An elderly Boomer couple has sparked fury online after a family member sought advice on their behalf and asked how they could maintain their welfare benefits, despite holding almost $900,000 in bank shares in a stock portfolio.
The Australian couple in their 90s were worried not only about losing their partial pension payment, but also the associated benefits such as the Pensioners’ Concession Card and reduced healthcare costs.
“With the market rising, they are worried about losing their pension and benefits,” the family member asked financial expert Noel Whittaker for his weekly finance column.
‘Is there anything they can do to avoid losing their pension?
In his response, Whittaker said the couple was close to the $1.045 million threshold, which would leave them without a pension.
He suggested the couple value their furniture at garage sale prices rather than replacement prices and divest themselves of assets by “paying in advance for their funerals, renovating their home, or making a $10,000 donation.”
“If they gave a larger sum of money to the children now, their pension would not be reduced, as it would remain a private asset for five years, but it would not increase in value,” Whittaker wrote.
While the couple may be able to stay below the threshold, several Australians were left furious after the column was shared on social media.
An elderly Boomer couple has angered Australians after trying to find a way to keep their partial pension despite having $890,000 worth of bank shares in a share portfolio (file image)
‘Why are 90-year-old millionaires worried about losing their welfare?’ one questioned about X.
Australians criticized the couple for trying to continue receiving government aid while millions struggle to make ends meet during a cost of living crisis.
“Boomers talk about millennials having ‘entitlements’, but who feels entitled in this situation,” one wrote.
Another fumed: “It’s such a legitimate and strangely biased point of view.”
‘Why do they want the government to profit instead of supporting themselves?
“They want to do everything possible to stay in control of the government,”
One Australian congratulated the couple on having such a healthy retirement fund, but couldn’t understand “why your first thought isn’t just ‘wow, we have so much cash’.”
Another commented: ‘They could always kick up their heels and spend it, wow what a problem.’
The relative asked how his elderly parents can remain below the $1.045 million threshold that would deprive them of their pension and benefits such as reduced health care costs (file image).
The column also sparked outrage among those receiving social benefits.
“I go to work and earn money. How can I do that and still keep my Centrelink payments? Let me know,” one asked.
But not everyone joined the violent reaction train.
Some noted that the couple’s portfolio was smaller than in late retirement, when health care and nursing home charges become an issue.
One noted that it was common for Australians to pay more than $500,000 for bail to enter a nursing home and that could be “the reason they are worried.”
“Who knows if one will have to be in a nursing home soon,” they wrote.
“If they’re not getting a pension and they’re not fully self-funded, then they’re looking at a lot of money to buy a house and a lot of extra money to pay each week.”
Another added that his mother had to pay $660,000 to enter a nursing home, plus $1,600 a week and $140 if she needed to go out for an appointment.
Others wondered if the adult child was simply “worried that his parents would have to overcome their doubts.”
“It seems like it’s the children who are afraid of having to spend their inheritance,” one user added.