Boomers could be asked to sell their home under proposed death tax

Former treasurer Peter Costello urges government to consider controversial age care plan.

Former treasurer Peter Costello

The royal commission into aged care has certainly brought out the heavy hitters this week.

Earlier this week we reported on former prime minister Paul Keating’s suggestion of a HECS-style system to provide for home care funding.

Now former treasurer Peter Costello has proposed an expansion of the Pension Loans Scheme, which could result in baby boomers being forced to sell their homes in order to pay for aged care, effectively a death tax on those who need to use aged care services.

Mr Costello explained that his government was behind the push to introduce what is now known as the refundable accommodation deposit into the aged care system after realising that private money would be needed to fund the sector in the future.

He told the commission that the growth in the sector required more people to pay their own way and that the Pension Loans Scheme could be expanded to meet this purpose.

“Those people that (sic) do use residential care and do have assets should be asked to make a contribution and guaranteed a return of (sic) their death,” Mr Costello said.

“I think people should do it knowingly and in advance and there should be products that allow them to do that during their lifetime.

“If you come around and try to take their assets after they've died, I think you can expect to run into a lot of opposition there.”

In his appearance before the commission, Mr Costello also slammed the complexity of the forms required before entering aged care, explaining that even he had trouble understanding them.

He said that many people might consider them too hard and just abandon them in the current situation.

“I have attempted to fill in these income and assets tests,” Mr Costello said. “You all ought to do them. The royal commissioners ought to do them. I think there are over 100 questions and 27 pages and, you know, I think I'm reasonably financially literate. I had a lot of trouble filling it in.

“I don't know how a person going into a nursing home would ever be able to fill it in. Obviously, they've got to get someone to do it for them because of the complexity.”

He also said the public servants who assessed the forms also had to deal with the complexity on their end and would undoubtedly have trouble reading and understanding the forms.

“Broad rules that people can understand, and are therefore enforceable, are sometimes much better than high levels of equity which neither the filler in of the form or the reader of the form can actually make an informed decision about,” Mr Costello suggested.

“We're talking about people who might be 80 or 90 years of age. How do they do this? I mean, my suspicion is a lot of them just don't.”

Former Treasury secretary Dr Ken Henry echoed Mr Costello’s thoughts in his evidence to the aged care inquiry.

“My principal source of discomfort is that the system overall is horribly complex, and it contains a very high level of uncertainty for people,” Dr Henry explained.

“People who are elderly, people who are vulnerable, people who are suffering emotional and psychological stress, many, of course, unfortunately are mentally impaired to some extent, too many have little or inadequate family support and they confront the aged care system knowing nothing about it, knowing that they have no real option but to throw themselves into the system because it's quite simply impossible for them to continue to look after themselves. And they're bewildered.

“This system is unsustainable. It's underfunded, it's under-resourced and it will not be tolerated. In particular, it will not be tolerated by the baby boomers themselves when they find themselves in this system.”

What do you think about expanding the Pension Loans Scheme to pay for aged care? Is this too close to a death tax for your liking? What would it mean for older Australians who don’t own their home?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Dizzy
    18th Sep 2020
    9:52am
    When you consider what the government contributes to childcare and family tax benefits and private health subsidy, then I think the baby boomers have a fair case for saying leave our houses alone. The majority of boomers got no childcare rebate, their child endowment was laughable and they managed to pay for their own private health insurance. Now they get blamed for the economic state our country is in at the moment!
    Millie
    18th Sep 2020
    10:31am
    Well said Dizzy.
    On the Ball
    18th Sep 2020
    10:54am
    Plus one from here too Dizzy.
    But I dont mind offering my home up to help me IF I had to resort to an aged care facility.
    But not until after I am dead. THEN my estate could pay as much as it needed to care for me when I was living. That way no Government can first announce a Government run system, then privatise it so the sharks get my estate before I have finished with it!
    So, yes, I think Paul Keating's idea deserves merit. It doesn't make anyone any money off MY home, only uses the estate to pay for my care while I was alive. Any left over goes to my estate thence to my kids. Any shortfall is for the Government to worry about.
    Golden Oldie
    18th Sep 2020
    10:59am
    I remember back in the 70's, as a single mother with 2 small children, that childcare was not regarded as a cost of going to work, but a domestic matter, and could not be claimed as a taxable deduction on your tax return. Child endowment was a pittance.
    john
    18th Sep 2020
    11:04am
    Well said , and you could count the days off until the party that brought it in was wiped off the face of the voting board. FOREVER!
    Joy Anne
    18th Sep 2020
    11:23am
    Well said DIZZY. exactly. Leave us alone. I don't have a house and pay rent $700 a fortnight.
    ozjames70
    18th Sep 2020
    1:01pm
    Well said Dizzy. And don't forget we paid taxes and an extra tax to support us in our retirement and politicians on a guaranteed pension and with very generous perks frittered it away. Now they want us to pay! Maybe take it off the politicians first and flatten the government to only two levels.
    These are the same politicians who raided the Australian pension system to fund there own, who privatized aged care and made a bunch of investors very wealthy by robbing the aged as a way of reducing government costs. They sold off government assets such as power, water, roads to companies who make profits, sold off airports and ports just so they could balance the books short term.
    So once they have taken the older Australian's homes and put them into aged care, the current model shows it is easy to eliminated them through badly controlled care services. What next? Destroy NDIS, destroy the remaining public health, destroy Veterans, eliminate Centrelink, remove all social services and then go off to the wealth havens they have created. None of them are worth the money we pay them.
    Maybe we all give all our money and assets away and leave nothing for the government but the embarrassment of being heartless incompetents. But based on current form, it wouldn't worry them, they'd just blame us for the decisions they made which created the current mess.
    Mariner
    18th Sep 2020
    2:40pm
    On the Ball - about the way I figure it.
    The Thinker
    20th Sep 2020
    10:26am
    I agree with Dizzy, it sickens me that so many are being paid to have children by the Government. Stop overpopulation that's what causes pandemics.

    I remember the Liberals lied that Labor was going to introduce the death tax during the most recent election.

    Trust Costello to come up with this scheme. The great budget handlers have made a mess of the economy because they are incapable of longer-term thinking.

