ForumGarden

I'm making up a life history here in order to ask a question.

James was born with Down syndrome and has moderate mental retardation. He's 30, he lives with his parents. He has had a minimum wage job for the last 12 years but no career prospects or any chance of improving his financial circumstances through his own efforts.

Should the state contribute toward his housing, living and recreational expenses? Please justify your answer.

spot;743853 wrote: I'm making up a life history here in order to ask a question.

James was born with Down syndrome and has moderate mental retardation. He's 30, he lives with his parents. He has had a minimum wage job for the last 12 years but no career prospects or any chance of improving his financial circumstances through his own efforts.

Should the state contribute toward his housing, living and recreational expenses? Please justify your answer.


Yes Yes Yes!!!

If the state spent less money on giving hand-outs to people who deliberately don't work, who stay at home amusing themselves by producing 15 children, who the state will also feed, clothe and house, then they would have plenty of money for people who REALLY DO need assistance!!!

Why does he need assistance, Pheasy?

ThePheasant;743875 wrote: Yes Yes Yes!!!

If the state spent less money on giving hand-outs to people who deliberately don't work, who stay at home amusing themselves by producing 15 children, who the state will also feed, clothe and house, then they would have plenty of money for people who REALLY DO need assistance!!!


Well said. I totally agree. Over here the government gives out $4000 baby bonus when you have a baby, next year it goes to $5000. My daughter has 2 Autistic children and the eldest is 18, she has trained him well but how will he survive when she is not around. They need to do more for those who have disabilities.

spot;743889 wrote: Why does he need assistance, Pheasy?


Because, he is human being that lives in this age of compassion and caring :rolleyes:, it is the states (via OUR money) responsibility to ensure that he has a comfortable life - food, heat and clothes etc. Even murderers in person get that FROM the state!!

kayleneaussie;743890 wrote: how will he survive when she is not around. They need to do more for those who have disabilities.
Just the first two replies have expanded the question, we now have four:James has no more than he earns because his parents have no assets and only earn moderatelyJames' parents are millionaires and money isn't an issue in their householdJames' parents die and he's left with nothingJames' parents die and leave him a sufficient trust fund to pay for carers who let him stay independentShould the state contribute toward his housing, living and recreational expenses in each case? Please justify your answer. Pheasy seems to be saying yes in all cases.

Very intersting question spot, but its 3.30am in the morning and the old brain isnt functioning too well.

My blurred response to this would be....you cant discriminate. I think the government should help them all even if the parents are millionaires they do pay their taxes. All with disabilities should be helped in some way,maybe some more than others.

kayleneaussie;743916 wrote: All with disabilities should be helped in some way,maybe some more than others.You've decided against means testing benefits in this area, that's a decision made.

We can take away the Down syndrome and just leave the low IQ then - is the answer still the same?

So there are no circumstances in which James could access local, state or federal government financial assistance if you were controlling government policy, Jester? What sort of hand up is someone in his circumstances - Down syndrome with moderate retardation - capable of receiving? He's working on minimum wage with no chance of improving that.

Do correct me if I mis-state anything here then. Your position is that James has a right to government financial assistance which is means-tested to check that his income, together with all family and charitable gifting, is deducted from the assistance provided, and the government assistance is sufficient to guarantee he's housed clothed and fed adequately. In order to qualify, James must actively seek charitable support during the period he's receiving benefits.

I'm not surprised government overheads are high given the amount of checking that would involve.

Jester;743965 wrote: Not exactly,

In James' specific case he had all his needs met through his parents home, he made money in minumum wage beyond that. He therefore has no needs. And is not in need of any government assitance.That's exactly what I wrote, surely. "his income, together with all family and charitable gifting".

Itsme;744003 wrote: I work with adults with learning disabilities. Retardation, Spot, is not a word we use to describe ability.I went to what I thought was a reasonable site to find out what words were in current use - it's http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs4txt.htm, the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities.

I'm sorry if the choice of language isn't current but I did make the effort to look.

spot;743922 wrote: You've decided against means testing benefits in this area, that's a decision made.

We can take away the Down syndrome and just leave the low IQ then - is the answer still the same?


Yes the answer is still the same. I also feel employers should be encouraged more by the government to employe people with disabilities .

Some are very capable of doing a good job and as soon as they are known to have a disability they dont get the job. I think besides helping them financially it build s their esteem.

kayleneaussie;744026 wrote: Yes the answer is still the same. I also feel employers should be encouraged more by the government to employe people with disabilities .

Some are very capable of doing a good job and as soon as they are known to have a disability they dont get the job. I think besides helping them financially it build s their esteem.


self esteem i meant to say

Itsme;744031 wrote: There is still a lot of misunderstanding around learning disabilities Spot. I still hear the label 'mentally handicapped' but even this is an improvement on the old medical terms used that are still in some peoples' files, eg cretin, moron. So I forgive you and thank you for at least going to the trouble of researching.




