick together because they are partners (in the true sense of the word) and want to, then great, the superannuation system as it has been designed is perfect. But not everyone is so lucky. There are millions of Australians whose life journey has taken a different path, sometimes because they chose this path but sometimes they didn't. Like John Lennon said once: "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans". Not every woman, meanwhile, might want her finances to be inextricably linked to that of her partner. Another twist is that the research we published in the article referred to women who had superannuation. If you look across the population at everyone, not just those in the system, the gap widens. While the article didn't address questions on government policy in superannuation, if you did ask me that question, I'd say the superannuation system should reflect the actual society it claims to serve. If society is changing, the superannuation system should change along with it. All the best.

- Alex Dunnin

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

love how the man say that it's entirely irrelevant. Ask your wife.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

I'm 63 and only have $20,000 in super. I want to add a lump sum of $40,000 as the bank interest is so low.

AMP fees are low on my policy but they want to charge me 4% on this lump sum. Is it because I haven't contributed for 15 years? I get so much conflicting advice.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Hi Julia,

Thank you for your question. While our team can't answer it here in the comments section, we will pass it on to Paul Clitheroe for his consideration for a future Ask Paul.

- Money team

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Women are not always the losers in Superannuation. I've worked full time most of my life but my wife has a slightly higher Super balance to me.

She works as an allied health professional (many if not most of whom are women) and the government system in some states pay more that the 9% superannuation guarantee I receive - along with incentives to 'salary sacrifice' extra into Super ... resulting in a healthy balance.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.