http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=307&Topic2id=95
Posted on 11/27/2006 7:58:14 AM PST by SmithL
All those baby boomers with aging parents should pay close attention to a recent court decision in California. An appeals court ruling in a nasty divorce in Placer County highlights the little known but significant legal obligation of adult children who, to the extent they are able, should support their indigent parents.
In the case before the appeals court, a divorcing wife disputed her husband's right to deduct from the proceeds of her share of community property the $12,000 he had spent to support his elderly, infirm mother. The wife called the support payments "an unauthorized gift of community funds." The trial court commissioner agreed with her. "You know as well as I do," Placer County Commissioner Colleen M. Nichols said in the opinion, "that you're under no legal obligation to pay for your parent's expenses just as you're under no obligation to pay for your child's expenses once they are over the age of 18."
But in a unanimous ruling that is binding on courts across California unless overturned by the state Supreme Court, the 3rd District Court of Appeal emphatically disagreed with Nichols. "Though not commonly known," Associate Justice Vance Raye wrote for a three-judge panel, "California is one of many states that have enacted filial responsibility laws imposing on adult children obligations akin to those imposed on parents with respect to minor children." With the exception of those circumstances where parents were known to have abandoned a child, the justice noted, "neglect of an indigent parent is punishable as a misdemeanor." Penal Code Section 270c specifically provides that "every adult child who, having the ability so to do, fails to provide necessary food, clothing, shelter or medical attendance for an indigent parent, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The confusion comes from using ONLY the federal tax as a base for comparison. If you add all taxes (state, sales, property, local, social security etc ...) than the US taxes are not so different from taxes in Sweden.
I'd go to jail rather than support my parents. I'm *way* too compassionate in most areas, but I feel NO obligation to pay the way for people who feel entitled to other people's money and who did everything possible to screw up their own lives make themselves destitute. They're not dragging me down with them.
I'll front my mom some money for medical bills or get her some groceries, but that's about it.
Don't forget, it is sometimes a BAD thing to give too much. If you take away all motivation for success you end up with a couch potato who feels entitled to everything *you* own and will *never* take responsibility for their own lives.
So why don't you just say that having the government steal from you to give to others is wrong in the first place. All you're doing is justifying the states unjust use of force against those ungrateful children by noting it's unjust use of force against you.
This is not the whim of an "idiot judge," (though lord knows there are plenty of them out there). This panel of judges is merely enforcing law as enacted by the CA legislature and presumably signed by the governor.
In this case, the individual was and wanted to provide financial support for a needy parent and the greedy ex wanted it instead.
I would never leave my dad or either of my grandmothers high and dry, but my parents made it clear to me that the debt I owe them is payable to my children (when I have them).
Fortunately, my family has enough assets and insurance that we should be able to weather a crisis; if I had to choose between a nursing home for my elders or college for my children, that would be a cruel choice, but not one I would want a judge to make for me.
"neglect of an indigent parent is punishable as a misdemeanor."
WOW!!! I kinda like the idea of children getting back to taking care of their parents. However, a misdemeanor??? I don't know if I want the government dictating this. I guess the boomers will have another similiar situation. Not only do they take drugs, have abortions, buy with credit...now they can add criminal to the list. lol. Yes my parents are Boomers (both 60 this year) and I will take care of them and actually they did take care of their parents not all of them do. As an X'er I know that I will and my generation will as well.
Do I need to?
As long as scumbag government works the way it does, then I am all for court rulings like this one.
Because in this case at least, government (court) meddling reduces my burden for once.
The law is just as idiotic as the judge then. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right.
In today's world, the concept of "support" shouldn't be a factor in divorces either, especially with Women being able to earn as much if not more than their husbands/soon to be exes.
Idiocy is idiocy, be it in law, on a bench, or in divorce court. But then I don't expect the sheeple to understand that concept.
bump
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The graph you provided is bogus. Do you really believe that total taxes (federal AND all others) in USA are only 25%?
USA GDP is above 11 trillion. Just the FEDERAL budget is about 25% of it.
I am one who always planned on taking care of my daddy when he was much older. He died, though, so that won't happen. :-( But, I would have a problem with my mom tracking me down in another twenty or thirty years insisting that I take care of her, even though we never got along when I was a child and she was toxic to be around when I became an adult. My wonderful husband is the one who finally told her unless she makes some serious changes in her life she is not welcome in our home.
I have told my children that we will probably help them out when needed, but they really should work through college. Otherwise, they will have to let my husband and me move in with them as soon as they graduate, since we won't be able to set aside money for ourselves. hehe
People are people. Making the Depression Era Americans into some kind of saints is like making Noble Savages out of American Indians. Likewise, demonizing the Boomers.
The Depression Era Americans brought about our present welfare state. They've got a huge "entitelment" mentality, just like anyone else. I hear their frugality praised, but the other side of frugality is miserliness and meanness and poor-mouthing even when blessings are plentiful.
Another point is we are a society that has moved away from 'caring' for others....and I mean burying our dead ourselves after washing and preparing the bodies. Feeding, bathing etc our elders as they became frailer and frailer....the hands part of all aspects of life are now missing.
We hire it out as a skilled task or see it as too difficult or even demeaning.
It used to be that it was part of the fabric of life to help granny get ready for bed, or help Uncle Harry eat etc--- right up until death. It was part of the family structure and no one thought twice. Now adults are sent to homes the instant they can't do the simplest task.
Something is fake in these stats. 26% of GDP is about the size of federal budget ONLY.
US GDP is about 11 to 12 trillion. Federal budget is about 25% of it. But there are other layers of government and taxes in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.