The problem with the current and proposed systems is not that the wealthy are asked to pay, but that middle and working class people with a few savings are squeezed hard. For example,the assets threshold for accommodation charges or bonds is $38,500. This applies to the partner as well and hardly represents princely wealth. Would you like to be facing 20 years of retirement with this sort of money?

A progressive estate or inheritance tax would see to it that people leaving substantial assets would pay out of their estates, without impacting on younger people whose income comes from their jobs, not inheritances from rich parents. Furthermore, the amounts would not have to be oppressive, because (see my first post) the costs would be spread over all estates, not just those of people who are unlucky enough to suffer from Alzheimers and the like. I find it interesting that people with self-inflicted health problems due to obesity, injuries from dangerous sports,smoking, heavy drinking, and other forms of substance abuse get free healthcare, apart from the Medicare levy abd other taxes, while it is user pays for expensive and mostly unavoidable health problems of old age, above and beyond normal accommodation costs.

A better solution in the long run, because letting people control their own money gives them choices and bargaining leverage, might be to raise superannuation to 12% and use the extra 3% to pay for longevity insurance (you get x dollars a year after you turn 85) and long-term care insurance. This would need to be provided by the government or tightly regulated to avoid the abuses that have occurred in the US.

Rhian, I suspect that long-term carers will get better treatment from the government when pigs can fly. Families can and do agree that the relative who provided the care will get more from the estate.

The majority of these negative replies to Lynn Hatfield-Dodds all ignore the important point that at the time the aged care resident no longer requires care, the beneficiaries do get back the bond money apart from a small capped retention fee. Children will get the benefit of their parents scrimping and saving but they also get the benefit of parents in care and comfort for the last period of their lives. It's been said that every Australian has to pay for the roof over their head except for the criminals sentenced to prison.

Nothing in this world that costs someone money comes free. The old adage of there being no such thing as a free lunch applies to aged care as well.

If you have extra resources, if you live in a nice house in a nice area, why shouldn't you be able to enjopy those same standards in your very old age? If you haven't been fortunate enough to be in that category, there will be government assistance to ensure you age in comfort and security. The homeless ageing do need support and not denied it because the Government shares its meagre allocations across all comers. Who ever said everything had to be equal. Reality tells us it certainly is far from that.