Ethical situation: using parents to gain advantage

[NetWareHead]

I have a buddy who purchased a house recently and invited his elderly parents to come and live with him. He is a devoted son and him and his wife seem to have no problem caring for his parents. We were talking and somehow got onto this topic where he has applied his parents (with their full consent) for all sorts of government programs. For instance, both of his parents are disabled and have health problems. So he applied for disability for them and a govt check now arrives in the mail.

He also applied them for welfare and food stamps. Now more checks arrive for the parents and there are enough dollars in the food stamp plan each month that the entire house can eat.

Now he is in the finishing stages of getting rental assistance for his parents. By designating himself as a landlord and his parents as tenants, he will be receiving rental assistance as well.

His parents have pledged their full support and want to help their son in any way possible. Has anyone else heard of this? I became involved in a debate with some coworkers today and the opinions ranged across the board from no problem at all, to unethical. What do you guys think?

 

[Bignate603]

I think the line is crossed when the income he's getting from the programs exceeds the cost of him carrying for his parents.

 

[xanis]

Seems ethical to me provided both parties are on the same page. In your friend's case it seems like both he and his parents know exactly what they're doing and neither has a problem with it.

 

[MJinZ]

Fair abuse of government assistance programs.

It depends on how you view the "fairness" and "abuse". On one hand, if you fairly qualify for the programs under all the rules and regulations, there is no real problem. "Abuse" means that the intent and spirit of the program is not being honored.

 

[eldorado99]

I see no problem as long as the money he gets approximately covers how much it costs to have his parents live there.

 

[sjwaste]

These programs exist and would presumably pay the same for an arms-length transaction, so I'm not sure that they're doing anything wrong. I'd say its unethical for him to use excess food stamps for anyone but the beneficiaries. Otherwise, they basically are his tenants, so I don't see much of a problem.

 

[xanis]

Fair abuse of government assistance programs.

It depends on how you view the "fairness" and "abuse". On one hand, if you fairly qualify for the programs under all the rules and regulations, there is no real problem. "Abuse" means that the intent and spirit of the program is not being honored.

This seems to be the case here. The aid is being legally obtained by his parents. The aid is theirs to use however they see fit (within the intended purposes of course), yes?

 

[MJinZ]

This seems to be the case here. The aid is being legally obtained by his parents. The aid is theirs to use however they see fit (within the intended purposes of course), yes?

Yup, the disability is a given... all disabled peoples should qualify (within the rules) regardless of what they are doing with the money or where they live.

The food stamps and welfare is where I believe it is against the intent and spirit of food stamps and welfare - especially if you live in a place where your children can take care of you (willingly).

 

[nageov3t]

disability? whatever.
welfare/foodstamps? starting to push the edge.
landlord/tenant? sounds like outright fraud.

 

[MJinZ]

disability? whatever.
welfare/foodstamps? starting to push the edge.
landlord/tenant? sounds like outright fraud.

Yes, the rental assistance part is clearly abuse IMO.

 

[Nik]

There's a reason programs like this exist. There's nothing wrong with applying for all of them. If they all accept your application and start giving you money, then great. It's YOUR tax dollars you pay out, so why not take advantage of something that's offered to you?

Besides, I'd rather my tax dollars go to a family like this than some stupid ghetto shanty to fuel a drug habit.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Yes, the rental assistance part is clearly abuse IMO.

how so? presumably, they would qualify for it no matter where they rented so what changes if they are living with their son?

 

[nageov3t]

how so? presumably, they would qualify for it no matter where they rented so what changes if they are living with their son?

would the OP's "friend" be charging them rent if they didn't qualify for the vouchers?

 

[vi edit]

Besides, I'd rather my tax dollars go to a family like this than some stupid ghetto shanty to fuel a drug habit.

While I personally don't care for taking more than you need, I agree with this. I'd rather may tax dollars support that family than some white trash or ghetto family crapping out half a dozen kids they can't afford.

 

[MJinZ]

how so? presumably, they would qualify for it no matter where they rented so what changes if they are living with their son?

Because they are clearly not paying rent to their son.

If they were, the son should have been shot for being a fucker.