What I need, then, is a translation into modern parlance of "Their level of retardation may range from mild to severe, with the majority functioning in the mild to moderate range" which is where I derived "moderate retardation".

spot;743902 wrote: Just the first two replies have expanded the question, we now have four:James has no more than he earns because his parents have no assets and only earn moderatelyJames' parents are millionaires and money isn't an issue in their householdJames' parents die and he's left with nothingJames' parents die and leave him a sufficient trust fund to pay for carers who let him stay independentShould the state contribute toward his housing, living and recreational expenses in each case? Please justify your answer. Pheasy seems to be saying yes in all cases.


1. I think the state should assist him as long as he holds down his job, and cannot live on his own with just his income.

2. Now this one IS kind of tricky, it his parents are millonaires and they refuse to help him out then the state should assist him. If they give him money , no state help.

3. State should help, as long as he is working.

4. No state help, he has enough money to support his self.

My bottom line is that if a person is working a full time job and only has specific skills due to an illness or disability, and they cannot support themselves on that income alone, then I believe they deserve assistance. But like Pheasy says, if the person becomes a "baby factory" just to get more welfare and refuses to work...well thats a little harder for me to say they deserve the help.

Have you ever seen the movie Rory O'shea, spot? Its very good, this "story" reminds me of that movie!

Jester;744038 wrote: I think this is a good idea but I'm opposed to the government encouraging it through an incentive or making it mandatory for X number of employees...

My personal thought is that it would be a great guideline or personal rule of thumb to encourage 10% of ones business profit to a charity be it to hire folks or give the money to an orginization that would assit the needs of folks.

In my business this year I made nearly 7 times more than I made last year. I'd be of low moral character if I horded that to myself. Also, I have a hard time personally giving something to charity when I get a tax break for it. Am I giving out of my heart or for the incentive? It robs from me the ability to know for certain my internal motivation for doing so... I end up giving it out anonymously to purposefully avoid the tax incentive.

I am now going to consider hiring a person that is disabled, there has to be something someone can do, thanks for the idea.


Good on you Jester. We need more like you.

spot;743902 wrote: Just the first two replies have expanded the question, we now have four:

James has no more than he earns because his parents have no assets and only earn moderatelyHe should receive medical care guaranteed.



James' parents are millionaires and money isn't an issue in their householdNo, being as he is still regarded somewhat of a dependent child due to his retardation, and his parents are rich, they should be required to pay for him.



James' parents die and he's left with nothingYes, he warrants help.



James' parents die and leave him a sufficient trust fund to pay for carers who let him stay independentNo the trust fund should be enough.



I'm not sure what you mean by recreational expenses in this case, Spot. As far as I know, S.S does not pay for rec expenses now.

Should the state contribute toward his housing, living and recreational expenses in each case? Please justify your answer. Pheasy seems to be saying yes in all cases.


Are we talking disability benefits only? If so then he should receive disability according to what his family's income is and his family should be responsible for him to the best of their ability, even though he's an adult.

ETA: My reponse may be moot. I came late to the conversation, sorry.

ThePheasant;743875 wrote: Yes Yes Yes!!!

If the state spent less money on giving hand-outs to people who deliberately don't work, who stay at home amusing themselves by producing 15 children, who the state will also feed, clothe and house, then they would have plenty of money for people who REALLY DO need assistance!!!


I agree with you.

People with disabilities need more assistance,they & their carers have to fight for every $ they get.:-6

mrsK;744121 wrote: I agree with you.

People with disabilities need more assistance,they & their carers have to fight for every $ they get.:-6




I agree but only if they have a genuine need . Over here in the UK our system is being abused at every level and it's wrong . I believe if someone can hold down a job then why should they be able to claim disability benefits as well .:-5

Because the amount they're capable of earning is insufficient to provide them with a roof, clothing and food if they have no other resources to pad out their income with?

We've had a variety of replies. They range from favouring a universal disability benefit (pheasy, kayleneaussie, mrsK) to a means-tested social security (drumbunny, RedGlitter, pants) as a fallback after compulsory application to charitable foundations (Jester). As Itsme points out, the unavoidable consequence of means testing is a benefit trap where anything earned or donated is deducted from social security payments, holding the recipient to a base minimum with no way of getting anything additional.

Nobody has so far favoured paying social security to the deliberately unwaged able. Is that because you think state funding couldn't cope with the demand, or is it that you think it's morally bad for the recipient?

spot;745203 wrote: As Itsme points out, the unavoidable consequence of means testing is a benefit trap where anything earned or donated is deducted from social security payments, holding the recipient to a base minimum with no way of getting anything additional.

Yes. How could that be fixed??

Nobody has so far favoured paying social security to the deliberately unwaged able. Is that because you think state funding couldn't cope with the demand, or is it that you think it's morally bad for the recipient?


Spot, are these deliberately unwaged able that way because they're bums or are we simply talking about retired people? If it's the first, I don't understand why we would pay people who are capable of working and earning their own wage? Why would we want to do that? Why should we reward them for not working when other people have to earn their living? How is that fair?

