The stereotype of the cashed up baby boomer is not accidental. Speaking with HelloCare, Professor Kathy Eager, who designed the national funding model for residential aged care known as the AN-ACC and served as an adviser to the Aged Care Royal Commission, says Treasury is actively pushing this narrative to justify tougher reforms and higher consumer payments.
“The stereotype of the wealthy baby boomer is definitely being pushed by Treasury and they are doing so for several reasons. One of those reasons is to justify increased consumer payments and other changes in aged care,” Professor Eager said.
She argues the narrative serves a clear political purpose. “Disparities in housing are being used to justify charging older people a lot more to receive a lot less.” Young people sit at the sharp end of Australia’s housing crisis, yet this reality is being weaponised against older Australians who need care the most.
The timing is no coincidence. The first baby boomers turn 80 in 2026, and the number of people aged 80 and over is projected to surge by 60 per cent by 2035 to more than two million. Governments are rightly worried about the budget impact, but Professor Eager says they are reaching for the wrong lever.
“Lumping all older people together is not the basis of sensible policy. Baby boomers are a very heterogeneous group,” she told HelloCare. Defining old age as anyone 65 and older compounds the error. “Only 30 per cent of people in their late 60s are on a pension, so most of this cohort could afford aged care. But this is not useful as most people in their 60s do not need aged care.”
The people who do need care tell a different story. “The percentage of people on the pension progressively increases as time goes on, reaching 75 per cent by age 80.” By age 85, the average age for entering residential care, “only 13 per cent of the population has more than $100,000 in superannuation”. By the late 80s and 90s, most are on the full pension with few assets except, perhaps, the family home.
This is not abstract data. Professor Eager highlights the gender reality behind the numbers. “The majority going into very old age are women. Women have always had much less superannuation than men.
Many women of this older generation worked in the family home and were never in the paid workforce to accrue superannuation. Few women who did work were able to accrue any significant superannuation savings after a lifetime of earning less and having workforce breaks to care for children.”
Recent Australian Taxation Office statistics reinforce the picture. Median super balances for women aged 60 to 64 sit well below those of men, and balances are routinely drawn down in the 60s and early 70s before people need aged care. By the time most reach their mid-80s, super is largely exhausted.
The COTA Australia State of the Older Nation 2025 report, released in early February 2026, underscores the challenges. It highlights an ongoing intergenerational divide in financial security, housing and health, with many older Australians still facing cost of living pressures despite some improvement since the pandemic years.
Professor Eager is clear that intergenerational inequity is real. “Intergenerational inequity is a real concern. The other issue that has Treasury worried is the number of people now moving into old age.” But she rejects using it as cover for cuts. “The solution is not just to cut services and increase fees. The government has many other options.”
In her view, the wealthy boomer myth has become convenient political armour. It makes it easier to tighten support at home, shift costs onto already strained hospitals and residential facilities, and avoid genuine tax reform such as an aged care levy that starts at age 45 and sits alongside the Medicare levy.
“The government does not have the political will as yet for tax reform even if tax reform would better support older people at home. This has been a political choice to date,” she said.
The consequences are already visible. The Support at Home program, which replaced the old Home Care Package system on 1 November 2025, has seen median prices for key services rise sharply. Independent analysis by StewartBrown in February 2026 found median prices across services had increased by 39 per cent since June 2025, with personal care and other supports hit hardest.
Small not for profit providers are struggling. People who cannot afford the new co-contributions simply go without, ending up in emergency departments or occupying hospital beds that could serve younger patients.
Professor Eager’s warning is stark and evidence based: policy built on a myth does not just fail older women who changed nappies rather than built super balances. It fails the entire system and every taxpayer who will eventually foot the higher bill for hospital blowouts and premature residential placements.
The rich boomer stereotype has done its job in making cuts politically palatable. But as Professor Eager, the latest COTA data and the lived reality of thousands of older women show, the reality it conceals is far messier, far poorer and far more urgent. Ignoring it will not save money. It will only shift the pain and multiply the cost.
