|
larry g
|
Just another poster wrote: <quoted text>
Those were DONATED to the family - they didn't go out and buy them. The problem is, IF you had been paying attention to the article, the improvements to the home - a 3 foot deep theraputic pool, the kitchen makeover and the handicap accessible "frills" like lifts on tracks to make it easier to move handicapped adults have increased the taxes on the home. This family was getting along while the father was able to work 2 and 3 jobs. Now that he is handicapped as well and unable to work, they are faced with losing their home.
The family does have a big screen TV - looks like one that could be purchased for 600 or 700 dollars these days. It's not a plasma or LCD High definition flat panel - just a big old TV. So what kind of TV do you think would be OK for them to own? None perhaps?
Keeping the handicapped family members at home is saving the taxpayers of CT a PILE of money. But you are griping about things that were given to them by caring friends and neighbors. Really, you should be ashamed of yourself!
I guess if Extreme Makeover came and did that for the family, you'd be OK with it? Or would you be jealous of that too?
What "other things" by the way? You really didn't read the article did you??? I don't like Extreme makeover either . I'll say again maybe the friends should have paid the mortgage and the taxes instead of buying a 20,000 pool . If you don't have a house you don't need a pool . The pool does them a lot of good when they lose the house . I don't care how you spin it , they should have paid bills first.
|
|
larry g
|
Follow the Money wrote: <quoted text>
OK Larry, hang on doll 'cause we're gonna be going fast here.
The donated improvements changed her assessment, which changed her taxes. You with me so far babe? Ok, "Savings" means what? The opposite of "spending" right? Ok. So this Mom is providing in home care to 2 very sick kids. Institutionalized, these 2 could easily consume --or spend--over a quarter million bucks a year in basic health care costs. That's if they just lay there and never get sick, which is not likely.
Sooooo, if she keeps them at home, how much did the taxpayers save? Message your response to this group of eagerly awaiting taxpayers. so what , if she loses the house because the taxes are not paid the kids won't have anywhere to live. I would ask why she would have another child after the first one wasn't healthy but then I'm really a grinch . They are not responsible for any of their problem . Is that what you want me to say? Well I not , how was a 20,000 pool not going to change the assessment?
|
|
Shell Shocked
|
larry g wrote: <quoted text>
so what , if she loses the house because the taxes are not paid the kids won't have anywhere to live. I would ask why she would have another
child after the first one wasn't healthy but then
I'm really a grinch . They are not responsible for any of their problem . Is that what you want me to say? Well I not , how was a 20,000 pool not going to change the assessment? Yes, you are a grinch but it's OK. It was unknown that there was a strong probability of a second severely handicapped kid at the time of the second pregnancy. I have learned not to get too eager when telling people who should reproduce and who should not. Of course a pool would change your assessment. She missed the deadline to challenge her (likely) excessive new rate. That's the part she's responsible for. This woman married young, and it sounds like the husband took care of the bills until he fell apart. Sadly, this happens to many women who are so engrossed in caretaking that they don't learn how to manage the bills. Just watch the video clip at the header of this article. She's a hard working Mom who is the world's leading authority on those 2 kids. Let's figure out the value of her labor and compensate her fairly, that's the point here.
|
|
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
|
larry g wrote: <quoted text>
I don't like Extreme makeover either .
I'll say again maybe the friends should have paid the mortgage and the taxes instead of buying a 20,000 pool . If you don't have a house you don't need a pool . The pool does them a lot of good when they lose the house . I don't care how you spin it , they should have paid bills first. Which part of "the pool was donated" did you not understand? The pool was for the kids - being able to get exercise in a pool is therapuetic to them and the bouyancy imparted by being in water makes it easier for their caretakers to manage them. You are worse than a grinch - at least the grinch had a heart, albeit two sizes too small. You seem to have no heart at all.
|
|
Nick
|
larry g wrote: <quoted text>
I don't care how you spin it , they should have paid bills first. Just for sport how do you pay a bill that does not exist? When the improvements were made the tax bill you are syaing should have been "saved for" did not exist. Do you save money today for a possible increase in property taxes that you cannot even know what they will be? Also most people would think that "handicap improvements" are not taxed like regular improvements ot a home. Ever consider boiling this down to it's simplest form. The town may very well have been incorrect in the reevaluation of the property.Now it will take time and money to bring the town into court to get it done correctly. If they had done it correctly these people wouldnt been in this mess.But then you wouldnt have anything to complain about thn either
|
|
A Mom in Bolton
|
larry g wrote: <quoted text>
I read enough to know that she spent money on frills not bills Try taking care of someone that is severely handicapped as these children are. There are no frills! Your'e a bonehead no matter how you cut it. You should keep your mouth shut, because every word that comes out of it spells "ignorant."