On the other hand, I feel the retired are different. They've worked all or most of their lives and deserve a rest and often aren't capable due to health reasons of bringing in a living wage. They deserve social security.

Over here if you can work but choose not to you have to work for the dole but you also have to apply for so many jobs a week or you are cut off. Also with the unmarried mothers they have to go to work when their youngest turns 6 or they are cut off.

Why should a retired person not earn the social security they worked hard all their lives for and paid into, whether they need it or not? That basically gives govt permission to steal money from these people. I disagree with that.

spot;744599 wrote: Because the amount they're capable of earning is insufficient to provide them with a roof, clothing and food if they have no other resources to pad out their income with?



But if that's the case Disability or not your discriminating against the rest of the population ...i would bet there are thousands of people who struggle daily to earn enough money to survive if you help one why not help everyone.



We've had a variety of replies. They range from favouring a universal disability benefit (pheasy, kayleneaussie, mrsK) to a means-tested social security (drumbunny, RedGlitter, pants) as a fallback after compulsory application to charitable foundations (Jester). As Itsme points out, the unavoidable consequence of means testing is a benefit trap where anything earned or donated is deducted from social security payments, holding the recipient to a base minimum with no way of getting anything additional.

Nobody has so far favoured paying social security to the deliberately unwaged able. Is that because you think state funding couldn't cope with the demand, or is it that you think it's morally bad for the recipient?

__________________

One thing i will never do is favour giving money to people who can and are able to go out and earn a living (scrounger's in other words) . Why should money be given to the woman who claims she can't work because she's got a bad back and needs constant care when her live-in lover works cash in hand and should be earning the money for them both...if their living as man and wife :-5:-5 How many generations will go on being idol because they've seen Mum and Dad sit on the fat arse smoking drugs and getting off their faces on booze because they have no incentive to get jobs . If someone is able to hold down a job then yes they should pay their way and only if they are incapable of holding down a job should they be given assistence .

It is not all that simple to claim benefits for disability in this country. The forms are over complex and Weasel worded.

I was put off from claiming for many years although I patently could not work having little or no bowel control and having no penis (penectomy), means I need a special toilet seat to take a pee.

I was just too embarrassed to face a medical in front of a strange Dr. and possibly lose control of my motions during the examination.

I survived for years on savings from when I did work and and my Mum "bailing me out".

In the end I had to make a claim and it was just as bad, if not worse than I imagined.

I can look back now and see the funny side of things especially when during the medical the cynical Dr. got MORE proof than he needed that I had no bowel control and I ruined his nice white lab coat:wah:

Seriously though it should be far simpler for genuine cases to claim. I guess a lot more genuine cases do no claim than their are "scroungers"

Paul.

Thank you Paul. What puzzles me is that a person's GP, who knows his caseload far better than a third party, isn't authorized to make that sort of decision. It would be cheaper, for one thing, and far less of a hurdle.

Pants, there are several points in what you wrote. Firstly you put one of those weasel words in - "the woman who claims she can't work because..." - either she has a bad back within the terms of disability payments or she hasn't. Let's assume she has a bad back which for the duration of her claim prevents her from working. Are you saying that a disabled person of working age should get no disability payments if their household income is above a minimum threshold because her partner "should be earning the money for them both"? That makes it yet another means-tested allowance.

Every means tested allowance is a poverty trap where additional income results in no extra money for the household. RedGlitter asked "How could that be fixed?" and it always comes down to means testing. Where a benefit is universal - like child allowance - there's no level set beyond which payments are withheld so all additional income is real money added to the household budget. There is no alternative way out of creating benefit traps other than removing means tests, it's simple arithmetic.

ThePheasant;743901 wrote: Because, he is human being that lives in this age of compassion and caring :rolleyes:, it is the states (via OUR money) responsibility to ensure that he has a comfortable life - food, heat and clothes etc. Even murderers in person get that FROM the state!!


Well Said! If we can give prisoners housing, food, education & health insurance, why do our legislators begrudge those same things to the most vulnerable of each state's population? While some disabled people are lucky enough to have family & their local community support, there are so many more who are left entirely to their own devices- frequently with disastrous results. I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed to confess that in Arizona, many emotionally ill and developmentally challenged wind up being taken to jail - and stored there. The state would rather give tax breaks to the rich, to developers, to major corporations, and then squander what's left on political chicanery & corruption, than use the money to build a network of community resources to support our most vulnerable. For that matter, our Child Protective Services division is among the poorest performing in the entire nation. But hey - so long as taxes don't get raised and no one's asked to shell out any extra, I guess that's all that matters around here. Considering how "cheap" life is to those in authority, I wonder how long it'll be before the most vulnerable are rounded up and euthanized - thereby not posing any "inconvenience" to general population. I do hope there's still enough compassion & outrage to curb that scenario!

Kindest regards