Recently there was an article in the Australian Financial Review advice columns which was based on a couple with $4.6 million in superannuation asking if they could qualify for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.
I will include the full text of the question below and link the article.
While the article made no mention of other assets or the value of the family home, the conclusion of the advice was that her husband may well qualify for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) given their circumstances.
If we assume they own a median-priced house, this couple would be in the top 3% of Australian households by wealth, according to estimates from the University of New South Wales.
With a CSHC, the husband would receive cheaper prescription medication, bulk billing at a doctor’s discretion and additional discounts at a state and local council level.
As one might imagine, the reality shared by the AFR’s column did not prove to be favourable to Australians on social media.
“Can a couple with $4.8m in super still get a Seniors’ Healthcare Card (ultra subsidised medicines)?
Yes
What about a 40 year old renter with no assets?
No.
What a disgusting system.”
Wrote Adam Creighton, the Chief Economist of the Institute of Public Affairs, on social media platform X.
Creighton’s view was not an uncommon one, with many others sharing their frustration with the priorities of policymakers.
This issue is emblematic of a system that was made to favour the aged at a time when they simply didn’t have the level of wealth that is now increasingly commonplace.
According to a 2025 study from the Australian National University, between 1995 and 2003, the average Australian over 60 had a post-tax income equivalent to 61% of the average of those aged 18 to 60.
Between 2014 and 2023, the average income of over-60s rose to the equivalent of 95% of the post-tax average of Australians aged 18 to 60.
While there are millions of older Australians who are genuinely in need in government assistance, there is an increasing number who are far better off than the average household but are still receiving taxpayer-funded support.
The Takeaway
This instance is a microcosm of the challenges of the road ahead, one where the 40-year-old renter is paying taxes to fund the pensions of older Australians who live in non-means-tested houses that the renter could never possibly hope to afford.
The unfortunate and simple truth is policymakers have made a series of massive mistakes over the decades.
For years there were all manner of dividends paid to households in the form of generous superannuation tax concessions, more loosely means-tested (some were not means-tested at all) middle-class welfare, government subsidies and lower effective tax rates, only to find in the present that they were simply not viable in the long term.
As frustration among younger demographics continues to build and households continue to struggle, Australia, like much of the Western world, has its generations on something of a collision course on the road ahead, as the challenges of the present confront perceptions largely built on the past.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Q: My retired husband, 71, believes we have too many assets for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and doubts it’s worth the effort of finding out. I am 64 and don’t yet qualify. He has $2.38 million in super, of which $2.2 million is in pension phase. I understand only super in pension phase counts towards the deeming test. On adjusted taxable income, he earns about $2500 in dividends (after franking) plus about $10,000 in bank interest a year. I work part-time and earn about $16,000 a year untaxed, plus dividends of $7000 after franking. I have $2.5 million in super, of which $880,000 is in pension phase. We have no major health issues, but who knows what the future holds? – Anne