Uhmm a few significant changes occurred that impacted on baby boomers and their so called ‘treasure trove’- COVID and the shortage of supply of affordable rentals, yet alone purchasing homes.
Adult children and families sought security with their elderly parents, moving into the ‘family’ home,
Who was going to kick out their grandchildren yet alone the adult children?
Many of us wanted our homes back to ourselves and decided to help out our adult children financially to purchase their first home – why hold onto the monies we intend giving to them until we were dead when it was obvious they would benefit from it now when they most needed it?
Most of us know how to live on the smell of an oil rag- it’s how we were raised, be careful with finances, save your monies and don’t get caught with hire purchase and credit card debt.
So now due to our resilience, ability and capacity to save we are being demonised?
Wow how low can you get?!
Most will have hardly enough superannuation to survive for long when retired and living at home on their small amount of Super. So yes, by the time they may end up in aged care their super will be gone as it was only made mandatory in 1994 or near. Then it was 3% which did not make many wealthy especially in low paid jobs particularly in jobs that were dominated by women. I would think that wealthy people would not even have to or want to take anything from the government as I have heard horror stories of people left waiting for very long periods of time before they get the meazly amount. I think I will work until I drop. This government could have made us all better off by charging other countries higher payment on our gas and rare minerals etc etc etc You can guess where I would be heading with this. We should be one of the richest countries in the world if it were not for woke policies and demonization of gas, coal etc. We all thought we were going to be looked after in old age but it is not to be. Don’t blame overseas issues. Because if we had smart government and intelligent people running our country we would be able to wear any outside influences far better with sovereign wealth!
Respectfully, this is why we have means testing for all levels of aged care.
Being a pensioner doesn’t necessarily mean you are poor. People can receive the pension while living alone in a 5-bedroom mortgage free multi-million dollar house. Pensioners in this country have 1 trillion in property wealth. It is fair for a society to ask them to access some of this to fund high quality aged care.
While an aged care levy sounds like appealing, the case isn’t clear to me as to why our aged care system justifies a new tax yet our education system is slipping and failing many children and families are struggling to afford food and energy. Additionally, we are facing the costs of unprecedented environmental challenges, the costs of a massive energy transition and global conflict.
We sold our home it was out of town to move in. Into town due to health concerns. The government doesn’t make it easy to sell. In Town the houses are dearer. and with stamp duties. We just had enough to buy a small duplex. Now we have the added expense of insurance and a yearly fee to the government.
For living in a unit. While someone who buys a million dollar. Terri’s home in Sydney. Doesn’t.
Please remember the last words to the Prof. Eager article Government is perpetuating the ‘Wealthy Boomer’ myth to justify aged care funding cuts
‘Ignoring it will not save money. It will only shift the pain and multiply the cost.’
Department and the government deliberately ignored the fact that 88% of people receiving home care packages in 2023 assessed by service Australia as not having the means to pay income tested fees
The following is from a 4 September 2024 report to government by Michael Lye then Deputy Secretary
Department of Health and Aged Care. Michael had moved on to reform pensioner payments and eligibility criteria.
https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2024/09/Aged%20Care%20Bill%202024%20Impact%20Analysis%20Equivalent%2C%20Certification%20Letter%20and%20Supplementary%20Analysis.pdf
This proposal will increase the amount of co-contributions to in-home aged care services and
improve the long term sustainability for government over time, particularly as the average
wealth of older people increases with the maturing of superannuation. This means older
people have a greater capacity to make a fair contribution to the cost of their aged care
services and support the overall viability of the sector.
This also supports the expansion of inhome care to increase access to services for older people and reduces the wait times for people to receive these services. The number of people needing in-home care is expected to increase by an average 44,000 per annum over the next 20 years.
Currently, participant co-contributions are generally accepted as being relatively low in both
the HCP and the CHSP. In home care, co-contributions are less than 3% of total program
expenditure and in CHSP it is around 8%.
