Superannuation should be used for aged care, not inherited by next generation, aged care CEO says

I agree in principle but something makes me suspicious of this ~~bloke’s~~ lady’s motives.

Edit :

This is 100% correct though:

“This idea that superannuation is intergenerational and for passing on to your kids. It’s not…”

Will this go to the workers (aged care and health) or to shareholders?

Well, yes that’s kind of what retirement money is for, the inheritance part only occurs because people don’t know when they’ll die.

[deleted]

Yes folks should use their super before relying on government support.
That is the intention and the goal.
A simple means test should include super balance.

Honestly, I am 42, I expect to use the bulk of my super on paying off my stupid home loan. After that, I will be very unsure about what I will be doing for money when I ‘retire’

“Tracey Burton, the chief executive of Uniting NSW and ACT, will tell an industry event next week **that some wealthier people believe they are entitled** to fully publicly funded aged care – **even while they maintain large superannuation balances** with the intention of leaving the money to their next generation.”

[laughs in Division 296]

If these are the same 0.5% of people who have superannuation over $3M and $10M, then I am all for this.

This is a Betoota headline right?

The article focuses on equity, and the rich are essentially given a handout. Australia’s rich don’t have their money in superannuation; it’s hidden in trust funds and similar mechanisms that avoid most of the accountabilities that other Australians have to follow. In reality, the focus is on the middle class who have built a nest egg after a lifetime of working. The real question I have with this approach is whether all Australians have a fair go at creating personal wealth, or whether inheritance is required to maintain the status quo? I think Australia effectively has a two-tier health and education system. The proposal doesn’t truly bring equity; instead, it increases the struggle for families to stay afloat in an increasingly unfair society.

Health care, education, child care and aged care should not be commercialised. Otherwise, it just erodes Australia’s fair go approach and makes us a mini America.

People should have never been allowed to profit over nursing homes. Same with childcare. These are all fundamental needs and yet people have been allowed to become filthy rich from providing a basic need. Shame.

“We have to have to shift that thinking that the system should pay for all of our care, because it is going to be limited by the amount of money the government can afford to put into it.” – Sure Tracey, how about we start with religious orgs paying tax.

I want to know what Tracey’s salary package is, in fact I want to know them all, Uniting is a religious org, perhaps “their” money should be used for care. Tried to find Tracey’s net worth could not find it.

Meanwhile they exploit the system be excessively charging for things necessary and prevent alternatives.

Then let me start withdrawing from 45.

My mother is at the age where going into nursing home is on the cards. But she hasn’t worked since the 1970s, so doesn’t have any superannuation. Too bad for you, CEO.

Next up, Barber says we need more haircuts!

Aged care is already the most efficient wealth stripping machine in the country. Royalties and management fees through complex corporate structures provide the ‘appearance’ of razor thin margins. It’s not out of the goodness of businesses hearts that these facilities are popping up on every street corner.

I’m all for my parents money, including superannuation, being used to fund them into old age.

I’m not ok with aged care companies increasing their profits at the expense of my parents.

And let’s be clear, this is about increasing profits, not improving care or improving equality or improving efficiency.