Working the System

by snowbird 21 Replies latest social current

  • darthfader

    My aunt was asset wealthy, she owned a home (for what seemed forever) that was in a crucial part of the town, the land was highly prized, yet she had very little income. She was living on her SS, just able to pay her bills. The local city wanted to evaluate her property as commercial and basically force her out of her home so a developer could build a strip mall on the location.

    So asset wealthy and cash flow poor is a real situation. Yeah, you say she could have sold her home that she and her husband built (a million years ago) and moved into a condo someplace, but that was her home... Eventually her health deteriorated to the point where she felt safer in a care facility, she sold her home and paid the the care facility with the money. There was a lot of cash left over when when she passed. She had donated it to several local charities for battered women/chindren. She had no children of her own.

  • AGuest
    Yeah, you say she could have sold her home that she and her husband built (a million years ago) and moved into a condo someplace

    No WAY did I say that, dear Darth (peace to you!). I was speaking of people who didn't LIVE in their homes... but on Section 8... while they let the kids live in the home for free (i.e. no rent, so that there's no "income" - or, at least, it's not going to grandma, the homeowner).

    Your grandmother was entitled to SS. Besides, a condo would've probably cost her more (the house was probably paid off... or, sure, she could have sold the home and bought a condo right out... but then there's property taxes, which were probably close to nothing on the house, given when they built it, so...)

    But no, I wasn't suggesting by ANY stretch that people who live in their homes should sell them and live off the proceeds rather than the "government." People who have paid into the system by working are ENTITLED to their social securities benefits. And elderly people who can afford to stay in their homes not only SHOULD, but be helped to do so (doesn't THAT make more sense... rather than putting them in a government-subsidized apartment/house while their adult children/others live in THEIR home... rent FREE?).

    However, people who have assets that could be sold to otherwise offset their living/care expenses... rather than "preserving" such for their kids while and/or so AS to live in subsidized housing... and/or receiving other NON-social security and related benefits... should do so. The KIDS should tell them to do so.

    At the same time, those who've NEVER worked (excluding children, the disabled, and those whose spouses "provided") should have [very] limited access to all of the "entitlement" benefits THEY receive, as well.

    Don'cha think?


    A slave of Christ,


Share this