If you *could* qualify.
Back when I was looking into it, in my state, if you owned more than one vehicle, owned a home, had a 401k and a positive checking account balance, you didn't qualify.
But we don't have pets (I have to feed my kids instead), and broke mostly even on just unemployment as a family of 5. Although when unemployed we also sold our paid-off 2008 Honda CRV and got a 2001 Odyssey since we needed more room for the unexpected new child. So... it depends I suppose.
Did you pay for your college with cash/check/credit card, or did you use government assistance with loans/grants? If you took out a government/guaranteed student loan, then you used government assistance. If you went to a state university, then you used government assistance. The reason those schools are cheaper than private colleges=tax money. If you went to a public high school=taxes. State university=taxes. You're right, public assistance is easy to get. : )
Many people, people that I know, think it's disgusting to attend a state university or a public school. Yikes, I am just as disturbed when they talk about how they think everyone should have to pay the full price of a college education (a private college that doesn't use taxes to subsidize like a state school). They feel like their tax dollars shouldn't have to pay for someone else's college education. They think that everyone should have to struggle and pay the full price of college at a private college. Anyway, I love that my tax dollars pay for ALL government assisted programs.
This is an idiological question you're posing. I think that most people for whom food stamps don't sit well, they are going to bristle at your question, even if they grudgingly accept that *some* people need assistance.
That's an untrue assumption for everyone. I don't have a problem with public assistance. I wish sometimes that it were calculated differently. For example, I wish that students who excel received a free college education and not just people whose parents don't make much money. Supporting the best & brightest would help our society more, regardless of that person's parents' socioeconomic status. The purpose of public assistance - from any worldview - is to better society.
The problem I have with the OP's situation is that it does represent to me what is problematic about public assistance. The OP doesn't need food stamps, whether her family qualifies or not. She could make different decisions to be self-sufficient, but public assistance is so easily & readily available that I do think it encourages people to rely on someone other themselves. My husband & I graduated from college about a year after the dot com bust. Laid off programmers were beginning to get job offers again at low rates, which meant that my husband, whose degree is in computer science, was at a serious disadvantage in getting a job. He worked 4 days a week at GAP and 3 days a week as a day laborer until he found something else. I was a graduate student and worked in my department. We cut everything from our lives, shut up our apartment so that we only needed to heat, cool, and light 1 room, sold our things to make money, etc. We were broke!
It sucked, but we learned so.much. from that experience. I cannot tell you how much that experience taught us about who we are and what we can do if we put our energy into it. Now, truthfully I sometimes wish we'd gone the public assistance route because it would've been easier. At the same time, we learned to rely on ourselves, and that has served us well. When I read here or talk to people IRL who have tons of reasons for why they cannot get a job, pay their bills, etc., I think about how creative and resourceful that time taught us to be. So, in the OP's situation, no, it's not dire enough for me to think that food stamps are a need and not a want.
I just started receiving food stamps. I am in Michigan.
The application asked about:
The application did not ask about:
I had no idea whether I would qualify when I applied. I decided that I would tell the 100% truth on my application and would not fuss in any way if I was denied. The $174/month I was granted will be very helpful while I continue to search for a job. I paid my fair share of taxes for 20 years and will pay again when I am employed.
I do have to say that when we got rid of cable I was shocked to find that I didn't miss it one bit.
And we were big TV watchers. We would go to be every night watching Daily Show/Colbert, I always had CNN or Discovery or TLC on. . .
We got rid of it because of the expense, and I told myself I would just download all the shows I used to think I needed to see, and I only very rarely do.
I consider it a wonderful step that freed up some extra cash, I just cannot believe we were dumping that money down the drain all that time!!!
I find the argument that taking a deduction on mortgage interest being government assistance ludicrous.
I am simply keeping the money I have earned in that case, the government is not giving me money over and above what I have paid. Each year, I have paid the government tax money. Doesn't matter how many deductions I take, when all is said and done, I have contributed to the government coffers. I may contribute less, but that is NOT government assistance. They are not giving me anything. I am simply giving them less. They are not helping me out by letting me keep my OWN money, money I have worked hard for and earned.
When someone is on government assistance, the government is giving them something extra over and above what they have contributed. Yes, I used student loans to go to college, but I paid them back. The government didn't GIVE me anything- therefore that is not government assistance. (actually, when I went to college, I didn't use any of the government programs for loans- 30 years ago that was actually possible.)
