With an ever increasing aged population is it right for the government to impose charges on older Australians for their care, particularly those with the means to pay. Under the new government 'Support At Home' scheme, everyone new to the scheme, including full pensioners, will contribute financially to their care and services provided. Pensioners, part-pensioners and self-funded retirees will pay between 5 and 50 per cent of the service provider's fee for "independence" tasks, such as personal care, including showers and assistance with medication. For tasks described as "everyday living", such as help with cleaning, cooking and laundry, people will have to pay even higher charges: between 17.5 and 80 per cent of the price charged by the provider, which can be as much as $100/hr. Is this new system of "user pay" reasonable as the government tries to rein in the ever increasing cost burden imposed on taxpayers by the elderly.

I regularly remind people that only about 55% of us are net tax payers.

There are some who spend most of their working life and all their retirement life receiving money and benefits that they have not earned from those net tax payers.

The Superannuation schemes that some on OLO criticise means that net tax payers such as myself will not need an aged pension to support me.

I could change this. I could sell where I live and buy an extremely expensive house somewhere on or near a beach at the Sunshine Coast and qualify for the aged pension and the plethora of benefits that go with this.

I will not be doing that as I like my present lifestyle.

I have no problems with the current set up and do not begrudge those who live off the public purse.

I just wish that many of those who do where not so miserable and more appreciative of the situation.

Why do you think there is voluntary assisted dying? I'm sure that there are many who want to emulate the creep in Switzerland who founded Dignitas. With loads of oldies and little in the coffers to support them the checkout industry should be lucrative. Albo will speed things along with high migration and net zero madness.

It is pointless even discussing when taxation is not remodelled. If people are expected to fund their retirement then they must be given the opportunity to earn th funds in the first place by equal means. It's idiotic to demand low income earners who pay top tax to fund themselves when public servants & business people get away with high salaries & salary sacrifice etc & very low tax & negative gearing etc.
A reasonably well functioning society must first have equal tax i.e. Flat tax. salary sacrifice must be done away with as it costs too much as does negative gearing & corporate Tax. As it is, those contributing the least are gaining the most. Very democratic -not. Those who wrote off their whole life earnings should not receive a pension, they can live off the easily acquired assets.
Wage earners simply can not do without a pension. Anyone with even the lowest ability of maths can see that.
Wage earners can hardly buy a used car whilst those paying sfa tax can lease luxury cars at everyone else's expense.
I believe that those striving to have more must be absolutely free to do so however they must also be absolutely contributing at the same rate as wage earners. The loopholes perpetuating inequality must be closed & those bureaucrats who don't enforce that must be removed from the Public Service. there must never be another Robodebt or Superannuation collapses. The penalties for such fraud must be severe.
The mentality to get people to think more can be acquired via a National Service.

Dear Paul,

«is it right for the government to impose charges on older Australians for their care»

Of course it is not right, but is anyone proposing any such imposition?

What seems to happen, rather, is that government will no longer pay as generously towards the costs of elderly people who wish to exchange money for their care.

Is anyone forced to receive care in exchange for money?
People always have the option to not receive care at all;
or else nobody is prevented from receiving care without financial consideration;
another option is to take a care-insurance policy in advance, should one need to receive paid care when old;
and yet another option is for the elderly without relatives to care for them, to move and spend their last years in a third-world country where they will be cared for like kings or queens for just a fraction of that cost in Australia.

Anyway, all the above is insubstantial, let government offer or not whatever it wants, the question being, why would a decent person accept money from a beggar who got all their money by robbery (through taxes) and then despite that robbery ended up with no money of their own, only a debt, a trillion dollars at that, a debt which younger generations, not yet born, will eventually have to pay back through no fault of their own?

Would one's conscience allow them to take such money?
Where has all decency and self-respect gone?

Hi Yuyutsu,

"People always have the option to not receive care at all" True, but in many cases such people could not survive without in home care. They would need to be institutionalised just to live.

My beautiful and kind niece in NZ does voluntary Meals-On-Weeks, and she said its heartwarming to know that its directly helping folk, who can't cook for themselves. When she lived in Australia, she was a paid carer, she loved the work.

"Those who wrote off their whole life earnings should not receive a pension" That's true, as some now with their shout firmly in the aged welfare trough today, literally wasted anything they ever earned, or were lazy as all get out, lived off social welfare until reaching pension age. I agree Indy.