Reply
Tue 10 Jan, 2023 03:36 pm
Not only would you be doing yourself a great favor by not burdening yourself, but you'd be doing me a great favor as well. You see, I'd wanted to live on my own since I was 19. But no matter how hard I tried to get a job that would allow me to support myself, I didn't get such a job until I was 28. As of now, I am probably the oldest person in history to move out of my parents' house into my own place, seeing as how 22 seems to be the normal age for one to start supporting oneself.
As painful as that is for me to accept, all is not yet lost. Just like parents take care of their children until their children take care of themselves, children take care of their parents once the parents are no longer able to take care of themselves. Right now, I'm 30, while my father is 58 and my mother is 60. Since 65 is usually the age at which one is no longer able to take care of oneself, my parents are probably going to need my care 7 years from now, when I'm 37. Since I stopped needing my parents' support 6 years later than most people, I think it only fair that I start giving my parents my support 6 years earlier than most people. In an attempt to achieve this goal, I've tried to convince my parents to stop working, reassuring them that I'll give them everything they need. But they won't hear of it. Of course, it's possible that they'll become incapable of caring for themselves before 65, but I daren't get my hopes up. The bottom line is that I'm probably going to start caring for my parents when I'm 37.
Obviously, though 22 is the average age for becoming independent, some are lucky enough to achieve this goal earlier, while others achieve it later. I ask you to wait until you are as much older than 37 to take care of your parents as you were younger than 28 when you became independent. For instance, if you became independent at 24, you should wait until you're 41 to start taking care of your parents. If you became independent at 20, you should wait until you're 45 to start taking care of your parents. I will keep you updated over these next 7 years and let you know if, god forbid, my parents seem like they'll still be able to take care of themselves when I'm 37, in which case, I'll need you to wait even longer. But hopefully that won't happen.
What is that phrase the British use?
Oh yes, I’m gobsmacked!
My head hurts now, not sure if it's from that martini last night or this post.
@featiaeaor,
Who the hell is at death's door at age 65?
@featiaeaor,
I will take this that this person is very immature and naïve.
First off, since when is 65 the age at which one is no longer able to take care of oneself? Where did you hear that? Many heads of countries and companies are over 65. If you do not believe me, I suggest you do a quick google search for successful people over the age of 65 or similar. Whether it be celebrities or those working in the public sector many work and live own their to a significantly higher age.
As far as financially, why would you support them? Do you live in the US? Most people if they have worked all their lives should have some sort of combination of social security and a pension or 401k/403B/IRA or similar so that they can live independently on their own. I am significantly younger and I have a money already being put away in such an account so I will be able to have money at retirement
And some people enjoy their career and will want to continue to work at 65, 70 and even more. What you say makes no sense unless you are aware your parents are frail and ill already. To me you would take care of someone you love IF they need it; not because you have some sort of obligation to them. It should not depend on how much time they supported you or not. It is not tit for tat sort of thing. Your parents may never need you, they could quite honestly want to remain independent and are enjoying their home WITHOUT you.
Why do you even have this idea?
@featiaeaor,
So where in this link does it state 65 is the magic age in which you become dependent? If anything this link says the opposite.
@RPhalange,
There ‘ya go … trying to make sense out of this matter.
@RPhalange,
Did you read the part that says that "a person aged 65 years or more is often referred to as 'elderly'"?
@featiaeaor,
Did you read all the comments about people taking care of themselves well into their 80's?
@featiaeaor,
Did you read the part where they were questioning where it did not make sense that elderly was 65 but perhaps 75? Or it was depending on the individual and their health and circumstance?
In either case where does being elderly mean you are dependent? You can still be considered elderly but not need anyone to take care of you.
The president of the US is 80.. we don’t see his children taking care of him. It is quite the opposite he is leading an entire country.
@RPhalange,
"The president of the US is 80.. we don’t see his children taking care of him. It is quite the opposite he is leading an entire country."
Yes, the president, the leader of one of the biggest countries in the world, isn't in any way exceptional.
@featiaeaor,
Is there somebody who looks after you?
Tell them you need to soothe your distempered brain.
@izzythepush,
I'm hoping that I won't need to be taken care of again until I'm 71. Since I gained the ability to take care of myself 6 years later than most people, I'm assuming I'm also going to lose the ability to take care of myself 6 years later than most people. After all, according to Isaac Newton, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace