As the Productivity Commission demonstrated on Monday, there are multiple causes for Australia's stagnant wage growth over the past half decade, but superannuation isn't one of them. With business stubbornly refusing to allocate any recent income growth to labour, a mandated rise in superannuation payments may well be the only way for workers to get their fair share of the pie. Australia is, per capita, the richest nation on earth – with average household net wealth of $936,000. Yet we have one of the highest rates of income poverty among retirees in the OECD, with about one in five pensioners living on less than 50 per cent of the median equivalised household disposable income. Many pensioners own their own homes, which are exempt from the pension assets test, meaning some retirees are asset rich and income poor. The Grattan Institute believes that when housing is taken into account, Australia's pensioner poverty rate drops by half. However, this still puts us at the higher end internationally – despite our collective wealth. Surely the purpose of the retirement income system is to ensure that Australians enjoy their older age in comfort and dignity, free of the fear of poverty. Yet that fear is present for far too many of us. A study by the CSIRO-Monash Superannuation Research Cluster found that even retirees with superannuation savings experience a significant decline in lifestyle when they stop working, due to an unwillingness to draw down assets. By the compulsory retirement age, most stick to the minimum drawdown rate of 5 per cent, meaning that even those with comparatively high super balances live on about $21,000 a year.

Loading So, if so many retirees are penny-pinching in fear of running out of money, why do some economists think a super guarantee rate of 12 per cent is excessive? It comes down to what we regard as a comfortable lifestyle. Critics complain that the retirement income standard advocated by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia for a "comfortable" lifestyle is overly generous, pointing to the fact it allows for such luxuries as overseas travel, $163 per couple a fortnight on dining out, and $81 for alcohol. Holidaying overseas is a privilege most Australians struggle to afford, but in a country where one in four people was born overseas, international travel every couple of years isn't necessarily a luxury – it's often a means of staying in touch with family, including elderly parents. When it comes to dining out, $163 per couple is, in a capital city, the cost of having a weekly lunch at a cafe, and a takeaway meal once a fortnight. It's not exactly extravagant. If that couple want to have coffee and cake while doing the weekly shopping, or take the grandchildren out for pizza, they've blown the budget.

Loading As for spending on alcohol, $81 a fortnight is five bottles of drinkable wine from a supermarket – one standard drink each a day. Next time someone says there is no need to increase retirement savings, ask them if they believe that having lunch at a local cafe once a week, or enjoying a glass of wine with dinner, or shouting the grandkids to pizza are luxuries Australia can't afford for most retirees. Should such a lifestyle be the preserve of the truly wealthy? Should the rest of us be satisfied with eating beans on toast in front of the TV every night? There are significant structural problems in our superannuation system. Reducing excessive tax concessions that overwhelmingly favour the wealthiest Australians and reining in excessive fees are two issues that must be addressed to ensure the system is fair and sustainable.