This works just fine:
I think you've become too dependent on your parents, and you don't want to move on.
There are plenty of other ways you can say this, of course. You might be interested in this more idiomatic way:
Dude, you are 24 and still live with your parents. It's time to get loose from those apron strings.
The expression tied to your mother's apron strings means that you are too dependent on your mother, especially when it would be more appropriate to start gaining more independence in your life.
UE says:
A man who is tied to a woman's apron strings is excessively dependent on her, especially when it is his mother's apron strings.
A page at encyclopedia.com reveals:
apron strings, tied to one's mother's traditional phrase, meaning that a person who should be grown up is still subject to their mother's dominance;
from the mid 16th century, an apron string as the fastening of an apron has been used to symbolize the role of the mistress of a household
Another common English idiom comes straight from avian science:
You're still 24 and you live with your parents. I think it's time they kick you out of the nest.
The nest is a common metaphor to use for the home, particularly when discussing the topic of grown children leaving. For example, one Investopedia headline reads: Why Some Kids Never Leave The Nest, while The CSM asks: Adult kids at home: Time to kick the birds out of the nest?
Generally speaking, the kicking-out-of-the-nest expression addresses the issue more from the perspective of the parents.
My favorite usage of "get to" is in South Park:
STAN: Does this mean we have to go to church on Sundays again?
RANDY: No. It means we get to, son. It means... we get to.
It's used differently than in your example, but you can see the connotations that this phrase has. "Get to think" means that no one is forcing you or prompting you to think, it's just the natural thing you end up doing in that situation.
Best Answer
I think this is what you're trying to say:
A few notes about my edit:
1) Remove the "For me," part from the beginning. You're already personalizing this remark when you say "who inspire me" at the end of your sentence. Too many "me's" make the sentence feel clunky.
2) We say, "They are the kind of people who..." not "There are a kind of people who..." (I suspect you might have gotten mixed up, though, because "they are" can be contracted to "they're", so we could say, "They're the kind of people who inspire me," and the words there and they're are homophones.)
3) Yes, it's possbible to say "There are a kind of people who...", but, when we say this, we are simply saying that some kind of people exist. For example, "There are a kind of people who like to be mean on the internet. We call them cyberbullies." But you have already identified the people in your first sentence, so this is not the construct you want to use here.
Why do we use the definite article? That one's tricky. We could say:
This is proper grammar. In this case, we identify the kind of people we are talking about only after we mention that such people exist, so, in the introductory remark, we use an indefinite article.
In this case, we have already identified the people we are talking about, so we use the definite article.
Also note, the "kind of" phrases can be removed, and the sentences retain its original meaning, because we can refer to "a kind of people" as "people":
However, when we try this with the first example, we need to remove the indefinite article in order for it to sound right:
Oddly enough, we can remove the article from the first one, too. The first one works either way:
Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of question people were thinking about when they said didn't like using the word "basic" to describe ELL questions. Martha once said it in meta like this (emphasis in original):
This was a hard question to explain! (especially the part about the articles)