Thanks McLovin.
Thanks Sptrawler - unfortunately my mother, brother and myself are her only living relatives, so providing balance from cousins etc is not possible. Hard enough for the three of us to agree on a course of action sometimes
Thanks Julia. The single thing I dread most about the aging process is the possibility of diminishing mental facility. It's sad to see people who've been very sharp all of their lives slowly deteriorate - I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for them. On that note, although it sounds rather callous, my aunt's general health seems to be declining rapidly and I sorta hope she fades away physically faster than mentally. I'm quite sure she'd prefer to pass away from illness with her mental faculties mostly intact, rather than linger for years in a state of dementia. However - what will be will be, and we'll just have to take things as they come.
Exactly right - this issue is one that will become an increasing concern as modern medicine ensures that people live longer - with the result that their physical health may outstrip their mental health. I guess when the average life expectancy was "three score years and ten" most would fall off the perch before they started to lose their mental grip. I try to remember this when dealing with my teenagers - they may very well be the ones I need to wipe the drool off my chin one day
Indeed. One of the problems is agreement on a course of action by the children/relatives of the diminished person. My brother and I disagreed vehemently on the treatment my father should receive (or not) at the end of his life, which could probably have been avoided had he made a health directive or at least set out in writing his wishes. It's a difficult thing for some to confront the matter of their eventual passing, or decline in mental ability, but it does make things so much easier for those that are left to care for them if they have a directive to follow.
Anyway, enough of this morbidity - let's get back to discussing whether the loss of tax revenue that could have been levied on super contributions should really be considered as a cost. It occurs to me that a tax not charged is not really a cost, but an aged pension paid definately is. I can't get away from the idea that if the present cost of providing the incentive to self-fund retirement eventually results in saving the real cost of taxpayer funded aged pensions, then surely that's a good thing? Much as I don't like the idea of gummint telling me what I can and can't do with my voluntary contributions - maybe severely limiting the amount/% of lump sum taken from super is a better one. If you were 30 and told that all concessionally taxed super contributions, whether by employer, salary sacrificed or voluntary had to be taken upon retirement as a lifetime annuity style pension - would you still contribute in order to gain the present tax advantage and the future retirement security? I guess you could consider it a quid pro quo of sorts - tax break now but no lump sum later.......