As far as the OP, I think assistance programs are for those who need them. Short term, tough times, etc. Not something that is expected to be a life style. If the OP thinks her family truly needs this, she should apply. The very fact that she is agonizing over this shows she is not one who abuses the system.
I have heard the saying that government programs should be a safety net, not a hammock. I actually prefer the term trampoline- it should be something that helps you bounce right back to where you were or even get higher.
I'm on fs and I feel if you need them and you are elgible for them to get them you don't want to have your family to go hungry. I will tell you if you have a saving accoutn they do take that in to consideration. I also want to ask a question I'm not a new mom but I have grown childern does that matter that I'm on this site. I would not give your animals away. When you do apply for food stamps they do get personal with you I'm just putting that in their.
I find this argument interesting as well. Those with higher incomes (per the IRS) don't qualify for nearly as many deductions and credits as those that are "low income". Even though I'm taking a mortgage deduction every year, I'm still paying into the system that hands it out. A lot of people with low income are allowed to use credits and deduction to effectively make their tax liability zero or possibly, get money back from the government, thus taking even more money from the system without paying in anything. So, by using the argument below, should no one be allowed a tax deduction or tax credit so that everyone may contribute equally (or at least proportionately) to the system?
That said... I am for public assistance. I think it's a wonderful thing that our country and tax payers are able to provide assistance to those in need. I would never want to take that away. *I* can't personally pass judgement on the OP because she gave us so little information. If the only information given is that information to which she obviously feels conflicted about herself, how is it that I can derive a clear picture of their actual financial situation and determine whether or not I would take FS if I were in her shoes? If the information given was more about "can I get FS if I have these expenses?" then I think the answer is clear... but IMO, the original question was more of a "if you were in my shoes and were able to pay for these items, would you get FS?" Otherwise, why even bring up the fact that you have cable, internet, pets and newer cars?
Originally Posted by mar123
I find the argument that taking a deduction on mortgage interest being government assistance ludicrous.
I am simply keeping the money I have earned in that case, the government is not giving me money over and above what I have paid. Each year, I have paid the government tax money. Doesn't matter how many deductions I take, when all is said and done, I have contributed to the government coffers. I may contribute less, but that is NOT government assistance. They are not giving me anything. I am simply giving them less. They are not helping me out by letting me keep my OWN money, money I have worked hard for and earned.
When someone is on government assistance, the government is giving them something extra over and above what they have contributed. Yes, I used student loans to go to college, but I paid them back. The government didn't GIVE me anything- therefore that is not government assistance. (actually, when I went to college, I didn't use any of the government programs for loans- 30 years ago that was actually possible.)
As far as the OP, I think assistance programs are for those who need them. Short term, tough times, etc. Not something that is expected to be a life style. If the OP thinks her family truly needs this, she should apply. The very fact that she is agonizing over this shows she is not one who abuses the system.
I have heard the saying that government programs should be a safety net, not a hammock. I actually prefer the term trampoline- it should be something that helps you bounce right back to where you were or even get higher.
It might be different in other states because I know in vermont they ask if you have car, cable, retirement fund they asked every thing you said they don't. She needs to check on the website for here state and see what they will ask if you have.
I find the argument that taking a deduction on mortgage interest being government assistance ludicrous.
I am simply keeping the money I have earned in that case, the government is not giving me money over and above what I have paid. Each year, I have paid the government tax money. Doesn't matter how many deductions I take, when all is said and done, I have contributed to the government coffers. I may contribute less, but that is NOT government assistance. They are not giving me anything. I am simply giving them less. They are not helping me out by letting me keep my OWN money, money I have worked hard for and earned.
When someone is on government assistance, the government is giving them something extra over and above what they have contributed. Yes, I used student loans to go to college, but I paid them back. The government didn't GIVE me anything- therefore that is not government assistance. (actually, when I went to college, I didn't use any of the government programs for loans- 30 years ago that was actually possible.)
As far as the OP, I think assistance programs are for those who need them. Short term, tough times, etc. Not something that is expected to be a life style. If the OP thinks her family truly needs this, she should apply. The very fact that she is agonizing over this shows she is not one who abuses the system.
I have heard the saying that government programs should be a safety net, not a hammock. I actually prefer the term trampoline- it should be something that helps you bounce right back to where you were or even get higher.
