-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What to do with the elderly?
- Thread starter Mock Turtle
- Start date
More people not listening? Really?
Sure! It shouldn't interrupt the spirit of the forums too much.
I had an aunt who went to retirement homes to read stories to the 'old folks' when she was older than all of them. Personally, I'm trucking until He stops me.
There are lenses to look at this through other than the value of the elderly, though.
It has practical impact on economics and health for starters. It also can indirectly have impact on politics.
Well, when you've gone through your savings because you lost your job at 63 during a pandemic, the cost of living is through the roof (18 eggs $7.89, a gallon of milk $5.49, price of paper towels going up in a week, deli items going up $1 weekly ... thank you Brandon) you'll think differently.
There is no question that people are having a difficult time, including us. Sometimes a gift as raising the SS a few hundred dollars a year creates mote problems. Because of our age we are entitled to an abatement on our property taxes. But there are strings attached, there's a cap on your income. So for a few hundred dollars more a year we may loose that abatement and wind up with 3000.00 more in property taxes.
PS. I did alter the OP, for any interested.
I will be 75 on April 1, just a few weeks away. I still work every day for my own living. I care for myself, and I care for my 62 year old partner who was debilitated by Guillaine-Barre Syndrome. I have no interest in being retired.
Why would anybody want to "do" something with me? I'm elderly, but I don't need anybody's "doing."
exchemist
Veteran Member
Exactly. Whereas your partner is an example of how fate can deal you a bad hand. None of us can know in advance how it will go. We need to get better at catering for these different outcomes late in life.
And your partner has you. Whereas I'm on my own, so if I become unable to care for myself I will need help from outside. I'm lucky in one sense in that my dear wife left money and I have a good pension from my 33 year of working life, so I will be able to pay for a carer, should the need arise. Many others are not in that position.
PureX
Veteran Member
All humanity now exists to serve the Great Money Pump. When we get old and can no longer serve the pump with our labor, we'd better have some money saved up to pay into the system if we want to keep on living. Because serving the Great Money Pump is the whole and only reason that we exist, now. So, if we get old and are poor and can no longer contribute to the flow of money going to the rich, we're supposed to die off. But because no one wants to acknowledge that this is the way it is, we're supposed to go somewhere out of sight and out of mind to die off.
This is our current solution to "problem of the elderly". That problem being that they are not contributing to the Great Money Pump, and therefor have no reason to exist. If they can pay into the Money Pump with their savings, they're fine. They can live unmolested. But if they can't, then they have become a "problem". And the solution is that they should die. Quietly. Unnoticed.
This is the world we have created for ourselves. This is how we live and die, now. And apparently we're OK with it. At least until we become one of those people that can no longer contribute to the Great Money Pump in exchange for the right to live. Then it will only be OK with everyone else that we die doped up on meth in a cardboard box in an alley, or doped up on a aderoll in some old people's warehouse. But not so much for us, though.
Last edited:
I'm really not sure what that has to do with my point. But okay.
PureX
Veteran Member
Here in the US, the aging of the population as an issue is all about money. Everything here is all and always about
money. Government, health care, employment, unemployment, every issue is a money issue and every solution is about what it costs and who pays. Money is control and those who have it make the decisions based on their wanting more of it.
Right. Trying to find a place for a parent that needs constant supervision is very expensive. Good luck finding any place that is under $4000 a month. Insurance tends not to cover this type of end of life care, so it is out of pocket. If parents have a house or some other assets they will have to be used to cover the costs over any SS benefits. I can understand tht this is how the USA does business. Let's note that a care facility will not accept a person without payment up front, and often demand there being assurances of future payments. I have no idea what happens to the elderly that have no assets.
There are generations of people in their late 50s to 60's that will see their parents estates being liquidated for healthcare, and so much for the passing on of modest family wealth that has been a cornerstone of the middle class for centuries. Insurance companies are finding ways to cover less as the elderly live longer. When my mom had to be moved to a different hospital for specialized care the insurance company said it wasn't in her network. So we faced extra stress that the bill would fall on us. Fortunately the hospital had an advocate that works with insurance companies to cover care, and they worked it out. We need reform that the ACA compromized on.
Prison is a very likely end for many. Historically that ends up being the dumping ground for anyone who is insane or who has problems. We joke about the Soylent Green film, but there is a horrible truth behind that film that politicians can be tempted to hide societal problems instead of deal with them.
There is also no voting for prisoners, so they are not any political threat once you imprison them.
