Compulsory superannuation laws: are forced retirement savings really for people's own good?

One of the claimed justifications for compulsory retirement savings laws, such as the ones concerning Australia's superannuation regime, is that they improve people's welfare because people's myopia often results in their failure to save adequately for retirement. However, in Australia the merits of such a justification have not been subject to a detailed critical analysis. This article argues that when the disadvantages of such laws, such as comparatively lower working life incomes, are taken into account, that it is far from clear that in the aggregate, such laws increase people's lifelong welfare. The article also examines the merits of an 'opt out' savings regime, which is supported by some commentators, and finds that while such a system has some advantages when compared with a compulsory savings regime, the evidence does not indicate that it is, in the aggregate, welfare enhancing. The article suggests some policy alternatives, including ones involving taxation and spending changes, and concludes that policymakers should look beyond the current compulsory savings regime or, in the alternative, strongly consider dramatically modifying it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]