Mothering Forum banner

Food Stamps and "assets"

6K views 75 replies 31 participants last post by  Polliwog 
#1 ·
I know that to receive FS, you have to have less than $2000 in assets. What I'm wondering is how far back into your bank acct do they look? For instance, we meet the income requirements, but last month (and every month before) we had more than $2000 in the bank. Now we don't (and won't even remotely soon).

Do they just look at your current balance (along with other assets, which we don't have) or do they look at past months as well? I'm just wondering if we can go ahead and apply or if I should wait until we've been tight on money for a few months.

Hope this makes sense.
 
#27 ·
"I'm just wondering why we bother? Because, like others have said, just maintaining health insurance would eat up our savings pretty fast. And on top of that, we don't merit help because we've been living waaaaaay below our means?... Maybe I'm just too conscientious?"

Nope. You are appropriately conscientious. Saving up money to see you through a rainy day is normal, healthy financial behavior.

Relative to income/earning potential, Americans spend less for food than the citizens of any other developed nation. I do not pay taxes so that a family with thousands of dollars in a 401(k) can get SNAP. I think it's pretty revolting that a family WITH assets (such as a 401(k) or a luxurious home) would want to glom onto a program that was intended to help people WITHOUT assets to not go hungry.

That said, there are certain costs that individual families often cannot cover through a rainy day - health care being one of them. I believe that single-payer health care is the just and ethical solution to the health-care crisis in our country. But GROCERIES? When things were tight, my mom worked 20 hours/week as a checkout girl to buy groceries when we were broke. Three shifts. It has always amazed me that able-bodied partnered women whose husbands are home at night will take SNAP before working a PT job to make grocery money. I was raised to believe that that kind of behavior is conning the system.
 
#28 ·
Really? So one should spend their retirement funds, taking the tax losses of course, in order to avoid using public aid. What will they do when they retire? What will they live on then?

Anyway, I do agree with you concerning single payer health care. Actually, I'd worry far less about these things if we had such a system.
 
#29 ·
I don't know that a 401k would be counted as an "asset". This is what is posted on the Federal SNAP (food stamp) website. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/M...2/pensions.htm It seems to indicate that many retirement plans are excluded from being counted as an asset. That said, it's up to the individual to decide if they need to apply for food stamps. I know there was a news piece about a case in my general area where the person had something like $50,000 in the bank (maybe from a severance package, I don't remember at this point), but still qualified for food stamps.
 
#30 ·
"I see no problem in helping people in situations like that, people whose money has already gone to help others. It's just one big circle."

I didn't notice this before. Yes, it IS one big circle. People who lose their employment are entitled to unemployment insurance (which in some states includes SNAP eligibility, it's actually given as part of the standard unemployment package precisely so that people who've been paying into the system for years DON'T spend down all their assets during the period of unemployment).

That's a different thing, though, than SNAP as a long-term part of the family food budget in a family with two able-bodied adults. Food. is. cheap. Anybody who wants to pay for their own food (and has a partner or other person providing free childcare) can do it. If your family headed by two able-bodied adults qualifies for SNAP, something is drastically out of balance. Job loss is (duh) an event that produces an immediate imbalance. But it tends to be of short duration. If your long-term monthly gross household earnings are less than $2389 for a family of four, and you take SNAP to supplement the groceries and are OK with doing that instead of securing another source of income for your household, then yes, that is a crappy thing to do to all the people who actually CAN'T feed themselves without SNAP.

(I personally know several families who choosing to live long-term on less money than that, BTW. They sure as heck are not using SNAP. They are growing veggies and making do with one bathroom and sometimes, gasp, NO CABLE TV.)
 
#31 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smithie View Post
"I see no problem in helping people in situations like that, people whose money has already gone to help others. It's just one big circle."

I didn't notice this before. Yes, it IS one big circle. People who lose their employment are entitled to unemployment insurance (which in some states includes SNAP eligibility, it's actually given as part of the standard unemployment package precisely so that people who've been paying into the system for years DON'T spend down all their assets during the period of unemployment).

