The great inheritance 'myth': why most kids won't get a windfall
The concept relates to Baby Boomers passing down their wealth to their offspring, in what is believed to be around a whopping $3.5 trillion in shares, property, cash and other assets by 2050, according to the Australian Government's Productivity Commission.
But what many people don't realise is not everyone will be gifted an inheritance and if they are, it will probably be a lot lower than they think - but experts say there are good reasons why.
"An inheritance is still a rare event," Terry Rawnsley said KPMG Urban Economist.
"They don't have a sense of the relativities across the rest of society."
Read more from The Senior:
Mr Rawnsley told The Senior that Baby Boomers are "running down their wealth" in later years, leaving less money to leave their family.
"The average inheritance - it's only about $125,000," he said.
"The top most wealthiest families, they're the ones having the big ticket inheritances, while everyone else is having a more modest one."
Mr Rawnsley said the danger of publicising a so-called Great Wealth Transfer can lead people to believe "a big inheritance is coming through" because it is still not talked about amongst friends or even family.
The urban economist said the Great Wealth Transfer as a whole did involve a lot of money being distributed but when looking at an individual, the amount is "not that dramatic".
He also said wealthy people with the most amount to give will likely to give it to their children who are also typically rich - so there won't be a great equalising wealth event - just a changing of the guard.
Mr Rawnsley said Baby Boomers are living longer and are using their savings to pay for living expenses or aged care, ending up with not "much at all" - which is then typically needed to be shared by more than one person.
"If you think about the quintessential million-dollar house in the middle ring suburbs [12-25 km from a CBD], even that's getting chopped up between two or three kids, which brings that average down," he said.
Mr Rawnsley said many Aussies are also unaware of the cost involved with aged care and it's "just not on their radar".
"When older people do end up in aged care, it might be a pretty quick transaction," he said.
"So it might be, 'Grandma's going pretty well. Oh, she's had a fall. She's now kind of in need of that more intensive care. We need to get her into a home. Oh, wow, it's three-quarters of a million dollar surety."
Mr Rawnsley recommends parents and children talk earlier about expenses later in life, including the "fairly hefty amounts to secure an aged care bed".
From January 1 2025 aged care providers can now charge a whopping $750,000 a room in their facility for new residents - up from $550,000 - without needing approval from the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA), according to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.
The staggering amount is a deposit, or Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD), that people pay when entering a nursing home and when they leave, they or their family is refunded the balance that was not used.
Even though not every aged home will charge the new amount, RADs are generally very steep.
National Seniors Australia CEO, Chris Grice, agrees many of the Generation X cohort set to inherit from their parents would be shocked to know just how much aged care costs have increased.
"That deposit enables you to secure a spot," he said.
"And in a lot of cases, people have got to sell the home in order to raise that money."
Mr Grice said many people don't know they usually have to sell their family home to go into aged care and said it is not fair after years of sacrifice.
"You made choices. You decided to not go on a holiday, or not drink or not smoke," he said.
"Or 'I'm going to put money in Super or I'm going to do whatever in order to set myself up for retirement and set my family up'."
The CEO doesn't think the Government should see everyone's sacrifice as something they "can get their hands on".
Mr Grice said the cost of health care across the board will also be going up on November 1, especially for in-home care services.
"The structure insofar as how much you will have to pay out of your own pocket, whether you are a pensioner, part pensioner, or self-funded retiree, is going to dramatically increase," he said.
Mr Grice said inheritance is also a "myth" because not everyone will get one, as not every parent has something to pass down.
The media talking about the Great Wealth Transfer can normalise inheritance, leading people to believe it is a "given" rather than a privilege not everyone gets, which has the potential to lead to financial elder abuse.
"The narrative is not helpful in terms of creating a generational divide," he said.
Share your thoughts in the comments below, or send a Letter to the Editor by CLICKING HERE.
Mainstream media has been describing - even counting down - to the "Great Wealth Transfer", but just how many Australians will be impacted by it?
The concept relates to Baby Boomers passing down their wealth to their offspring, in what is believed to be around a whopping $3.5 trillion in shares, property, cash and other assets by 2050, according to the Australian Government's Productivity Commission.
But what many people don't realise is not everyone will be gifted an inheritance and if they are, it will probably be a lot lower than they think - but experts say there are good reasons why.
"An inheritance is still a rare event," Terry Rawnsley said KPMG Urban Economist.
"They don't have a sense of the relativities across the rest of society."
Read more from The Senior:
Mr Rawnsley told The Senior that Baby Boomers are "running down their wealth" in later years, leaving less money to leave their family.
"The average inheritance - it's only about $125,000," he said.
