Ethical Question - eating subsidized meals?

[terry1156]

from <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/21/pf/do_right_elderly_0511/index.htm">money.com</a>

I live in a nice, but not fancy, retirement community. Every week one of our clubhouses provides a special lunch for low-income people that is subsidized by the government and costs only $1.50.

Many of my friends here routinely take advantage of this lunch, even though they are all financially secure. They say they're entitled to the meal because "income" means money earned from a job and they're too old to work, and because this country owes a lot to seniors for all that our generation has done. Can they be right?

[sweeps]

Unethical.

[jodi]

Hmmm...tough call. On one hand, when DH lost his job a few months ago, we probably would have qualified for WIC or maybe some other benefits, but since we did not need them (I have a good, PT job and we have no housing expenses), we did not get them. I would have felt that I was taking them from someone who did need them. On the other hand, we did accept unemployment benefits. We felt entitled since we had paid into unemployment for all our working lives and we were suddenly, and indefinitely, without $30k in income. DH is currently in a program that continues to pay him some benefits while he goes back to school, as he is unlikely to find a stable job in his past field. I do feel guilty about this, as I know we are doing better than a lot of people due to some wise decisions, but does that mean we are less entitled to it than them?

Is accepting this lunch possibly taking money or food away from other sources that could feed needier seniors? If that's the case, then I would not agree with their reasoning. Or perhaps some of the seniors are not as well off as thought and use this excuse to mask that? If so, they have a valid reason. I don't know if there is an easy answer.

[cicy33]

I don't see a real problem with it. It's not like they can just go get a job. What happens if they lose their retirement (and yes it does happen), maybe saving a little here or there can help them keep going. If they qualify that is what matters.

[kashi]

If the meals are meant for low-income people and subsidized by the government, I am surprised that they aren't asking for proof from the people eating the meals that they are truly low-income. Whoever is getting the money must have to provide data to the federal government proving that they are serving low-income people.

If by 'low-income' they mean 'retired', they should just say that the meals are for the retirement community. Or that the meals are for seniors.

[Fern]

I sympathize with anyone on a fixed income, bu ethically, it's clearly not right.

[PRICEPLUS]

I don't see it as unethical. Retirement income is generally fixed. Heck, even stores around here give seniors 10% discounts. I also think it important that seniors recieve a good meal. A lot of times older people fail to eat.

Generally though you are eligible for these programs due to age and not necessarily economic status.

I took a friend of mine who is a good deal older than I to the movies. I have gray hair and went gray fairly young. The kid behind the ticket counter popped up two senior discount tickets without even asking my age. My elderly friend stated laughing heartily. I on the other hand was too embarassed to say a word. Ethically I should have told the teen that I was not a senior but at the time I could not go there if you know what I mean.

Is it right that seniors get discounts? Yeah. I think it is okay. Is it right to subsidize meals for seniors? Yeah, that is okay with me as well.

[getforfree]

As long as they quialify, that's fine. Sometimes people may have exactly the same income but because some are frugal and the others aren't, some are financially secure and the others aren't. Having some money doesn't only depends on income, it also depends a lot on how much they spend. As long as their income is low, they qualify. And its their business how they want to spend it. They can save it and have lots of cash, or spend all of it.

[Ima saver]

If they have plenty of money, they should not get low cost meals. I am all for senior discounts.

[boefixepa]

This is just one of those times were each has to make a personal decision. Personally, I won't do it if I didn't need it. But I wouldn't think twice if the need was real. I think need is a better measuring stick than "qualifying" for something. Many times, actaully most times, we are the product of our own choices. Unfortunetly we get ourselves into trouble quite often and then look to others to bail us out. It takes quite a mental shift to switch from a "taker" to a "giver" and often times the "takers" are making more acutal dollars than the "givers." I don't know if this makes sense, but I hope you can see what I'm trying to say.

[zakity]

If they are seniors and retired, then I don't have a problem with it. They need to make their retirement dollars stretch as far as possible. I am assuming also that they are being relatively frugal in their everday lives.

If they retired early and are not senoirs, then I don't think it is ok. They are young enough that they can get a part time job and supplement their retirement still.

[getforfree]

Asking poor old people to work is same as asking a SAHM to work nights when the dh is home. I have little kids and I work nights, its hard. But I work because I want the extra money, not because I have to.

[zakity]

Yeah, I know how hard it is. I too worked at night. It was supposed to only be a part time job, but I worked about 35 hours a week (or more) most of the time. I did this schedule for 6.5 years. I started the job the day my twins turned 7 weeks old. I also homeschooled my boys (they all have learning issues and school wouldn't be a good fit for them). We do revisit the night job thing occasionally, but we just don't need the extra money right now.

Some of the "poor old people" aren't able to get jobs. There are only so many "Walmart greeter" type of jobs available to the seniors. Some of them are in poor health and aren't able to work, but they aren't in bad health and they will live for years. These subsidized meals are also a reason for them to get out of the house and to socialize.

My grandmother is one of these seniors. She is 74 or 75 (she doesn't like the "age" thing, we just all say that she is 29 again). She worked at a factory with rotating shifts most of her life. Her new husband is about that same age also. He worked at a factory (12 hour shifts at night) for all of his working life and he was in the reserves (Army, I think) for 20+ years. They are both in good health, but not great health. I don't think that either of them have the stamina for a job (other than a part-time "Walmart greeter" type of job).

[Ima saver]

It is really hard to get a job when you get older. First of all, most senior citizens don't know how to use a computer. I tried to get a job several times and no one would even call me back.

[shelbylovesmelby]

I don't think they should base it on the fact that the pre-baby boomers did alot for this country so they feel deserving of a $1.50 meal. They should base it on "need".

But like another poster said alot of seniors skip eating & if it's in a social-like setting in a way it wouldn't hurt because there are alot of shut-in's who may not have the opportunity to get out there & socialize.

My mom qualifies for such a program in her apt building. She also likes it because it gets her out of her apt for a bit & she can gossip with the neighbors ect.

[debtdude]

Sounds like your gut instinct says it's wrong. Go with that feeling.

The phrase "because this country owes a lot to seniors for all that our generation has done" is a person's way of justifying their participation in something illegal and/or immoral. You don't need to confront them, but you absence at such meals will speak louder than words.

[getforfree]

even though its sponsored by the govmnt, they still have to spend $1.50. Its less compare to other meals you can get outside, but its more expencive than if you would cook it at home. So if I would be senior, I would think twice before going to that meal, its cheaper to eat it at home (if you shop like me with coupons rebates and I stockpile).

[kashi]

Just to clarify - the original post was not terry1156 speaking. It was an article on money.com (linked at the top of his post).

[markio26]

let me tell you firsthand about millionaires and billionaires.. i personally know and am good friends with several of them...... they are CHEAP........ they are moochers... they do not pay their bills... if a bill is under $1000, they do not pay..... if they owe a friend who is self employed, they do not pay him... their lawyer sends a letter complaining about what is wrong with the supplies, construction, etc. they have an accounts manager who evicts all of their tenants, then they remodel and write it off at a loss.. most of them have corps set up in vegas or somewhere and work in different states as a business.. they have tax shelters, they let their lawyers do the talking.. they befriend the little guy and then take him for what he is worth...i know how they play their games, i do not do any business with any of them. most are alcoholic, most are womanizers, most of them have their wives or kids running other businesses, all of them have mistresses in fla. it just goes on and on.. i have never met an honest person yet, who has great wealth... i have seen them destroy a persons credit worthiness from cheap talk, sent out from their buddies.. never directly from them...
yes, they would eat the cheaper meals and pay the lower price.

[getforfree]

is that the only way to get rich?