Pennsylvania To Means Test Food Stamp Applicants. (employment, salary, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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. )
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.
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. )
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.
They can take it out and get under the limit. This legislation is aimed at people with large amounts of assets.
I'm all about finding ways to reduce the fraud but I don't think this is it. I'm not sure about you but $2000 is not a lot of money, if you think about it. That could be one month's living expenses. That could be something saved up in case something goes wrong with their car, (considering the value cannot be over a certain amount, it's probably an older car, their only source of transportation to get to and from work and if something happens, they have NO money to fix it), or an unexpected doctor's visit.
No, $2000 is not a lot of money, someone with $2000 in their bank account is NOT "abusing" the system.
If someone had $7-10,000 or higher, I might consider that but not two grand. That's a fricken ridiculously low amount.
If they want to go after fraud, actually go after fraud. Someone trying to build up a savings for a "just in case" moment should not be punished. As the article said, this is ONLY for food stamps.
Go after some of those other programs as well, go after those people who claim they have no car but actually sport around town in cars over $30 grand. Go after those people who misuse their EBT cards. Go after the people who have been on welfare for YEARS and keep sprouting out kids. Go after those people who have been on it their whole lives. Go after those people who are not even here, legally. Go after those people who claim SSI but are PERFECTLY CAPABLE of working, as some of them do, collecting under the table so they can continue to receive their SSI. Go after those who do find gainful employment and no longer need food stamps or welfare but NEVER INFORM the welfare offices and continue to collect.
THOSE are the abusers they should go after, not someone who has a laughable amount of money in their bank account.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
They can take it out and get under the limit. This legislation is aimed at people with large amounts of assets.
Its actaully the same with mnay proigrams of means testing incluiding for seniors .Its just what happens when spending gets to such high levels like Greece is facing.
$2000 is way too low. I'd let someone exempt $5000 at least, more if they're uninsured and not qualfied for Medicaid. I know every limit is arbitrary, but this is way low!
I might exempt only a part of the retirement bennies if the person is working another job. Some people retire on 80% of their salary (some military for example).
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.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
