Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 22

[pek64]

I'm going to try to answer the points above.

The home inspection is to make sure you're not living high while on assistance. Now that I'm thinking about it more, though, this wouldn't necessarily stop abuses. I'll have to think about that one.

I think organics should be covered. I also eat potato chips, because some days that's my only fat source, so I'd hate to exclude snack foods, but I don't see the benefit of Doritos. So food restrictions are difficult.

Folks who make more money can afford accountants to help them find ways around paying more in taxes. Those loopholes should be closed. Maybe interest paid on the primary residence can be declared, but an R that's not your primary residence or other houses are not deductible. (I've never had a second house, so I don't know if I'm right about this, but my sister had a house and RV and declared the interest on both.) I'd have to make myself more knowledgeable about tax deductions to answer this one more intelligently.

I have looked into finding funding for a business, and unless the business is already running, loans are not available. If I've missed something, PM me with the info, please!

Yes, I think the current levels of who qualifies is too low. I hear this complaint from others, that the cost of living has gone up, but not the qualification levels.

Work from home is something for those with older children. I agree that young children need too much attention to allow for a work at home situation. But even if the child is at school, there may not be a job opportunity that wouldn't require before or after care. A work from home job could eliminate that problem. Again, this assumes no younger children.

[kitteh]

I still think home inspections would be problematic. We have nicer looking home furnishings, including a leather couch and matching bedroom set that my inlaws mostly paid for. We also have two flat screen tvs, dvd players and cable boxes with dvrs for both. We scrimp in other areas to make these expenditures fit within our means. Of course, my family isnt asking for food stamps, but the point is that looks can be deceptive and don't necessarily reflect your exact income.

[kitteh]

I also have a (not so) smart phone that likes to double post.

[mamazee]

Also, people can have enough money to buy nice furniture, and then lose a job/jobs, and THEN need food stamps. A lot of people who need food stamps only need them temporarily, like between jobs. It would be ridiculous and economically stupid for them to sell their car/furniture/TV between jobs so they can look poor enough for the home study, and then buy new ones after their temporary need for food stamps is past.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by pek64 

I have looked into finding funding for a business, and unless the business is already running, loans are not available. If I've missed something, PM me with the info, please!
 

Work from home is something for those with older children. I agree that young children need too much attention to allow for a work at home situation. But even if the child is at school, there may not be a job opportunity that wouldn't require before or after care. A work from home job could eliminate that problem. Again, this assumes no younger children.

http://www.sba.gov/content/microloan-program   These are actually distributed by community nonprofits.  For instance in my community I would go here: http://www.maced.org/loanproducts.htm  This organization has difficulty finding qualified applicants.  I have generally assumed such organizations existed in many places.  A private investor if you could find one to start trying to convince would be even more interested in risk and likely profit.

When a mom is getting welfare to help her stay at home with children, I assume the children are preschool aged or younger.  In my state your benefits would be extremely limited if your children were all above 5yo and you were not employed.  Homeschooling would not excuse you.  You would be expected to actively seek work and would have stricter time cutoffs.  I think if you couldn't get paying work, you would be expected to do at least 20 hours of volunteer work and also continue looking.  The 20 hours is definitely required for cash benefits because we live in a college town and I think starting in 2000 the single moms who were full time students here had to also work at least 20 hours to get benefits and many of them chose not to receive them and to instead go into debt with student loans to cover it.

Once children go to school part time jobs are a good option, but it can be difficult to match to the school schedule which would be the most important thing for saving on childcare. A lot of moms who may have gotten some state assistance when their kids were infants and toddlers are back in the work force at least part time by the time their kids go to school.  Being a SAHM getting state benefits is pretty much already a temporary thing confined to those youngest years, which is part of why I see no problems with it.

[crunchy_mommy]

I would not support home studies, I think poor people are already judged plenty & we certainly don't need to add to it.

