Personally, I don't like people making money from funerals. After all a life is lost. I have trouble accepting someone living weekly at the expense of someone else's life. I don't have any time for flowers that will wilt, when they could be appreciated in a public park for all people.

I also have an issue with charities who seem to make a lot of money from funerals. They seem to play with peoples emotions. They seem to use funerals to see people contribute money and of course people don't know where that money is going and being emotional they are unlikely to care.

So, is it right to make money from funerals?

Nathan,
From the grave digger upwards those who provide a service deserve to be paid fairly for their time, but, I agree that charities should not; flower sellers provide a desired service for some so there is reason for them to sell their wares.
On the other hand some people request that instead of flowers a donation might be made to the main player’s favourite charity, I see nothing wrong with this.

Undertakers are businesses just like any other and the work needs doing, so I don't see a problem with making money from funerals. But what exactly are the charities that seem to make a lot of money from funerals? What is it that make them seem to do that?

I agree with Issy and Aidan. "From the grave digger upwards those who provide a service deserve to be paid....Undertakers are businesses just like any other and the work needs doing".

Nathan, are you referring to the practice of charities asking for financial consideration in a persons will, a common practice?

On bequeaths, often a will is not worth the paper its written on when things get dirty and it all ends up in court and the legal people end up the main beneficiaries.

As I say to the wife; funerals are for the living, not for the dead, its toolate for them. In our western society despatching's are rather quick and fairly low key. In some cultures, like my wife's, it a rather long and drawn out affair, starting with the first 3 or 4 days, then another ceremony or two often years later. Respect for the dead ancestors takes pride of place for her people. How do some feel about getting down on the floor and kissing a dead body etc?

Good luck trying to get buried for nothing. Even a pauper's burial has to be paid for. DIY is not possibe. Is there are competition for stupid questions here?

funerals are a part and parcel of our lives.
The costs involved can be large as services
are provided - from undertakers, to coffins,
to burial plots, to church services, choirs,
priests, cars and transport,
and even to the wakes and catering
that follow the services.

Some people take out insurance for these events
Others put money aside. Cremation is a cheaper
option. It all adds up. Donating
to charities instead of flowers is a good option
and can do good.

Is it right to make money from funerals?
What other choice is there?
Services are provided - we will
get charged for them.

In any case we do have a choice in how much we want to
spend - and what we want to provide for the funeral.
Most people will want to do the best for their dearly
departed.

So right or wrong - money will be spent. At the death of
a loved one - the question of money is somehow the
last thing most people stop to consider.

My grandfather provided free funeral services for members of the Jewish community who lived nearby him in the Adirondacks in New York state. He continued a practice in the US that existed in the Europe of his time. As a sense of community is lost practices that used to be provided free have become professions. This was in the late nineteenth century.

There's a big difference in someone reading out some prayers to someone actually handling a body & burying it !
The latter must be paid for the work that far too many wouldn't go near.

My grandfather handled the body and prepared it for burial gratis. A Jew can be buried in a shroud so no coffin is necessary. He didn't actually dig the opening in the earth for the grave, but a professional undertaker doesn't do that either.

This is one of the most inane discussions I have seen. Funerals are services provided to enable people to farewell their loved ones, and those providing the services deserved to be paid.

shadowminister,

<<This is one of the most inane discussions I have seen.>>

Really?

Is it right to see people making money out of someone else's death, particularly comercially? Including by charities? Just because it has become common in some people's mind this doesn't make it acceptable.

A Cost of Death report, published by Australian Seniors, reveals that almost a third (32%) of Australian families are left in financial hardship after paying for a funeral – and they take at least six months to recover from the debt.

So, is it necessary to consider how funerals operate? David f here has provided an example. Could they be part of a Government service? I did some research and some State/Territory/Federal assistance can be provided, but only under certain circumstances.