"The top most wealthiest families, they're the ones having the big ticket inheritances, while everyone else is having a more modest one."
Mr Rawnsley said the danger of publicising a so-called Great Wealth Transfer can lead people to believe "a big inheritance is coming through" because it is still not talked about amongst friends or even family.
The urban economist said the Great Wealth Transfer as a whole did involve a lot of money being distributed but when looking at an individual, the amount is "not that dramatic".
He also said wealthy people with the most amount to give will likely to give it to their children who are also typically rich - so there won't be a great equalising wealth event - just a changing of the guard.
Mr Rawnsley said Baby Boomers are living longer and are using their savings to pay for living expenses or aged care, ending up with not "much at all" - which is then typically needed to be shared by more than one person.
"If you think about the quintessential million-dollar house in the middle ring suburbs [12-25 km from a CBD], even that's getting chopped up between two or three kids, which brings that average down," he said.
Mr Rawnsley said many Aussies are also unaware of the cost involved with aged care and it's "just not on their radar".
"When older people do end up in aged care, it might be a pretty quick transaction," he said.
"So it might be, 'Grandma's going pretty well. Oh, she's had a fall. She's now kind of in need of that more intensive care. We need to get her into a home. Oh, wow, it's three-quarters of a million dollar surety."
Mr Rawnsley recommends parents and children talk earlier about expenses later in life, including the "fairly hefty amounts to secure an aged care bed".
From January 1 2025 aged care providers can now charge a whopping $750,000 a room in their facility for new residents - up from $550,000 - without needing approval from the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA), according to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.
The staggering amount is a deposit, or Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD), that people pay when entering a nursing home and when they leave, they or their family is refunded the balance that was not used.
Even though not every aged home will charge the new amount, RADs are generally very steep.
National Seniors Australia CEO, Chris Grice, agrees many of the Generation X cohort set to inherit from their parents would be shocked to know just how much aged care costs have increased.
"That deposit enables you to secure a spot," he said.
"And in a lot of cases, people have got to sell the home in order to raise that money."
Mr Grice said many people don't know they usually have to sell their family home to go into aged care and said it is not fair after years of sacrifice.
"You made choices. You decided to not go on a holiday, or not drink or not smoke," he said.
"Or 'I'm going to put money in Super or I'm going to do whatever in order to set myself up for retirement and set my family up'."
The CEO doesn't think the Government should see everyone's sacrifice as something they "can get their hands on".
Mr Grice said the cost of health care across the board will also be going up on November 1, especially for in-home care services.
"The structure insofar as how much you will have to pay out of your own pocket, whether you are a pensioner, part pensioner, or self-funded retiree, is going to dramatically increase," he said.
Mr Grice said inheritance is also a "myth" because not everyone will get one, as not every parent has something to pass down.
The media talking about the Great Wealth Transfer can normalise inheritance, leading people to believe it is a "given" rather than a privilege not everyone gets, which has the potential to lead to financial elder abuse.
"The narrative is not helpful in terms of creating a generational divide," he said.
Share your thoughts in the comments below, or send a Letter to the Editor by CLICKING HERE.
Mainstream media has been describing - even counting down - to the "Great Wealth Transfer", but just how many Australians will be impacted by it?
The concept relates to Baby Boomers passing down their wealth to their offspring, in what is believed to be around a whopping $3.5 trillion in shares, property, cash and other assets by 2050, according to the Australian Government's Productivity Commission.
But what many people don't realise is not everyone will be gifted an inheritance and if they are, it will probably be a lot lower than they think - but experts say there are good reasons why.
"An inheritance is still a rare event," Terry Rawnsley said KPMG Urban Economist.
"They don't have a sense of the relativities across the rest of society."
Read more from The Senior:
Mr Rawnsley told The Senior that Baby Boomers are "running down their wealth" in later years, leaving less money to leave their family.
"The average inheritance - it's only about $125,000," he said.
"The top most wealthiest families, they're the ones having the big ticket inheritances, while everyone else is having a more modest one."
Mr Rawnsley said the danger of publicising a so-called Great Wealth Transfer can lead people to believe "a big inheritance is coming through" because it is still not talked about amongst friends or even family.
The urban economist said the Great Wealth Transfer as a whole did involve a lot of money being distributed but when looking at an individual, the amount is "not that dramatic".
He also said wealthy people with the most amount to give will likely to give it to their children who are also typically rich - so there won't be a great equalising wealth event - just a changing of the guard.
Mr Rawnsley said Baby Boomers are living longer and are using their savings to pay for living expenses or aged care, ending up with not "much at all" - which is then typically needed to be shared by more than one person.
