Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unreal how far this country has fallen when it comes to self reliance and responsibility. For the vast majority of our history, families have looked out for their elders or disabled family members because it is the right and moral thing to do. Now states like CA (which is going bankrupt) buy into this notion that fellow tax payers must pay for people from cradle to grave. Worse yet, they want to give financial incentives to corrupt the very fabric of society with liberals leading the way.
For the majority of our history, life expectancy was less than 50 and it didn't take two incomes to make ends meet. Sad you didn't factor this into your argument, but it basically makes what you said worthless.
Quote:
Were the relatives paid to raise their loved ones?
No.
Anyone who has filed taxes would know that the government does indeed pay people for having children. Have you ever filed a tax return? Still a student maybe?
Quote:
He didn't say not to care for them. He most likely just doesn't think that the taxpayers should have to pay for it. I'm skeptical of the program because how do you know if the family member is "sliding along" because the recipient would not argue about the quality of the care? It seems to me that some want these caregiving gigs so that they can stay at home AND make $$.
It's pretty easy to have an occupational therapist examine people and figure out the need. It's easy for people to sit back on the internet and make judgements like this. Go help someone who has a relative with late stage cancer, a spinal injury, alzheimers or a stroke and tell me if they're giving up their career so they can sit home and watch tv. Your tune will change quite quickly.
For the majority of our history, life expectancy was less than 50 and it didn't take two incomes to make ends meet. Sad you didn't factor this into your argument, but it basically makes what you said worthless.
Anyone who has filed taxes would know that the government does indeed pay people for having children. Have you ever filed a tax return? Still a student maybe? Yes, but on the same token, you can also claim an elderly parent as a dependent as well.
It's pretty easy to have an occupational therapist examine people and figure out the need. It's easy for people to sit back on the internet and make judgements like this. Go help someone who has a relative with late stage cancer, a spinal injury, alzheimers or a stroke and tell me if they're giving up their career so they can sit home and watch tv. Your tune will change quite quickly.
Most of the ppl that I know that inquire about this hardly have "career" jobs and their loved ones are not in those dire situations that you described. I guess that I would want to know if the relative caregivers would have any qualifications that would make them qualified caregivers.
Unreal how far this country has fallen when it comes to self reliance and responsibility. For the vast majority of our history, families have looked out for their elders or disabled family members because it is the right and moral thing to do. Now states like CA (which is going bankrupt) buy into this notion that fellow tax payers must pay for people from cradle to grave. Worse yet, they want to give financial incentives to corrupt the very fabric of society with liberals leading the way.
For the vast majority of our history, a single blue collar worker could support a family of four. Now that women are in the workforce, the cost of living has been rising higher than increases in median income, taxes have gone up, etc that is no longer the case. Liberals have transferred the safety net from the private sector to the public sector with their welfare state. That being the case, it seems to me that it makes sense to compensate individuals who care for disabled family members who fall through the cracks in that safety net. Being a conservative, I don't really like the way things work in the Democrats' Great Society. But we're stuck with it.
Should tax dollars be used for this or should someone care for their loved one without monetary comp simply because it is the right thing to do?
Interesting question becsue we'll end up paying for it one way or another.
The issue of course is abuse, why allocate funds for these circumstances if the government is going to do it? Now you have much larger amount of people to take care of. Of course there is numerous other examples of abuse such as the caregiver not giving a rats ass about the parent and just sticking the money in their pocket.
Considering the often extreme burden that I've seen relatives take on in these situations and the often extreme disruption to their home and work life that accompanies it, which usually leads them to institutionalize the patient leading to worse-quality care, I certainly think there is a case to be made for paying the said relatives. It would be a far better use of government money than bailing out banksters.
That said, I am quite skeptical of this proposal; there is a basic fairness issue in making the whole population pay for something which benefits only a small subset, as well as (historically valid) concerns about conditions that may very well be attached to that money in the future when it comes to how you care for the patient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by remoddahouse
For the majority of our history, life expectancy was less than 50 and it didn't take two incomes to make ends meet. Sad you didn't factor this into your argument, but it basically makes what you said worthless.
The part about the two incomes is a vastly underrated factor when it comes to Americans' quality of life, but the part about life expectancy is a myth. The figure you cite is life expectancy at birth; since infant mortality was so high back then that dragged down the average, but if you made it past childhood you could expect to live to at least 60. Most people did die before the age at which they would need long-term care, though.
Yes, helping family members take care of family members is corrupting the very fabric of our society.
What kind of society would help take care of the elderly and disabled?
lol
Wow, talk about reading what you want into a post. I said essentially the opposite of what you interpreted. All I was saying that I suspect is different from you, is that your neighbors should not be responsible for paying.
Families should continue to care for their family members out of love and moral obligation, not the almighty dollar which will be taken from Paul to give to Peter.
Or maybe you didn't care for my accurate description of liberals being the Pied Piper of society wanting to create a nanny state where no one is responsible for themselves and family, the government is from cradle to grave. One only needs to look at the financial conditions of states like CA for evidence of such.
There is not enough "doing the right thing" today. My parents raised me, and if they need my help in coming years I will do whatever is necessary. The idea of the rest of society giving me money to do what is right is just silly.
