One suspects that while Whatever4 is physically capable of performing the chores on his or her own, he or she would struggle to find the money to pay someone to do them.
This seems a little broad. The city came and fixed the sidewalk in front of my house. I could have easily paid to have the sidewalk fixed myself, but I figured, “Hey, that’s what I paid taxes for.” It seems in your view I’m a freeloader, too. I disagree.
FWIW, I think that they did a poor job, and now sort of wish I’d hired someone to do it right.
There are levels here.
Nothing wrong with, for example, taking a discount on something you qualify for and you want and need it. Doesn’t matter if you’re a senior or whatever the reason.
OTOH:
It’s not right (to me) to say pick up a freebie someone’s giving away and throw it away the second you can. If you don’t want it, don’t take it.
The OP seems to be between these two in a way. I think closer to the first than the second. But without knowing a lot more details, etc., I wouldn’t make a value judgment. Even then, there’s always situations that can’t be easily resolved.
If you’re not committing any fraud by collecting, then you’re entitled to the benefit. Whether you “need” it is quite another matter and irrelevant, IMHO.
Why not accept the help? No cost to you, improves the neighborhood, and you’re giving somebody a job to do (esp important now that local govs are slashing payrolls).
I think this is a fair point, but here’s a counterpoint: Money is fungible, and we don’t really know what we’ll need in the future.
I am considering availing myself of a local “water-wise” fund that will pay for some re-landscaping of my yard to reduce water usage. Now, I was considering doing the re-landscaping myself anyway, and I certainly don’t need the few hundred dollars. I’m not skipping meals or having trouble making the mortgage payment. I mean, by almost any measure, my yard landscaping is entirely a luxury expense that I could do without (my grass isn’t getting any deader). But I’m planning to avail myself of it anyway.
Because if I turn it down because I don’t need it, then next year we have an unexpected medical bill, or the car gets totaled, or some other thing, well, I might need the money then. But there’s no “I re-landscaped my yard a year ago and now I need the money” program.
I’m planning to use the money for its intended purpose. If the grantors wanted to make it income or need contingent, they could have done so.
Now, I think a better way to solve the problem of insufficient water is to jack up water rates (in a non-linear fashion, so the biggest users have the most incentive to cut back) and let people sort it out for themselves, but using an existing program for the purpose it was set up for doesn’t make me a leech or a hypocrite.
Sidewalks are city property.
This. While the city might allow you to repair the sidewalk on your dime, they might not. It is, after all, their sidewalk. Who you think might do a better job is irrelevant. If you think the job was unacceptable, you should talk to the city.
No, I don’t think you’re a freeloader for letting the city maintain their property. Now, if you had talked to the foreman and tried to get him to take care of your driveway at the same time for a Benjamin and a bottle of Jack, well, I think there might be some ethical issues involved.
So far as I know, it’s a first come first served situation. There may be a waiting list when I call, in which case I’ll wait my turn, I guess. I really don’t know the specifics of the funding, guess I need to ask some questions.
Good question. If I pay this person directly, ignoring taxes and the like, the assistance program may not use all its allocation from the state. And it may then receive less in the next fiscal year.
If there isn’t a list of necessary qualifications for this program’s services, and when I used it before there weren’t, or a wait list, then how can I answer whether or not I’m depriving someone else?
The intention of the program is to provide help to seniors and jobs for people who want to help them.
Whether or not I can take advantage of the program farther down the old lady road will depend on whether or not the state keeps funding the program. The state could stop the funding and redecorate the Gov’s office with it and who would know?
Depends on the city. In Schenectady, you are responsible for maintaining the sidewalk in front of your house, and that includes removing snow from it.
Again, not comparable. The incentive to re-landscape is to help you to decide to re-landscape now, not to think about doing it in the future. The purpose of the incentive is not to allow those who have trouble making mortgage payments or have to skip meals to re-landscape, but to encourage those that can afford to re-landscape to do it. Those who have financial problems are probably not the ones watering their lawns, anyway.