    Selling off public assets to other countries, our land, and prestige farms too. Australia is full of its own natural resources that a left for other nations to plunder and exploit at the nations' expense because we don't have enterprising Governments just corporate puppets.
    Ted Wards
    21st Sep 2020
    9:23am
    @The Thinker - hate to tell you viruses cause pandemics, overpopulation does not.
    jan
    18th Sep 2020
    10:52am
    There goes the children's inherentance.
    Discontented
    18th Sep 2020
    11:38am
    Looks like it Jan
    Farside
    18th Sep 2020
    3:32pm
    on the other hand it could motivate the kids to take action to preserve their inheritance
    The Thinker
    20th Sep 2020
    10:30am
    How many of those nursing home victims left it all to their children to be dumped into Aged Care?

    It doesn't pay to spoil children. They grow up to be selfish adults.
    Mariner
    18th Sep 2020
    10:59am
    In most countries there is an inheritance tax payable, going thru that at the moment with Mum's estate in Europe. The bank takes forever to sort everything out, the bank was named the executor of the estate. There is quite a bit of tax payable, assets are all taxed differently. Needy heirs are treated differently, too, like minors or school going youngsters etc. I can easily accept these rulings because over there the principal property was acquired like any asset, namely: all establishment fees, stamp duty, mortgage interest rates, insurance, council rates, evtl body corp, renovations and repairs were tax deductible all the way.
    In Australia your own home is a different asset as there are no deduction for anything and no freebies apart from a slight deduction in council rates for the pensioner.
    In Australia such an asset should be treated totally differently from other assets like shares or investment property where one could claim a deduction for purchase and maintenance.
    I still maintain properties over a certain amount should be included in the asset (like $3 million houses). Something will have to give as we all get older.
    Garyand
    18th Sep 2020
    10:59am
    Such a death tax would be a guaranteed 'death wish for any government. Perhaps it is time to review the medicare levy to help fund what is a necessity. As for selling one's home to raise your risk of getting COVID, and getting to each such delicacies as savs or party pies for breakfast, lunch and dinner...
    Buggsie
    18th Sep 2020
    11:00am
    As far as my wife and I are concerned the idea of going into a nursing home to die is anathema - why would anyone voluntarily enter a so called "home" where the costs are high, the care is often minimal to outright neglect, individual rights are non existent, the food is apalling and owners and shareholders are in it for profit? The answer, we think, is to expand and fully fund home care so that older people can remain at home , be provided with appropriate palliative care when the time comes and die with dignity. Get the private sector out of aged care! Stop the profit motive. Sure, people with means should contribute to their care but often the family home houses more than one person - should he or she be forced out to pay for the care of the one who needs it most? The problem lies with the legislators - they are wealthy enough to never require nursing home care and have no empathy for those who do.
    Tood
    18th Sep 2020
    11:24am
    Well said Buggsie
    ozjames70
    18th Sep 2020
    5:23pm
    Totally agree.
    The Thinker
    20th Sep 2020
    10:33am
    Older people can remain at home but many have been tricked and pushed into Aged Care by their children.

    It happens all the time.
    john
    18th Sep 2020
    11:02am
    Nonsense, the death business has become the new rackett for ripping people off . Especially the funeral insurance game, invented by Carlo Gambino.
    Farside
    18th Sep 2020
    3:38pm
    remarkable that Gambino can be associated with new rackets
    Lookfar
    18th Sep 2020
    10:28pm
    What is nonsense John? can you please relate your comments to whoever you disagreed with?
    Or are you demented?
    Jacka
    18th Sep 2020
    11:15am
    Good on you Dizzy, another pat on the back here, you're 150% correct. I also had another thought, you may think I'm totally insane, this comes from way out there in left field, but what if your children actually looked after you. A very strange suggestions I know, however it seems to work in Spain, Italy, Greece, France, etc. Perhaps it's just a foggy dream, I really don't know. Cheers Jacka.
    Discontented
    18th Sep 2020
    11:41am
    That seems to have some merit Jacka
    Mariner
    18th Sep 2020
    1:09pm
    Most Australians are not from the Mediterranean where multi families in the same dwelling are more common; most could simply not hack it. I come from a place like that - both my grandparents died in their 80s at home. A district nurse, paid by the community, came in once a week to see they were comfortable. Today the requirement of old people is much more sophisticated. Would not recommend going to that model either, although it works well as long as the oldies are "still with it".
    Farside
    18th Sep 2020
    3:41pm
    "as long as the oldies are "still with it"" is a pretty determining factor as to the options. Ageing at home can be a challenge for many seniors.
    The Thinker
    20th Sep 2020
    10:39am
    Farside Ageing at home can work out even if the person has dementia and is disabled with home care. There are many pensioners that aren't home owners and would be happy to assist for free rent. They could shop, cook, clean, and do the gardening in return.
    Farside
    20th Sep 2020
    6:28pm
    all good ideas thinker and definitely not denying it can work (e.g. as it has for my dad and mother-in-law) but it can still be a challenge, even without dementia and disability to consider. My dad is still living with my brother however the mother-in-law went into nursing home after surviving the last rites in hospital, again, almost two years ago.

    I actually met a couple of old gents about three years who were living together in an arrangement like you describe. One was in the waiting room with varying periods of cogency while his housemate essentially ran the home, organised nursing and domestic assistance and provided companionship in exchange for room and board. Essentially they lived as a couple under one roof. The owner recently died however made arrangements in his will for the housemate to have lifetime occupancy before the house goes into his family estate.
    Youngagain
    21st Sep 2020
    5:17pm
    Many elderly people would rather die than have to live with their children. My grandmother would never have moved in with a son or daughter. My aunt and my mother both insisted on going into nursing homes, despite their offspring and grandchildren trying every which way to persuade them to move in with one of their children or grandchildren. They didn't want to be a burden, and they didn't want to have to live by the house rules in someone else's home after being free to do their own thing for decades. Neither wanted to suffer the indignity of having their child or grandchild clean up after an accident, or having to shower them. Both were relatively happy in aged care, though thankfully they were only in care for a short time.

    My mother would never have wanted a stranger living in her home under any conditions, let alone caring for her when she was unable to manage personal care. She had been fiercely independent for a very long time. It would have killed her to have to let a stranger, or even one of her own family, take over the management of her home and attending to her personal care needs. As she saw it, nurses were trained and paid to do a job and she was happy to let them do what they dedicated themselves to doing once she was too old to fend for herself, but she was determined to retain her independence for as long as possible.

