Taxes and my brother-in-law

My brother-in-law John is 57. His mental age is around 5 or 6.

By being, John produces a number of jobs and tens of thousands of dollars in state and federal expenditures. Because John’s metal development was impeded by injuries during birth, he causes employment for a number of people who otherwise would have lower-paying jobs.

John lives at a home with three other men of similar impeded mental development. My mother-in-law pays an amount of money for rent, utilities, general upkeep and lawn care. Medicaid picks up the cost of care, the salaries of five house/care keepers and an on-call nurse – the things necessary for 24-hour care. Rent, food, utilities and salaries amount to several tens of thousands of dollars, probably more than $200,000.

Additionally, each resident at the home has a case worker, someone who monitors health and activities.

Then there is supervision of the group home, done by a state agency. The home has an assigned supervisor/inspector. She and the case workers have a supervisor, and the supervisor has a supervisor. And, there are federal agencies that check on state agencies.

John also has a job at a non-profit company. He does simple assembly of a specific part, on piece-work payment. The place where John works employs several people who oversee the mentally impeded workers. According to the a Form 990, as of June 30, 2012, the non-profit company reported revenue of around $770,000, with total assets of $1.2 million. The executive director received $64,927 in salary and $12,000 in other compensation. From 2007 through 2011, the company received $2.9 million in grants.

Of course, “non-profit” does not mean absence of profit or carry-over, but that the company was not established to make money, nor does it.

Much of John’s care is paid for through tax money. When news stories mention proposals to cut federal expenditures, I ask whether I would be willing to take John into my and my wife’s care. Would we be willing to pay someone to help him bathe, to help with after-bathroom visits? Willing, yes. Could we afford to? Maybe. But it is less expensive, and certainly less intrusive, to let the government pay, using your money and mine.