ITA.
I feel like getting the deduction on the mortgage interest is similar to getting the deductions for you children. It would be like saying that everyone who has a child and gets to claim them, ultimately paying less on taxes, is getting government assistance to raise their children... The mortgage insurance, child deductions are a completely different ball field. I'm not getting additional money over what I have earned from the government because I have children or own a house, I'm just getting to keep more of the money that I earned because I have those things. Whereas someone who hasn't contributed to the system by means of taxes could still collect food stamps. case in point my SIL found that when she started working that her subsidized housing rent went up, and she lost her food stamps, and her state health insurance... She found it easier to quit her job to lower her rent, get her food stamps back, and her health insurance.... rather than going to find a better paying job with health benefits, or switching to full-time work (which she could do) to be able to have more money for the things she needs. She won't be contributing anything into the system in means of taxes but will be getting a whole lot. I feel there's a big difference between that and me being able to deduct my mortgage insurance. I think it would be a different situation if the government said you could claim a deduction and pay less taxes if you're considered low income and can't afford food, and you took that money you were saving on taxes and spent it on food.
Most loans are government loans; the government pays the interest while the student is in college. If you didn't take out a loan backed by the government, then the interest would accrue. Yikes, I chose the cheaper route of having the government loan opposed to owing interest immediately. Plus, unless you attend a private school, college is subsidized by the government. If it wasn't, a lot of people wouldn't ever be able to afford college. If you went to a state school (university), then the government did give you money.
I find the argument that taking a deduction on mortgage interest being government assistance ludicrous.
I am simply keeping the money I have earned in that case, the government is not giving me money over and above what I have paid. Each year, I have paid the government tax money. Doesn't matter how many deductions I take, when all is said and done, I have contributed to the government coffers. I may contribute less, but that is NOT government assistance. They are not giving me anything. I am simply giving them less. They are not helping me out by letting me keep my OWN money, money I have worked hard for and earned.
When someone is on government assistance, the government is giving them something extra over and above what they have contributed. Yes, I used student loans to go to college, but I paid them back. The government didn't GIVE me anything- therefore that is not government assistance. (actually, when I went to college, I didn't use any of the government programs for loans- 30 years ago that was actually possible.)
As far as the OP, I think assistance programs are for those who need them. Short term, tough times, etc. Not something that is expected to be a life style. If the OP thinks her family truly needs this, she should apply. The very fact that she is agonizing over this shows she is not one who abuses the system.
I have heard the saying that government programs should be a safety net, not a hammock. I actually prefer the term trampoline- it should be something that helps you bounce right back to where you were or even get higher.
Yes, but if you go to a state university then you're afforded the same opportunity as everyone else in this country... equally. Getting into college is not based on income guidelines, but federal aid is and so is welfare... I just don't understand these arguments where everyone benefits the same... especially if you're paying taxes... you're paying into the system and taking out of the system... some people aren't paying into the system and are still receiving from the system... really?
Now, grants and loans are different. I didn't qualify for any type of federal grant or federal subsidized loan. Therefore, if I had financed my education, it would have been through a private bank and my interest would have accrued throughout my college years. However, I am thankful that I was able to pay for college outright... very thankful.
Most loans are government loans; the government pays the interest while the student is in college. If you didn't take out a loan backed by the government, then the interest would accrue. Yikes, I chose the cheaper route of having the government loan opposed to owing interest immediately. Plus, unless you attend a private school, college is subsidized by the government. If it wasn't, a lot of people wouldn't ever be able to afford college. If you went to a state school (university), then the government did give you money.
I find the argument that taking a deduction on mortgage interest being government assistance ludicrous.
I am simply keeping the money I have earned in that case, the government is not giving me money over and above what I have paid. Each year, I have paid the government tax money. Doesn't matter how many deductions I take, when all is said and done, I have contributed to the government coffers. I may contribute less, but that is NOT government assistance. They are not giving me anything. I am simply giving them less. They are not helping me out by letting me keep my OWN money, money I have worked hard for and earned.
When someone is on government assistance, the government is giving them something extra over and above what they have contributed. Yes, I used student loans to go to college, but I paid them back. The government didn't GIVE me anything- therefore that is not government assistance. (actually, when I went to college, I didn't use any of the government programs for loans- 30 years ago that was actually possible.)