Research and surveys commissioned by the department and consultation conducted by the
Aged Care Taskforce indicates aged care service users incorrectly estimate they contribute
50 per cent towards the total cost of their aged care services, compared to actual
contributions of around 25 per cent in residential care and only 3 per cent in home care. This
research also shows they are prepared to pay between 30 to 40 per cent in return for good
quality services
In relation to payments for care while in an Aged Care Facility the means testing required by all residents captures the difference between those with and those without. Those without receive the same high level of care as those with a great amount of assets/wealth. Those who have wealth and the ability to pay for the care are then expected to do so. It also allows those who may have had any number of factors contribute to not having such wealth when they enter Aged Care still receive the dignity and care they deserve with the Government footing the bill.
Regardless of Government decisions in relation to other departments and aspects of society with their funding needs, Aged Care is one that is set up such that it is fair and ensures that all Aged Australians who have spent their lives making this country great have dignity, safety, and their needs met when they need it most.
I fail to see why it is wrong to expect those who have wealth to pay for their care and those without to be the ones who receive the help and support from the Government ensuring they also have the same dignity in their final years.
I am a 78. Year old woman. Who had very little superannuation. This was used up. When I had an accident.at the age of 50 being married I couldn’t claim any Centerlink payments. As although I paid taxes. Married couples are expected to support each other. So to survive. With 3 children we used my supper. When my husband retired we used his supper to buy a house. So we rely solely on the pension. I am Grandfathered. But my husband who has had his own medical conditions had not applied for age care. Now we are left in the position that it is not . Possible for us to do so as it would not be financially feasible The system is made to work against us. In every way. I am using my phone to fill this in. As providers were given grants to upgrade their equipment. But as ( client). We would have to fight to get $500.
Towards an iPad. We cannot afford this. So putting paper work in. And filling form out are difficult. There are worse off than us. Those with sight loss and arthritic fingers. Are denied the help they need.
And what happens to those who are in their 60s. Now. My son in law. As just been told that all his superannuation has gone. The firm is bankrupt. We need to bring in a better form of government pension. As jobs are lost and supper is used to cover costs. Until retirement. .
I’m a 77 year old widow, living pension day to pension day. I lived in a big 4 x 2 and because of my health decided to sell and move into an aged village. Why?because I had no knowledge of the help out there for us “boomers” or the older generation. I now have to pay $568 : 03 a month, yes don’t forget the 3 cents! Something I would never do again. I also have to pay a smidge under $2k for my rates. Which is dearer than my much bigger place. I have a tiny porch and about a metre wide garden. They pay for insurance they said, but it only covers you if your house burns down or someone runs into it with a car! Because I, when I moved in, renovated the kitchen and bathroom so it would make things easier for my back injury and complications from a # neck which will worsen with age. They’re not my only medical problems, but that’s why I did the reno’s. Now the back porch is falling apart, wood rotting and plastic roofing getting holes everywhere, only things insured are under the tiled roof!! Strata tital doesn’t allow you to have your own insurance. So how do I get these things fixed when I live from pension to pension. I am worse off now than I’ve ever been! Lesson to everyone, get the small print checked by a lawyer before you move in.
Jakob, thanks for this excellent article.
As you say:
“Professor Eager’s warning is stark and evidence based: policy built on a myth does not just fail older women who changed nappies rather than built super balances. It fails the entire system and every taxpayer who will eventually foot the higher bill for hospital blowouts and premature residential placements”.
There are at least 22 million Australians dramatically affected. The government can easily fund the model proposed by Kathy, indeed it is cheaper, and they will gain lots of votes, particularly among older people, a formidable voting block.
Australia can lead the work as a true democracy, based on values of social justice and inclusion, a society that truly cares for the weak and vulnerable.
Aged care is everyone’s business.
Dr Jane Mears
I was born in the 30ties and we paid an amount of money then to pay for our pension what happened to that money I also worked as a cleaner on very small money ,it was hard bringing up a family on small wages and now to be penalised for rearing a family who all contribute to the economy is hard to take to make it harder I am a low vision person.