Some people are also looking for alternatives, particularly to lower costs and have their needs met, including people having their own coffins made by local community groups & men's sheds for example.

http://www.abc.net.au/everyday/options-for-planning-a-funeral-in-australia/9990100

There are two other issues to consider: 1. Giving your body away for medical purposes. 2. Voluntary assisted dying which (some) states have also brought in.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-30/body-bequest-for-anu-medical-research/6357962

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-19/assisted-dying-laws-victoria-used-by-more-than-50-people/11979962

These elements to me have merit and should be considered if someone wants to go down those pathways. I will be giving my body away for medical research, not for funeral operator to make money.

SM,

It's not "inane" for Nathan. You know he has form. You and I seem to be the only posters who notice and don't encourage the nonsense - because we probably aren't "nice".

Funerals are not necessary. Some want to show their respect, while the deceased often have no say in the matter.

Both my mother & father requested a simple cremation, with no service, & their ashes be scattered in the garden.

I would like to revisit the Pacific islands, so after a similar cremation with no ceremony, I wish to be scattered at sea. No memorials, or grave stones for me thanks.

Funerals are optional and so should burials be.
As far as I am concerned, once my body stops serving me, it could be dumped in the green organic-recycling bin. Those who want should also be able to bury the bodies of their loved ones in their backyard. Having the body used for science is also a worthy option.

Those who succumb to social pressures/expectations, should not complain when they receive the bill.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I appreciate the first paragraph of your post.

However, one thing we humans have in our power is to complain. Whether our complaints are justified, reasonable or meaningful that is one thing we can do. To tell a person that they should not complain is asking that person to deny his or her humanity.

Dear David,

Well, I suppose it is about the nuances of the English language: I never even contemplated forbidding others to complain, what I meant by "should not" was that it would be improper/incorrect/unwise to complain under the circumstances.

Moreover, there is the "cry wolf" effect: if we complain about every little thing, then when a real catastrophe approaches, no one will take us seriously.

1. Benjamin Franklin- hospitals for the poor not because it was good for the poor- but good for the rich.

2. The user pays principle is one that is probably fair- But people die without money- we could provide a budget/ respectful/ hygienic/ civilized death process. A shroud as David F suggested and cremation. Of course we should be civilized enough to allow those who want to to view the body- expensive body preparations should be curtailed. Anything else can be provided by their family or their religious community. I don't have a problem with people paying for extra embellishments. People shouldn't be forced to pay for dying and people saying a few words. This could be covered by the taxes that they pay for in their lives. The government appears to force people to pay for certain things.

3. This is similar to the homeless situation- I can't see why we can't provide a cheap secure metal box to sleep in- and simple vegie soup twice a day- and a toilet block- at least in major cities. Sadly the engineered breakdown of the extended family and community has caused these issues. If there is an increase in the number of homeless this is a warning canary- we need to understand why this is happening not for the poor but for the loss in productivity that it represents.
The individualist "consumer society" envisaged by Edward Bernay's in the 1930's to control the faceless and dangerous herd has some interesting and deleterious side effects- including "if it feels right" philosophy.

Adam Curtis- The Century of the Self- Happiness Machines

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0720m7r
http://cosmolearning.org/documentaries/the-century-of-self-2002/1/

4. In traditional village societies we make sure no one drops out- the old watch out that the young move into a job- the young look after the old- the old offer wisdom and child care to the children. Now the old are not allowed to babysit- shipped away from their families. This is not a proper community.

Mass society is too hard but some activities require masses- what is the compromise?

There are too many people in the world.

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for the comments. I agree, particularly on family members digging a hole and place a family member there themselves. Finding the right person for the work, will cost nothing.

The problem is people have been sent a message (via a lot of advertising, marketing and traditions) that funerals (via a paid service provider for example) are civil and are the best way forward. That equates to a business seizing on people's emotions and seeing them pay financially. Charities getting involved have also played to emotions.

There is nothing wrong with buring a family member in a backyard, on a farm or on a private property. Many cemetaries run by local Councils are costing a lot of money to keep in good condition.

When one of my grandparents died many years ago, a ceremony was held at their church, there no was no exchange of money, people brought food to share and a cremation occured later. On the day of the ceremony I got to meet one of my grandparents friends (many of them) from years ago and some relatives I had never met before.

