Million-dollar retirement? Here's why it’s not actually a must-have

You may have heard that you must squirrel away a cool $1,000,000 in super to retire comfortably. It’s a catchy headline that keeps popping up – even Yahoo Finance ran a piece titled something like “$1M in super is not a magic number.”

But here’s the truth: that “million-dollar” figure is more myth than magic for most Australians. In reality, official data and financial experts show many retirees can live well on far less, especially when you factor in the Age Pension. A one-size-fits-all golden number simply doesn’t exist.



In plain English: retirement planning isn’t about hitting an arbitrary target. It’s about your lifestyle goals and income needs.

As CareSuper planner Dan Bridgland puts it, “How much super you need is a result of the lifestyle that you want to live”. In other words, the real question is what kind of retirement you want – not how many zeros are in your bank balance.

The “$1M” mantra got started because round numbers grab headlines, but as a new wave of research confirms, you usually don’t need a seven-figure nest egg to retire in comfort.


20250610_1134_Retirement Savings Rethink_simple_compose_01jxbyb7pjef5a8kz7q0b4y2tc (1).png
Image source: Seniors Discount Club




Let’s look at what the numbers actually say: official studies by Australia’s super funds and tax office, plus commentary from financial pros. Spoiler alert – the figures paint a very different picture than the $1,000,000 myth.

  • ASFA “comfortable” standard: Official superannuation benchmarks by ASFA (the peak super industry body) show that a couple only needs about $690,000 in today’s dollars for a comfortable retirement, and a single person about $595,000. That assumes you’ll also draw a part Age Pension. In other words, even at the high end, the shortfall from the Age Pension is much less than $1M.

  • ASFA “modest” standard: Believe it or not, for just a basic modest retirement lifestyle ASFA says you need only about $100,000 (for either a couple or single) at age 67 – because the Age Pension covers the rest. This shows how wildly above necessity the $1M figure really is for most people.

  • ASFA budget figures: To put it another way, a comfortable couple’s budget is around $73,077 a year. Yet a full Age Pension for a couple (with supplements) is about $43,753 a year. So half of that comfortable lifestyle budget is already met by the pension. The extra $30–$35k per year needs to come from super – which is why a ~$690k lump sum (drawing ~5% annually) works out under ASFA’s math.

  • Real spending examples: The notion of a one-million-dollar magic bean falls apart when you look at actual retiree spending. Research by consumer advocates (“Super Consumers Australia”) sorts retirees into spending tiers and finds crazy low targets. For example, if a single retiree can live on only $34,000 a year, they’d need just $88,000 in super; a couple living on $48,000 needs $111,000. Even those wanting moderate lifestyles ($44k single/$64k couple) only need about $301k/$402k. And only the highest spenders ($55k single/$88k couple per year) need roughly $745k (single) or $1,003,000 (couple) – and the latter figure is for a fairly lavish $88k/year lifestyle. These spending-based buckets (from recent Australian analysis) show that millions are only needed for unusually high living costs.

  • Typical super balances: In real life, most Australians retiring have far below $1M anyway. The median super balance for people aged 60–64 is only about $212,000 for men and $159,000 for women. Even if markets have bumped those a bit since the data, it’s nowhere near a million. As an ASFA update noted, back in 2019 the median balance at 60–64 was ~$179k (men) and ~$137k (women). In short, 75–80% of people nearing retirement have under $500k in super, let alone $1M.

  • Age Pension boost: Don’t forget the super safety net. As one retirement blog pointed out, if a retired couple has ~$405,000 in super, they actually qualify for a full pension (about $38,709 in 2022). Combined with even modest super drawdowns, they could have ~$58k/year tax-free to live on. That’s roughly ASFA’s comfortable standard – without needing seven figures saved. In short, the government pension closes the gap dramatically.


From these figures you can see why experts shake their heads at the $1M scare. It’s not that having $1M is bad – of course more savings gives more options – but it certainly isn’t a universal “magic” threshold. Industry veterans like Craig Sankey of Industry Fund Services note that ASFA’s actual benchmarks are far lower.

He says: “Take those ASFA numbers: [it] says you would need $690,000 as a couple [about $345k each], whereas [as] a single person, $595,000… it’s quite a bit extra for [a] single”. In other words, comfortably retiring on $1M per person is not what ASFA predicts – they show a couple can do it on about $690k together.

AustralianSuper – the big industry fund – sums it up bluntly: “You may have heard you need $1 million [to retire] – it’s the figure that’s often thrown around… But the truth is, there’s no one-size-fits-all. A comfortable retirement will look different for everyone”. And Dan Bridgland’s point is spot-on: start by asking how much income you actually want in retirement, not fixating on a round savings goal.

