Pennsylvania To Means Test Food Stamp Applicants. (regular, financial, retire)

[Mircea]

110 Million US Households
99 Million US Households with cable, satellite or both
90 Million US Households with internet service
47 Million US Households receive Food Stamp benefits.

Originally Posted by Yooperkat

Is means testing a good idea or a bad idea?

You tell me.

Do you want me to do the math for you, or can you handle 5th Grade Addition/Subtraction?



Mircea

Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310

This is defiantly a terrible idea. Anyone with less then $2,000.00 in the bank on public assistance is virtually on the verge of being homeless especially seniors not being allowed to have more than $3250.00.

Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310

I think limits on money in the bank clearly show whom they’re aiming this towards. No need to read between the lines because it’s spelled out. It’s their attempt to punish the most vulnerable in our society.

The most vulnerable?

110 Million US Households
99 Million US Households with cable, satellite or both
90 Million US Households with internet service
47 Million US Households receive Food Stamp benefits.

So, who's the most vulnerable?



Mircea

Originally Posted by buzzards27

The policy actually encourages wasteful spending by the poor.

110 Million US Households
99 Million US Households with cable, satellite or both
90 Million US Households with internet service
47 Million US Households receive Food Stamp benefits.

Yeah, apparently wasted on cable, satellite or both.



Mircea

Originally Posted by freemkt

I propose what one might call a Dave Ramsey means test.

He recommends a "fully funded" emergency fund of 3-6 months of personal expenses (for those starting out or unable to save up this sum he suggests at least $1000).

So I think 3 months of basic living expenses is not unreasonable and almost certainly would be greater than $2000.

Uh, the Dave Ramsey "means test?

That is what America did, especially Middle Class America, before Middle Class America became the Stupid Class.

Hell, my great-grandparents were doing that before Ramsey was ever born. I was telling my troops that in the '80s and '90s.

Doesn't take MBA to figure that out.

Being financially sound...

Mircea

Originally Posted by analyze_this

We should means test SS and Medicare as well.

Should?

You will.

You don't really have much choice, but then I'm just assuming people actually want Social Security and Medicare.

Means-testing...

Mircea

[madpaddy]

I wonder if there's any provision for pending expenses. I will concede that a hard-and-fast limit of $2000 current cash balance may not be a very fair standard in some circumstances. I certainly think $2000 after deducting any liabilities due in the next 30 days from the current balance would be more than fair.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by Lariat

I barely work above minimum wage yet I have 6 accounts with taxable amounts.

$2000 is $2000 too much.

How much is too much for someone at poverty level? What if they have to move through no fault of their own? What happens then?

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by madpaddy

I wonder if there's any provision for pending expenses. I will concede that a hard-and-fast limit of $2000 current cash balance may not be a very fair standard in some circumstances. I certainly think $2000 after deducting any liabilities due in the next 30 days from the current balance would be more than fair.

The only expenses considered are housing (there is a standard allowance for utilities which might be higher or lower than what your actual utilities cost if you share housing and don't have utility bills in your name).

It's based on historical expenses you bring in bank account statements, pay stubs etc and relevant documents (lease, medical receipts). Nothing which might happen in the future - e.g. a rent increase or an involuntary move - is considered. You're required to report income increases and go through all this again in 12 months if you're still on the program.

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by Yooperkat

Means testing for food stamps may return


The Pennsylvania Welfare Department on May 1 could resume enforcing a means test on food stamp applicants to reduce fraud. The asset test doesn't effect any other entitlements - only food stamps.

"The asset test was in place and was lifted by the prior administration in 2008," Miller said. "It is simply being put back in place."

Anyone with $2,000 or more in the bank or people who have a second car valued at more than $4,650 would no longer be eligible for the benefits. For those over 60 the limit is $3250. Houses and retirement benefits are exempt from counting as an asset, as is one car.


( Keep in mind that many people who don't qualify for food stamps in America have a very hard time maintaining a $2,000 savings account. )

Is means testing a good idea or a bad idea?

Not a bad idea but easily gotten around. All they have to do is put the title of any other cars into the name of others (do remember that a car being paid for is not owned by the person but is owned by the person holding the title, the bank or other lending institution) and withdraw their money from the bank, so while a step in the right direction it won't work.

[Fiddlehead]

My wife works in a food stamp office, and the stories she has every day will curl your hair.

People living in $400k homes with $2500 mortgages, BMWs, and kids in private school getting food stamps. Hippy panhandlers doing "funemployment" with food stamps and checks from the parents. I defend the principle of food stamps, but fraud is rampant right now. At least here in Oregon. I thnk means testing is a good idea, though the standards should be debated.

I agree that $2000 in the bank is not a lot, but I don't have all that much more myself! The question I wonder about would be how many people have $5k in the bank without blowing it on bling, I-Pods, mountain bikes, etc.,etc.,etc.

[waterboy7375]

Originally Posted by buzzards27

Actually, all that tell us is that someone is pretty foolish with their resources. Someone with a net worth of $200 at any income level has been making terrible financial choices. If you are spending 100% of your middle class income on your "toys" you are irresponsible and nobody should be feeling sorry for you.

I never earned more than a middle class income, the wife and I can count on one hand the years either of us earned a six figure income. But because we never spent more than we earned we now have more than 90% of Americans and were able to retire in our 50's. Jersey Girl, you're making some really bad choices.

Yet you still insist the taxpayers house your own mother.

[waterboy7375]

Originally Posted by freemkt

Okay, say someone is getting food stamps and they're not allowed to have savings until they get off food stamps and support themselves.

Now let's say Mr/Ms Food Stamps has to unexpectedly more through no fault of their own (I rented a room in a house that was foreclosed; everyone had to move).

What happens or should happen then?

They keep 2 grand in a safe in their home, just like most people do.

[buzzards27]

Originally Posted by waterboy7375

Yet you still insist the taxpayers house your own mother.

????? What the ____ you talking about?

[TrapperJohn]

Stupid. Income and wealth are independent of each other.

We should encourage poor people to build wealth. This does nothing but keep them poor. And dependent on the government. Break the cycle.