Food Stamps and "assets"

[mrsfrenchy]

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.

[deditus]

I think when I applied, all they asked for was a statement with my current bank account balances.

[KatWrangler]

It's the current month. However,they may want the last month statement as well.

[frugalmama]

if either of you are self employed they may want as much as 6mo back - they pulled that on me recently.

[mnnice]

Lots of states supposedly don't have asset limits for food stamps anymore.

[leavemealone]

Check with your state. The application mentioned the $2000 limit, but I don't think they asked for anything of ours, not that we had anything anyway. If I had money, I wouldn't be applying for FS. I do remember hearing that some states have done away with the asset limits at least temporarily, especially ones with high unemployment. I don't know that for sure, but there was a news article about a local person who had like $50,000 in the bank, but still got FS b/c they'd recently lost their job.

[Smocked]

I don't remember the exact details, but we had something like 2 grand in the bank before we applied and use it for our mortgage. The money I think was from owed vacay pay to dh when he lost his job so it wasn't money that we would be expecting again. We had to fill out a statement saying where the money came from, where it went (mortgage was acceptable to them) and how we won't be receiving any future payments like that I don't know how different it is if it's just money you saved up for a while, but the case worker will probably guide you the best way possible!

[ErikaLeigh]

either way the only thing they are going to do is ask you why you took the money out of the bank, and mine was because i had to pay bills so things didnt get cut off .

[Hannah32]

It seems to me that it would make more sense to encourage people to keep savings in the bank, so they can continue paying for their homes and necessities like health insurance when they lose their jobs and give them food stamps so those assets can last longer.

I find this rule really grating. People who save should still be able to get help when they hit a rough patch. I really dislike how the US system basically creates incentives to spend every dime you make. You're not going to get any help unless you are broke!

Bleh.....

[mamadelbosque]

The last time we applied they didn't ask about assets, only income. So, in OH at least, I don't think they care anymore.

[Hannah32]

Well that's good. Hopefully, it will be a trend. People are better off facing tough times with savings AND a little assistance.

[Freedom~Mama]

I think they just count the current income and assets and not in months prior. That is how it worked for me anyway.

[Sharlla]

I've never been asked to provide a statement in the past when I was receiving services, only current balance and the account #.

[BlueLeaf]

Some states have to accept your statement on your asset. Generally, they're only interested what you have in the month you apply, both for income and assets.

[Auraji]

I just applied on Sat night and they called me today. I was surprised how fast it was. I filled it out online and they said they needed a statement. I right now have 126$ on the bank, so I dont think it should be a problem.

[ewp11100]

We just applied and recieved FS 2 months ago. they wanted one months but they were leinent. We live in a HCOL area my modist morgage is 1445$ a month, of course if all my other bills were due at the same time, and I could pay the all at once I might have more then $2k. With the economy I think they are playing it by ear

[Usually Curious]

Originally Posted by Hannah32

It seems to me that it would make more sense to encourage people to keep savings in the bank, so they can continue paying for their homes and necessities like health insurance when they lose their jobs and give them food stamps so those assets can last longer.

I find this rule really grating. People who save should still be able to get help when they hit a rough patch. I really dislike how the US system basically creates incentives to spend every dime you make. You're not going to get any help unless you are broke!

Bleh.....

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?

[blessedwithboys]

here in FL they cut you off if you have 2K in assets, even if the asset exists bc of a one-time pay-out.

[mnnice]

Originally Posted by Usually Curious

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 totally see your point, but on the other hand my neighbor (about 50 years old with a partner that has always stayed home and two active high school kids who I'm sure eat like crazy) who just got laid off from a good job. If unemployment is his family's only income they would qualify for FS. Is his family less deserving of support if they had lived below their means for the last 20 years than if spent every dime the second they got it?

[Usually Curious]

Originally Posted by mnnice

I totally see your point, but on the other hand my neighbor (about 50 years old with a partner that has always stayed home and two active high school kids who I'm sure eat like crazy) who just got laid off from a good job. If unemployment is his family's only income they would qualify for FS. Is his family less deserving of support if they had lived below their means for the last 20 years than if spent every dime the second they got it?

It's not really a matter of being 'deserving' or not. If he has the resources then, yes, he should use them.