{"id":437949,"date":"2025-12-10T13:55:21","date_gmt":"2025-12-10T13:55:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/437949\/"},"modified":"2025-12-10T13:55:21","modified_gmt":"2025-12-10T13:55:21","slug":"trump-says-australias-12-superannuation-system-could-be-a-model-for-the-us-what-that-might-mean-for-your-retirement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/437949\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump says Australia\u2019s 12% \u2018superannuation\u2019 system could be a model for the US. What that might mean for your retirement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

President Donald Trump recently suggested that the U.S. could learn something from Australia\u2019s superannuation retirement system.<\/p>\n

He didn\u2019t announce any official policy, but did say the administration is studying how Australia handles retirement as the U.S. looks for answers to America\u2019s rising economic and aging-population pressures (1).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

How does Australia\u2019s system work, and what could it mean for American workers?<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s comments came during an event announcing a $6.25-billion gift from Michael and Susan Dell towards several initiatives, including so-called \u201cTrump Accounts,\u201d investment accounts for children born between 2025 and 2028. (Michael Dell founded and still chairs Dell Technologies, the maker of Dell computers). These accounts are said to help kids build early wealth, but they won\u2019t change retirement structures for adults (1).<\/p>\n

The superannuation comment was part of a broader discussion about long-term savings, and brings up questions about whether retirement saving in the U.S. should be automatic.<\/p>\n

Australia\u2019s superannuation program has been around since 1992. According to the Australian government:<\/p>\n

Employers must contribute 12% of a worker\u2019s ordinary earnings into a retirement fund. They can typically choose what fund the money is invested in. Workers can contribute more on top with a cap, but the 12% is automatic. The money stays invested until retirement age, and there are penalties applied if funds are accessed illegally (2).<\/p>\n

Because nearly every employer participates, the system captures almost the entire workforce. As a result, Australia now has one of the largest pension asset pools in the world (3), at roughly $4.1 trillion according to The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (4).<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not a perfect system. The rules can be complicated, and contributions are locked until retirement, and because it\u2019s a defined-contribution system, individuals are still exposed to market risk (5). There\u2019s also the worry that the super system could leave some older Australians in a tough spot, especially if they can\u2019t tap their savings until a set age and are dealing with health issues or cognitive decline (6).<\/p>\n

Story Continues <\/p>\n

However, the mandatory structure means workers build savings whether they actively plan for retirement or not.<\/p>\n

In the U.S., on the other hand, retirement savings depend heavily on voluntary behavior; whether your employer offers a 401(k), how generous the match is, and whether you personally contribute enough to take advantage of it. According to Pew, nearly half of the private workforce, or about 56 million individuals, don\u2019t get work-related retirement benefits (7).<\/p>\n

According to a 2024 Social Security trustee report, Social Security can only pay full benefits until 2033 unless the U.S. Congress passes Social Security reform (8).<\/p>\n

Read More: Vanguard reveals what could be coming for U.S. stocks, and it\u2019s raising alarm bells for retirees. Here\u2019s why and how to protect yourself<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

So when Trump said the administration is looking \u201cseriously\u201d at the Australian model, while it doesn\u2019t necessarily mean a looming policy shift, it does highlight how fragmented the American system has become.<\/p>\n

If the U.S. explored a mandate like Australia\u2019s, here\u2019s what could change:<\/p>\n

Workers might end up with larger nest eggs, especially low-income earners who don\u2019t, or can\u2019t, save consistently. Employers could face higher costs, especially small businesses who may already be stretched thin on payroll. Mandatory contributions could reduce reliance on Social Security over time.<\/p>\n

While nothing is actually on the table yet, the idea raises big questions. Would this sit on top of 401(k)s, or would it replace them? How would wages be affected?<\/p>\n

You don\u2019t need to wait for a policy change to improve your retirement outlook. Here\u2019s what you can do:<\/p>\n