That's a different thing, though, than SNAP as a long-term part of the family food budget in a family with two able-bodied adults. Food. is. cheap. Anybody who wants to pay for their own food (and has a partner or other person providing free childcare) can do it. If your family headed by two able-bodied adults qualifies for SNAP, something is drastically out of balance. Job loss is (duh) an event that produces an immediate imbalance. But it tends to be of short duration. If your long-term monthly gross household earnings are less than $2389 for a family of four, and you take SNAP to supplement the groceries and are OK with doing that instead of securing another source of income for your household, then yes, that is a crappy thing to do to all the people who actually CAN'T feed themselves without SNAP.

(I personally know several families who choosing to live long-term on less money than that, BTW. They sure as heck are not using SNAP. They are growing veggies and making do with one bathroom and sometimes, gasp, NO CABLE TV.)
Your view will not be popular here. I agree with one exception: it is not always easy for an able bodied person to get a job in this economy. You could very well have two able bodied adults in a household and not be able to find enough work to put food on the table.
 
#32 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxinator View Post
I can def understand that pov, but at the same time, what about people who have been paying their taxes for years, like 40 years, struggled to make ends meet, and still not been able to get assistance. Then they lose their jobs, and it's either have no retirement money and have to work until they die, or get public assistance? I see no problem in helping people in situations like that, people whose money has already gone to help others. It's just one big circle.

BTW, do FS only go to people with families? Does it differ by state?
It's not the perfect situation, but yes. There are millions of families like mine that are scraping by because of the tax burden placed on us from public assistance programs. I have no problem with people who will go hungry receiving aid, but if you will go hungry and you have thousands of dollars in the bank (or in a 401k) that you refuse to access then you need mental help.

(When I say 'you' I really mean 'one' not necessarily any 'you' in particular, yk?)
 
#33 ·
"...if you will go hungry and you have thousands of dollars in the bank (or in a 401k) that you refuse to access then you need mental help."

That's a much more succinct way of expressing how I feel. And yes, I agree that two able-bodied adults can be trying HARD to find two jobs (or one job!) in this economy and still not be able to cobble together a sufficient household income for many, many months. That's why we have caseworkers, theoretically - so that benefits decisions are not made by cranks like me on the Internet, but by people who have context and evidence to help them determine if a family's individual circumstances make them an appropriate candidate for the various forms of public assistance.
 
#34 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Curious View Post
I disagree. My dh's income is high enough that we don't qualify, but too low for us to save to any real degree. So our tax dollars should pay for FS for people w/money in the bank? Where is the sense in that?
I'd rather someone continue paying their rent or house payment and get a little help paying for food when they need it.

When dh was unemployed, we still had a $1600 house payment to make, and we didn't qualify for food stamps because of our savings. I think it would have made more sense for us to use the savings to hang onto our house, but it's not what we had to do.
 
#35 ·
OK, phathui5, I am sorry to put you on the spot, but maybe you can explain this to me so I can stop having this huge cognitive disconnect about SNAP.

My dad lost his job and was unemployed for months. My parents owned a house they didn't want to lose. So my mom worked 20-25 hours/week at the grocery store for, geez, nearly a year. Her salary bought groceries and toiletries, Dad's unemployment plus our savings (including a chunk of that 401k, they took out a hardship loan against it and paid it back later) kept us in the house with all the utilities turned on. Mom didn't have a childcare problem, because my dad was unemployed. And when he found himself a new job that could support us, she quit. (There was a bridge period where they both worked and relied on family for childcare.)

Granted, this was over a decade ago. Does it just not work that way anymore? You (general you) can't walk into every big box retailer in a 20-mile radius and find someplace to work? If my husband walked in the door and told me he had lost his job, I couldn't walk right out it and find myself a crappy job that was taking anybody who would show up acting sober?
 
#37 ·
I think it maybe depends on your state? We just applied and we have more than $2k in assests. We had about $7k in savings at the time and we also have $7k in a Roth IRA. But according to our income and current checking, we were approved I guess.