    Our culture is different from that of countries like Greece, Italy and Spain. You can't just transfer a lifestyle to a country that has an entirely different culture.
    Tanker
    18th Sep 2020
    11:23am
    What's wrong with having an actual inheritance tax? Most other countries have something similar and we used to have one until Joh Belke stopped the one in Queensland to attract all the oldies up there.
    Mariner
    18th Sep 2020
    1:10pm
    That was the birth of the Gold Coast, Tanker. You have a good memory.
    Fedup
    18th Sep 2020
    5:39pm
    Because Tanker, you pay taxes all your life. Why should the money you save and pass on be taxed again after you die?
    Katie
    18th Sep 2020
    11:28am
    It's underfunded because the Federal Govt chooses to underfund it. Taxing us with a death tax while Govt reduces company tax on large companies that don't pay much tax anyway is a joke. Always draining the vulnerable while propping up the fat cats. Tax the Corporates, particularly Mining properly and invest the money and there will be plenty for Aged care. And Peter Costello should not even have a voice - his not even a politician anymore but definitely a self-serving businessman who makes taxpayer revenue his business. In 2013 Mr Costello recommended to the Newman Govt to privatise state assets, including electricity and healthcare. No surprise we are now in 2020 and he is pushing for more as a Neo-liberalist that supports getting private hands on as much taxpayer revenue as possible under whatever manner they can. This is the man that heads up our Futures Fund which was originally started with $60 billion and the goal of meeting the retirement benefits of public servants and Defence personnel by 2020. Valued at A$168 billion with public servant liabilities of $233 billion. Peter Costello, Channel 9 chairman and cushy job holder to fund raise for the Liberal Party has NO place in telling us to pay Death Tax. He should be removed from the Futures Fund Board out of self-interest! And anything that comes out of his mouth should be put through the filter "Draining more money from the Taxpayers Revenue Stream"
    Sundays
    18th Sep 2020
    1:26pm
    I agree Katie. No one ever says what the Govt will do with the difference between unfunded super liabilities and the balance in the Futures Fund
    Senior without family
    18th Sep 2020
    2:06pm
    Well said about Costello. He has no place in ripping us off further. All those who get a mere deeming rates pension look how they have been quietly underlying, for want of a harsher word, by deeming that it is possible to get more interest than it is possible. Actually I call it fraud and like that robot debt thing they should repay it.
    ozjames70
    18th Sep 2020
    5:34pm
    Totally agree Katie. These crooks raided the public pension reserves once before to fund the politicians and public servants' retirement benefits. These crooks sell our assets and mismanage the country at every step and just get wealthier, looking after the fat cats who don't contribute, but pillage the nation.
    The Thinker
    20th Sep 2020
    10:43am
    I agree wholeheartedly with you, Katie.
    Discontented
    18th Sep 2020
    11:35am
    So true Dizzy.
    Discontented
    18th Sep 2020
    11:35am
    So true Dizzy.
    Discontented
    18th Sep 2020
    11:35am
    So true Dizzy.
    Sooty from Marketing
    18th Sep 2020
    11:54am
    The Future Fund is going gangbusters, spend some on us lifters in our time of need.

    Fair comment Dizzy.
    Rae
    19th Sep 2020
    4:53pm
    Keating and Costello get so much out of it they'll hire private nurses for themselves.
    mIKER
    18th Sep 2020
    12:04pm
    The first step should be to recognise that homes are an asset like any other. If you choose to buy a home, fine, enjoy the benefits including appreciation in our capital cities, but don't expect the house to be a refuge from payment of taxes. It is grossly unfair to vast numbers of renters for starters.
    No doubt some will disagree. So gradually bring homes back into the assessment of wealth, unlike the (initial) Labor Policy to cut off Franking Credits from virtually the date of the election. Give the change, time to be applied and start by taking a cut from all homes over $1 M.
    Next, introduce a death tax, the great economist Jo the Queenslander, stuffed up a realistic tax policy that put funds back into health, education etc. It doesn't have to be onerous, but it could be progressive and pay for an awful lot of social benefits for the living e.g. child care.
    Then scrap private Aged Care or at least police it very rigorously. Privatisation and that oxymoron self-regulation are a curse on great care for the aged. Put the aged in the hands of recognised Charities, not the one-off profit makers that are a total blight on society.
    Look forward to reading the comments.
    Senior without family
    18th Sep 2020
    2:10pm
    Unfortunately some of these recognised charities have jumped on the bandwagon by employing ceos and deducting rediclous admin costs. Leaves little for the those who care to work with. We need to get rid of this top down scheme to succeed in this as well. Then the genuine carers might have something left to operate with.
    auldtic
    18th Sep 2020
    2:18pm
    Interesting comments mIKER.

    Joh certainly caused a great deal of ongoing problems in our nation. The Howard government made us think greed is good. I think Australia as a whole is much worse off for them.
    Youngagain
    18th Sep 2020
    8:06pm
    A refuge from paying taxes???? Excuse us please. We paid massive stamp duty, high council rates, forfeit pension income, and get no rent assistance... We've more than paid our share. They can keep their grubby hands off our homes. Why should renters get handouts and those who fought to own a home of their own be constantly screwed over? I worked my guts out, paying income tax on everything I earned and sales tax or GST on all the building materials bought to improve my home. I did it so I had something to pass on to my children and grandchildren to make their lives a little easier. Meanwhile, renters get a better deal on their pension plus rent assistance and many got subsidized rent while working too. As for paying for child care... NO. There was none for me when I needed it. Today's young get far more social benefits than our generation could ever dream of, and generally have it much easier.

    I think we need a campaign to educate the soon-to-retire to give their houses to their kids with a lifelong right-of-occupancy agreement so the grubby greedy don't steal everything we've worked for over a lifetime.
    Rae
    19th Sep 2020
    4:55pm
    Young people would be foolish buying a home these days wouldn't they.

    Rent and spend the excess having fun, reward is the aged pension and rent assistance.
    Farside
    20th Sep 2020
    12:24pm
    I wonder why it is so many commenters seem to begrudge younger generations not experiencing hardships that faced previous generations. Surely the idea of progress is to improve the lot of our children and grandchildren rather than put them through the wringer just to experience schadenfreude.
    Youngagain
    21st Sep 2020
    3:55pm
    Yes, Farside, we do want our children and grandchildren to have it easier than we did. That's precisely why I object to the government subsidising the retirement of spendthrifts, but forcing savers to sacrifice everything they worked for. Those who worked hard and saved well to give their offspring a better life should be allowed to use their savings for that purpose - not have to sacrifice them so the taxpayer saves money that would be paid to that saver if they had spent freely and lived irresponsibly.