 

[sjwaste]

If they're receiving all of these benefits, the son presumably can't claim his parents as dependents on his taxes, right? I'm sure there's a bit of a tradeoff there, but it's not like if they weren't using these programs that the US Treasury wouldn't take the hit somewhere else.

 

[vi edit]

If they're receiving all of these benefits, the son presumably can't claim his parents as dependents on his taxes, right? I'm sure there's a bit of a tradeoff there, but it's not like if they weren't using these programs that the US Treasury wouldn't take the hit somewhere else.

Yeh, that's the other part. There's got to be some give/take on the son's taxes he'll have to account for. And if he isn't, then he deserves the full pentalty that he's owed for trying to game the system.

 

[MJinZ]

While I personally don't care for taking more than you need, I agree with this. I'd rather may tax dollars support that family than some white trash or ghetto family crapping out half a dozen kids they can't afford.

I still don't like this line of reasoning. It's like beating someone up is OK because it's better than raping or murdering them.

 

[NetWareHead]

Thanks for the opinions everyone...and the opinions so far expressed have been very similar to my coworker's opinions. The one sticking point is the disagreement on the renter/landlord situation.

Whether or not the renter or landlord are related, it still costs money to provide a place for the parents so why shouldn't the son be compensated? The mom and dad would have to apply for this program anyway...so why not have the gov't assistance go to the son?

Even if the son can take care of the parents willingly, that point is moot? What makes him different from an other landlord?

 

[vi edit]

I still don't like this line of reasoning. It's like beating someone up is OK because it's better than raping or murdering them.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Blame the government for a) allowing it to happen and b) being to big/lazy to do anything about it.

 

[nageov3t]

Thanks for the opinions everyone...and the opinions so far expressed have been very similar to my coworker's opinions. The one sticking point is the disagreement on the renter/landlord situation.

Whether or not the renter or landlord are related, it still costs money to provide a place for the parents so why shouldn't the son be compensated? The mom and dad would have to apply for this program anyway...so why not have the gov't assistance go to the son?

Even if the son can take care of the parents willingly, that point is moot? What makes him different from an other landlord?

is he giving them an apartment that he'd otherwise be making money off of?
is the rent they're paying him commensurate with other properties in the area?
will he be declaring it as income on his taxes and rezoning his house as a multi-family house (and paying the associated increased property taxes)?

 

[NetWareHead]

Because they are clearly not paying rent to their son.

If they were, the son should have been shot for being a fucker.

They might not be paying $$ to the son, but regardless of that, it still costs money to shelter the parents. I wouldn't charge my parents rent either if I were in this situation, but there still is a cost associated with housing and sheltering your family.

 

[MJinZ]

Thanks for the opinions everyone...and the opinions so far expressed have been very similar to my coworker's opinions. The one sticking point is the disagreement on the renter/landlord situation.

Whether or not the renter or landlord are related, it still costs money to provide a place for the parents so why shouldn't the son be compensated? The mom and dad would have to apply for this program anyway...so why not have the gov't assistance go to the son?

Even if the son can take care of the parents willingly, that point is moot? What makes him different from an other landlord?

We should have a new law from now on that forces all children to pay their parents back because they provided a place for kids to live, so why shouldn't they be compensated?

I think, $750/month *12 * 18 = $162,000 + year interest by the time of graduation is fair.

 

[Nik]

I still don't like this line of reasoning. It's like beating someone up is OK because it's better than raping or murdering them.

I'm surprised you didn't skip right to nazis. This is nothing like beating someone up or raping them or murdering them. What a ridiculous analogy.

That money WILL go to someone else. He's simply ensuring it goes to good use instead of some worthless social leech, like VI said, who's popping out kids left and right that they can't support, choose not to parent, and let run wild turning into the fucking bane of society and eventually growing up to be rappers.

 

[nageov3t]

They might not be paying $$ to the son, but regardless of that, it still costs money to shelter the parents. I wouldn't charge my parents rent either if I were in this situation, but there still is a cost associated with housing and sheltering your family.

is your friend seeking reimbursement for the minor increase in utility usage and wear/tear that having an extra 2 people in his house will incur, or will he be making profit on it?