Good luck! I think just apply and see what happens. I thought we wouldn't get approved but we did.
 
#38 ·
Well I just read the responses and since people seem so judgemental towards people on f.s., I just feel the need to clarify.

We are family of 5 and my DH lost his 2nd job. Our income is now $1600 and our mortgage is $1400. All of the savings we have is gifts from family to help us pay our bills. Even with f.s. assistance, we still won't be able to pay all of our bills (without help of the monetary gifts). F.S. are just temporary until DH can get a 2nd job or maybe I can get something nights and weekends. I have to say, it is a HUGE relief to know we have this help.

I do have other problems with f.s. The biggest being that you can buy almost anything with it (except cooked foods)! You could buy ALL junk food if you wanted to.

And I remember once being behind someone near the seafood aisle and I really wanted some crab legs but I didn't buy them because it was way too expensive, but another person grabbed 3 packages along with a couple lobsters and then when I was behind them in line, they paid with f.s.

There should be guidelines.

I will continue to buy healthy food and comparison shop to make sure my f.s. money is stretched as far as possible. I'm not going to go on a fat bonanza now that food is free!
 
#39 ·
"We are family of 5 and my DH lost his 2nd job. Our income is now $1600 and our mortgage is $1400."

I get that you need to tap some kind of resource something to bridge the gap until a second income can be generated. I even get that immediately downsizing to a housing situation you can truly afford is likely not feasible, given the state of the real estate market, so you just have to do the best you can to meet that mortgage, and hopefully make a long-term plan to obtain more reasonable housing.

What I don't get is why SNAP is on the table as a choice while you still have assets you can access. Did you know that a penalty-free IRA withdrawal permitted to avoid foreclosure on your home?

And I REALLY don't get how you can judge the person who bought seafood with SNAP, when you are sitting on 7k plus cash gifts from relatives and taking SNAP just because you can. I mean, either individuals are justified on using SNAP benefits for something other than avoiding hunger or they aren't.

I think that SNAP should be a basic-staples-only program for people who have no other way to pay for their food, and I'd love to see the federal government invest in some infrastructure that would actually make that reasonable (i.e., real grocery stores in economically depressed urban areas). I hate that my tax dollars go to put food that's been proven to cause long-term health problems into the mouths of a vulnerable segment of our population. Honestly, I'd rather see them eating the lobster.
 
#40 ·
We cannot downsize in housing. We live in a HCOL area and this was the cheapest option in the a good area. That $1400 also includes taxes and insurance.

All of that $7k has gone to medical bills. We had 2 children in the NICU for over a month and I also was on hospital bedrest before that. The children were discharged on heart monitors and home nurse visits for 2 months.

I was just informing the OP to the fact that we received benefits despite having that money in the bank, since that was her question.

This is the reason why you shouldn't judge people- because you have NO idea what their story is.

And I yes I feel like I can judge (more like raise an eyebrow) at people on FS who buy lobster and crab legs because that is a waste of money. Food can be cheap, you can make that food stamp money go so much further if you just stick to the basics of what you need. Nobody needs lobsters to survive.
 
#41 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smithie View Post
OK, phathui5, I am sorry to put you on the spot, but maybe you can explain this to me so I can stop having this huge cognitive disconnect about SNAP.

My dad lost his job and was unemployed for months. My parents owned a house they didn't want to lose. So my mom worked 20-25 hours/week at the grocery store for, geez, nearly a year. Her salary bought groceries and toiletries, Dad's unemployment plus our savings (including a chunk of that 401k, they took out a hardship loan against it and paid it back later) kept us in the house with all the utilities turned on. Mom didn't have a childcare problem, because my dad was unemployed. And when he found himself a new job that could support us, she quit. (There was a bridge period where they both worked and relied on family for childcare.)