As far as the OP, I think assistance programs are for those who need them. Short term, tough times, etc. Not something that is expected to be a life style. If the OP thinks her family truly needs this, she should apply. The very fact that she is agonizing over this shows she is not one who abuses the system.
I have heard the saying that government programs should be a safety net, not a hammock. I actually prefer the term trampoline- it should be something that helps you bounce right back to where you were or even get higher.
I think our society has decided that "public assistance" is wrong and that is why it is labeled as it is. Why I brought up the interest deduction is because it highlights that it is a MORAL issue, on that I feel many people are coming down on the wrong side of.
Let's picture all of the taxes the US govt is "owed." Out of that they pay various things. One thing they pay is food stamps. Another is to return money to people based on their expenses.
So, for $5000 the government can help a low income family have food for the year.
For the same $5000, they can help a high income family have a house that costs $100K more than they could otherwise afford.
The first is considered a handout. The family is considered lesser in some way for taking it.
The second is considered perfectly fine. The family is considered smart and good planners for taking it.
In what way are they not BOTH public assistance? There is a mortgage interest deduction because our society has deteremined that home-ownership is something that should be encouraged, AKA SUBSIDIZED, by the government.
There are food stamps because our society has determined that all members of our society should have access to adequate food.
If we are not going to attack those who take the interest deduction (of which I have for the past 10 years, btw, thanks!) for not being able to "support themselves" why should we attack those who take it for food. After all, if you can't afford your house without the mortgage interest deduction maybe you should get rid of your pets, only have one car...
How has it become *more* honorable to take money you don't really need than to take money that makes a huge difference in your life?!?!?
I hope my further explanation has explained it a bit better. See, I don't think it is selfish for the person to take the mortgage interest deduction and still have luxuries. Just like I don't think that it is selfish for the person to take food stamps and still have luxuries. They are both forms of public assistance, they are both obtained legally, they should be viewed THE SAME. While I hear plenty of people saying it is wrong for someone to take food stamps AND have any luxuries, I don't hear anyone saying that it is wrong to take tax deductions ON LUXURIES and pay for ADDITIONAL LUXURIES with those tax deductions. They are both using governmental tax money to pay for their individual luxuries. NO DIFFERENCE. (Well, to me there is a huge difference, because of the people I know paying >$30K mortgage interest yearly, they are spending probably more than a family on food stamps makes a year on luxuries with no moral qualms, but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't take the deduction)
Bolding mine. And these two highlighted comments conflict. In the first instance, you argue that someone using mortgage interest deductions needs to do so in order to buy more house than they can afford. Then you go on to state that they don't need the deductions. I'm not following. In any event . . .
To me, the glaring flaw in this argument is that it seems to be based on the presumption that people actually consider how much interest they are going to be able to deduct and consider that a determining factor in the consideration of how much house they can afford. This argument is based on the presumption that people are in homes they could not otherwise afford without the ability to deduct their mortgage interest. Something they get to do once a year. When the mortgage payment is due every month - twice a month for some. This just doesn't make sense.
I do agree that as a matter of public policy, our government has determined that home ownership is a "good" thing (moral judgement) and therefore offers these deductions in order to encourage more home ownership. I won't exclude that it is someone's reality that these deductions may inspire them to calculate how much more they can increase their W-2 withholdings in order to offset the refund they would otherwise get at the end of the year. But, the big dollar deductions that go along with big dollar priced homes probably don't matter as much on the week to week, month to month take home for those type of home owners, so the argument just doesn't hold when you follow it to its logical end.
Presumably, then, since we have this entitlement program, our government has determined that subsidizing food for our citizenry is actually a "good" thing, too.
The sad thing is that the abuse of the food stamp program has been highlighted much more than the abuse of tax shelters (considering mortgage deductions a type of shelter for purposes of this discussion). At least it is probably fair to say that the ability to spin the discussion on these issues is more in the hands of the tax shelter users than the food stamp users.
Just because I went to a state college, doesn't mean they gave me money. Our state funds universities with sales tax, so technically everyone contributes. I paid in (my parents REALLY paid in), I went to the school, so in essence I got what I paid for. Again, I didn't get more than I had put in.
Many years ago, student loans were not all backed by the federal gov't. Even the ones you didn't finance through a bank. We had many, many choices. Now the loans are with the government, in essence. So the gov't isn't paying the interest. They are waiting until you can pay it.