I would support cross-referencing IRS data to cut back on fraud. And while we're at it, I'd also consider sending out a notice to everyone in the database that's below the eligible income level telling them that they are eligible for food stamps/medicaid/etc. and can just simply sign a paper to receive them. I think it's sad that it's so complicated & confusing to apply and that some people don't even know they're eligible. Plus it costs money to apply as it stands -- to either get transportation to appear in person or make photocopies of everything and pay postage to mail a big packet of info. Even $5-10 is too much for some people.

To get back to the original topic, I'd favor an automatic stipend for all parents of children under age 5, to help cover either SAH income losses or daycare costs. I suppose there could be income limits, but they'd have to be generous -- would depend on local COL but maybe something like after $50K the stipend lessens, eventually to $0 for those that make over $100K.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by pek64 

I'm going to try to answer the points above.

The home inspection is to make sure you're not living high while on assistance. Now that I'm thinking about it more, though, this wouldn't necessarily stop abuses. I'll have to think about that one.

This just doesnt make sense to me.

When you apply for assistance you need to meet certain qualifications. You show proof of income, bank statements, how much your car is worth, you are supposed to declare how much cash on hand you have, etc. If you meet the guidelines you usually get approved. What does "living high" mean? If your boyfriend buys you a big tv, or your parents buy you a leather sofa, how does this change whether you qualify? and how would a worker determine that? The guidelines are the guidelines, what you choose to do with the income you DO make is up to you.

Its like when people complain about people buying, say, junk food with food stamps. If you get 100 dollars a month in food stamps, thats what you get. If you spend it on junk, you dont get MORE money. Whether you shop at Aldi, or only buy organic, or just eat beans and rice, or eat a lot of meat, or *whatever*...you still get the same amount each month. If you make $12K/yr and qualify for FS, you qualify whether or not you take some of your own money to get your nails done. If you take rent money and get your nails done well you have bigger problems that have little to do with food stamps or welfare or medicaid.  And in terms of food stamps....i would guess that most people (or at least a high percentage) that receive food assistance are actually working at a job and have earned income. Or they have been recently laid off.

I know someone who was commenting on a recent tv program/documentary about poor people...my friend commented negatively about the "big screen tv" the family had, how thats just SO WRONG. The thing is...if that family took their tv, their videogames, every single thing of value they owned...what would it amount to really? 1000K? 2000K? maybe?? So in two months or six months they will still be broke, will still need assistance, and will have nothing of value or much to enjoy while living their crappy poor existence.

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by queenjane 

I know someone who was commenting on a recent tv program/documentary about poor people...my friend commented negatively about the "big screen tv" the family had, how thats just SO WRONG. The thing is...if that family took their tv, their videogames, every single thing of value they owned...what would it amount to really? 1000K? 2000K? maybe?? So in two months or six months they will still be broke, will still need assistance, and will have nothing of value or much to enjoy while living their crappy poor existence.

We had big screen tv once. It cost $500+. When I sold it, I got $60. It was so hard, honestly, having saved for such a long time to buy it, then when we had to sell it to get money for gas, get *so* much less for it. The same with video games. We saved and saved to get a WII when it first came out. We bought each of us a wiimote (I hate that word...), and had four or five games, totaling ~$400. When I sold it, games, wiimotes, and all, we got $150. The depreciation on those things, as well as movies/television series/etc, is horrible, and it's *very* upsetting when it comes to that.

[pek64]

OK
Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work. I thought of someone getting assistance living in a large mansion, but it's owned by someone else. So yes, where you live and what you have doesn't mean you're cheating the system.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by bmcneal 

We had big screen tv once. It cost $500+. When I sold it, I got $60. It was so hard, honestly, having saved for such a long time to buy it, then when we had to sell it to get money for gas, get *so* much less for it. The same with video games. We saved and saved to get a WII when it first came out. We bought each of us a wiimote (I hate that word...), and had four or five games, totaling ~$400. When I sold it, games, wiimotes, and all, we got $150. The depreciation on those things, as well as movies/television series/etc, is horrible, and it's *very* upsetting when it comes to that.