Hasbeen,

<<I would like to revisit the Pacific islands, so after a similar cremation with no ceremony, I wish to be scattered at sea. No memorials, or grave stones for me thanks.>>

As stated I will be giving my body over for medical research as I see the benefit in doing so compared to giving thousands of dollars to a business for a private service to use a bland space for some people to speak at and to be transported to be buried somewhere.

Canem Malum,

I agree with many of your sentiments on this topic and your wider discussion points, so thank you. A mix of Goverment and other support (like from churches, groups, families, friends etc) can address many issues in society at large, taking ethics into account.

In large cities cremation and recycling of burial plots might have to be considered more widely, as land pressure increases. On the point of "paupers graves", in Sydney they don't exist, its cremation. The deceased is transported to the morgue, then after the appropriate paperwork, taken to Botany Crematoria for incineration, then the "ashes" are disposed of on what's termed common ground (a garden), all very simple.

In Trumps America during the Covid it was burial by bulldozer. A long pit dug, stack in coffins, cover them over. Who can forget New Orleans, due to a very high water table, the dead are placed in crypts on the surface. That is until a big storm comes and the deceased go floating off down the street.

In London during the Great Plague, people were "buried" on top of the ground in mass graves in church yards. Today there are churches in London where the church is below the level of the surrounding cemetery.

After the Battle of Waterloo, large pits were dug by the survivors, not the dead, in went the dead from both sides, body parts, dead animals and their bits and pieces, end of story.

Most dead in the world today are disposed of in one way or another by their relatives or the local villages.

Nathan, thanks for the topic, something different, despite the moaning's of a couple of the Usual Suspects, who think they should be the arbitrators of Forum content and not GY. They see themselves as part of the highbrow born to rule class and the rightful arbitrators on everything.

Thanks for your feedback NathanJ.

It would indeed be good to see governments and
even Churches and charities making some provision
for the funerals of the most vulnerable people in society.

People who are poor, old, homeless, disabled,
and have no families or any one who can help.
We have a national health scheme. Why not something
similar for those who are eligible to cover funerals?
I'm sure
we'd all contribute something to a scheme like this.
It's a matter of working out the details. But surely
it could be done?

Paul,
An answer to the question of lack of burial space is vertical burials.
The first interments could be at 10x, x being the height required for a burial.
Then when all the area of the cemetery is used for 10x, the whole area would be reused for 9x.
With modern posthole borers there should be no problems.

Issy, you're no bloody conservative, you've got a real laugh out of me!

"With modern posthole borers there should be no problems"

Pardra; "We are gathered here today to farewell dear Uncle Thaddaeus, much loved Oddfella and bingo player.... Start the boring machine....

The congregation; "Oh no! the machines gone to deep... its bring up old Grandpa Remus!...stop the bloody machine! Someone cover grandmas eyes.

Machine driver; "It wont stop, the off buttons stuck!

Ahhh! there's Aunty Sal, she's in pieces! Someone turn off the bloody machine!

That boring machine idea actually has promise.

Instead of horisontal burial, why not vertical. You could save the space, with 4 or 5 vertical holes in the space of one horisontal. Surely we only use horisontal now as it is the accepted norm. They could not dig a 10 foot deep, 0.5 meter round hole with a pick & shovel.

Paul,
Not all boring machines are perfect, that’s why, on the 9x circuit the boring bars would be limited to 9x and so on.

Issy, you have opened my eyes to a whole lot of possibilities. Why bury the dead at all. Its a little known fact the taxidermy industry has suffered greatly thanks to Covid lockdowns, with very few corpses walking through the doors. Why should peoples usefulness end with their final breath? Once properly embalmed cadavers could fill a vast range of useful functions. Store mannequins for one, scarecrows for the outdoor types, rent a crowd for bottom of the table footy matches. But there's more, patrons at that Indian Curry House that no one goes to, make it look like people eat there despite the recent ptomaine poisoning outbreak traced back to the joint, who said chicken don't keep for a month in the cupboard. A mob of friends at Issy's birthday bash. A first date for all those no girl Nigel's who can't get a date for themselves. A mob down at Happy Ron's used car yard, make it look like people want to buy Ron's overpriced death traps. Issy there is hundreds more uses for the deceased. I'm sure you'll have some great suggestions......fertilizer.