|
|
Follow the Money
|
A Mom in Bolton wrote: <quoted text>
Try taking care of someone that is severely handicapped as these children are. There are no frills! Your'e a bonehead no matter how you cut it. You should keep your mouth shut, because every word that comes out of it spells "ignorant." I answered him. He doesn't seem to want to come back and play though... You're right Mom. As caretakers our work is uncompensated. As caretakers of severely handicapped citizens, I would argue that it should be. These two adult children are EXPENSIVE. I could put four kids through a year of college on the amount of dollars these ONE of these two would consume in health care costs.
|
|
Follow the Money
|
Judged:
1
While the rest of us Moms are having our celebrations, everyone who posted here should not forget this woman. Happy Mother's Day.
|
|
larry g
|
A Mom in Bolton wrote: <quoted text>
Try taking care of someone that is severely handicapped as these children are. There are no frills! Your'e a bonehead no matter how you cut it. You should keep your mouth shut, because every word that comes out of it spells "ignorant." you know I'm going to take your advice and SHUT UP . I seem to have upset some folks.
|
|
exposem
|
Follow the Money wrote: <quoted text>
Refusing to admit any mistake is kinda infantile. But it is, unfortunately, human nature,
I feel bad that the woman in this thread is being attacked for a donated pool and kitchen while she is struggling to care for two handicapped children and spending her "spare time" with her sick husband. I don't believe she has made any mistakes in managing her home. It would be nice if kindness were the weapon of choice here. It would also be enlightening to see an accounting of exactly how many dollars she has saved the taxpayers by caring for her kids at home. This type of care is easily 7 figures annually per child.
I hope she has no time to read some of these remarks. They're hurtful and not particularly insightful. Yes, I agree. Another case for single payor.
|
|
exposem
|
Follow the Money wrote: <quoted text>
Did you consider that the lawyers may not want us to know how much they got and that's why it's sealed? I would be happy enough just to know the name of the doctor and why the mistake happened. None of us should be subject to naive risks. As far as the financial settlement, the Data Bank can keep the numbers secret, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
larry g
|
Follow the Money wrote: <quoted text>
I answered him. He doesn't seem to want to come back and play though...
You're right Mom. As caretakers our work is uncompensated. As caretakers of severely handicapped citizens, I would argue that it should be.
These two adult children are EXPENSIVE. I could put four kids through a year of college on the amount of dollars these ONE of these two would consume in health care costs. I don't understand why the public should pay you to take care of your severely handicapped children ? I sympathize , but I bet you believe in personal responsiblility . Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you should get angry .
|
|
larry g
|
A Mom in Bolton wrote: <quoted text>
Try taking care of someone that is severely handicapped as these children are. There are no frills! Your'e a bonehead no matter how you cut it. You should keep your mouth shut, because every word that comes out of it spells "ignorant." Once I had one child with problems I certainly would not have another . I still say that if you improve your house your assessment goes up and you should plan for it . Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you should call me names.
|
|
exposem
|
larry g wrote: <quoted text>
I don't understand why the public should pay you to take care of your severely handicapped children ?
I sympathize , but I bet you believe in personal responsiblility .
Just because I don't agree with you
doesn't mean you should get angry . In Canada, where there is single payor insurance, people who have to care for chronically ill family members get paid LPN wages. Why shouldn't they? Somebody has to do it. And it is best for the kids, especially if the parent does it willingly and warmly.
|
|
exposem
|
larry g wrote: <quoted text>
I don't understand why the public should pay you to take care of your severely handicapped children ? This statement brings to mind something that Marilyn Mach Vos Savant said(she has the highest I.Q. on record). She said something to the effect that we could cull our weakest members of society by witholding help, but that it would cost us too much - it would cost us our HUMANITY! That price is much higher than money. Tommorow isn't promised to any of us. How do you know, sir, that tommorow you won't go to the doctor and find a blood clot in the wrong place, or find a mutation that turned to cancer, or have a car accident?
|
|
kbaann
|
Stan Simpson is an idiot wrote: <quoted text>
$20,000 pool raises her taxes and her costs of maintenance. I felt sorry for her until I saw that. If she fills it in, her taxes will be less as well as her carrying costs. Go to the public pool, that is why you pay taxes. Can you use the public pool for daily physical therapy? Doubt it. Size of pool may be a luxury, but if she's not driving the whole family to separate daily therapies in a public pool, it's justifiable.
|
Judge it!