A lovely overseas holiday or extra grandchildren support? Figure out its cost, and work backwards. (Hint: in many cases that cost is far below $1M.)

The media hype about $1M often ignores these nuances. It also glosses over how super grows. As one financial commentator noted, people sometimes “take super savings, divide by years, and think that’s their future income,” but forget that the balance can keep growing if only moderate withdrawals are taken.



In practice, a well-managed $690k balance can yield ~$34k a year (at a conservative 5%), on top of pension income, giving much more flexibility than the simple math suggests.

So what about those who worry $1M is still “not enough” for the lifestyle they imagine? Well, sure – if you envision flying first class every week, dining at five-star restaurants daily, and paying for every whim, you might run through a million in no time. But even then, experts point out you don’t need all that saved in advance. Part of the joy of retirement is a more relaxed budget.

Living below your means or taking calculated risks with your investments can stretch your dollars. For example, a couple with $405k in super and a full pension can afford about $58,000 a year to spend. With that, they can still enjoy decent travel and outings, even if it’s not an extravaganza.



The bottom line is this: in planning for life after work, focus on the life, not the number. What kind of daily routine and leisure do you want? How many cruises? What car? That determines your spending. Then figure out how much you can get from the pension, from downsizing your home (if needed), and from your super withdrawals. You’ll often find a million isn’t a requirement but an aspiration, and one that gives you even more comfort and security if you reach it.

As financial writer Peter Switzer noted about the Super Consumers analysis: a million dollars does provide comfort and peace of mind – you’d never have to worry about running out or taking risks. But many retirees manage quite well on significantly less by being prudent with their spending.

Even official retirement calculators reflect this. For instance, ASIC’s MoneySmart explains that a couple on $690k at 6% yields about $41,400 a year, plus a $43,753 pension – more than the $73,077 needed. And interestingly, ASFA’s own standard for modest living assumes people could live on just $100k in savings with pension help.



That’s why the “million-dollar retirement” is something of a journalism trope: it makes an eye-catching headline, but it misses the fact that nearly 80% of retirees have much less saved and still get by (often with the help of the Age Pension).

Financial planners therefore advise: instead of fixating on a magic number, make a budget. List your actual or desired expenses – food, bills, travel, gifts – and project what your pension will cover. Then the gap is what you need from super.

For example, if you want $50k a year (a common comfortable budget for a single older person), and the Age Pension covers, say, $30k, you only need $20k a year extra. At 5%, that means roughly $400k in super. (Still high, but far below $1M.)

Here are some key figures from trusted sources to keep in mind:

  • ASFA comfortable retirement – about $690,000 (couple) or $595,000 (single) in super.

  • ASFA modest retirement – only about $100,000 in super (for either a single or a couple).

  • Typical budgets – a couple needs ~$73,077/year for comfort, while the full couple pension is ~$43,753 (so super must supply ~29k/year).

  • Real retiree spending – research shows a $34k/year lifestyle needs only ~$88k (single) / $111k (couple) in super, whereas a high-end $88k/year lifestyle needs ~$1,003k (couple).

  • Median Aussie super – roughly $212k (men) and $159k (women) at age 60–64, meaning most people are nowhere near $1M.


All this evidence strongly indicates that $1 million isn’t some magical threshold you have to clear. It’s understandable why the myth arose: it’s simple and dramatic. But as you plan your future, remember it’s your retirement. Talk to a financial adviser if you can, plug your numbers into retirement calculators (including government ones like SmartSave or ASIC’s), and don’t let one big round figure scare you.

As one advisor put it, the focus should be on income streams and spending needs, not an arbitrary target.


20250610_1136_Retirement Balance Reflection_simple_compose_01jxbyhth2ejct17beyd2w540m (1).png
Image source: Seniors Discount Club




At the end of the day, what really matters is your peace of mind and the lifestyle you want to enjoy. That might mean aiming for a higher balance if you love to travel, or it might mean being content with more modest means. The real magic is in planning carefully, not in hitting a single benchmark.

So, if $1,000,000 isn’t the magic bullet, what is the right number for you? Will you chase a round figure because of the hype, or will you decide your retirement goals based on your own life plans – and let your super savings reflect that? How would you answer that question?
 

