An Australian landlord who owns her home and two investment properties wrote to financial columnist scott pape saying she cannot afford dental treatment estimated at upwards of $30, 000, describing herself as “in tears” over the decision and asking whether to tap retirement savings or seek cheaper care overseas.
Asset-Rich, Cash-Poor and Facing Painful Choices
The woman, identified as Sue, described a household that is asset-rich but cash-poor. She is 43 and a qualified nurse; her husband works as a lawyer. The couple own their main residence and two investment properties that the woman says have risen significantly in value. Those rentals cover their ongoing costs, she added, but provide no spare cash for large personal expenses.
Sue laid out monthly obligations that leave little flexibility: a primary mortgage payment of $7, 000 a month and childcare costs of $3, 000. She said the family does not have luxury vehicles and shops at low-cost retailers, but still finds there is “nothing left” in the household budget for the dental work, which she described as embarrassing and at times painful. She also said the pair were unable to refinance the investment properties with their bank and did not want to sell because of the tax hit they expect to face on capital gains.
Scott Pape Counsels Against Using Superannuation or Overseas Options
In his reply, Scott Pape delivered blunt guidance. scott pape wrote that the dental work clearly needs to be completed but cautioned that some funding options would be unwise. He rejected using retirement savings, warning that withdrawing $30, 000 now could substantially increase the cost later in retirement and calling that a “hard no. “
He also discouraged seeking cheaper treatment overseas. While acknowledging lower upfront costs elsewhere, he warned that complications could make fixing problems at home more expensive than having the work done locally in the first place. Pape framed the decision as not only financial but educational for the children, saying the couple risked teaching them that money should come before health.
Sell Property, Pay Capital Gains, and Pay for Health Care?
Pape suggested a direct remedy: sell one of the investment properties, accept the capital gains consequence, and use the proceeds to fund the dental work. “If I were in your situation I’d sell one of your investment properties. Pay the damn capital gains. Pay for the dental work, ” he wrote.
The woman had expressed reluctance to sell, noting she believed they would lose roughly half of the gain to tax. She also raised the option of using her superannuation balance, which she reported at $416, 000, or travelling to Thailand for cheaper dentistry. Those options were explicitly discouraged by the columnist in favor of addressing the immediate health need while preserving long-term retirement security.
The couple’s situation underscores a recurring dilemma for households whose net worth is concentrated in property: illiquidity can leave owners unable to meet necessary non-housing expenses without taking steps that affect long-term goals. At present, it remains unclear which route the family will choose; the columnist’s recommendation is decisive but the final decision rests with them.
For now, the immediate facts are plain: a qualified nurse with painful dental needs, a six-figure superannuation balance, two investment properties the couple does not want to sell, and frank advice from Scott Pape urging against draining retirement savings or pursuing potentially risky overseas treatment.