I just think this argument that everyone takes some type of assistance is ridiculous and meant to make people feel guilty. I personally feel that our government is way too big and this movement to have the government be everyone's sugar daddy is what is causing our problems today. When teh government is picking up the tab, people don't see the true cost and it leads to personal irresponsibility. I have a more libertarian view than many here. I just think the government needs to get out of our lives and let personal responsibility take over. With gov't assistance comes rules and regulations. We can't have it both ways; freedom to do things the way we feel is best, but have the government fund it. It won't happen that way; never has, and never will.
The mortgage interest deduction is not about the government imposing a moral "good" on the idea of home ownership but rather about giving people that own homes and therefore pay real estate property taxes a deduction that puts them more in line with people that have the same income but don't own homes and therefore pay no property taxes.
The mortgage interest deduction is not about the government imposing a moral "good" on the idea of home ownership but rather about giving people that own homes and therefore pay real estate property taxes a deduction that puts them more in line with people that have the same income but don't own homes and therefore pay no property taxes.
Well, I'm pretty sure my landlord isn't paying the property tax on the property in which I live out of the goodness of his heart. His property taxes are figured into my rent.
The mortgage interest tax deduction is sold the way you describe, but IMO, all it does it subsidize debt and drive up housing prices. Why do I have to pay for my housing costs (rent) out of my net pay and a home owner does not?
IMO, a big problem in our political discourse is that so many government subsidies are done through not taxing things. There's an exemption for the mortgage interest, the cost of health insurance, a credit for having a child and so on. Those ARE government subsidies, but are phrased in a way so they are unrecognized as such in political discourse. This allows us to criticize those on direct assistance, like food stamps, and frankly sets up a conflict based on social class .
I'd be in rough shape if I had to pay more taxes on my health insurance amounts, which are huge, so I'm not saying that I want this to change. I understand why that would be very difficult. But I can recognize that it contributes to a pretty dysfunctional social safety net.
To the OP, I'd cut the cable and save the difference. You'd be better off in the long run. Lots of stuff is online for free, like on Hulu and such. I have no issue with your taking food stamps though, if you qualify for them. Frankly, they are fairly good for the economy, so I support them on those grounds alone, along with being a lefty type.
The mortgage interest tax deduction is sold the way you describe, but IMO, all it does it subsidize debt and drive up housing prices. Why do I have to pay for my housing costs (rent) out of my net pay and a home owner does not?
IMO, a big problem in our political discourse is that so many government subsidies are done through not taxing things. There's an exemption for the mortgage interest, the cost of health insurance, a credit for having a child and so on. Those ARE government subsidies, but are phrased in a way so they are unrecognized as such in political discourse. This allows us to criticize those on direct assistance, like food stamps, and frankly sets up a conflict based on social class .
Home owners create value that renters don't, and that value is good for the community. Areas with higher rates of owner-occupied homes have lower crime (and thus higher property values - more taxes!) rates. Homeowners purchase supplies and pay for maintenance workers, and renters tend not to do those things. The reality, though, is that many modest homeowners don't pay enough in interest on their mortgage to matter. We pay $600 a month in interest, so $7200 a year. That alone is not enough to get us above the standard deduction. In this way, yes the interest deduction is more beneficial to people who purchase more expensive homes (or live in regions with a higher COL, since our home would cost easily 2-3X more in CA or NY). At the same time, though, I don't think the interest deduction is the deciding factor for anyone.
Certainly people who qualify for any actual assistance receive far more money than the average family saves in tax obligation from an interest deduction. In fact, a recent study showed that a family of 4 making $30,000 actually fared better than families of 4 making up to $44,999 because those families qualified for enough benefits that they made up the income difference through public assistance.
I do understand your point about subsidies through not taxing, but I don't think it's an entirely accurate view. Everyone who purchases a primary home can write off the interest. That's not dependent on your pay. Everyone who lives in a state and goes to a public university in that state pays the in-state tuition rate, regardless of the family's income. Everyone who drives can use roads funded through federal money. The difference with cash assistance, housing assistance, etc. is that one must meet certain criteria to qualify, so it is not, in fact, the same as interest deductions or other tax shelters.