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
The numbers are certainly rubbery. As Nicnat writes, there is no mention that the aged pension will not be paid to everyone. Also, I've tried several retirement calculators & they seldom allow you to index your withdrawals to allow for inflation eroding your lifestyle (despite happily allowing for compounding growth of your Super balance but never for years of negative return!), & when you can find a calculator allowing you to index withdrawals, you'd be surprised how much faster your balance expires, a concern when life expectency is 20-30 years beyond retirement age.
 
Don’t Forget the assets test. we have 400,000 in super, 2 cars and a caravan. Plus house contents .When added together we don’t qualify for a pension the cut of is 600,000
Well I guess if you have 2 cars, a caravan furniture valued at $200,000 you don't really need a pension.
You do know that you value your assets at what is basically garage sale prices, don't you??
 
Don’t Forget the assets test. we have 400,000 in super, 2 cars and a caravan. Plus house contents .When added together we don’t qualify for a pension the cut of is 600,000
I hope you’re not using the “replacement cost” in valuing your assets. The Government only requires the “fire sale” value when determining you total asset value ie what would you get if you had to sell it TODAY.
 
Very good down to earth explanation on superanuation requirements for people entering, or in retirement. If you can, always seek advice from a registered financial adviser. Services Australia do have financial advisers available, but you need to book in to see them. They also offer 'Reverse Mortgages', at a very low rate, currently 2.95%, if you are 'asset rich' but 'cash poor'. Seek financial advice if you feel this can benefit you.
 
Don’t Forget the assets test. we have 400,000 in super, 2 cars and a caravan. Plus house contents .When added together we don’t qualify for a pension the cut of is 600,000
The cut off for a couple with a house is $1,047,500, nothing like 600k
 
The numbers are certainly rubbery. As Nicnat writes, there is no mention that the aged pension will not be paid to everyone. Also, I've tried several retirement calculators & they seldom allow you to index your withdrawals to allow for inflation eroding your lifestyle (despite happily allowing for compounding growth of your Super balance but never for years of negative return!), & when you can find a calculator allowing you to index withdrawals, you'd be surprised how much faster your balance expires, a concern when life expectency is 20-30 years beyond retirement age.
I've tried numerous calculators and they all have a percent which is adjustable for inflation AND increased living standards. Moneysmart is one, Mercer is a good one.
 
The kicker is that you need to be debt free. I am fortunate to fall into this category with a modest home and a decent car. I am almost eligible to apply for the "aged pension" which has another name now. The difficulty is that insurance premiums keep rising & there are no concessions. My Shire only gives a rates concession on DVA Gold Card & Aged Pension so if you don't qualify for even a part aged pension, you pay full price for everything. Super is definitely not a one size fits all situation. Wishing everyone the best of luck navigating this minefield !!! 😊
 
What seems insane to me is that a couple that does save $1 million - potentially by living very frugally during their working life, or working very long hours - can end up gaining no real benefit from their saving. At 5% yield, they only have $50,000 to live on, and none of the pensioner concessions, unless they draw down and reduce their savings until they qualify for a part pension, at which point they enjoy a higher income. That seems grossly unfair to me. It really means that all their extra work or going without things to save benefits only the taxpayer - not them. So why do it? The system doesn't provide any incentive to save more if you can, unless you can substantially exceed the $1 million mark. That seems crazy given that the government is constantly complaining about the high cost of paying aged pensions. Wouldn't it make more sense to gear the system so that the more you save, the more YOU benefit?

I'm not suggesting that a couple with $1 mil is doing it tough or deserves any sympathy. Only that the system is flawed in that it doesn't incentivise that level of saving - especially if their savings are outside of super and they have to manage investments themselves to achieve a decent return - something many do not have either the skills or the desire to do. With bonds and cash generally returning substantially less than 5%, they have to go into higher risk investments to achieve 5%. And those who chose blue chip shares to do a little better are faced with the ongoing threat of being deprived of franking credits, which would leave them with well below $50,000 a year if they don't constantly draw down on savings.

I think it would make sense for the government to create a system that guarantees self-funded retirees a secure 7% return every year without them having to navigate a complex investment environment or choose a super fund that can be relied on to deliver that every year. That would take pressure off the aged pension system and encourage people to save more so that more younger workers do achieve that $1 mil. mark.
 
Don’t Forget the assets test. we have 400,000 in super, 2 cars and a caravan. Plus house contents .When added together we don’t qualify for a pension the cut of is 600,000
You are actually pretty close to the 'sweet spot'', where you receive maximum benefit from both savings and the pension system (via a part pension and concessions). From about where you are a retiree couple gets progressively less total income until they reach well over $1 mil - unless they can generate a quite high rate of return on a constant basis.