Issy, good news with Uncle Thaddaeus's funeral. We managed to stuff Grandpa Remus back down the hole, and the kids had a scavenger hunt and gathered up most of Aunty Sal, which we took home for a family BBQ.

Paul,
Did you never see the film ‘Soylent Green’?
The dead were recycled into a nutritious food.

Is Mise- Boring Machines are interesting tools. An innovative solution. The problem with creating capacity though is it's usually used before the solution is in place. ie There are too many people in the world.

CM,
Another solution is externment in space; for a premium price we put them in orbit, all others we shoot into space where they will keep going forever always going away and leaving room for more.

I don't have a problem with people paying ten thousand dollars per kilo if they want to spread their ashes over The Earth. Probably better to just put them in the sea but it's their money. It would probably help the space industry. I hate to see waste.

BUT Issy,

Don't things in space have a habit of crashing back to Earth after 20 years or so? I don't want what's left of Uncle Thaddaeus, Grandpa Remus and Aunty Sal landing in the backyard during the young blokes 21st, it could put a dampener on the festivities, if you know what I mean!

There is too much debris in space already. I wanted to donate my body to a medical school. However, my wife had an anatomy class and was appalled by the levity and lack of respect shown to the cadavers by the medical students. I don't want the organic molecules of my remains destroyed by cremation. I would like to be buried in just a shroud as not to waste money on a coffin, but that is, I think, illegal. As I will be 96 next month my time is limited. I would like my remains to be recycled without any obsequies. Oh, what to do?

Dear David F.,

Your remains will be recycled in the natural process
of death. You asked "Oh, what to do?"

If I had any
influence on you and your family - I would chose for
you - not a shroud - but an oak coffin. I would have
the ancient Jewish prayer sequence (Kaddish) in a
synagogue service - and I would have a wake worthy of your
amazing life. I would have you buried in a cemetery
that had lots of trees and beautiful gardens where
your soul could rest in peace for all eternity.

cont'd ...

Dear David F.,

However, I would like you to continue to live long
enough at least to receive a letter from the Queen
(and beyond). We need your contributions to this forum.
It would be a much lesser place without you. So take
care and stay safe.

Hi Foxy, David is ace with me, without his level headed inputs you would have my nonsense and those hard right funsters and little else.

Back in the good old Dark Ages the dead were put to good use. The ones with the Pox were catapulted over the enemies wall, germ warfare. Maybe since we won't have nukes on our tubs, the covid dead in the torpedoe tubes. If Kimmy dies suddenly NK might strap him to a rocket and fire him at the South.

Dear Paul,

We need more posters like David F., that's for sure.
There's enough nastiness and division on online
forums - and moderate and well reasoned voices like
David's are certainly a breath of fresh air

Paul,
Then it’s deep space for you, good choice.
Once beyond Earth’s gravitational pull it’s a one way journey for eternity, or until one’s remains get into the influence of something with plenty of pull and then it’s burn up on entry.

Hi Issy,

I was going to suggest target practice down there at Gunnie HQ. Good old CH a mate of yours "my cold dead hand" got his wish. Move S Green tops. Edward G what was his last request? Do you remember. I had some last night for pudding.

As a person who is for moving towards zero emissions, I was very interested to find the following:

"Body composting a 'green' alternative to burial and cremation"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-26/body-composting-a-green-alternative-to-burial-cremation/100486964?utm_medium=social&utm_content=sf249845299&utm_campaign=fb_abc_news&utm_source=m.facebook.com&sf249845299=1&fbclid=IwAR0AOQU_ndy_QPfW_GlnlOFGF0skD0IZQYuzJHROrt8XUKjKPSehZlE0ea4

According to the article: "Flame cremation burns fossil fuels that can contribute to climate change, and the process also releases toxic, mercury-laden fumes into the atmosphere and "Traditional burial takes up space in a cemetery that will use additional resources to keep the plot constantly watered and mowed."

Some people are setting up businesses around this newer model which I don't like, but composting in many ways is a good way forward, if done properly.

