This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

Jump to new

The ASFA numbers are crap. Examine it closely and deduct all non-discretionary spending (rates, utilities including internet, insurances, etc) and see how much is actually available to spend.

Also the figures are blown out of the water by one simple number. What are the rates on these respective properties and who will have more left over from the ASFA figures?

34 Barraclough Crescent, Monash ACT 2904 | Allhomes

34 Barraclough Crescent is a house in Monash ACT 2904. View more about this property and browse similar listings in Monash on Allhomes.com.au.
www.allhomes.com.au

6 Mair Place, Curtin ACT 2605 | Allhomes

6 Mair Place is a house in Curtin ACT 2605. View more about this property and browse similar listings in Curtin on Allhomes.com.au.
www.allhomes.com.au

I have always been baffled why the ASFA hasn't been called out for providing such misleading information.
 
sptrawler said:
So aged care to be paid out of your super and or ppr, super funds to supply funding for social housing and super to invest more in the renewable energy transition?
I Wonder how much else super can fund, in the name of a better retirement.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the link yet, but that sounds like a reasonable plan
 
And the states you are in: do you have to factor the OG saga or not, the number of delinquents and costs etc
Huge differences within Australia ..
 
sptrawler said:
So aged care to be paid out of your super and or ppr,
Click to expand...

Expand the concept in line with the intent. It encompasses all of your assets whether superannuation or not. There are a number I know who don't have, and never have had, superannuation but are wealthy investors on $130k or more.

Basically it could be argued it is the savers are going to be burnt.

Not saying whether or not the concept is sound but if I am required to hand over my life's work, I want to be in the exclusive wing and provided with my own specific menu and treats, not the ones available to the hoi polloi. After all, it is now considered my home and I expect the same standards I have now to be applied when I am in my new residence.

Ah but discrimination and a multi-tiered system goes the cry. Cannot have that. Why not I say since it has been the case ever since I have been alive and was also the case from way before I was born?
 
But is there anything fundamentally wrong will the concept that people’s personal assets should be drawn down to fund their final years in nursing homes?

I don’t think so, I think it’s quite rational to expect that before the tax payer should be asked to fund your retirement or aged care that your personal assets should be tapped into.
 
I think Bill might be on to something here.

his idea is basically that your super account should be opened when you are born, and the government should deposit $7000 in there for you, and allow it to compound for your life until you turn 65, the Additional 20 years of compounding would give your retirement a huge boost, and save the government alot more than the $7000 they gave at the start.

 
Value Collector said:
But is there anything fundamentally wrong will the concept that people’s personal assets should be drawn down to fund their final years in nursing homes?
Click to expand...

Provided all assets were treated equally. A person in a very expensive home (value is currently capped for aged care placement purposes) versus another with an investment portfolio of the same value.

I see in the taskforce report (I provided the link in a previous post) the proposal is to do away with Residential Accommodation Deposits and force superannuates to use super first to pay for accommodation. Currently RAD can be replaced with an interest bearing loan to avoid the forced sale of a property.

Consider it in the light of those who need to move homes to receive health care as a commodity not a person.
 
At the moment those that own their own home receive better treatment than those with other investments of similar value when it comes to the pension, I agree that homes should have leans placed against them if the owners are receiving government support.
 
how wonderful to not be able to see Vawue Corrector posts 3025, 3026 as he seems to think his contributions are only for a select few, and blocks me. I'm sure his efforts are worthy.

But it is not helpful for any narratives (and reflects on him as petulant )
 

An aspect I can envisage is one group may not incur tax whereas the other does depending on the size of the portfolio. It's truly annoying to me with a wide statements you should pay more if you require an aged care residency. And what extra does the person receive in return for that additional payment in regard to care? Nothing.

The taskforce, in my view, did not look beyond funding and what people should pay. That was its narrow brief. Cannot expand that beyond the limits as it would open a can of worms. However, if you look at an area purely on a transactional basis, which this report did (again my view). I consider it is reasonable to consider what a person is going to receive as part of that transaction.
 