The question the OP raised was if we considered it ethical to use a program designed to help the elderly who were not capable of maintaining their property to funnel money to an acquaintance, while admitting he was fully capable of maintaining his property. Yes, he is entitled to take advantage of the service. That isn’t what the OP was asking. He said that “something about it doesn’t feel right”. With ethical situations, that is often a red flag. While not on the scale of, say, selling a Senate seat in exchange for campaign contributions, there is something “not right” about it.
Now, if the OP had said that he wasn’t as young as he used to be and that maintaining his yard was a hardship for him but had concerns because, even though he needed the service, using it would benefit his friend financially, I would say there wasn’t an ethical issue. Go ahead and take advantage of it; that is what it is for. But if he is going to admit that he really does not need the service and the only reason he is considering taking advantage of it is to benefit his acquaintance, well, I think there is an ethical issue. Not a big one, but a legitimate one IMHO.
You’re right. I don’t need the help. My acquaintance, who is already being paid by the program but whose customer base has shrunk (people going south for winter), does need the money. I think I will be damned either way, and I’d rather be damned for not getting involved in a situation that I know will lead to hard feelings down the road should I want to end the service.
In my city, seniors pay half fare to ride the bus. That’s 75c one way, $1.50 round trip. Is somebody here saying that if a senior still has the buck and a half toward the end of the month, it is unethical for him to pay half fare? That the half fare is only applicable to those seniors who have used up their monthly check and don’t have any small change left until payday?
Just what does the OP mean when he says “don’t need the assistance”? Do I (or the OP) get to decide who needs assistance, and qualify as an arbiter of ethics on that basis?
Since I am white, male, under 60, and have been gainfully employed all my life, I have never been the recipient of any form of government largess. But I have most certainly been taxed up the ying-yang to give my hard-earned coinage to others! So you can bet your bottom dollar that when I *am *entitled to receive my “fair” share of society’s wealth, I will be first in line to take it, if I need it or not. Ethics? That went out the window when my first paycheck was violated many decades ago.
The reason you have been paying up the ying-yang all these years, is because you have been preceded by so many people who felt they were entitled to their fair share of what you earned. Is it ethical to perpetuate that. or to stop it?
excavating (for a mind) did an excellent job of explaining the difference, read that post. The Medicare example is nothing more than a smokescreen. Whether or not one signs up for Medicare could well negatively impact their other insurance options. Not using a government agency to mow your grass doesn’t impact one’s other choices for landscaping. :rolleyes:
Your “unable” argument is also smoke. Whether the acq. does the work on his own or through the agency has no bearing on the quality of the job he will/can do. My suggestion is not philosophical, it’s practical. The stated crux of the issue is to help an acquaintance make some money by doing yard work. Pay them directly. Why involve a government agency at all?
OK, now that is government thinking.
If the agency doesn’t use it’s entire budget allotment it could well be because the program isn’t needed on the scale that it was funded. And whether your acquaintance gets paid by you or the program, the money will still be taxed.
Also, if you pay the acquaintance directly, say $50, it costs society (in this case you) $50. If you go through the agency and they pay him $50, it costs society (in this case taxpayers) probably double that amount due to the overhead involved in administering the program. That option just doesn’t make sense to me.
I agree that the two situations are not identical. But the point I’m trying to illustrate is relevant to both. Just because you don’t need something now, there is an opportunity cost to using your own time/money for something, and who knows if you’ll need it in the future.
What would the OP be doing with his time if not for yard maintenance? Something personally or socially enriching? He’s old. He might not have much time left. (OP: this is meant slightly tongue-in-cheek) Go out and do something enjoyable or community-building!
That’s your framing of the purpose of the program. The OP said that it was a program to help the elderly, not the elderly who were incapable. If the point of the program is to only help those who need help, it would be easy enough to make that statement part of the requirements.
There are lots of programs that offer aid to the elderly, just 'cause they’re old. One could argue cynically that such programs have a lot more to do with voting patterns than they do with actual need. Should rich old people ethically refuse Social Security payments if they don’t need them?
Very true.