As a Senior Citizen, I qualify for housekeeping and yard work help through a program funded by the state.
Now I’m happy that I don’t need this assistance. My quandry is this: if I sign up for the program, and get help – at no cost to me – I would be helping an acquaintance earn some needed money.
It sorta seems like a win-win situation. But something about it doesn’t feel right.
Thoughts from Dopers greatly appreciated.
just a q it wouldn’t be called “IHSS” in California would it ? I did it for a cousin that drove me around since I cant drive … other than driving I didn’t need it for much …
If I knew what it would lead to id of never done it …
Go ahead and take it. You paid for it, or at least for some of it, in the taxes you’ve been paying all your life. If it’s of benefit to your friend, then that’s another good reason.
In my opinion, a lot of these kinds of programs should be subject to means testing – but if this one isn’t, heck, take the money and run, i.e., accept the benefit. If it makes you feel guilty, donate to a worthy charity to even the scales.
There aren’t too many benefits of getting up in age; senior discounts take some of the sting out of it!
As far as I know, there is no means testing. I used the service one summer to get my lawn mowed, and all I did was call the office.
Balancing the service with a donation is a very good idea. Thank you.
That sounds scarey. I’m not in CA and I haven’t a clue what the local program is called.
You presumably paid taxes to support this program for other people when you were younger. It’s there for you now, and you qualify, so go for it. You don’t have to be feel guilty when they give you cheap movie tickets, either.
Sounds more like a tease than scary, to me.
How about it, nightshadea? You gonna leave us hanging?
If it is a moral issue for you, one option for you would be to sign up for the benefit, and then donate like value to a poorly funded aid organization. Or needy people personally.
I have moral ambiguity about a lot of things. I never pay a cent in any kinds of fees or charges to my bank, crecit card company, utility, etc. But their margin of profit may consist entirely of the penalties they charge against people who cannot or do not avoid them. So I am getting all that neat stuff for free, while the bottom feeders pay the cost of doing business.
This program you qualify for…does it have a finite pot of financial resources? If you use the service, does it deprive someone else of the benefit? Or is it more like “use it or lose it” style of funding? If more people use it, will the increased cost be provided by more taxes?
Thoughts?
You want to partake of a public service that you do not need, just because you CAN? And, you are wondering if that is ethical?
Would you pay to have this person perform these tasks out of your own pocket? If so, why would you want to get your fellow taxpayers to pay it? If this person does an unsatisfactory job, would you complain, or would that depend on whether or not the money was coming from your pocket?
Honestly, I am a bit put off by these “Hey, you paid taxes. You deserve to reap the benefits (even if you don’t need them)” comments. Public funding is not an unlimited resource (although it might appear to be). Funds consumed by people who do not need them are not available to those that do. I am also a bit dismayed that I seem to be in a stark minority.
Personally, I think that programs like the ones mentioned in the OP are a really good idea. Not only do senior citizens generally have a limited income with few opportunities to increase discretionary spending, but, as a group, their abilities are waning so it is more difficult for them to provide these services for themselves. It is in the public interest to have their yards and houses kept in reasonable shape as this improves the overall community. However, people who use such services when they are not needed are necessarily preventing people in need of public funds from getting.
OK, let’s say you turn 65 and you get a premium notice from your car insurance company saying Congratulations, you now qualify for a senior reduction in your insurance rates. Are you going to write back and say you don’t need it, and will continue to pay the higher rate, out of some ethical imperative?
Sorry, but comparing a public benefit to a private discount is a bad analogy.
Whatever4 why not just pay the acquaintance directly to do the work and cut out the middle man?
This, to me, is a key question.
Another key question is, what is the intention of the program? Is it to provide help to those who genuinely need it, or as a courtesy/perk for senior citizens?
Happens here too. After a certain age, you get a lump sum “Winter Fuel Allowance”; some people pass it on to charity. Personally I think should just be rolled up into the ordinary state pension, which would make it taxable.
Well, I think [del]we all[/del] most of us can agree that this really isn’t the same thing. Car insurance is not paid for with taxes. Car insurance companies are businesses, and if they offer a discount to senior citizens, they have data that shows that seniors are a lower risk for being at fault in an accident (usually, because they drive less than their younger counterparts). No insurance company would offer a discount to a group that had a higher risk unless required by law. In that case, they would just increase the rates so they would still make money at the discounted rate.
Here in Canada I get something called Old Age Security which I don’t really need. It comes to nearly $13,000 for my wife and me although some of it is taxed away because our incomes somewhat too large to keep it all. There is a further means-tested supplement that we certainly don’t qualify for. My attitude is that I’ve been paying taxes all those years and, anyway, I don’t set the priorities.
When my wife lost her job 30+ years, a “friend” criticized her for accepting unemployment. But she and I paid into the fund for years (in my case, with tenure, for no possible personal benefit) and we figured that that’s what it was for.
What makes it different? Both are single payers, that take in funding and redistribute it. Premiums and taxes differ only in terms of whether there is a profit margin in the mix. If a person doesn’t need a benefit, why does the morality of accepting it depend on whether there is a for-profit middle man?
Would you say it is unethical for a retiree to sign up for Medicare, even if he doesn’t need it?
Your second question narrows the entire philosophical question down to a guy doing yard work. Morals and ethics are a broader issue than yard work, and involve wider parameters. Many of my needy acquaintances are unable, for a plethora of reasons, to perform satisfactorily a task that a retiree might need done. It’s why money was invented – to exchange goods and services that cannot be done on an immediate direct transaction.
Restaurant servers sometimes apply a senior discount on my check without asking, but I’m about ten years away from qualifying. I try to decline it, but they insist. They’re probably embarrassed after realizing their mistake, and feel that they have to give me something after insulting me. I’d feel less insulted if they’d let me pay the regular price.
Are you able to sign up for the benefit and accept it when you need it, if you need it down the road? Are you able to sign up for it later when you will need it? Regardless of whether you accept the be benefit or not, the tax money for it is going to be spent.
I’m in agreement with excavating (for a mind): “You want to partake of a public service that you do not need, just because you can? And, you are wondering if that is ethical?”
I’m a senior and qualify for a variety of these sorts of programs, both privately and publicly funded. In many cases I could use the service but at the same time I can afford, or am capable of performing them. Thus I tend not to use them. Whether private or public, I perceive funds or resources as limited and think my use would deprive a more worthy individual or family.
And I also think there is a big difference between what a for-profit wants to offer me as a senior and what is available in the public sector. I’ll jump at that insurance discount but not the free cord of wood provided to seniors by the sheriff’s department.
Now, by way of being hypocritical, I do take advantage of a local food bank for day-old bread and leftover fruit and veggies from the local farmers market. But I’ve been assured that there is plenty of both to go around and that if left at the end of the day it will be thrown out.