No husband, no kids, no regrets—why her $1.6m retirement plan has everyone talking

When it comes to building wealth for retirement, some people make choices that challenge society’s expectations.

One woman’s bold financial strategy has stirred strong reactions—and prompted many to question what really matters when planning for the future.

Her controversial approach, shared on national television, is now sparking a nationwide debate.


When Julia, a 37-year-old HR professional from Melbourne, took the stage on Insight, she didn’t hold back.

Her appearance on the program sparked a wave of heated discussion after she revealed her projected $1.6 million superannuation balance and shared the decisions she believed helped her get there.

And while some applauded her financial discipline, others were rattled by her unapologetic views on the cost of traditional family life.


image1.png
Woman’s $1.6m super plan sparks backlash. Image source: Pexels/Tima Miroshnichenko


‘I’m here tonight to empower the next gen of women and my advice would be aimed more so towards them,’ she began.

Then came the comment that stunned the audience: ‘It is going to sound super controversial, but I would say one thing is, don’t get married. And if you do, make sure someone is benefitting from it, whether it be for a visa or a tax saving of some sort.’

Julia said she had been working since the age of 16 and had aggressively salary sacrificed throughout her career, which helped her build a strong super portfolio. Even if she stopped contributing now, she said projections showed her fund would still grow to over $1 million by retirement. But she was quick to point out that discipline alone didn’t get her there.

Instead, she credited her decision to forgo marriage and children as a major financial advantage—one that came with personal sacrifices, but significant rewards.

‘I would say this one is really controversial, but consider refraining from having children,’ she added. ‘Because by the time that kid leaves your home, it will have cost you as much as a Lamborghini. You could be driving your Lamborghini or that sum could be sitting in your superannuation growing.’


Research from the University of New South Wales published in 2024 supported her claim, revealing that the average Australian household spent between $100,000 to $300,000 per child.

Julia, who came from a refugee family, said money was always a topic of conversation in her household growing up, which instilled in her a strong financial mindset from an early age.

She bought her first home at 21, immediately after graduating from university, and has since added more properties to her portfolio. In addition to working full-time, she also earned two more degrees and maintained an active social life among older peers at her yacht club.

‘I can’t really relate with younger persons, or they’re not as freely available emotionally, time-wise, and financially as I am,’ she explained.

Julia’s disciplined lifestyle also allowed her to enjoy luxuries that many Australians might only dream of. She spoke of taking around 20 trips to Europe, as well as owning caravans and boats—all funded independently.


Her advice wasn’t limited to lifestyle choices. She also urged younger Australians to better understand how money works, especially when it came to superannuation and tax.

‘You don’t need a master’s in commerce or an MBA to appreciate it,’ she said, referring to the benefits of compound interest.

‘I think we’re going to have a lot of poor retirees in Australia in my generation—not enough people are contributing to superannuation via salary sacrifice, in my opinion.’

She argued that schools should prioritise financial education, including how to navigate the taxation system and understand the long-term power of compound interest.


Still, not everyone agreed with Julia’s seven-figure target. In June, AustralianSuper released data suggesting most Australians were retiring comfortably with far less.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia currently recommends $595,000 in super for singles to retire with a ‘comfortable’ lifestyle—defined as an overseas holiday every seven years and an annual trip within Australia.

AustralianSuper’s head of advice and guidance, Ross Ackland, said: ‘Some people think they need to be chasing a seven-figure balance to live well in retirement, but many Australians are thriving with less because they’ve planned around their lifestyle, not just a number.’

As for Julia, she said she planned to retire within the next decade—‘at the latest’. Whether her approach is deemed too radical or simply realistic, it’s clear her comments struck a chord with many Australians questioning what a ‘comfortable’ future really looks like.

Key Takeaways
  • Julia, a 37-year-old from Melbourne, projected a $1.6 million super balance and credited her wealth to avoiding marriage and children.
  • She said the cost of raising a child was equivalent to a Lamborghini and advocated for financial independence over traditional family roles.
  • Her disciplined lifestyle enabled her to buy property, travel extensively, and fund luxuries without financial support from others.
  • While some experts argued a smaller super balance could still support a comfortable retirement, Julia stood by her plan to retire within a decade.

