Mike Palumbo attended his first barn night a month ago and he immediately offerred to host an event. Mike was a police officer for a number of years and then became a lawyer. So he was able to share his unique perspective with us. He began the talk with a general discussion of estate planning, a topic of particular concern to those of us with again parents. We talked about wills, irrevocable trusts, gifting and various strategies for passing on inheritances and protecting assets. Then Mike shared some practical information about DWI and DUI law. What to say and not to say to the police officer. When to take or refuse the breatholizer test. The presentation ended with a lively discussion about prostitition and how police in Westchester are setting up sting operations for both prostitutes and men who frequent them. All in all it was an informative talk and we all left with a lot more knowlege of the law than when we arrived.
This was a fascinating evening that prompted concern about how to prepare for one’s parents — and one’s own — late years, when faltering health might necessitate nursing home care.
I found it strikingly ironic that this talk, on how to qualify for government — that is, tax (taxpayer) funded — aid and thereby avoid the burden of self-sustenance, was addressed to a crowd of men who (largely) oppose taxation in general, especially that that finances social services such as health care for folks who don’t have enough assets. I guess taxes are okay only when it takes care of “me and mine” but not when they care care of anyone else. In which case, the obvious question is “Why would you complain about taxes when you’re so obviously willing to benefit by them?!”
It seems to me if you’re going to oppose taxes, you better not accept any of the benefits that are paid for with them. If you believe in every citizen bearing the burden of self-sustenance, then you’d better forego all forms of collective security and pay out of pocket for your own health care, police protection, and traffic regulation.
Charles makes a good point.
New York is France with as much moral hazard.
I’m sorry I couldn’t make it, but one of the best kept secrets about Medicaid in New York is that it is not traditional health care for the poor that makes it the most expensive in the country, but nursing home care for those who have planned their estates to take advantage of NY law. Indeed, many snowbirds in Florida will return to NY if they need permanent care for this reason.
Everyone complains about school taxes, including the elderly, but since Medicaid is shared 25/25/50 (local, state, federal), a big burden on local property taxes is Medicaid planning like this.
I found this barn night very informative, as well as thought evoking.
Who would ever think that a talk about drinking, prostitution, and taxes would interest a bunch of middle aged guys?
Looking forward to the upcoming event, as always.
Charles I love to disagree with you as well as anyone else willing to listen to my arguments.
Since we (barn guys) all pay into medicare whether we oppose the tax or not why not try and get the benefit. The fact of the matter is that this is not a traditional tax but a form of insurance. But as with many government funded insurance programs, paying into it is no guarantee that you will receive benefits when you need them.
If I pay medicare insurance for all my working career why should I have to give up my home once I need medical benefits?
The real issue here is that there are many more non-paying benficiaries of medicare than there are paying beneficiries. So hard working people like you and I pay all our working careers so that people who cant afford medical care have some sort of medical umbrella; however, that benefit should also include those who paid. I should not have to forfeit my assets for medical care I fairly paid into.
Whether you support the Medicare program or not, Medicare is not a form of insurance in the traditional sense, but a form “social welfare insurance.” It’s packaged as “insurance” so politicians can better sell a tax on one group to pay the health care costs of another. The actuarial foundation of Medicare is quicksand–which is why no private insurer would ever fund the program No insurer could charge actuarially sound rates without howls of protests from participants. And your description, Khalil, of how everyone wants to get their fair share is a classic example of moral hazard and one more reason making the program totally unsustainable in the absence of government coercion.
Khalil, you mischaracterize my posting. I did not say that those who give should not get. My point was that, as the presentation that night made clear, people are very willing to get government assistance in ample quantities, whether or not they’ve actually paid for them. Why complain about having to pay into the system if you’re willing to collect from it?!
It’s the mindset of the typically uninformed conservative voter that taxes (as welfare funding is collected in the form of) should not be paid, but when it comes time to receive government largesse, palms are outstretched.
I see the same attitude in people who voice the delusion or conceit that THEY are paying their fair share while others don’t, even when they’re raking in much more benefits, e.g., paying $12,000 in health care insurance per year and getting $120,000 in services in return. These are the people who, if they could, would refuse to pay for “other people,” completely misunderstanding the principle of collective security, schemes for which welfare and health insurance are, even when they’re net beneficiaries of the communal pot.
Again: I’m not saying upscale fellows like us Barn guys shouldn’t try to milk the welfare system by pretending to be without assets so they can collect the money they kicked in to the system — and then perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars more. I’m saying that they should think twice about opening up their yaps to complain about pitching into to collective security schemes, especially those from which they’re ever so willing to collect — and possibly much more than they put in.
Charles