@Belli for PM.
Actually, it would not be hard to beat our current government with a collegial structure populated by the ASF members, ASF party anyone?
 
qldfrog said:
@Belli for PM.
Actually, it would not be hard to beat our current government with a collegial structure populated by the ASF members, ASF party anyone?
Click to expand...
Possibility !

We have our ready made factions already up and running, we may be a little too practical for the hoi polloi though.

Afaik all sides believe in more accountability of our social welfare money
 
I think the system should be set up so people and their families can make good decisions about what level of care they want, but when it comes to who pays, personal assets need to be tapped (perhaps not until after the home is vacated or the person dies)

I mean in some ways the current setup is that capital that is sitting in a family home is considered sacred and can be passed along to the next generation without ever being used to fund a persons final years, where as capital in other assets is expected to be used up before the government helps out.

I think it shouldn't matter where the capital sits, what is important is how much total you have, and the government should be able to draw some of that value back before it is passed along to the kids, I mean why should a kid inherit 100% of a $1 Million house if their parents used $500K of taxpayer funds during the last 10 years of their life. Especially if other people were forced to sell down their non home assets.
 
@Value Collector I agree with the point you make.

I cannot envisage anyone choosing to be a resident simply because they want to. It's done because they need to.

My beef is, and always has been, the perspective of some regarding people who require aged care is one of How much are you worth and what can you pay? It's dehumanising in my opinion.

Just my two cents.
 

but residency costs more doesn’t it?

Why shouldn’t those that require it pay more if they have the net worth left at the end of their life to cover it? Why should the government fund it while there is excess personal assets that are no longer needed just sitting there waiting to be inherited.

I think everyone that needs aged care should have aged care, but government assistance for it should be means tested, including the family home.
 
Value Collector said:
but residency costs more doesn’t it
Click to expand...

Basic residency cost for each person in a facility is the same. Same food, same cleaning staff, same nursing staff, same administrative staff, same air-con if installed, same bus to bingo, same physiotherapist. Same sameness but you pay more because you have money available and the person in the next room doesn't.

It's been an discussion which has been going on in various quarters for 30 years or more. Some discussions did get vigorous. It was interesting to listen in.
 
Not sure I am understanding what you mean.

are you upset because people that have money have to pay, where people that don’t have money don’t pay?

isn‘t that just the same with all pensions and health care, eg poor people get pensions where rich folk have to self fund, rich people pay tax poor people don’t etc etc.
 
The local aged care home actually has a "price list" of food and services available and their costs to residents.

It ranges from basic lifestyle to optional choices including wine with dinner etc

The Govt subsidy should be the same for everyone no matter where they are living, if someone is in an upmarket home then they should pay the extra cost involved themselves.

It has been a contentious area for a long time, some effort has been made to improve it but there need to be clear cut, simple worded rules and requirements put in place to stop the shonks from ripping off frail old people.
 
I am not upset at all. By all means pay for services you want.

However, the intention of taskforces report isn't that. It's suggesting wealthier people pay more whether or not they access additional services. It's subtly worded as is the usual with these reports.

Oh well, I do hope the generations which follow understand they to will have to "make contributions for services to enjoy a dignified experience in aged care." After all the oldest Gen X will be 60 next year and in not that short a time (10 years or so), they also will require care. Maybe they'll get some of what's left of Mum and Dad's wealth to help them fund it.

Maybe deferred annuity products can be offered by superannuation funds to assist with aged care residency costs.



Page 40 of the report.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
Where will all the money come from to fund the stimulus?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
tech/a
Credit and financial services targeted at Australians at risk of financial hardship
Replies
0
Views
2K
bigdog
How to avoid Shorten's plan to abolish the refund of excess franking credits
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
13K
Value Collector
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...