    We cannot make the entire younger generation better off by robbing half the older generation. That won't work. It will merely make everyone worse off.
    rtrish
    18th Sep 2020
    12:11pm
    I’m wondering what will happen to those who don’t own their own home? Will aged care be provided in a 2 tier system?
    jan
    18th Sep 2020
    12:12pm
    The 2 tier is already out there, seen it with my own eyes.
    Mariner
    18th Sep 2020
    2:36pm
    The whole nation has a 2 tier system - university educated/tradies/ simple worker or East Suburb/West Suburb (Perth the other way round), saver, achiever/pisspot, gambler. You
    make a decision hopefully before 25 (took me to 30 years of age!!). Never knew a Uni degree would have solved all my problems.
    thommo
    18th Sep 2020
    12:20pm
    Costello and the LNP can go and ger stuffed.
    Lookfar
    18th Sep 2020
    10:35pm
    Right on, Cubed, thommo
    KSS
    18th Sep 2020
    12:32pm
    In the UK if you have to go into age care permanently, then your home must be sold to pay for it. Then if there are any assets left when you die, there is inheritance tax which in 2008 when my Father died was 40%. And all he had was a very modest home and a small share portfolio. And by the way we had to put a financial value on everything he owned including his clothes and be taxed on it!
    I actually dont have a problem with using the equity in the home to pay for age care if you need it. Kids should not be expecting a windfall and especially not at the expense of the parents sufferring in old age.
    Mariner
    18th Sep 2020
    1:20pm
    Works the same where I come from, KSS. If you give away all your assets before that happens the recipients will have to pay the bill.
    My great aunt is currently in a home with dementia, the place is funded jointly from the rates of 4 municipalities. Her house was sold and the proceeds are used in part to fund her stay. Her pension is $4000 a month and her accommodation and care costs $7000, so $3000 come from her estate. Simple mathematic. Anything left over goes to the estate, if a minus the municipalities' ratepayers will have to cough up. Works well and has been in place since the early 50s.
    Fred
    18th Sep 2020
    3:02pm
    Yeah I remember companies, very rich people leeaving the UK in the late 1960 when Harold WILSON brought in 90% tax on everything a person earned over a certain amount. I have forgotten the amount (Age and memories) I believe in the end it cost the UK a lot more in the Tax they lost by people leaving the country than they ever would have gained with the 90% Tax. I left there in 1970 as the UK was going down hill at great rate of knots.
    geordie
    19th Sep 2020
    8:54am
    Thats what Socialism will do for you Fred.
    ozrog
    18th Sep 2020
    1:05pm
    Aged care providers are some of the richest companies in Australia shipping profits of shore. If they go ahead then more people will choose to stay in their homes. Its cheaper for the government to do this and there are lots of services to help maintain your home and provide care. NDIS funds a lot.
    tams
    18th Sep 2020
    1:15pm
    NDIS does NOT fund aged care
    Senior without family
    18th Sep 2020
    2:14pm
    No I am sorry in country queensland there are thousands and thousands waiting for any help. They go into aged care because They can't get help. I have nowhere near enough to get in there either. Don't mix up NDIS with aged care. It is not funding aged care at all.
    ozrog
    18th Sep 2020
    3:44pm
    Tams it does via ech after and aged care assessment has been done. That's what I mean people have no idea of services available either from councils or government.
    deepred
    18th Sep 2020
    1:05pm
    I agree with Peter Costello. The present situation is ridiculously complex (we too have had to provide help to aged persons entering care) but we can't expect the Government to cover yet another major cost where individuals have assets (cash, pensions or real estate) and can at least make some reasonable level of contribution to their own aged care costs. These "contributions" are made after death and have no impact on the individual during their lifetime and would no doubt be limited so as be equitable and not to have an unreasonable impact on their eventual beneficiaries.
    Youngagain
    19th Sep 2020
    1:12pm
    How is it 'equitable' for people to have to sacrifice the home that represents their life savings, while those who spent freely get the same care for nothing? There's NOTHING equitable about taking from workers and savers and giving to spendthrifts and bludgers. All that kind of policy does is encourage more spendthrifts and bludgers! There's already no point in saving for retirement. Now Costello wants to make sure owning a home when you retire is a liability as well.

    '"Contributions are made after death and have no impact...." WRONG, deepred. It has an enormous psychological impact to have to live with the knowledge that all your struggle and sacrifice to leave something to your loved ones was for nothing, and will only benefit a greedy government and the bludgers and spendthrifts who get everything for free because of your 'contribution'.

    Yes, the current situation is NEEDLESSLY and stupidly complex, and it should be simplified by simply declaring that aged care is a necessary service that must be provided by not-for-profit organizations, subsidized where necessary by the taxpayer, and paid for by the recipient only to the extent of taking most of their pension income (which ALL retirees should receive equally, regardless of assets). The burden on taxpayers would be minimal if the massive profiteering were eliminated. If someone can live independently on the aged pension, then the savings achieved through bulk-buying of food and group accommodation should go a long way to covering the extra costs of nursing care.

    Costello's appalling RAD scheme leaves some people having to pay a king's ransom - more than they would pay for accommodation in a luxury hotel or on a cruise ship - while others very unfairly pay virtually nothing for exactly the same service. There's nothing equitable about that!
    tams
    18th Sep 2020
    1:14pm
    Can I please clarify to all of the comments below.

    This may be news to some, but is fact, and has been Government policy since introduced by Labor in 2013/4

    The vast majority of homeowners entering aged care currently sell their home to pay for
    aged care. The sale value of the home is included as an asset and means tested.

    Your home will pay for additional services and the means tested care fee.