"If you think about the quintessential million-dollar house in the middle ring suburbs [12-25 km from a CBD], even that's getting chopped up between two or three kids, which brings that average down," he said.
Mr Rawnsley said many Aussies are also unaware of the cost involved with aged care and it's "just not on their radar".
"When older people do end up in aged care, it might be a pretty quick transaction," he said.
"So it might be, 'Grandma's going pretty well. Oh, she's had a fall. She's now kind of in need of that more intensive care. We need to get her into a home. Oh, wow, it's three-quarters of a million dollar surety."
Mr Rawnsley recommends parents and children talk earlier about expenses later in life, including the "fairly hefty amounts to secure an aged care bed".
From January 1 2025 aged care providers can now charge a whopping $750,000 a room in their facility for new residents - up from $550,000 - without needing approval from the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA), according to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.
The staggering amount is a deposit, or Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD), that people pay when entering a nursing home and when they leave, they or their family is refunded the balance that was not used.
Even though not every aged home will charge the new amount, RADs are generally very steep.
National Seniors Australia CEO, Chris Grice, agrees many of the Generation X cohort set to inherit from their parents would be shocked to know just how much aged care costs have increased.
"That deposit enables you to secure a spot," he said.
"And in a lot of cases, people have got to sell the home in order to raise that money."
Mr Grice said many people don't know they usually have to sell their family home to go into aged care and said it is not fair after years of sacrifice.
"You made choices. You decided to not go on a holiday, or not drink or not smoke," he said.
"Or 'I'm going to put money in Super or I'm going to do whatever in order to set myself up for retirement and set my family up'."
The CEO doesn't think the Government should see everyone's sacrifice as something they "can get their hands on".
Mr Grice said the cost of health care across the board will also be going up on November 1, especially for in-home care services.
"The structure insofar as how much you will have to pay out of your own pocket, whether you are a pensioner, part pensioner, or self-funded retiree, is going to dramatically increase," he said.
Mr Grice said inheritance is also a "myth" because not everyone will get one, as not every parent has something to pass down.
The media talking about the Great Wealth Transfer can normalise inheritance, leading people to believe it is a "given" rather than a privilege not everyone gets, which has the potential to lead to financial elder abuse.
"The narrative is not helpful in terms of creating a generational divide," he said.
Share your thoughts in the comments below, or send a Letter to the Editor by CLICKING HERE.
Mainstream media has been describing - even counting down - to the "Great Wealth Transfer", but just how many Australians will be impacted by it?
The concept relates to Baby Boomers passing down their wealth to their offspring, in what is believed to be around a whopping $3.5 trillion in shares, property, cash and other assets by 2050, according to the Australian Government's Productivity Commission.
But what many people don't realise is not everyone will be gifted an inheritance and if they are, it will probably be a lot lower than they think - but experts say there are good reasons why.
"An inheritance is still a rare event," Terry Rawnsley said KPMG Urban Economist.
"They don't have a sense of the relativities across the rest of society."
Read more from The Senior:
Mr Rawnsley told The Senior that Baby Boomers are "running down their wealth" in later years, leaving less money to leave their family.
"The average inheritance - it's only about $125,000," he said.
"The top most wealthiest families, they're the ones having the big ticket inheritances, while everyone else is having a more modest one."
Mr Rawnsley said the danger of publicising a so-called Great Wealth Transfer can lead people to believe "a big inheritance is coming through" because it is still not talked about amongst friends or even family.
The urban economist said the Great Wealth Transfer as a whole did involve a lot of money being distributed but when looking at an individual, the amount is "not that dramatic".
He also said wealthy people with the most amount to give will likely to give it to their children who are also typically rich - so there won't be a great equalising wealth event - just a changing of the guard.
Mr Rawnsley said Baby Boomers are living longer and are using their savings to pay for living expenses or aged care, ending up with not "much at all" - which is then typically needed to be shared by more than one person.
"If you think about the quintessential million-dollar house in the middle ring suburbs [12-25 km from a CBD], even that's getting chopped up between two or three kids, which brings that average down," he said.
Mr Rawnsley said many Aussies are also unaware of the cost involved with aged care and it's "just not on their radar".
"When older people do end up in aged care, it might be a pretty quick transaction," he said.
"So it might be, 'Grandma's going pretty well. Oh, she's had a fall. She's now kind of in need of that more intensive care. We need to get her into a home. Oh, wow, it's three-quarters of a million dollar surety."
Mr Rawnsley recommends parents and children talk earlier about expenses later in life, including the "fairly hefty amounts to secure an aged care bed".
From January 1 2025 aged care providers can now charge a whopping $750,000 a room in their facility for new residents - up from $550,000 - without needing approval from the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA), according to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.