My nephew spent his childhood having his mom sell his videogames to pay the rent or gas. It must suck to have that be your childhood.   And she was only on assistance for a very short period of time because of how low it made her feel. She was a hard worker but as a single mom it was hard to make ends meet even working fulltime.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by pek64 

OK
Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work. I thought of someone getting assistance living in a large mansion, but it's owned by someone else. So yes, where you live and what you have doesn't mean you're cheating the system.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by littlest birds 

Thanks!

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 
 I'd also consider sending out a notice to everyone in the database that's below the eligible income level telling them that they are eligible for food stamps/medicaid/etc. and can just simply sign a paper to receive them. I think it's sad that it's so complicated & confusing to apply and that some people don't even know they're eligible. Plus it costs money to apply as it stands -- to either get transportation to appear in person or make photocopies of everything and pay postage to mail a big packet of info. Even $5-10 is too much for some people.

In many states where there are a lot of income-eligible people, not everyone who could be is enrolled in the food stamp program. I knew this was true back when I was a grant writer, but it's still true. It means that a lot of families either go hungry or rely on other programs to subsidize their food costs. 

The political right has criticized the current presidential administration for having too many people on food stamps. It's true that this is an indicator of an economic downturn, but it's also a way of cushioning the whole economy against the downturn. It's a much better way than giving the money to very large banks. The banks returned the TARP money, but they withheld a lot of the business-expanding loans they were expected to lay out to keep cash flow moving. When we as a society cushion the impact of a high unemployment rate on the lowest income people, they put that money right back into the economy, essentially because they can't afford to save it. 

The thing is, no one would ever pass the idea of informing people below a certain income level of available programs based on their taxes. First, there are a lot of people on the left and on the right who would be worried that such a move is too invasive of people's privacy. There are also a lot of people in the country (as we've seen on this thread) who are concerned about robbing low-income people of their initiative to work. Also, the fact that the money flows back into the economy is not an argument for people who are unhappy with the idea of our taxes going back out to us in this way, for a variety of ideological reasons, some more savory than others. 

In any case, to tie this back to the topic of the thread, I don't think food stamps are a sufficient supplement to allow low-income single parents to stay home with their children for more than a short time. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work.

this already does happen - it's not some radical new idea- it's here for many- if you get assistance or not

if you live in public housing (family or senior citizen) you are subjected to inspections - one could even argue that it is discriminatory for non-assisted housing families to not be subjected to the same for receiving other "assistance"- mostly the cost to enforce this and the fact the govt owned property is just that - not private

regardless if you receive any or no govt help- and if you have children you can be subjected to inspection based on several things - local/state zoning laws, health hazards, suspicion of child neglect, etc - so if you are a crappy housekeeper and someone feels this might endanger your child they can report you

assets - you have to disclose this in most places anyhow, this again is not something radical or not going on, it is, in my state if you have a car with a huge car payment and want food stamps you will not be eligible 

the problem comes down to those who are committing fraud and doing what ever they can to make the "system" right for them and those who feel they can have a life style change entitling them to benefits at the expense of others - I see not all here feel fraud is not really fraud when those who need it to work for them do it and that making the system work for you is OK  what ever it takes!

Quote:

Now my kids are older and yet because of our "lifestyle choices" we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system.  We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that. 

when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should subject  others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others

we do not make the playing field level and this really is a issue this country could careless about- we care far more about health care and making that accessible and affordable to all vs letting a mother stay home with their child - even in the countries that do help with this, they have accessible health care - maybe very bad but they do have more than we have - until we have that- this is a non-issue and in the meantime it there is growing interest to reform these systems of assistance 

ETA- I really see this far down on the radar for most given like I said health care being #1- if all the mothers that are working quit tomorrow there simply would be no more assistance to those already getting it-short or long- many struggle (without any assistance) for years to stay home once they have children and continue to not depend on assistance after the births- short term is what assistance in most cases is meant for not a a life style of several years

Edited by serenbat - 1/27/13 at 8:08am

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should be subject  others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others

But others can do this.