    If you don't own your home, Government will pay for most or all of your care and accommodation.
    jan
    18th Sep 2020
    1:23pm
    Yes correct but each home as different fees and pay backs and you need to read their contracts.
    Mariner
    18th Sep 2020
    1:25pm
    tams - thanks for explaining that. I live in a place with lots of oldies and that has been a topic for quite some time. Common saying is - "spend your money, they gonna take it off you when you have to go into care. If you have nothing, others pay for it". Sad, but true.
    Senior without family
    18th Sep 2020
    2:20pm
    True and mariner because so am in the same type of place. I couldn't get into a nursing home with better facilities because they just won't take you if you don't have the money. There is one in town where the private hospital staff never want to send patients back to. Because they arrive in such a badly cared for state. That is where I will go because without money only they will accept me. I hope I never have to go although my health is deteriorating a lot.
    Eddy
    18th Sep 2020
    2:46pm
    I think tams is simplifying the concept of a Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD) too much. A RAD is not mandatory, ones does not have to sell their home to fund aged care, however alternative means of paying then fees must be agreed, you can pay a monthly fee if you choose, and an aged care facility cannot refuse because you decide to fund you aged care without a RAD. Furthermore the RAD is, or should be, fully refunded when the inevitable happens, The amount of government subsidy is dependant on the income and assets test. People with no property or assets receive the most subsidy, those with assets and non-pension income receive a smaller subsidy.
    Mr Costello is correct, it is over complicated. When my late mother-in-law had to go into aged care it literally took weeks for my brother-in-law and my wife to complete all the paperwork,
    My M-i-L had asked that her house not be sold until she was dead, so we managed to get together about half the assessed RAD and paid a monthly fee of nearly $4000. She was only in aged care, a not-for-profit charity organisation, for about 8 months before she passed away. We not only had the partial RAD refunded in full but a small amount of interest was added.
    Farside
    18th Sep 2020
    3:52pm
    coming up to having those discussions re my own parents so story of your first hand experience appreciated Eddy.
    Fedup
    18th Sep 2020
    5:44pm
    Yes tams, most people have to sell their home to pay the RAD, but the deposit is refunded to their estate on their death. Costello seems to be suggesting that the money is not refunded.
    Youngagain
    19th Sep 2020
    1:18pm
    RAD is refunded? Big deal. A friend paid a $500,000 RAD. The govt guaranteed interest rate was 7.5% paid to the facility. Then they took most of her pension for 'daily accommodation costs' - a total cost of well over $67,000 a year! I think I could offer someone very high-quality care for that amount of money. It's outrageous! With volume savings, there's no way it costs that much to care for someone. Now Costello is suggesting that this person should pay an additional up to $500,000 on death!!! Give us a break!
    Cat
    22nd Sep 2020
    11:13am
    My mother went into a nursing home in 2015. It was $550k to enter or you could pay part of it and then pay a percentage each week plus a government charge that all pay. We didn't sell her house as she had enough to pay a $205k entry fee and then about $900 per fortnight on top of that! She had a part govt. pension and super pension. While she could have gone in for free if she didn't have assets and then most of her pension would have been used to pay for it, if she was a pensioner. BUT the difference is if you don't have the assets my Mum had, you wouldn't get into as good a nursing home, as most only have a percentage of rooms available for people who can't pay. Also Mum got in very quickly as she could pay, we are sure she would have been on the bottom of the list if she didn't have the money to get in. We also had the option of 'upgrading' her for an extra $20 a day, which would have given her a room in the 'better' part of the home, a newspaper each day, linen table cloths!, and wine with her main meals and an extra meal choice in the evening, plus a carer would take her to appointments if needed.
    The room she was offered (only room available as someone has to die to get a room) was in the basic section, which is almost identical to the upgraded section. (Different bedhead and carpet there!) So we accepted the basic room intending to upgrade her when a room became available. As it turned out the basic room was in a better position than the 'better' rooms, overlooked the garden etc. so Mum didn't want to move.
    So my (rather long) point is, there is already a 2 tiered system- as usual those with money get a better deal. Actually I'd say there are more than 2 tiers as th emote money you have the better you get. Having said that, the nursing care was equal for all in this home, which is the important part. I can't say the same for some residential care centres that have been on the news.
    jan
    18th Sep 2020
    1:27pm
    What happened to the old days when families looked after each other. It happened in my family. My middle son said I can live with him and so can the mother inlaw...as long as I do a little bit of house work ha ha
    Farside
    18th Sep 2020
    3:57pm
    as Mariner observed above it can work well "as long as the oldies are "still with it"" but if not then it could be a challenge for many families.
    John F
    18th Sep 2020
    1:44pm
    Fine with me as long the politicians have to have the same retirement conditions as I have: NO guaranteed, indexed "pension" of about $188,000-$220,000 for life, NO Life Gold Pass and Severance Travel benefits, NO additional retiring allowance, NO official car transport between home and the nearest airport and between the airport and their capital city destination entitlements, NO Resettlement allowances, and more.
    It’s an insult to all workers and pensioners whose wages and pension have flatlined for years to see how much the lucrative pension scheme pays ex-politicians. Shame that the same people who tell common people like us that we should be taxed more and get less considering all the politicians (current and retired) from all parties are getting more and more.
    ozjames70
    18th Sep 2020
    5:45pm
    Totally agree and the amounts they transfer to family trusts should also be clawed back. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to calculate how wealthy people become as politicians and it is way more than they could have earnt. And pollies only need to do a couple of terms to live high for the rest of their lives at the expense of the people they have robbed and shortchanged.
    Nomad1946
    18th Sep 2020
    1:50pm
    I smell Bullshit!!
    These past their use-use-by date should just fade away!!! My wife and I endured record Interest Rates on our Mortgage (19%) ... went without, sacrificed, worked three jobs ... to save enough to buy our home (NOTE: not a house ... A HOME!!) ... No one ... I repeat NO-ONE has the right to force us to sell ....
    Damn Sure these inane, inept Drongoes will retain their homes ... Financed by exorbitant pensions paid by US - the TAXPAYER!!!
    Curious
    18th Sep 2020
    1:51pm
    Here we go again. After decades of neglect by a succession of governments, the user-pay principle applies to aged care for the vulnerable senior citizens, who made the country it is today. The past governments did not make my grandparents nor my parents pay their aged care. My grandparents and parents when through two World Wars, the Great Depression, and even GFC. Not only they didn't have to pay for their aged care, they received OGP until they died.

    Now when it is my turn to be looked after I have to pay. The Government did not make a contribution to my superannuation, which gives me just above the poverty line living. Anything I earn in my seventies, I still have to pay tax. What happens to "We've golden soil and wealth for toil. Our home is girt by sea. Our land abounds in nature's gifts Of beauty, rich and rare".

    Are our senior citizens invisible and abandoned? Don't we have enough young workers to share our burdens? Have we got a grand plan for our population to share the golden soil and wealth for toil and a well-balanced distribution of "nature's gifts Of beauty, rich and rare"? as a member of the grey brigade, I feel that I have been picked on.
    floss
    18th Sep 2020
    1:56pm
    So you come into this world with nothing and go out the same way,it is a great incentive to do the right thing and be self sufficient.I guess some one has to pay for the job seeker debacle.
    Senior without family
    18th Sep 2020
    1:58pm
    I also agree that those who have homes and assets worth lots of dollars should have to declare them. But what politicians with their massive pensions and many very nice homes are going to vote that into being. Also with private money the system will be even more money conscious and less care. That will not improve anything for your dedicated care worker in terms of a reasonable wage acknowledging the hard work they do in a system where far too much money goes in admin. For that is a lot of the trouble in home care and nursing homes. It is lamentable that many of these organizations are run by religious groups but also emphasize this top down system.

