That's assuming that a) they have some wealth in the first place and b) that they don't need it for retirement (-> aged care is expensive).
I think this is a pretty myopic statement given that not everyone has parents with wealth to pass down. Are you going to be subsidising some less fortunate children when you retire/pass your inheritance to your kids?
I've not found much official data on wealth intergenerational transfers, so I cannot conclude the issue one way or another. If you have the data, please share here.
There are a few online articles suggest that the old Australians may not die poor. Here below are some of those messages.
"A reluctance to spend superannuation savings means many Australians die richer than the day they retire, according to ground-breaking CSIRO research that may help build support to reduce tax breaks on retirement savings.
The average value of ordinary super funds and self-managed funds grow throughout people's lives and decline only modestly after they turn 70, suggesting Australians mainly use the super system to build up their wealth rather than support themselves in retirement."
"Australians are hoarding huge sums in superannuation and investments until they die to pass on a big inheritance to their children sparking fresh calls for a death tax to pay for aged care.
Experts giving evidence at the Royal Commission into Aged Care this week urged Prime Minister Scott Morison to consider changing the incentives to encourage more Australians to actually use their superannuation and assets including the family home to pay for their care."
To answer Crow's question about what defines middle class, I would rather quote ATO on their definitions of Wealthy individual and High wealthy individuals. For the list of Ultra high wealthy individuals, please check Forbes. Wealthy individuals are not middle class people for sure. I reflected on my use of the words "rich" and "upper middle class', and I think I refer rich people to High wealthy individuals and upper middle class people to Wealthy individuals. It's only my opinion, and you don't have to agree with me on that.
ATO:
"We view privately owned and wealthy groups as:
- companies and their associated subsidiaries (often referred to as economic groups) with an annual turnover greater than $10 million, that are not public groups or foreign owned
- resident individuals who, together with their business associates, control net wealth over $5 million"
"High wealth private groups are defined as Australian resident individuals who, together with their associates, control wealth of more than $50 million. "
It turns out that I was wrong on the definitions of "upper middle class" and "rich people", as mentioned above. My apologies.