The staggering amount is a deposit, or Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD), that people pay when entering a nursing home and when they leave, they or their family is refunded the balance that was not used.
Even though not every aged home will charge the new amount, RADs are generally very steep.
National Seniors Australia CEO, Chris Grice, agrees many of the Generation X cohort set to inherit from their parents would be shocked to know just how much aged care costs have increased.
"That deposit enables you to secure a spot," he said.
"And in a lot of cases, people have got to sell the home in order to raise that money."
Mr Grice said many people don't know they usually have to sell their family home to go into aged care and said it is not fair after years of sacrifice.
"You made choices. You decided to not go on a holiday, or not drink or not smoke," he said.
"Or 'I'm going to put money in Super or I'm going to do whatever in order to set myself up for retirement and set my family up'."
The CEO doesn't think the Government should see everyone's sacrifice as something they "can get their hands on".
Mr Grice said the cost of health care across the board will also be going up on November 1, especially for in-home care services.
"The structure insofar as how much you will have to pay out of your own pocket, whether you are a pensioner, part pensioner, or self-funded retiree, is going to dramatically increase," he said.
Mr Grice said inheritance is also a "myth" because not everyone will get one, as not every parent has something to pass down.
The media talking about the Great Wealth Transfer can normalise inheritance, leading people to believe it is a "given" rather than a privilege not everyone gets, which has the potential to lead to financial elder abuse.
"The narrative is not helpful in terms of creating a generational divide," he said.
Share your thoughts in the comments below, or send a Letter to the Editor by CLICKING HERE.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
10 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
‘Bad news' for Treasurer Jim Chalmers' major focus on productivity, economic growth after RBA downgrades outlook
Australian mortgage holders were promised financial relief when the Reserve Bank of Australia cut rates on Tuesday, but the good news was shrouded by the central bank painting a bleak picture of the economy. Alongside lowering the cash rate to 3.6 per cent, the RBA downgraded its medium-term productivity assumption to just 0.7 per cent year-on-year, down from its previous assumption of one per cent. It also warned Australia's economy was incapable of growing faster than two per cent over its forecasts. This comes as a major blow to Treasurer Jim Chalmers who has focused his sights on the nation's growth and productivity during the second Albanese government. HSBC's chief economist Paul Bloxham, who is also a former RBA economist, said the RBA's call was a blow for the nation's economic outlook. 'It is absolutely bad news that productivity is going backwards at the moment,' Mr Bloxham said on Business Now. 'And it's bad news that it's going backwards and it's been so weak that the central bank has been actually having to revise down its own working assumption because it had an unrealistically high assumption.' He stressed that growth was picking up pace, but that these fresh insights from the RBA hammered in the idea that Australians 'shouldn't expect the economy to grow much faster" than it currently is. 'If the supply side of the economy is going to remain weak, as the RBA is now assuming - potential growth rate for the economy, as they've said, is two per cent,' Mr Bloxham said. Australia's productivity will take centre stage at Mr Chalmers' upcoming economic roundtable next week where leaders across policy, business and unions will gather to tackle the lagging economy. After the RBA handed down its rate cut, the Treasurer was adamant Australia was equipped to tackle the nation's productivity problem. 'Productivity is the most serious economic challenge we have in our economy when it comes to those persistent structural issues,' Mr Chalmers told reporters. 'Productivity is the main one and that's why it is a central focus of the reform round table next week. 'That challenge has been long standing. It is also global, as the Reserve Bank points out. 'But it is substantial and it is the government's primary focus - not just next week, at the roundtable, but indeed for the course of this parliamentary term.' RBA governor Michele Bullock warned lower productivity growth could dent quality of life for Australians. "The way we grow our living standards is through productivity. So that's the key," Ms Bullock told reporters after the rate decision. She also warned real wages would continue to stagnate amid sluggish productivity. "Weaker productivity growth in the terms of our forecasts - the implications of that ... are already being felt," Ms Bullock said. "Real wages are not rising by very much, because the implication of slow productivity growth is that real wages can't grow as quickly."