    I agree that few baby boomers will want it. Many had little from the government while working and won't get high superannuation either. After 40 odd years of teaching I don't even get any super lump sum just a small pension and a pert pension from centrelink. Nor do I have a house to sell. I do finally have a home package. But I Waited years for it. Many stuck with my leg in plaster. Because I have no family even in the heat of a queensland summer I got 3 showers a week from the blue nurses. If it hadn't have been for meals on wheels I would have starved. Because of my aged care even no religious groups were willing to send someone round to even talk with me.
    We could save a fortune if we got rid of that agency which has been such a complicated process. However a wonderful delaying tactic for the government because they are so beaurocratic. Wipe that out. We were far better off before they came into the scene in terms of people just wanting to help others because they need help.

    I also say very well said dizzy but with the scene as it is I hope I never have to go into one. How about a tax on the rich with their multi million dollars. The ceos around the place, politicians etc. What happened to the good old Aussie fair play.
    maelcolium
    18th Sep 2020
    2:12pm
    This report is somewhat confused. You are already forced to sell your home if unable to fund the various RAD/RAC deposits .......... and good luck getting a place if you have no funds at all. You might end up in the back of beyond in a shared room. The entire system is a fuck up. Throw these bastards out at the next election and DEMAND that the ALP fix their mess. It's their system and the LNP have made it worse. For all you fools who were worried about losing your precious franking credits so you could continue on your overseas trips, guess what? You've forgotten that the MOST important thing is your independence and care in older age.
    We still have the chance to change the system, but we need to get away from the petty self interest of protecting the meagre assets we have and just tell politicians that they will be tossed out at the next election and any party coming in will need it fixed once and for all. It's time we all got with the program folks!
    Senior without family
    18th Sep 2020
    2:25pm
    Unfortunately I don't trust the labour party to do a lot better nowadays although I do admit thatnitnis only when labour is in that pensioners get anything.
    floss
    18th Sep 2020
    2:31pm
    Yes Maelcolium can ordinary Australians afford to live with the Liberal Party in power and they will be in power for a long time so hide what ever you can.
    justme
    18th Sep 2020
    3:03pm
    I'm sick of hearing former pollies talking about thing's they would never talk about while in office.
    Micko
    18th Sep 2020
    3:05pm
    Once again those that saved all their lives are subsidizing those that bought the flash cars and boats. Just leave us alone to look after ourselves and you pay for the other lot.
    ozrog
    18th Sep 2020
    3:48pm
    Like jobkeeper and increase in jobseeker with nothing for the aged pension.
    Farside
    18th Sep 2020
    4:00pm
    are you suggesting senior be "leave us alone to look after ourselves" without aged care support, old age pension etc?
    Crimmo
    18th Sep 2020
    3:39pm
    The funding crisis in aged care is because Menzies screwed future Australia in 1949 when he stopped the social security levy added to income tax, not unlike the Medicare levy today. Now we are being asked to pay for the LNP fuckups.
    Dancer
    18th Sep 2020
    4:10pm
    the experience of Dr Henry and Mr Costello is so very true! I have studied and worked in aged care/community services, and have a Social Science degree - and I found the paperwork and the system exceedingly difficult to understand and negotiate when my partner needed to go into residential care. And I have often wondered exactly that - how elderly/sick people with no family or other support manage the paperwork. It is not fair, in fact it is unconscionable that such an essential service is so very difficult and complicated.

    Also, when my partner went into care, we did not have to sell our home because I continued to live in it, however I believe it has been the case for some time that should I need to go into residential care that I would need to sell my home and pay a contribution towards my aged care. I think that is reasonable provided there is a limit to how much financial contribution is made vis-a-vis assets, and some refund to the family in due course. People who don't own their home or have no other assets currently can still access residential aged care and should always be able to do so regardless of their ability to contribute a substantial bond. The daily care fee is still 85% of the age pension, which is affordable unless the person wants extras or chooses a "lavish" lifestyle.
    Sundays
    18th Sep 2020
    7:08pm
    My parents owned a house and nothing else. My mother languished in hospital for 3 Months (because they didn’t think my father could look after her high care needs), while she waited for a bed to become available in a nursing home. Yes 3 months! Dad wanted her in a place close to him. Eventually, she was found a nice place and her pension covered the fees but it was not right.
    Scottie scott
    18th Sep 2020
    4:19pm
    Spot on Floss, what’s the old saying BORN FREE TAXED. TO. DEATH I am retired and lucky to have a wife 20 years younger,inVietnam the older generation is respected and the family will look after you,even when you die they celebrate your death up to a week,the same day every year they have a family gathering and celebrate your passing,and no govt shacking the tree to get their share of what you had,on the other hand their is no govt hand out,if you are looking for a job,or don’t have a job,the govt will give you nothing,okay,the living standard is not comparable,but can you imagine elsewhere,take care of what you have and hopefully it will take care of you
    nonsibicunctis
    18th Sep 2020
    4:21pm
    A death tax is fine but not in this form or simply for this purpose. As suggested, this tax would disproportionately target those at the bottom end of the income and asset scale. Given that Costello proposes it, that's hardly surprising but it is not equitable.

    In my view, all assets, monetary and material, beyond a set amount determined according to the circumstances of dependents and perhaps some limited provision for gifts to children or partners, should be returned to a national fund.

    That fund ought to be used, supplemented if necessary, to provide a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

    In that way, we could do more to provide equality for people than ever before as well as to safeguard or at least minimise damage to the national economy from the effects of such events as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Had a UBI been in operation, there would have been much less economic disruption or need for the Federal government to suddenly inject such massive emergency funding to support people whose work was reduced or lost.

    Peter Costello's suggestion is typical of so many that come from politicians, business leaders and others, particularly those in the upper ranks of wealth and who lean to or are on the right-wing side of political ideology. Such ideas almost inevitably are focused on preserving the status quo in terms of social stratification and wealth distribution across the nation. They are also almost always focused on a single issue and take little to no account of the broad circumstances that are creating the problem they are supposedly designed to address.

    There is a popular notion or belief among those who live in Free World democracies that 'all are born equal'. This is, of course, not true. The situation, status and wealth of the family into which you are born is, in the majority of cases, a primary determinant of your likelihood of experiencing a life in which you are able to choose what you do, where and when, and to what extent.

