so many young adults living with parents

[Pommer]

Lilac,

I'm not opposed to meeting the gentlemen expressing interest in my daughter. But we have protocols for doing so. I don't want a fleet of men traipsing through my home. Meeting the family is an integral part of the dating process. But the groundwork should be laid to assess character and suitability before reaching that point. I broach this in stages.

Stage 1: Shared meal in a public venue. It allows each to develop familiarity without the pressure and expectations "going home" implies. This will be lunch or brunch.

Stage 2: Second meeting in a public space or event. Lunch or breakfast.

Stage 3: Invitation to dinner.

My home is my sanctuary. Invitations are personal and dinner is intimate. I have to be comfortable with the people sitting around my table. I like authentic relationships and discourse. By the time someone comes over you should have an idea where the connection is going. There should be no ambiguity at that point.

Some families do this sooner. But I'm single. I have to exercise common sense and propriety for my welfare and hers.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

I liked this for “traipsing”.

 

[cow451]

I liked this for “traipsing”.

That and “heathen” were two of my Mother’s most commonly used words. She didn’t like my heathen friends traipsing through the house

 

[FireDragon76]

That's funny because I'm Gen-X and I thought we had some issues with the Boomers going back to the early 90s.

Ditto. Millenials want to pretend they've discovered some new revelation, oblivious to the fact that there's alot of us X'ers who saw the Baby Boomers up close and personal while they were still a twinkle in somebody's eye.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Ditto. Millenials want to pretend they've discovered some new revelation, oblivious to the fact that there's alot of us X'ers who saw the Baby Boomers up close and personal while they were still a twinkle in somebody's eye.

I think crazy people think thing stupid things . I have no problems with Baby Boomers, even though Trump fans might.

 

[Paidiske]

These are not personal but structural questions for me. There are genuine questions to be asked about social infrastructure, access to affordable housing, access to education and employment opportunities, access to social supports (both formal and informal), the flow of economic prosperity, and how these things impact differently on different generations due to laws, tax arrangements, government institutions and so on.

It seems clear to me that at the moment, some of these things benefit older citizens more than young adults (at least, where I am, and I'm given to understand there are similar dynamics overseas). There are real questions around how our society can continue (or indeed begin) to provide a reasonable standard of living for all, and how we should handle generational transfer of wealth.

That's not a matter of hating particular people or groups of people, but of asking hard questions about things like disproportionate influence, and who benefits, and who is oppressed, by our current situation.

 

[bèlla]

Generational transfer of wealth will never be touched. It’s a sacred cow and immensely protected. Some would like to limit what can be passed on to family members but it will never happen.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

 

[mama2one]

Generational transfer of wealth will never be touched. Some would like to limit what can be passed on to family members but it will never happen

limited by TIME

if one waits too long & ends up needing to go on medicaid (such as for a nursing home) ,it's too late to give anything to your kids then as it will affect ability to qualify


many don't realize how costly nursing homes are AND don't believe they'll ever need one

 

[bèlla]

if one waits too long & ends up needing to go on medicaid (such as for a nursing home) ,it's too late to give anything to your kids then as it will affect ability to qualify

christine,

Are you suggesting Christians should transfer their resources to loved ones and allow the government to shoulder health care expenses? Medicaid is for low-income people.

many don't realize how costly nursing homes are AND don't believe they'll ever need one

My grandmother was in a nursing home. She was self-pay for the majority of her time there. It was nearly $10K per month. The facility was extremely good and well rated.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

 

[mama2one]

Are you suggesting Christians should transfer their resources to loved ones and allow the government to shoulder health care expenses? Medicaid is for low-income people.

I said one CAN'T give anything to loved ones if they are about to go on medicaid

 

[bèlla]

I said one CAN'T give anything to loved ones if they are about to go on medicaid

christine,

Your comment reads differently. This was your reply to generational wealth:

limited by TIME
if one waits too long & ends up needing to go on medicaid

I asked for clarification because many people give away money to make certain they qualify later on. I don’t agree with that practice.

At any rate, pay-to-play has entered medicine and there’s little benefit for that scheme. Boutique physicians provide the best services and the wait for specialists is shorter than insured recipients encounter.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

 

[mama2one]

what I'm saying is people would like to give money to their kids in their will but TIME sneeks up on them & they get sick & need to go into a costly home only to have their assets eaten up quickly & then forced to go on medicaid

so there is no money left

 

[bèlla]

The context I’m referencing in my comment is inherited wealth. Some disagree with large sums being passed to loved ones and believe it provides an unfair advantage to future descendants.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

 

[bèlla]

what I'm saying is people would like to give money to their kids in their will but TIME sneeks up on them & they get sick & need to go into a costly home only to have their assets eaten up quickly & then forced to go on medicaid

christine,

A financial or estate planner can address that earlier. If you create a fund when a child is born you wouldn’t need to touch your resources at all.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not directly critiquing the idea of inheritance, but more questioning what happens when (for example) economic structures allow an older generation to accrue wealth at the expense of opportunities for a younger generation (we see this question play out particularly around housing affordability in Australia).

I'm not sure if tax breaks around negative gearing a mortgage is a thing in America, but it was a significant issue coming up to our last federal election because of the disproportionately negative impacts it has on people who have not yet been able to buy a home, while the benefits accrue to the relatively already-financially-secure.

 

[FireDragon76]

Generational transfer of wealth will never be touched. It’s a sacred cow and immensely protected. Some would like to limit what can be passed on to family members but it will never happen.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

At least in the US, it used to be a thing, but a certain political party came up with catchy sound bites like "death tax" and managed to take it off the table.

 

[bèlla]

At least in the US, it used to be a thing, but a certain political party came up with catchy sound bites like "death tax" and managed to take it off the table.

FireDragon,

It hasn't left the table. There are numerous vehicles you can utilize to pass on wealth. I provided an example in my previous comment. It's very popular.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella