I first became aware of how "the system" rewards single parents who don't have a full-time good-paying job when I became acquainted with someone who was a single mom of three children (ages 5, 6, and 7). Now, I didn't know her
exact budget, but from what I gathered,
if she had the same circumstances today and the "child credit" plan was as described in the OP, this is fairly close to what her budget would be:
Money
earned from odd jobs: $1,000 (mainly babysitting)
SNAP benefits (4 in household): $680
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-a...y-and-benefits
Income from Child Credit (described in OP link): $800
Total Monthly Income: $2,480
From that $2,480 income, her expenses would be about
:
Section 8 Rent: $264 (30% of Adjusted Income, which is
earned income minus $480 per child per year)
https://howtogeton.wordpress.com/how...-on-section-8/
Groceries: $1,000
Utilities and Phone: $500
Car Expenses: $500
Medical Expenses: $0 (Medicaid paid)
Total Regular Monthly Expenses: $2,264
DISCRETIONARY AMOUNT: $216 (Clothes, gifts, recreation, salon appointments, etc.)
Plus, of course, there are many kinds of other freebies for low income families such as free school supplies, food banks, "adopt a family" Christmas charities, etc.
Now if this young woman were to have an
additional child, she would get an additional $300 per month plus an extra $127 per month in SNAP benefits; and I do not think that another child costs an extra $427 per month
IF one does not pay for child care and medical care, so that would just be more money added for "discretionary". Of course, I could be wrong about that!
So where is the incentive for someone like her to work full-time, and then be required to pay for her kids' medical expenses,
all her groceries, and to actually pay all her rent? (And, of course, not being able to set her own schedule, be with the kids when she likes, etc.)
P.S. And for those who say "Well, what about all the tax breaks, etc. that millionaires receive -- well, I am JUST as upset (or even more upset!) about that! But just because that is wrong, imo, does not mean that enabling people who receive a LOT of taxpayer assistance to
profit from that assistance is
just as wrong, imo.
And for those who say that only about $50 a week for discretionary spending for a family of four is not very much -- well, maybe it isn't-- but remember that this would be for someone who actually
earns only about $1,000 a month.
And, btw, if I have made some faulty conclusions,
please correct and educate me. Thanks.
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.