Julia’s story has certainly ruffled feathers—but it’s also sparked a bigger conversation about the cost of traditional life choices.

If you had your time again, would you have made different decisions about money, marriage or children? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

In a previous story, we looked at the growing trend of senior Australians selling their homes to help their children enter the property market.

It’s a powerful contrast to Julia’s approach—where financial independence took priority over traditional family support.

If you’ve ever faced that dilemma yourself, this one’s worth a read too.

Read more: Would you sell your house just to help your kids buy theirs? Some senior Aussies already have
 

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
Julia must be getting a very high salary. There is a limit how much you can salary sacrifice. I wonder if any of her investments are in balanced funds. If so she may not have as much in assets as we are told. Maybe as Julia suggested students should be taught about financial matters instead of subjects they will never use in employment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PattiB
To each his own I guess.
I would not sell my home so my children could buy theirs.
Too many of the younger generation live well above their means. Our generation didn't get where they are by taking overseas trips, running the kids to school in a 4 wheel drive, wanting our first home to be a McMansion, etc.
My son settled for a rundown 3x1 and with our help over the years did it up and graduated to a standard 4x2. Repeated the process and has finally attained his dream on a 122 acre property.
It took time, patience and hard work.
Plenty of physical help from us but not financial. I now do help them out yearly, within the Centrelink bounds. It may not be a fortune but $30,000 over 5 years can be a big help.
To deprive yourself, or end up homeless like friends of mine, to help your kids is not a smart plan.
My friends sold their home and built a granny flat on their son's property.
Sounds good, but they then decided to sell and "upgrade" using the collateral of the extra value due to the granny flat.
Bought a more expensive home, no money left over for another granny flat. My friends are now renting, ended up with a shattered family and no access to their grand children.
Let your children stand on their own two feet. They can inherit when the time comes.
Or, at least, if you do go down the route of helping your kids out make sure everything is done legally, the same as you would do with anyone else.
 
Each to their own. You cannot fault someone for doing what they feel is best for them. The thing about kids, she is right they cost a fortune. I did not have children not because I didn't want them but because I couldn't have them, went through IVF and did not work. So years down the track we have been able to travel and pretty much buy and do what ever we have wanted.
 
Very sad to be so money driven to the point of foregoing love. Can’t imagine life like that. Money and material goods must be her turn-on.
She is not necessarily foregoing love, just kids. I've known many childless couples who have a very loving and fulfilling life. It's when she gets to old age and may well need welfare support, the best of which comes from ones family, that she may wish she had made different choices.
 
So what we have here is a young woman planning her future that is against what society wants her to do.
We are entering an age where The Handmaid's tale is becoming a documentary. Laugh all you will, just look at how the USA has taken away woman's power over their own bodies. And please, don't lecture me on what the Bibles says and it's murder, if you don't know what I am talking about it's called Abortion . It's their body. Ok.

I say to the above woman. you do you because I myself am living in a way that is against what society wants me to do and it's legal too.
 
Her choice, but I think she will be a very lonely lady in old age. She is what people used to call a spinster. I already feel a coldness around her.

I would never choose money over my family

It's Like the Beatles song, Money can't buy love
No children! then who is she going to leave all her millions to?
What a cold self absorbed person she is.l wouldn't want to know her even if l could . Give me a loving family anytime bugger the luxuries .
 
She is not necessarily foregoing love, just kids. I've known many childless couples who have a very loving and fulfilling life. It's when she gets to old age and may well need welfare support, the best of which comes from ones family, that she may wish she had made different choices.
She's not into marriage either.
 