Granted, this was over a decade ago. Does it just not work that way anymore? You (general you) can't walk into every big box retailer in a 20-mile radius and find someplace to work? If my husband walked in the door and told me he had lost his job, I couldn't walk right out it and find myself a crappy job that was taking anybody who would show up acting sober?
What if the partner already works aformentioned crappy job? I am pretty sure that a family of four in my state would be still be eligible for some FS with the max state unemployement and another $20,000 year income. Twenty hours a week at $8 an hour is still only about $8,000 per year.

What if you have retirement assets that you can't access? I have a job with an old school defined benefit pension. I can't "cash out" my money in this program unless I would quit my job (which would be completely stupid since it the only job in my house right now).

What if you are like lot of people around here that are 55 years old and had a lifestyle built around having $100,000 income and the your prospects for ever finding another job that makes even a fraction of that amount are non-existent. And you can't up and move because you are the person doing all the work to keep your 80-something parent living semi-independently.

I think just because it worked for your family doesn't mean it would be a solution for everyone. My DH hasn't worked in 18 months and we haven't had to resort to cashing out a 401k or food stamps, or making a cross country move, but I sure wouldn't be judgemental of someone that did any of these things to get by.
 
#42 ·
"This is the reason why you shouldn't judge people- because you have NO idea what their story is.

And I yes I feel like I can judge..."

OK, maybe we've both gone too far out on the limb here.


It sounds like you wound up spending down all your assets anyhow, and I'm truly sorry for that. I wish your dh (and/or you, if you work, though I don't know how you both could with two medically fragile infants) the best of luck finding a reasonable job in an area that you can afford.
 
#43 ·
Thank you.

And P.S. Judging someone (actually I said it was more like I raised my eyebrows at the situation) for buying lobsters is different than judging random people on the internet for the reasons they ended up on FS because you have no idea why they had to come to that decision but you can pretty much know that someone doesn't need lobsters to get by. lol
 
#45 ·
So those for limits on foodstamps. Riddle me this. Who gets to pick? Do we go to a system where only certain things are allowed like on WIC? Do we allow organics? Canned veggies/fruit? Boxed cereal? Exotic fruits & veggies that aren't in season? Seafood? And if so, do we allow shrimp, crab, lobster, scallops? Or only farm-raised tilapia/catfish/salmon?? Do we allow meat? And if so, only burger/cheap cuts of chicken? Pork? Bread? Pasta? Who gets to pick? How is it done?? Where's the line between junk and crap?

What some people on here consider junk (white bread, pasta) others don't. Heck some people on MDC consider all bread/pasta, peanut butter, jelly, etc junk. But most people consider those things staples. Would you be OK with organics? Lots of people consider them a waste of money, and the big food corporations certainly aren't huge fans (hence why, IMO, many states don't allow organics on WIC), so do we let people on FS buy organic?

Saying that people should only be able to buy "good" food on foodstamps is all well and good, untill you sit down and try to decide what is and is not OK. Its not nearly as easy as saying "no junk food!" because really, do you want my definition of junk imposed on you? Do you?
 
#47 ·
Thats absolutely true. But you could also goto the store and buy $300 worth of organic veggies, fruits, etc and stock up. Is that wrong? Some people would say yes. Who are you to say what I should or should not be eating? Do you really want someone else to be the 'food police' as it were and tell you what to eat?? You very well might not agree with them.
 
#49 ·
Interesting, I think that putting restrictions on what people buy with food stamps can lead to many ramifications.

First of all you have to look at the "average" family..Most families these days consist of both parents working..The kids are in day care from 6+weeks and the only "family time" they all get together for a meal is a quick hour to eat from 7pm-8pm, so A LOT of people buy freezer meals and "quick n easy" is preferred over cooking from scratch. People haven't got the time for cooking like they used to when 1 income households paid the bills,kept food on the table and left time over to play baseball with the kids in the front yard.