There used to be something called debtors prisons. They made no practical sense for getting borrowed money back, however they did keep lots of people imprisoned. I'm sure that it was obvious to people in power that putting someone into prison nearly eliminated their ability to repay, so I suspect that the reason for the prisons was to keep poor people imprisoned. They also spread the belief that the poor were wicked, and that also helped to support this behavior. What goes around comes around again.
For a time we were obsessed with throwing users of marijuana into prison. I remember one man getting 20 years for it. This was very ineffective, did not help with getting drugs off the street. It simply put lots of people into prison. This can keep happening with other illegal things. There are ways of getting lots of people off of the voting ticket, off of the street. Don't think it cannot happen again.
There is also no voting for prisoners, so they are not any political threat once you imprison them.
There used to be something called debtors prisons. They made no practical sense for getting borrowed money back, however they did keep lots of people imprisoned. I'm sure that it was obvious to people in power that putting someone into prison nearly eliminated their ability to repay, so I suspect that the reason for the prisons was to keep poor people imprisoned. They also spread the belief that the poor were wicked, and that also helped to support this behavior. What goes around comes around again.
For a time we were obsessed with throwing users of marijuana into prison. I remember one man getting 20 years for it. This was very ineffective, did not help with getting drugs off the street. It simply put lots of people into prison. This can keep happening with other illegal things. There are ways of getting lots of people off of the voting ticket, off of the street. Don't think it cannot happen again.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
In the USA, the Social Security tax was designed like a savings account, for all workers; on the books. It is combination of equal parts worker and employer contribution; 6.2% each. This SS tax is above and beyond the income tax, and was designed to be like a personal retirement fund for elderly retirees. A 40 year work career, can add up to almost a livable wage at retirement based on where you retire; Florida.It can't have passed the notice of most that the demographic as to ages within a population, especially in the more advanced countries, has swung more in the direction of older members than much else. The successes as to why so many do live longer is mainly down to science and applying this knowledge so as to ensure that more babies survive and most survive longer than previously has happened. But, this does tend to produce problems - as to less people supporting this ageing demographic, when fewer are available to produce and perhaps contribute as to societal needs.
There have been, and are, solutions as to what to do with our ageing citizens, but what are your views as to this - and I doubt any version of Logan's Run would be much appreciated by the elderly, like myself.
Edit: Given some have taken issue with the title of this thread - don't take such too seriously.
Some information for any not so versant with the possible issues of an ageing population:
Ageing and health
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...liament-2015/social-change/ageing-population/
Ageing | United Nations
What Are The Long-Term Consequences Of Our Aging Population? It’s All Guesswork
The SS program was revised under President Reagan, and with the help of several future Presidents, it created a large surplus in the $trillions. This surplus was still growing and was projected to meets the future needs of the elderly, until 2050 or so.
What happened is the boneheads in Washington; stupid and corrupt leaders, decided to raid that SS surplus; slush fund, and thereby jeopardized the future for this retirement program. The Government does pay interest on this "loan", like the rest of the National Debt. However, the interest alone, on the surplus, is not enough compared to having the entire surplus back in their own pool. I would create a law that says the US Government has to pay back the SS, stolen funds, in full, before it fund anything else, so the fund is self standing and back in the black. We can take money from other programs since this is not a loan or a windfall, but it is returning stolen property.
I would also clean up SS and reverse the trend of the Left, which is to allow able bodied young people to collect social security. If you are a drunk or drug addict you get social security, to buy drugs and booze; electronic debit card. This further borrowing from the elderly fund, puts all the elderly, who paid into the fund, at risk. The young people, now on SS, would need to migrate to other programs, just not SS. Young people should be contributing to their own future; old age, and not be a parasite living off the artheritic backs of the present day elderly.
I would ever tax campaign contributions; treat each campaign as a corporation, and give the revenue to the SS fund. It was campaign donations and politicians who ripped off the funds, so it is only fitting we get the money back, with interest.
We all know the Left wants Socialism, so they will do what it takes to upset any self sufficiency programs, such as SS. If the program was to collapse, they can use Socialism as an excuse to take it over. As long as it is sound, this is harder to sell. We need to reverse the steps taken, designed to collapse self standing programs. Taxing campaign funds has the spin off advantage of using the IRS to audit, even dark money. This may have prevented the original rip off and five us early warning of all adverse government actions, so they are more transparent and accountable.
There still is, but under a different name.
Now it's "Friend Of The Court".