I'm 62, married for 40 years and no children - not for lack of trying - but I've taken advantage of the lifestyle and opportunities that this situation has afforded me. I applaud Julia for being unapologetically her authentic self in the face of those who criticise her choices, even if I wouldn't and haven't done the same. Contrary to popular belief, being unmarried and childless doesn't mean that you don't have love in your life. Julia may have siblings, neices & nephews, cousins, etc that she's close to. She may fall in love with someone but choose not to co-habit or marry as is her wish - I know people in this situation and it works great for them. Remember also, friends can become as close as family or closer and this may be all that one needs. Its ok to tread a non-traditional path if it makes you happy. Whether it be through choice or circumstances, not everyone has a traditional family life, but happiness is a choice and having a traditional family doesn't always make one happy.
 
The article explains that she is so focussed on finances that it appears there is no room for love in her life.

Fine for her, but I couldn’t imagine she’d be a very friendly person. When your life revolves around money that much, you’d need to keep other people at arm’s length.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Jo Piper3
She is not necessarily foregoing love, just kids. I've known many childless couples who have a very loving and fulfilling life. It's when she gets to old age and may well need welfare support, the best of which comes from ones family, that she may wish she had made different choices.
Don't know about the old age part.
Most people whether they have helped kids,have a good super and savings and lifestyle for which they planned etc STILL GO.INTO CARE.
ONLY DIFFERENCE IS A GOOD PLACE OF YOUR CHOOSING OR A PENSION PAID GOVERNMENT HOME THAT MAY NOT VERY GOOD.
CHILDREN LOOKING AFTER PARENTS FULL TIME......,PRETTY MUCH ZILCH.
ONLY THOSE CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY WOMEN WHO DONT WORK ATE ABLE TO TAKE ON GULL YIME CARE OF PARENTS,EHICH I WILL ADD COMES WITH A CARER'S PENSION TOO.
I LOVE AND CARE ANOUT MY SINS AND DAUGHTER IN LAWS AND GAVE HELPED GHEM THROUGH OUT THEIR LIVES FINANCIALLY AND OTHERWISE BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?I don't expect or necessarily want,my daughter in law or sons helping me go to the toilet or showering me.Thatsvwhy I have made sure my husband and I can get care if needed and they can visit all they want when the time comes.

Also let's not forget,your daughter in law may live you,but she has a mother and father too.Is that.to be her lot in life?looking after 4 old coj
ers in nappies.....PLEASE🤣🤣🤣
 
you may be a little out when you consider a house in 2001 was$ 65000 and is now 1.5 million, ( in my case ), personally I think a super fund balance of 1.5 million makes one wonder how much it will be in 10 or 15 yrs, personally I think a super bal of 2 million will be a common valuation that people will find it hard to survive on, just look back at the figures and be shocked at the result ,and consider it will be worse once people realise that everyone in australia is paying million plus just for a home making any home owner/buyer is a millionaire or about to be and when every one is a millionaire we will all be broke
 
To each his own I guess.
I would not sell my home so my children could buy theirs.
Too many of the younger generation live well above their means. Our generation didn't get where they are by taking overseas trips, running the kids to school in a 4 wheel drive, wanting our first home to be a McMansion, etc.
My son settled for a rundown 3x1 and with our help over the years did it up and graduated to a standard 4x2. Repeated the process and has finally attained his dream on a 122 acre property.
It took time, patience and hard work.
Plenty of physical help from us but not financial. I now do help them out yearly, within the Centrelink bounds. It may not be a fortune but $30,000 over 5 years can be a big help.
To deprive yourself, or end up homeless like friends of mine, to help your kids is not a smart plan.
My friends sold their home and built a granny flat on their son's property.
Sounds good, but they then decided to sell and "upgrade" using the collateral of the extra value due to the granny flat.
Bought a more expensive home, no money left over for another granny flat. My friends are now renting, ended up with a shattered family and no access to their grand children.
Let your children stand on their own two feet. They can inherit when the time comes.
Or, at least, if you do go down the route of helping your kids out make sure everything is done legally, the same as you would do with anyone else.
Yes children cost more than money. Sometimes they are ungrateful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mylittletibbies

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×