I thought I would start a thread on a discussion my boss and I were recently having as I found it very interesting. I have opinions both ways but sit on the emotional side of the subject, he was on the other. The discussion was about how retirees more later in life (say over 70) had unencumbered Homes worth millions but due to being the PPOR and having no savings/income were eligible for the aged pension. He believes those in that position have the money to fund their own retirement, I said surely you can't expect someone in their late age sell up the family home and potentially need to move suburbs. He argued they may not need to if they were accomodated by more suitable housing as a number of these McMansions were unsuitable for elderly anyway (admittedly he was using Toorak in his examples). I must admit he did then strike a cord when he said about my pop who has had to reverse mortgage his home to pay for nan when she was dieing with cancer with little equity and that someone with 2mil equity gets the same payment (not sure if this is true??). He said what about if those who needed it more were given additional funds currently being used for the aged pension for those with equity. I still couldn't get my mind off kicking someone out of their home who they maybe lived in their entire life. I also said it would be cherry picking, neighbors with more run down houses or smaller blocks could stay because they don't have the value or perhaps still have a mortgage! Your now punishing people for paying off their PPOR debt. He then talked about some form of government funded reverse mortgage so they could stay but it sounded too complicated. It's a very touchy and emotional subject but I think makes for good discision. Keen to hear people's views?