Then you have to look at people who may not have a vehicle and rely on their 2 legs or public transportation to get around. My family falls under this. Our car was a POS and would have cost us an arm and a leg to fix, but we still had to pay for insurance and gas and tires and all that other stuff that comes along with car ownership..so we junked it for $150. Once every few days we get out our backpacks and walk on over to Giant Eagle (which is the ONLY grocery store in walking distance) and get food for another few days. Currently we do not have food stamps, and quite frankly that loaf of giant eagle white bread is a helluva lot cheaper then the whole grain name brand bread..for 1 loaf of the name brand "good stuff" we can get 4 loaves of the generic. Also the smaller package of 2 pounds of beef is lighter to carry then the "family pack" granted it comes out to be more expensive in the long run to buy the smaller package BUT when you can only carry so much weight what can you do? I think it would be a sorry state if I was told I could ONLY purchase the "family pack" because that would be less I would be carrying home, hence more trips to the store. And we cannot get to any whole food stores or farmers markets with no vehicle, so eating organic is a joke..Organic costs 3x as much as the regular stuff they have sitting out. I find that a waste of money..Sure I like to eat healthy but $3 for an organic head of lettuce or $1 for non organic..I save $2 going non-organic. (I have no idea if this is the case at a whole food store but IME they are more expensive) a person budgeting out $400 in food stamps for the month is not going to care if its organic or not if it saves them $2

At any rate how many people have actualy tried to live off the $100 per month alloted per person..thats $25 a week per person. I buy over $25 a week in food for myself alone. I bet if I went to giant eagle armed with $25 for me to buy food for me only without using any of the other food in the house (condiments, breads etc) I would be starving by the end of day 2.It's like living off min wage..I wanna see people do that and pay rent and bills..it really is NOT easy!
 
#50 ·
"At any rate how many people have actually tried to live off the $100 per month allotted per person..that's $25 a week per person."

SNAP was never intended to cover 100% of anybody's grocery budget, just like Social Security was never intended to cover 100% of any retiree's living costs. But of course, there are plenty of individuals/families stretching these supplemental programs to the max because they don't have other sources of income. It was a huge problem even before the economic collapse.

Yes, a family of four with access to a suburban/small town chain grocery store can eat for $400/month. Been there, done that. I'm sure you don't want to hear about the mile-long uphill walk we made with our groceries in backpacks when the ravine flooded and washed out the dirt road.
BUT, people who do not have reasonable access to a real grocery store CANNOT spend that little for food, and that's most people who live carless in low-income urban areas. So much as I think that SNAP should be a subsistence staples-only program (no convenience foods, no organics), that's not a realistic modification while our food distribution system is still so monumentally screwed up. If I were made the SNAP Czar tomorrow, I wouldn't make ANY changes immediately other than to give the boot to the agribusiness lobbyists who make so much money off the HCFCS-stuffed fake food that they target-market to low income shoppers, and to start incentivizing grocerie retailers to penetrate new markets and stock the short list of foods that would ultimately be SNAP-eligible.

Ideally, SNAP is a supplemental program providing staple food items to families to prevent hunger. Rather than making a list of what is NOT allowed, it would make a lot more sense to make a list of what IS allowed. But there would have to be some serious infrastructure improvement first and foremost. There is no point in giving a person a coupon for 20 lbs of rice if s/he has no place to BUY the damn rice. But I think we drastically underestimate people who use SNAP by assuming that they lack either the will or the knowledge to make real food, or that they can't/won't learn to use ingredients if ingredients are what the program is handing out. We've built up a whole system that makes junk food much, much easier for low-income shoppers to obtain than real food, and then we acts as though it's some inherent personality flaw in the targeted consumers (SNAP or otherwise) that leads them to feed their families a diet high in junk.
 
#51 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smithie View Post
"At any rate how many people have actually tried to live off the $100 per month allotted per person..that's $25 a week per person."

We've built up a whole system that makes junk food much, much easier for low-income shoppers to obtain than real food, and then we acts as though it's some inherent personality flaw in the targeted consumers (SNAP or otherwise) that leads them to feed their families a diet high in junk.
Well I tend to agree, but considering tour nation can't even agree to disagree without resorting to acts of violence or discrimination on healthcare reform I seriously doubt a reform for our eating habits is going to happen anytime in the near future.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top