The Costs of Care and Billionaire Tax Breaks: What Netflix’s Sirens and Congress Have in Common

Mild spoilers ahead.  

Netflix’s new dark comedy Sirens predictably sunk its claws into me as I speed-watched the miniseries. But one thing I couldn’t let go of as I continued my binge viewing was that undergirding all that Lily Pulitzer, mystery, and absurd displays of wealth, the show was actually fundamentally about the ways we’ve failed to invest in a system of care that allows anyone but the ultra-rich to survive.  

For those who haven’t watched, one of the show’s central tensions is between sisters Devon and Simone DeWitt over the care of their father, Bruce. Recently diagnosed with dementia, he’s in need of increasingly more support—in their hometown of Buffalo, where Meghann Fahy’s character Devon has been living at home while working at the falafel joint, partying with her high school friends despite being in her thirties, and generally trying to scrape by to make ends meet. Contrast that with the luxury beach island younger sister Simone, played by Milly Alcock, has recently made her home while working for a perfectly-cast Julianne Moore as Michaela, or “Kiki” as Simone is allowed to call her, the current matriarch of the billionaire Kell family.  

While this conflict twists and turns in unexpected ways, it’s actually a very common experience for millions of families, and one that lots of sibling units are navigating. As an oldest sister who has increasingly been shifting into the role of caregiver for my father, I felt myself drawn to the many choices and factors that Devon has been navigating largely on her own following her father’s dementia diagnosis (and also simultaneously thankful my sister has a predictable elementary school teacher job and isn’t in danger in a maybe cult like Simone). The options caregivers have for support at home are limited, especially if you don’t have massive amounts of disposable income.  

When older people and disabled children and adults need support for activities like taking medication, getting dressed, or eating meals, family members often provide care themselves—or combine it with support from paid care providers in home- and community-based settings. For many people, being able to receive care support at home in a familiar environment is essential to their well-being and stability. In Sirens, we saw the episode of intense confusion that came over Bruce when he was in an unfamiliar environment and his routine was disrupted, illustrating vividly just how crucial home-based care is for many aging adults.  

But for many families, support from professional home-based care providers isn’t affordable because we haven’t properly invested in the systems that would make it possible for families like the DeWitts to make ends meet and smooth the path. Right now, without Medicaid or other assistance, in-home health care typically costs over $6,000 a month—and family caregivers spend an average of $7,242 out of pocket a year on expenses to support their loved ones. That’s what led me to nearly scream at my television when KiKi tried to bribe Devon with $10,000. A whole six weeks of care, maybe two months if Devon stretches the budget?!? That’s a drop in the bucket of what it costs to provide care for an aging parent.  

And if Republican leaders in Congress have their way right now, it will get a whole lot worse for real-life families like the DeWitts. They are trying to rip away Medicaid from millions of seniors and impose cruel cuts that will target home- and community-based services—the very thing that could support Bruce if it weren’t already so hard to access formal care. The reason they’re doing that? So that the real-life versions of the billionaire Kell family can get another tax cut and buy another falcon or more statues for their homes. If passed, it would be the largest transfer of wealth from everyday people to the billionaire class in our country’s history. 

The good news is that there is a different future that’s possible. If we closed tax loopholes and made wealthy families like the Kells pay their fair share, we could invest in a future that supports all caregiving—from universal child care for our youngest, to fully funding services for aging adults and people with disabilities, to guaranteeing paid family and medical leave and improving pay and benefits for all care workers. The Kells can continue to give large sums to their preferred charitable causes while hosting lavish galas to recruit more donations from their friends. But that’s not enough. What families really need are public investments in systems of care, not tax giveaways to billionaires paid for by robbing women and families of the basic programs they need to survive. And I won’t stop screaming at my television and at Congress until that vision becomes reality.    

hey hey.