My understanding is the ashes only last in orbit for a few months at most due to the LEO orbit. HEO would be more expensive and as David F said would create more space junk.

Is it right to make money from funerals?

I wouldn't expect anyone else to not make a living from their profession.
I'm not sure people should be buried willy-nilly on private property.
It's not yours anymore when you're gone.
Your family may sell the property and then theres bodies buried all over the place;
Alternatively, if you're well off, and own a large property should you be allowed to have a family cemetery?
- I don't know, maybe.

Now I've got a different question I want to throw out there, not to do with funerals;
- But it is a 'Is it right to make money off this' type of question.
So I'll throw it out there.

In QLD they built the Gateway bridge in 1986 for 92 million
Then in 2010 they built a second one exactly the same right beside it, for 350 million.

The stats are this:
Gateway Motorway – 1 per cent growth. Average daily traffic 2016: 114,000; 2017: 115,000

So let's say 120,000 cars per day @ $5 per trip
$600,000 per day or 219 million per year.

Now I remember in 1986, they said it'll only be for a few years, and then the tolls will be gone.
35 years later they're still charging us.

Now here's my question

- Is it right to keep charging us once it's already been paid for? -

Once it's been paid for there's no reason to charge us anymore;
- But they still do, to me it's just theft.
They could've said "We're removing the tolls, it's now been paid off", but instead it's this:
"Umm, how about we NOT DO THAT and just keep on charging them. No one's ever going to say anything."

Well I'm saying something. Is it right to do that?

AC, the ideal would be to channel "profits" into more efficient public transport systems.

In NSW without a mandate, in fact at the last election promised not to privatise, the Big Nose government is about to privatise the WestConnex road system, their mates from the big end of town at Transurben have got the deal. That locks the motorist into paying tolls for as long as there are vehicles on the road.

Well what about the Sydney Harbour bridge then.

"In 2018, about 200 trains, 160,000 vehicles, 3000 pedestrians and 1900 cyclists cross the bridge every day, NSW Roads and Maritime Services said, equating to about 58.4 million vehicles a year."

"Toll rates on weekdays are $4.00 between 6:30am – 9:30am and 4:00pm – 7:00pm. It is $3.00 between 9:30am – 4:00pm and $2.50 between 7:00pm – 6:30am. If you are travelling on weekends then it will cost $3.00 between 8am—8pm and $2.50 between 8pm – 8am."

So say an average cost of $3.50 x 60 million, that's 210 million, roughly the same as the QLD bridge.

Do you reckon the Sydney Harbour Bridge has been paid for yet?
It was built in 1923... nearly 100 years.

Probably built by Anzacs from Gallapoli, that's how old it is.
Yet someone some bureaucrat still wants to make money from it.

AC, I hate to correct you, you knowing all; "it was built in 1923",construction begun in 1924, the Sydney Harbour Bridge was officially opened 19th March 1932, by Australia's greatest politician never to be Prime Minister, John (Jack) Thomas Lang, also called "The Big Fella" Premier of New South Wales. My Old Man was a young Langite in 1932, and attended the opening of the bridge. Its a good story, that bridge opening. Frances De Groot a mounted member of the fascists New Guard, decked out in his WWI officers military uniform, rode up and slashed the ribbon before Lang could cut it. The ribbon was retied and the ceremony continued, with De Groot led away by the coopers.

Without checking, I believe about 15 men died constructing the bridge. Which was remarkable for the time, as worker safety was nothing more than a minor consideration. Around the same time about 100 men died constructing the Hoover Dam in America. You might be right, they didn't get killed on the Western Front, but fell off a bridge in Sydney and that was the end of them.

I aint going to argue with you Paul, I wasn't around then, so I don't really know.
- But I did check before I posted it and stupid google says construction started July 28 1923
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sydney+harbour+bridge+built

Cool story.
I wonder if those 15 blokes wives and families got compensation.
And the government is still cashing in on it today.
I think all these toll roads need a rethink.
I've got no problem paying my share when I cross it - if they need the money to build it.
- But charging tolls forever on infrastructure that's already paid for itself just isn't right.