    Sadly, whilst an open secret, it is one well hidden by media, governments, business and others. Even our institutions reflect this illusion. Our legal system, for instance, pretends to provide an equal opportunity for justice to everyone. Again, this is clearly not the case. Those with position/wealth/status are treated very differently from those without and if penalties for similar offences are taken into account, that substantial difference can be seen to be even more exaggerated.

    So, if we are to make changes to taxation of any sort and particularly if we are to introduce taxation of the worth of those who are deceased, then let it be done in such a way that it serves towards redressing disadvantage, inequity and inequality across our nation.
    Nomad1946
    18th Sep 2020
    6:23pm
    Sounds like, reads like Communism
    cupoftea
    18th Sep 2020
    9:04pm
    Nons I was not talking about you I was I was talking regarding the Dictatorship by stealth that we have running this country, and I do own my own house took me 50 yrs I was never given anything nothing and I wont be told by a capitalistic f.ck wit what I will be doing with it
    cupoftea
    18th Sep 2020
    4:53pm
    Well I have had a good read and It seems to me to be anything you have to be a Liar and a thief
    nonsibicunctis
    18th Sep 2020
    5:45pm
    Is that right? On what basis do you insult me in such a way?
    Fedup
    18th Sep 2020
    5:10pm
    That’s right. Keep punishing home owners. It never ends.
    SKRAPI
    18th Sep 2020
    6:04pm
    AGREE DIZZY & TRUE OZJAMES 70 BUT WASN'T JUST THIS PARTY GOV. LABOR WAS IN IT UP 2 THEIR NECK IN FACT HAWKE . KEATING & CO. HAD A BALL SELLING EVERYTHING THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON
    & U R RIGHT MARINER.
    SKRAPI
    18th Sep 2020
    6:16pm
    AGREE WITH U 2 BUGSY WE WOYLD B BETTER OFF 2 SELL HOME NOW 2 FAMILY MEMBER WE COULD HOPEFULLY TRUST 2 ORGANISE WHAT IS BEWST 4 US & TAKE A POWDER OR SOMETHING WHEN TIME CAME IT WAS 2 MUCH 4 FAMILY BECAUSE NURSING HOMES R THE PITS NURSING IN NAME ONLY RN. DISHES OUT PILLS & IS GONE @ NIGHT THOSE LEFT R POORLY TRAINED EVEN THOUGH MAY B CARING USUALLY R LEFT WITH UP TO 70 PATIENTS PLUS WSHING FLOORS & LAUNDRY WASHING
    skinner
    18th Sep 2020
    8:23pm
    What a bloody hypocrite! Keating & co all get a taxpayer funded $1M while ordinary folk have to sell all they have to get care! A bloody disgrace!
    Hawkeye
    18th Sep 2020
    9:00pm
    The biggest problem with Peter Costello is that he retired a little bit too early.

    I would have willingly put up with all the lies and corruption that inevitably come with an LNP government just to be able to say "Australia was being run by Abbott and Costello"
    Crazy Horse
    18th Sep 2020
    9:44pm
    So not content with presiding over house prices escalating out of the reach of many of our kids now they want to stop us from passing our homes onto them.

    I am the third generation of my family to live in this house.
    Circum
    18th Sep 2020
    11:15pm
    Psst Peter C.The greed is good comment is a line from a movie.It wasnt meant to be taken literally to rob older folk.Listen to Dizzy.
    mitch
    19th Sep 2020
    2:16am
    they want you to sell your house so you can go into age care.they will then use this money to pay carers to spread this virus among the elderly and then murder them.the govt also selected the pensioners to be the only people not to get a pay increase and now people on the dole are getting between $200 AND$400 a fortnight than the disabled there carers and pensionersWHY?
    SuziJ
    19th Sep 2020
    9:59am
    My question is: What if there's no home to sell to pay for death duties?

    Never had a home, nor mortgage. It's just rent for me.
    Youngagain
    19th Sep 2020
    1:21pm
    Lucky you, SuziJ. You get your care for free, paid for by the government stealing from those who slaved and sacrificed to own a home they could pass on to their offspring one day.
    Mariner
    19th Sep 2020
    3:44pm
    Maybe SuziJ has not got offspring and thus couldn't give a toss. Know plenty of them.
    The Thinker
    20th Sep 2020
    10:54am
    SuziJ, you have been a battler all your life and will survive.

    It's those that have led pampered lives and have had sedentary jobs who will crumble.
    Eddy
    19th Sep 2020
    10:46am
    I would rather see factual information presented on this forum without the use of emotive language designed to confuse and alarm. The term 'death tax' is the type of hyperbole we see in some sensationalist magazines where truth is embellished to the point of creating a lie. A person is not forced to sell their home to pay for aged care, it is one option but there are other options which are available. If an aged care provider tells you you have to sell your house or go elsewhere then they should be reported to the Aged Care Commissioner as the provider is breaking the law.
    If, on death, a person owes money that debt must be paid out of their estate. It may be a credit card debt, an ordinary trade debt (ie to your local pharmacy on a monthly account or your local tradesperson), fees owed to a dentist or other medical professional, a debt to the Commissioner of Taxation, Rates outstanding to your local council, a utility account, mortgage payments etc etc. If a proposal such as put forward where aged care fees are deducted from your estate, that debt is just another debt to be paid, it is not a 'death tax'. If beneficiaries decide they want to preserve the estate intact then they are at liberty to pay all debts against the estate from their own pockets. For instance, consider a deceased estate worth a million dollars which had debts of $250k. If the beneficiaries of the estate stump up the $250k to pay the debts then the estate is all theirs, if not then parts of the estate must be sold by the executor to pay the debts.
    The question is do we concur or dissent with the premise that where a person has the ability, their aged care should be financed from their assets accumulated during their working life or financed by the community through our taxation.
    Youngagain
    19th Sep 2020
    1:23pm
    It should NOT be financed from their assets while those who didn't bother to save get the same care for free. Equity and common sense requires that we all enjoy the same benefits, whether we chose to save and invest, or work less and party. There should not be a reward for choosing the less responsible lifestyle.
    Curious
    19th Sep 2020
    1:45pm
    I think the elderlies of this country are up in arms for their abuse and mistreatment by the current aged care providers, the banking and finance industries - charging without service, politicians', past and present, threats of "death tax" or "HECS-Style Loans", and the unkind generational wars on baby boomers. Enough is enough!