The Age
10 minutes ago
- The Age
Albanese is crying poor, but we're losing billions a year from untaxed gas
The Australia Institute report finds that the total value of our natural gas exports over the four years to June 2024 was $265 billion. It estimates that 56 per cent of this resulted in no royalties, state or federal. 'This means that more than half the gas exported from Australia is given for free to the companies exporting it,' it says. The royalties that were paid over the past four years represented less than 4 per cent of the total value of the gas exported. It should have been nearer 9 per cent, yielding an extra $13 billion. We're always being told how important mining and gas are to the economy. But how, exactly? It's not our job to help big foreign companies make big profits. Mining and gas are capital-intensive industries, meaning they don't employ many people. And most of the capital equipment they use would be imported. The increasingly foreign-owned BHP tells us it's the Big Australian, while telling the taxman it's the Big Singaporean. So it's vitally important that the businesses – even when they're locally owned – pay a fair price for the natural resources we allow them to extract and take away. The energy and minerals are, after all, non-renewable. And it's equally important that the mineral and gas companies pay a fair bit of tax on their hefty profits. We've had far too much, for instance, of the increasingly foreign-owned BHP telling us it's the Big Australian, while telling the taxman it's the Big Singaporean. Which brings us back to next week's roundtable. The radical change in the way companies are taxed, proposed by the Productivity Commission as a way of improving our productivity, has been opposed by 24 business lobby groups, and isn't likely to fly. But it was intended to reduce the company tax paid by most of our companies, while covering the government's loss of revenue by increasing the tax on our 500 biggest companies, many of them the local subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. The change would have made it harder for them to fiddle their taxes. And they would have included our big foreign-owned gas companies. The Productivity Commission's modelling in preparation for the roundtable includes an assessment of each of our taxes: how much they damage the economy by discouraging people from working, saving and investing. Loading I have doubts about these exercises, but the commission's assessment gave the worst rating to the state governments' stamp duties, the rate of company tax, and the top rate of personal income tax. (I've been on that top rate for almost all my career, and it's done nothing to dampen my enthusiasm for bashing out another pontification about economics.) But here's the point: it gave the petroleum resource rent tax a small positive rating. In other words, it said that, if the rate of this tax were increased, it would do more to encourage working, saving and investing. That's an indication of the price we're paying by allowing the accidental free ride we're giving the gas exporters to roll on. Earlier this year, the boss of the Australia Institute, Dr Richard Denniss, caused a stir by claiming that the government takes more money from uni students through HECS than it collects from the petroleum resource rent tax. It was such a strange assertion the ABC set its fact-checkers on him. They had to admit his numbers were right.
Sydney Morning Herald
10 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese is crying poor, but we're losing billions a year from untaxed gas
The Australia Institute report finds that the total value of our natural gas exports over the four years to June 2024 was $265 billion. It estimates that 56 per cent of this resulted in no royalties, state or federal. 'This means that more than half the gas exported from Australia is given for free to the companies exporting it,' it says. The royalties that were paid over the past four years represented less than 4 per cent of the total value of the gas exported. It should have been nearer 9 per cent, yielding an extra $13 billion. We're always being told how important mining and gas are to the economy. But how, exactly? It's not our job to help big foreign companies make big profits. Mining and gas are capital-intensive industries, meaning they don't employ many people. And most of the capital equipment they use would be imported. The increasingly foreign-owned BHP tells us it's the Big Australian, while telling the taxman it's the Big Singaporean. So it's vitally important that the businesses – even when they're locally owned – pay a fair price for the natural resources we allow them to extract and take away. The energy and minerals are, after all, non-renewable. And it's equally important that the mineral and gas companies pay a fair bit of tax on their hefty profits. We've had far too much, for instance, of the increasingly foreign-owned BHP telling us it's the Big Australian, while telling the taxman it's the Big Singaporean. Which brings us back to next week's roundtable. The radical change in the way companies are taxed, proposed by the Productivity Commission as a way of improving our productivity, has been opposed by 24 business lobby groups, and isn't likely to fly. But it was intended to reduce the company tax paid by most of our companies, while covering the government's loss of revenue by increasing the tax on our 500 biggest companies, many of them the local subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. The change would have made it harder for them to fiddle their taxes. And they would have included our big foreign-owned gas companies. The Productivity Commission's modelling in preparation for the roundtable includes an assessment of each of our taxes: how much they damage the economy by discouraging people from working, saving and investing. Loading I have doubts about these exercises, but the commission's assessment gave the worst rating to the state governments' stamp duties, the rate of company tax, and the top rate of personal income tax. (I've been on that top rate for almost all my career, and it's done nothing to dampen my enthusiasm for bashing out another pontification about economics.) But here's the point: it gave the petroleum resource rent tax a small positive rating. In other words, it said that, if the rate of this tax were increased, it would do more to encourage working, saving and investing. That's an indication of the price we're paying by allowing the accidental free ride we're giving the gas exporters to roll on. Earlier this year, the boss of the Australia Institute, Dr Richard Denniss, caused a stir by claiming that the government takes more money from uni students through HECS than it collects from the petroleum resource rent tax. It was such a strange assertion the ABC set its fact-checkers on him. They had to admit his numbers were right.
