Cant fault you on much here - only thing is the generational report was used by Costello to scare the public into accepting the fact the coalition had no intention of addressing , in real terms , the needs of the Aged Care industry - the report was used in a way that failed to highlight the offsets provided by an ageing population with less money needed for issues relating to children and youth - and that is only one element.

Few people really care about Aged care - and mosst others would be struck dumb by the amount of resopurces needed to get the job done properly - it has been said before - too many aged care providers are at pains to tell anyone who cares to listen that their staff are their most valuable asset - but still pay them 2/5 of you know what.

And they can only pay in line with the level of funding offered by the Commonwealth -

I saw in The Australian today that there are moves underway to force accomodation bonds on elderly who need high care...

These bonds are like a regressive 'flat tax'... The wealthy may be able to weather such impositions... But some poorer families stand to lose 'the family home'.

Surely a mix of inheritance and wealth taxes could fund aged care - in a more progressive and fair manner...

Bonds, after all, are just like taxes by another name. Once this is conceded - a more progressive regime of tax must appear essential...

Tristan,

Good article. It is very important that considerable attention continues to be given to the vulnerable in our society.

My only comment about your general tone in past articles is that not enough credit has been given to Aust govts in recent decades to their efforts (aided by public concern and the efforts of interest groups) to make sure that such needs are met. We have had to compete with some hard reforms, but govts have not abandoned the vulnerable although our resources are indeed being stretched further and further

If you want to see death duties returned to Australia, have the courage to call them death duties, not try to dress them up as twee euphemistic "wealth and inheritance" taxes. I doubt you will find the courage while so many of us remember this most cruel and iniquitous of taxes that ruined the old age of hundreds of (predominantly) women across the nation.

Lucy - I suggest wealth and inheritance taxes for those who are inheriting great wealth. The amount I suggest is $1 million.(maybe even higher) And the tax could be progressively scaled as well.

So - for instance - surely it is more reasonable to tax those who are *receiving* over $1 million - if it is the alternative to a system which compels the aged to sell their family home as a preconditon of care.

The current system might compel a person - who has a family home valued at $300,000 - to sell that house in order to receive care. And if such a person's family are poor or vulnerable - it doesn't even factor into the equation.

But in the case of multi-millionaires, such people could secure the most expensive care - still with millions to be inherited by their family...

What's fair about this?

I work in aged care in a privately run nursing home, I also have a degree in social work and so have an understanding of some of the wider issues. Last week I talked to a man who had decided to die. He had given up. It is easy to do this if you want to in a nursing home, few staff will try to encourage people to eat, after all, they have time constraints and other residents to feed, toilet , clean etc. He was not the first person I watched starve themselves to death. As a personal carer on the lowest rung of the organisational ladder I cannot force the RN to get a psychiatric assessment,these are usually only used where a resident is abusive or disruptive.
From my studies I know that wherever possible it is better for a person to live at home for as long as possible and it is cheaper to provide resources in that manner than providing nursing home care, my suspicions tell me that it is better for people who can no longer live at home to remain in home-like or hostel care for as long as possible.
As the nursing home is run for profit corners are being cut to increase returns for the shareholders. Staff lose hours or are expected to do more and more work in the same amount of time, resulting in people not being given adequate care and staff risking injury to themselves or residents. Staff are being recruited from overseas, there are issues of training, language and cultural comprehension. Too often people work in aged care because it is a job, not because they care, and staff have an enormous amount of power over residents.
Personally, I have to get out of the industry, I can no longer cope.