It's not unfair that people take advantage of programs they are eligible for. You could choose to do the same -- anyone could choose to do this, as long as they are eligible. You could lose your job tomorrow and if your income falls below the limits, you could also receive assistance while being a SAHM.

I understand that you seem to be upset because you are just above the eligibility cut-offs but still paying a lot of taxes so you feel like you are funding others who are better off than you in the end. And I agree that in that regard, the system has majorly failed you. But you have a choice. You can keep working and doing your best to stay afloat and struggling just to get by, or you could leave your job, go on welfare, and deal with all the judgement & intrusiveness that goes along with that, and still struggle to get by. I know neither choice is great and that is exactly my point -- why fault someone for choosing what works for them out of two rough options?

Originally Posted by serenbat 

we do not make the playing field level and this really is a issue this country could careless about

I would argue that welfare programs are working on exactly that -- making the playing field level, making sure everyone has food to eat, a home to sleep in, and access to medical care. Yes, there are huge failings in this system, and I'd love to see improvements, but I don't agree with what you seem to be saying -- that not letting people accept welfare benefits will somehow level the playing field.

[meemee]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

this really sums up why I feel the way I do 

actually the courts see it teh same way too. thus different sentencing for similar crimes.

[serenbat]

Quote:

but I don't agree with what you seem to be saying -- that not letting people accept welfare benefits will somehow level the playing field.

I simply did not say that! You seem to want to twist everything around- 

we simply are NOT at a level playing field - we are not like other countries that do allow this- not even close

If you think giving money makes thing even you are sadly mistaken, quitting a job to live off others is also not expectable on so many levels- first it simply is not that simple - you loose far more than you gain in many areas.

I can't imagine that others think people should not work as to get assistance. Getting assistance certainly does not make it "level" - we all do not have access to fee food, health care and housing.

I also never said people should not get assistance! You simply are choosing to think otherwise. There is a big difference IMO from giving assistance for a short term vs 6+ years that I know some are on.

[serenbat]

I find it posturist to tell some to be SHAM and that others should just pay for it! And as a nation we don't support it either.

Loosing a job is a lot different than quitting. Only in extreme circumstance do you even qualify for unemployment if you quit. Getting assistance based on need (loosing a job, etc) is so much different than quitting to stay home as a "life style". Again, it is meant for short term-not a life style.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by meemee 

actually the courts see it teh same way too. thus different sentencing for similar crimes.

Yes. If someone steals a loaf of bread from the store because they are starving, that's looked on very differently than someone with plenty to eat that stole it just for fun.

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I simply did not say that! You seem to want to twist everything around- 

I really, truly don't mean to twist things around. Honestly, for some reason I have a hard time deciphering your posts, something about the syntax just doesn't quite make sense to me, almost like reading a second language, so I do the best I can. I apologize if I've misinterpreted what you've said.

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I find it posturist to tell some to be SHAM and that others should just pay for it! And as a nation we don't support it either.

Loosing a job is a lot different than quitting. Only in extreme circumstance do you even qualify for unemployment if you quit. Getting assistance based on need (loosing a job, etc) is so much different than quitting to stay home as a "life style". Again, it is meant for short term-not a life style.

OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive? Maybe she made decent money or had great benefits as a long-term employee and no new jobs have comparable wages or benefits to make up for how much she'd have to pay in daycare, transportation, etc.

[mamazee]

A woman who was working minimum wage and got pregnant might very well find there is no way her work will pay for adequate child care, and therefore might very well "choose" to be a SAHM. Not a full choice but still, it would be a case of quitting rather than being fired.