Seems to be on the money and even more so, when those who are employed to help are outsourced; and come with a belief that those still paying mortgages received rent assistance; and common practice in the UK where we have outsourced some of our aged care advice?

Och aye the noo, I would'na clue. Would ye no consider selling the hoose and using the equity to fund the (nursing home) shorrrtfall laddie?

And some would and can only conclude, this very outsourcing and fatuous advice, completely emasculates and makes redundant (and deliberately so?) those in charge of the government aged care budget?

Some time ago I read a report by an American Professor and health expert who had concluded a study into aged care; and understood that keeping a person in a nursing home cost the taxpayer as much as $70,00.00 a year, whereas providing enough real help (a few hours a week by private contractors) to allow them to continue to live at home, cost the taxpayer a comparative $40,000.00 a year.

Incidentally, when I paid tax, it included the then top rate of over 60 cents in the dollar!

Simply put, I patently paid for the health care and education of some of (around a dozen?) those now complaining about the cost of aged care?

Real tax reform would allow that burden to be far more fairly shared! And allowing guest labor into our nursing homes or as service providers would reduce aged care costs; as would allowing the demented dribbling old farts, to relocate in a host of third world countries,(eastern Ukraine? ) replete with their pension and free or subsidized (averaged) health entitlements?

Yet the policy paradigm and the eternal contest and blame shifting of state and federal bodies seems to result in oldies being shoveled into nursing homes, and just as a convenient waiting room as they approach their (hastened?) date with the undertaker!
Alan B.

"The big elephant in the room(in respect of the minority who are reliant on superannuation) is the spouse and death entitlements of superannuation funds, which (when applicable) greatly boost women's benefits from superannuation."

We can't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of emotive propaganda.

Maybe she was referring to the women who had already spent all their former spouses money.

Singles have no one to care for them when they start to fail and so become committed to an institution. In marriage the failing partner is cared at home until they are too much of a physical burden for the aged spouse. I have even known of two cases where separated spouses returned to care for ex spouses dying of cancer (one male, one female).
Has anybody ever tried to estimate government savings from spouse care?

thanks Brendon but to take away perpetual victimhood from wealthy middle class feminist is bound to attrack venom.

A supposed 'exaggeration' of a fact does not discount the original fact. Like it or lump it, women are worse off than men when they reach retirement age.

This article kept strictly to the premise that all women of retirement age are married and have husbands who are good providers. That's all very well, but about 50% of marriages end in divorce.

A widowed, separated or divorced woman in her 60s is, statistically speaking, likely to remain that way for the remainder of her life. Single men over 60 wanting to remarry set their sights on women in their 40s and 50s. This leaves women over 60 up the creek.

The few women who have remained single all their lives, who had to support themselves throughout their working lives, have a far better chance of a comfortable retirement than formerly married women.

At present, formerly married women over 60 are caught between the pre- and post-superannuation eras. Most gave up many years of their working lives to raise their men's children, either full- or part-time. Many fell back on part-time, casual or freelance work to fit their family obligations, almost none of which provide superannuation benefits.

Until there is a significant shift in this staus quo, any policies regarding retirement and superannuation has to acknowledge this retirement imbalance.

quote"
A supposed 'exaggeration' of a fact does not discount the original fact. Like it or lump it, women are worse off than men when they reach retirement age.

This article kept strictly to the premise that all women of retirement age are married and have husbands who are good providers. That's all very well, but about 50% of marriages end in divorce.

Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 8 May 2016 3:06:12 AM

In reality I think we need to exclude the welfare bluggers from the data, before we can get a true picture.

quote
"the book's claim that in the year after divorce women's standard of living decreased by a whopping 73 percent while men enjoyed an increase of 43 percent caught the attention of pundits, legislators, and judges. This statistic has become one of the philosophical bases for deciding child custody and property division in divorce cases. It has also altered public perceptions of men, women, and divorce. It was cited hundreds of times in news stories, scholarly studies, and law review articles last year, and was regarded so clearly as holy writ that President Clinton cited it too in his budget proposal this year as part of his attack on deadbeat dads.

The only problem with this statistic, in fact, is that it turns out to be wrong.!
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

So it would not be the first time that the research was false