    Why don't we tell the government to nationalize all the natural resources like the Social Insurence Schemes in the Gulf Countries? These Schemes are being economically well established. The member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have unique social insurance schemes. Based on the defined benefit principle, they have succeeded in creating large reserves, which are managed and invested independently by the social insurance institutions. However, the schemes are facing a continuous escalation in their costs, due to their generosity rather than the population aging observed in industrialized countries. Nevertheless, we should learn from this principle rather than suggesting flocking the senior citizens of this country beyond death.
    Mariner
    19th Sep 2020
    3:42pm
    Curious - a bit difficult to compare the Gulf States with a democratic process country like ours. You are told what's best for you and sometimes they get it right but you have to sup it up whether you like it or not. Having known Spain I was quite happy with the dictatorship - safety, everybody paid their bills, no pick pockets, no illegals prowling the streets, did not lock up every time you went out. But people wanted democracy and they got what they wanted. I would like more law and order and less protests for everything in the world that has nothing to do with us like BLM.
    If that's what you want count me in.
    Eddy
    19th Sep 2020
    4:25pm
    Youngagain, if we apply your implied principle that aged care should be paid by the taxpayer even when the recipient has the means to pay for it themselves would you suggest that billionaires like Clive Palmer, Twiggy Forrest and Gina Rinehart etc should have their aged care paid from everyone else's taxes or should they pay in accordance with a mean test.
    If you do not accept that taxpayer funded care, which includes aged, disability and mental impairment, is available to everyone without a mean test then the issue is where is the line set between taxpayer funded and self funded. I take the view that aged care should be funded, at least in part, by the assets one accumulates during their working life, including the family home. To do otherwise is to give a taxpayer funded gift to ones beneficiaries.
    Youngagain
    19th Sep 2020
    4:55pm
    Eddy, a proper progressive tax system would ensure that the rich paid their way. Also, I doubt the very wealthy would accept the standard of care that was provided from the public purse, and of course there should always be the option of paying for the level of care you choose. But everyone should have the same entitlement to benefit from social services funded by the government, because everyone contributes to the cost of those services (except those who cannot contribute and a few who simply will not, and they currently get their care free anyway). Asking anyone to pay for services others get free is inequitable, just as denying anyone the pension is inequitable. It also is foolish because it encourages irresponsible lifestyles and punishes the lifestyles that are good for the nation - thus reducing the number of people contributing and increasing the numbers taking. That's just dopey.

    The tax system is the way to balance the scales. Tax income via a proper progressive system and there will be plenty of money in the kitty and nobody suffering unfair deprivation of their savings. Only the super-greedy have an issue with paying their fair share of income tax, because a fair income tax system leaves nobody out in the cold. The approach you favour takes unfairly from some and gives unfairly to others, and, as with the pension system, leaves some battling despite having worked hard and saved well while others who made little or no effort on their own behalf enjoy handouts and freebies.

    And no. Sorry, but you are wrong in your last statement. The beneficiaries are NOT getting a taxpayer-funded gift. They are getting a gift that they are entitled to receive because the deceased worked hard, paid their taxes, and should be entitled to bequeath the benefits as they choose. If they have their assets (acquired with already taxed income) taken away to pay for something others get free, then the beneficiary is being forced to fund taxpayer-gifts to others, just as now self-funded retirees are being deprived of the assets they worked hard to acquire so that others, who didn't work as hard, can get a pension. That is wrong. Of course for the system to work fairly, everyone MUST pay their fair share of tax. The problem we have now is the flattening of the tax scales, and unfair tax concessions, which is dumb, unfair and harmful. It leaves insufficient funds to pay for needed services and an unbalanced and inequitable society.
    Curious
    21st Sep 2020
    4:18pm
    Mariner, we must want to adopt the defined benefit scheme from the Gulf Countries without their political system. I think we can have a defined benefit scheme to look after our senior citizens and still have a democratic society.
    Youngagain
    20th Sep 2020
    9:06pm
    Mr Costello is obviously ignorant of the true facts of financing aged care. I read today that a recent audit revealed that aged care operators are declaring a loss falsely by excluding the government subsidy from their income statements. In fact, the government pay over $65,000 per resident in subsidies. On top of that, every resident hands over most of their pension and those with additional income pay a hefty fee, plus the facility receives 7.5% p.a. interest on every RAD they collect. In total, it seems they would be receiving around $120,000 per resident for many of their residents. And the evidence reveals they are paying their CEO's around $30 mil. per annum.

    Clearly there is absolutely no need for anyone to sacrifice their house to pay more to these greedy vultures. Costello should shut his mouth and open his eyes and ears.
    johnp
    21st Sep 2020
    10:35am
    Think your right there Youngagain. Plus those CEOs are probably getting jobkeeper as well so welfare for the rich from the taxpayers !!
    johnp
    21st Sep 2020
    10:32am
    Re.
    ""
    Costello has trouble with the complexity of the forms
    ""
    Wasnt he one of those in Govt whose policies caused all this complexity in the first place ??
    Or am I wrong there ??
    PlanB
    21st Sep 2020
    11:51am
    DArn right it is a death tax -- for those who have worked long and hard all their lives AND also cared for people in their families --that were ill
    (and that also saved the government a HELL of a lot of money as well as they did it for nothing --only love for the persons they were looking after)
    And now they want to take away your possessions when you die -- well you know what I think they can do!
    busybee
    21st Sep 2020
    3:02pm
    Got to say Im sick of the government flogging the pensioners. The government in the past failed us in NOT providing for the aged in previous years. Now we have to pay again. They give billions overseas to other countries. They should check their backyard first. But I guess the wealthy like them don't have to worry they won't lose anything and their children will still get their fair share of their wealth either before or when they die.. Once again the wealthy get away without putting anything in. We paid our taxes like Dizzy said. Let us die in peace instead of making us feel like they want to kill us off.
    Fair Dinkum
    25th Sep 2020
    1:28pm
    Are these two government taxpayers bloodgers going to sell there multiple homes so they can pay the full cost for any aged care they may need in the future . These people that the taxpayer has made wealthy has no bloody idea what it is like to be an ordinary person
    PlanB
    25th Sep 2020
    3:19pm
    I don't think the aged pollies will have to rely on any old aged care WE would have to contend with -- they would have enough money to pay private nurses and doctors to look after them in pure luxury, in their OWN homes, there will be no lower care like there is for most of the aged
    Pardelope
    3rd Oct 2020
    9:08pm
    There is already a "hidden death tax" if you have super. When you die, the amount you expect to go from your super fund to dependents or your estate may be taxed up to 17%. The only way to avoid this is to spend the money - or transfer it into a bank account before you die. Beware though, if you have Centrelink, any gifts of money can be counted on your assets/income test for a number of years after the gift. Check with your accountant.