I agree that we need a social safety net for our citizenry. It's in our best interest. I just don't think it's wrong to want people who choose that safety net to really need it. I also think public assistance should come with requirements that lead to you improving your life. I hear people complain about *only* getting $600 in food stamps, for instance. I believe those complaints are genuine. Those people really, truly don't know how to feed a family of 4 or 5 on $600 a month, and they could benefit from classes to help them with grocery shopping, budgeting, or - gasp! - cooking from scratch. (I know that many here who gets food stamps probably do cook from scratch often, but MDC is not a representative population.) THAT would be a true safety net.
hmmmm... so following your logic, I could say that the child tax credit and child care credit encourage people to have more kids than they could otherwise afford. Where's the logic in that? Keep in mind that you don't receive as much of a benefit as most people believe. In order to itemize, you must have more itemized deductions than the standard deduction. Therefore, you're only receiving a benefit at the amount equal to your itemized deduction amount less the standard deduction. I know for sure that we didn't figure in our marginal tax saved on the additional $3,000 we received this year as a result of taking the mortgage interest and property tax deduction when we decided to buy our house 4 years ago. I don't think the mortgage interest deduction does anything to sway people to spend that extra $50,000 on a house that they shouldn't (as an example). I think that's the banks doing as well as predatory lending.
The mortgage interest deduction is not about the government imposing a moral "good" on the idea of home ownership but rather about giving people that own homes and therefore pay real estate property taxes a deduction that puts them more in line with people that have the same income but don't own homes and therefore pay no property taxes.
Well, I'm pretty sure my landlord isn't paying the property tax on the property in which I live out of the goodness of his heart. His property taxes are figured into my rent.
The mortgage interest tax deduction is sold the way you describe, but IMO, all it does it subsidize debt and drive up housing prices. Why do I have to pay for my housing costs (rent) out of my net pay and a home owner does not?
IMO, a big problem in our political discourse is that so many government subsidies are done through not taxing things. There's an exemption for the mortgage interest, the cost of health insurance, a credit for having a child and so on. Those ARE government subsidies, but are phrased in a way so they are unrecognized as such in political discourse. This allows us to criticize those on direct assistance, like food stamps, and frankly sets up a conflict based on social class .
I'd be in rough shape if I had to pay more taxes on my health insurance amounts, which are huge, so I'm not saying that I want this to change. I understand why that would be very difficult. But I can recognize that it contributes to a pretty dysfunctional social safety net.
To the OP, I'd cut the cable and save the difference. You'd be better off in the long run. Lots of stuff is online for free, like on Hulu and such. I have no issue with your taking food stamps though, if you qualify for them. Frankly, they are fairly good for the economy, so I support them on those grounds alone, along with being a lefty type.
I need honest opinions. I believe we make the income requirements. I applied, gathered and copied all the necessary paperwork to send in...then chickened out. And this is why:
We have two cars: a 2005 (paid off) and a 2008 (just bought)--they're reliable, newer cars
We have 4 pets: 3 cats and a Rottweiler puppy.
We still have (basic+) cable and high speed internet.
BUT:
DH got the only FT job he could find (believe me, he's been looking!) when he was laid off two years ago, I get as many PT hours at my job as i can, and we still don't make enough.
We pay for our bills and gas with what's in checking and take out $100/week for groceries and ALL expenses (clothes, household items, fun--EVERYTHING).
The only way we stay afloat is that i squirrel away money, but we're draining our savings just trying to pay the bills.
Would you get FS if you were in my place?
This has turned into an interesting discussion on politics :-)
OP, I feel like you are a little uncomfortable with the fs idea, listing what you have and wondering if you "should" even apply. You are right you have a lot. My opinion, since you asked, would be that I think food stamps are a set budget and you are wondering if you should apply to take money from that budget. If you do, someone who loses a job and really has nothing may hypothetically be denied later this year when funds are all tied up. Should that matter to you? I don't know and could not say. I am sure others know of many people with "more" than you and more unnecessary expenses who are already on food stamps.
I do want to point out, as others have, that in your case you do need to cut all the extra's you can. Your budget doesn't add up, and you should not be pulling from savings to pay for cable since this is not a short term income problem for you. Even if you do the food stamps, I would at least cut the cable and use any extra money to rebuild my savings asap in case you end up with even less income and need it for paying your real bills. Good luck with your decisions, I really do wish you the best!
Follow Mothering