The assets test is very unfair, actually. It worked moderately well before Joe Hockey (I think it was) changed the rules to slash the rate of pension for people with slightly higher assets, but the change was not fair to people who had saved well (often by going without during their working lives) and it discourages higher levels of saving. I know many who, in their late fifties or early sixties, have begun a big spending spree to get their savings down to $500,000. I also know many who, as soon as they could draw on super, upgraded their family home to get their savings down to $500,000 and avoid being punished by the assets test. Seems crazy for the government to continue a system that discourages holding more savings.
 
What seems insane to me is that a couple that does save $1 million - potentially by living very frugally during their working life, or working very long hours - can end up gaining no real benefit from their saving. At 5% yield, they only have $50,000 to live on, and none of the pensioner concessions, unless they draw down and reduce their savings until they qualify for a part pension, at which point they enjoy a higher income. That seems grossly unfair to me. It really means that all their extra work or going without things to save benefits only the taxpayer - not them. So why do it? The system doesn't provide any incentive to save more if you can, unless you can substantially exceed the $1 million mark. That seems crazy given that the government is constantly complaining about the high cost of paying aged pensions. Wouldn't it make more sense to gear the system so that the more you save, the more YOU benefit?

I'm not suggesting that a couple with $1 mil is doing it tough or deserves any sympathy. Only that the system is flawed in that it doesn't incentivise that level of saving - especially if their savings are outside of super and they have to manage investments themselves to achieve a decent return - something many do not have either the skills or the desire to do. With bonds and cash generally returning substantially less than 5%, they have to go into higher risk investments to achieve 5%. And those who chose blue chip shares to do a little better are faced with the ongoing threat of being deprived of franking credits, which would leave them with well below $50,000 a year if they don't constantly draw down on savings.

I think it would make sense for the government to create a system that guarantees self-funded retirees a secure 7% return every year without them having to navigate a complex investment environment or choose a super fund that can be relied on to deliver that every year. That would take pressure off the aged pension system and encourage people to save more so that more younger workers do achieve that $1 mil. mark.
Superanuation was mever intended to be a 'generational transfer of wealth', it was meant to assist in retired people being able to live a reasonable life style, on retirement, without having to totally rely on assistance from a government pension. The new tax on superanuation funds over $3m, maywell allow for people with only the pension as their main income, having monetary increases, more in keeping with the cost of living.
 
Superanuation was mever intended to be a 'generational transfer of wealth', it was meant to assist in retired people being able to live a reasonable life style, on retirement, without having to totally rely on assistance from a government pension. The new tax on superanuation funds over $3m, maywell allow for people with only the pension as their main income, having monetary increases, more in keeping with the cost of living.
I didn't say anything about superannuation, much less any 'generational transfer of wealth'. Many of my generation SAVED for retirement. My comment was about the unfair and economically unsustainable assets test, which encourages people to save LESS, because unless you can achieve way more than $1 mil (for a couple) you are better off with $500,000.

Even if it is in super, why should savers have to spend their capital early in retirement when they may well need it later to pay for household help, care, etc.? People can live for 3 decades in retirement, and expenses can vary dramatically depending on their state of health and life circumstances. This repeated rant about super not being intended for ''generational transfer of wealth' is, frankly, deeply offensive. We should be able to retain our savings for needs in old age.

My private savings (which are treated exactly the same as superannuation except that they are taxed more) ARE for generational transfer of wealth, and I should be entitled to use them that way - not have to spend them to save taxpayers money that is then frequently paid to people who lived the high life while I was going without to save.

As for the new tax on funds over $3m - It's double tax and tax on income that never happened and might never happen, and it will do major economic damage, as it did in four other countries where unrealised gains taxes were implemented. (Three abandoned it after seeing it cause harm. The fourth hasn't yet but saw a major drop in tax revenue and lost 25% of their biggest investors to foreign countries, doing huge harm to economic growth. USA abandoned the idea before introducing it because they saw how harmful it would be.) It will push housing costs, rent and food prices up, increase the already high rate of business and farm bankruptcies, and drive innovation and new enterprise overseas. There is absolutely no way any tax on unrealised gains is going to improve life for those whose main income is the pension. It will hit the poorest hardest, as always happens when economic growth is stifled. Everyone should be opposing it strenuously. The fault in the super tax system is the 15% flat tax rate that gives huge benefits to high income earners and virtually none to the lowest income earners. Sadly, Labor won't address that because it would tax their rich union mates, high-income bureaucrats and politicians.
 
Last edited:

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×