For the majority of our history, life expectancy was less than 50 and it didn't take two incomes to make ends meet. Sad you didn't factor this into your argument, but it basically makes what you said worthless.
Anyone who has filed taxes would know that the government does indeed pay people for having children. Have you ever filed a tax return? Still a student maybe?
It's pretty easy to have an occupational therapist examine people and figure out the need. It's easy for people to sit back on the internet and make judgements like this. Go help someone who has a relative with late stage cancer, a spinal injury, alzheimers or a stroke and tell me if they're giving up their career so they can sit home and watch tv. Your tune will change quite quickly.
While you bring up an interesting point in life expectancy, that argument might work against you. I say this because you seem to imply that if grandma is old and sick, she will only last or be a burden for a few years when you are in your 30's. Nevertheless, you were younger when that occurred and presumably not had as much time to accumulate wealth, or been able to set aside extra money for a rainy day.
Now days many elderly people are working much longer into their 60's, and are healthier into their later years with the 70's now being the life expectancy. So if you have an extra 15 to 20 years to plan and accumulate assets to care for your parents, it should be less of a financial burden. They also have longer to put away money for their retirement and long term care. I know personally I have made much greater strides as I've invested and planned for the future and am now better equipped to handle greater financial burdens that I would have 20 years ago.
As to your comment about "needing" two incomes, most don't, despite that common belief. Sure you will not be able to keep up with the Joneses, but that was never meant to be the measuring stick of a full and rich life.
I cannot speak for you as you seem so willing to do for me, but my family could get by with only one income. Granted our neighborhood would change, we would not have multiple cars, private school for kids, etc.
However most can do it if not for the fact they cannot enjoy as many luxuries as they have gotten accustom to.
Your second point is a non starter. The obvious difference is that a tax deduction is much different than receiving funds. In the one case you are being allowed to keep more of the money you have already earned if you have children. Many people never even think through why the federal government does this. They do it for the same reason they give deductions to married couples, to encourage a stable home which will hopefully produce children. Without population growth, a country cannot survive long term.[ Needless to say that is a strike against giving homosexuals marriage benefits, but I digress]
Regardless, I am probably just as old or older than you, and have filed many a tax return.
As to the your last point, you make some sense with some examples of very difficult situations. However you seem to think those situations were always something people had help from the government(i.e. others taxpayers paying for your burdens) for, which is not the case.
I did not live through the great depression, but my elders did, and they told me of the hardships everyone endured. Aside from reading about it, a TV show that accurately covered that period of American life was "The Waltons". The grandparents lived at home with the family, and every once in a while they were able to put away some money for a rainy day. However if a major need arose, the fund for the dishwasher was used and that goal was put off into the future. People lived within their means, with little to no credit, and paid with cash on the barrel.
Lastly, I have already gone through assisting my Mom's end of life by supporting my Dad with extra help, cooking, etc. She had a long term care plan, but it ran out and my Dad made due as best he could. [He would not have taken a dime from others to pay for his wifes needs]
Now he and my father-in-law are at a point to where we provide more meals/care even though they are both still able to live in their homes. However we are prepared to have them come live with us(hopefully not both at the same time), and will manage. Granted they do have some assets where it will not be a total financial hit to us, but again, without taking others peoples money, we will be taking care of them.
I would actually feel insulted to take money to care for the person who raised me without government assistance. I also expect others should feel the same. They should be as responsible and not depending on me to pay for their lives, and their dependant's.
There is a time coming in this country with the course we are on, that the providers will not be able(or refuse) to sustain the takers any longer. While I am all for helping those who cannot help themselves due to physical handicaps, the charity wagon ends with those who have made poor choices in life and expect me to pay for them.
Yet with tons of people looking to shift their burdens to others, the new (D) model of nanny state liberalism is unsustainable.
Wow, talk about reading what you want into a post. I said essentially the opposite of what you interpreted. All I was saying that I suspect is different from you, is that your neighbors should not be responsible for paying. Families should continue to care for their family members out of love and moral obligation, not the almighty dollar which will be taken from Paul to give to Peter.
Or maybe you didn't care for my accurate description of liberals being the Pied Piper of society wanting to create a nanny state where no one is responsible for themselves and family, the government is from cradle to grave. One only needs to look at the financial conditions of states like CA for evidence of such.
"Love and obligation" pays the bill and puts food on the table, does it?
If the caretaker is doing this on a full-time basis, to the extent that working outside the home is not possible, then yes, s/he should be paid. Whatever measly amount the state sees fit to provide is still going to be much, much, much less than what they would be bilked by a nursing home or other facility.
Unreal how far this country has fallen when it comes to self reliance and responsibility. For the vast majority of our history, families have looked out for their elders or disabled family members because it is the right and moral thing to do. Now states like CA (which is going bankrupt) buy into this notion that fellow tax payers must pay for people from cradle to grave. Worse yet, they want to give financial incentives to corrupt the very fabric of society with liberals leading the way.
Really? California is going bankrupt! OMG We should probably tell the credit rating agencies which recently upped their rating to the highest its been in over a decade.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
