President Donald Trump has cited Australia as an influence for his proposal to improve Americans’ long-term financial security by offering US$1,000 savings accounts to newborn babies. The comparison points to a much broader issue: how the United States and Australia structure retirement saving, and whether a one-time government contribution can replicate a system built around compulsory employer payments.

Australia has developed one of the world’s largest retirement savings pools over the past three decades through compulsory superannuation. By March 2026, the system held A$4.44 trillion, or US$3.1 trillion, on behalf of workers, according to Australian Prudential Regulation Authority data.

The US retirement outlook is more strained. Social Security’s main retirement trust fund is projected to deplete its reserves in late 2032. After that point, incoming revenue would be sufficient to cover about 78% of scheduled benefits. That makes the design of private savings programs more than a technical policy question: it affects how much support future retirees may have outside the public pension system.

Trump’s remarks about an Australian-style retirement system have not included extensive detail. But one element of his broader savings agenda is already in law: Trump Accounts for children.

How Trump Accounts work

“Trump Accounts,” introduced this month, are investment accounts designed to give children an early financial asset. Eligible US children born between 2025 and 2028 can receive a one-time US$1,000 government contribution, but families must apply for it.

Family members and friends may add contributions. Employers may also make tax-advantaged contributions, subject to annual limits of US$5,000.

At launch, the money is invested in a default low-cost index fund. Other low-cost index fund options are expected to be added. In general, the savings remain locked until the child turns 18.

The accounts do not begin as standard retirement accounts. Their connection to retirement starts later. From age 18, the account begins operating under rules similar to those that apply to traditional individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, which many US adults use to save for later life.

Trump Accounts do not replace Social Security, 401(k)s or individual retirement accounts. Instead, they sit alongside those vehicles as another channel for long-term saving.

Australia’s system is built differently

Australia does not have an equivalent national children’s savings program. Parents may open a savings account for a child, buy shares on a child’s behalf, or make after-tax contributions to a child’s superannuation fund. Those options, however, are private and voluntary, unlike Trump Accounts, which give eligible US families the option to apply for a government-backed account for their child.

The Australian model that has drawn Trump’s attention is not a childhood savings plan. It is the country’s retirement system for workers.

Australia’s retirement framework has two main components. The Age Pension is a means-tested, government-funded safety net for older Australians with modest means.

Superannuation serves a different function. It builds private retirement wealth through compulsory employer contributions, generally equal to 12% of a worker’s salary, to provide income in retirement. The money is professionally managed in diversified investment funds.

The system began in the 1990s with employer contributions set at 3% and has gradually increased since then. Australia’s superannuation pool is now the fourth-largest pension pool in the world and is projected to become the second-largest by 2031, behind only the United States.

Voluntary savings versus compulsory contributions

The US Social Security system, in which today’s workers fund today’s retirees through payroll taxes, is more similar to Australia’s Age Pension than to superannuation.

The closest US equivalents to superannuation are 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts. Trump Accounts will later become part of that private savings system.

The central difference is participation. In the United States, saving through these vehicles is voluntary, and employers are generally not required to contribute. In Australia, superannuation contributions are generally mandatory for employers.

Trump Accounts and Australian superannuation are also designed for different purposes. Trump Accounts begin in childhood and are intended to create an asset from an early age. Superannuation begins when people enter the workforce and accumulates retirement savings across a career.

The most important distinction is how money enters the account. After the US government’s initial US$1,000 contribution, the growth of a Trump Account depends entirely on voluntary contributions.

That raises questions about whether contributions would arrive at scale. Many US households already struggle to maintain emergency savings, making it difficult to contribute thousands of dollars each year to a child’s investment account. Wealthier households may be able to contribute regularly, while many others may add little beyond the initial deposit.

Australia’s lifetime-saving mechanism

Australia addressed that issue in a different way. As long as a person remains employed, employers are generally required by law to keep contributing to superannuation. Money flows into the worker’s account throughout working life, regardless of whether the worker actively chooses to save extra from each paycheck.

For an Australian at the retirement age of 67, the average superannuation balance is about A$279,700, or US$196,000.

The steady stream of compulsory contributions, rather than the account structure alone, is what created Australia’s large retirement savings pool.

Australia’s central innovation was not simply creating another account. It made retirement saving a routine and nearly automatic consequence of having a job. In that sense, the policy comparison turns less on whether both countries offer investment accounts and more on whether the rules create repeated contributions over a working lifetime.

Trump has said Australia’s system has “worked out very well.” The lesson from Australia, however, is not necessarily the account itself. It is the contribution mechanism that keeps money flowing into accounts year after year.

Australia did not accumulate trillions of dollars merely by creating another savings vehicle. It built a large pool of retirement assets because employers are required to contribute to workers’ savings accounts on an ongoing basis, rather than relying only on a one-time government payment when a child is born.

Kris Iyer is Senior Lecturer in Finance and Economics at Torrens University Australia.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Original article: