Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE

[7Wannabe5]

It has recently come to my attention that based on my currently quite minimal slacker income I would likely qualify for food stamps. It has also come to my attention that there is a program in place that offers double value for food stamps if used at local farmer's markets. This places me in a bit of a moral quandary which I can't quite wrap my mind around. Also, question I would ask of group members of various political/economic philosophies would be does it seem like I am more, less or just the same worthy/justified in making use of food stamp program if I am currently functioning as uncommon law "wife" to 3 affluent men who are each probably paying far "more-than fair share" of taxes?

[IlliniDave]

7wb5,

I likely face a similar dilemma when it comes to ACA subsidies. Since I am forced (by the annual threat of seizure of part of my assets, ultimately at gunpoint, possibly imprisonment as well) to participate in the universe of healthcare insurance created by ACA, as of today my though is that I'll play by the rules they established and happily accept the subsidy, despite sitting on a net worth in the upper third or higher among my statistical cohort.

I don't think you have an ethical claim of credit for the taxes paid by your consorts. To be consistent you'd have to base eligibility on their income added to yours, which would presumably disqualify you. Since food stamps are voluntary it's a bit different than generally mandatory things like SS, Medicare, and ACA. I'll have too much "income" for food stamps so I don't think about it much. Off the top of my head I think even if my reportable income was low enough, I'd decline. That said, I don't have any issue with people getting food stamps if they truly qualify, even if they are consciously minimizing their income.

[jennypenny]

@7W5--I'm not sure I could do it, but in your situation I think I could justify it if I only used the card at farmer's markets. I would tell myself I was sort of forcing the government to support local farmer's markets by spending the funds there. It would be a way of pumping federal money into the local economy and sustainable agriculture. I couldn't make the same argument if I spent it at chain stores or supermarkets. I'd probably leave money on the card instead of spending it to support the parts of the system I didn't like.

edit: On second thought, I wouldn't leave money on the card. I'd probably use up what was left on the card each month to buy needed supplies for a local women's shelter or something similar. I wouldn't waste it.

[Dragline]

It has recently come to my attention that based on my currently quite minimal slacker income I would likely qualify for food stamps. It has also come to my attention that there is a program in place that offers double value for food stamps if used at local farmer's markets. This places me in a bit of a moral quandary which I can't quite wrap my mind around. Also, question I would ask of group members of various political/economic philosophies would be does it seem like I am more, less or just the same worthy/justified in making use of food stamp program if I am currently functioning as uncommon law "wife" to 3 affluent men who are each probably paying far "more-than fair share" of taxes?

Sometimes life is unfair in your favor, especially in a complex society with lots of rules with unintended consequences. Unless its a really pain in the ass, I would take the opportunity and if I felt bad about it would contribute some amount to a local charity or share the food with others.

You might also consider it as a way of supporting local small agriculture -- maybe someone just getting started or who is struggling, because that is who is actually receiving the money. Big ag is already well subsidized -- little ag needs your help!

[Laura Ingalls]

I would be suprised if you qualified and if you did your benefit would be small (ie $20 a month).

But please check the on line calculator because I am snoopy

@ Jenny A positive balance on a snap card rolls to a new month. You could theoretically save up for a side of beef.

[jennypenny]

@ Jenny A positive balance on a snap card rolls to a new month. You could theoretically save up for a side of beef.

So someone with a post-ERE level of income who qualified for SNAP could sign up but not use it and just let the balance build up every month? Like an emergency fund specifically for food? Hmm.

[Laura Ingalls]

@ Jenny A positive balance on a snap card rolls to a new month. You could theoretically save up for a side of beef.

So someone with a post-ERE level of income who qualified for SNAP could sign up but not use it and just let the balance build up every month? Like an emergency fund specifically for food? Hmm.

I guess, I would suspect you might need to have some activity every few months or so.

I would be inclined to just use it and figure it would decrease the odds of my nest egg depleting itself and going on medicaid for skilled end of life care.

Or not bother.

[Ego]

Sorry 7Wanna but I think your permaculture land will put you over the asset-limit but I may be wrong.

pdf
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/f ... p/BBCE.pdf

California has no asset limit.

Our income was low last year because we were traveling for most of the year so I guess we could have technically qualified. I see SNAP differently from ACA subsidies because with the ACA I have no choice. If I don't apply, I get fined. With SNAP I would have to seek out the program.

But then again.... the fcc just expanded the universal lifeline to include cell phones and broadband internet. So, if you are low income you can get a free phone or free internet.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-pr ... -consumers

I guess I could have qualified for those last year as well. For some strange reason when I think of SNAP I think of it very differently than Universal Lifeline. Maybe it's because SNAP is for people who are supposedly on the verge of having nothing to eat. I don't know.

I think you're lucky that they haven't yet figured out how to include your particular assets into the means test. Yet.

[George the original one]

If you qualify for ACA subsidy, you're over the limit for lifeline (unless there's something I missed). You'd have to be on Medicare. Depending on states, someone eligible for ACA subsidies might be eligible for SNAP.

Would I take SNAP if I were eligible for it? I guess that depends on whether my garden, river, & beach were providing enough or not. The local poor sure seem to eat well on clams & crabs & salmon & flounder when they're not busy working!

[7Wannabe5]

Well, it turns out that I am over the asset qualification until/unless I throw down for a primary residence and a car. Also, my benefit would only be about $40/month give or take for more or less creative guesstimating of my future income. I detest bureaucracy, and this morning's bathroom scale reading was indicative of no shortage of foodstuffs, so I was only tempted by the opportunity to transfer funds to help out local growers. I could have given the food to some of the kids I teach who appear to be somewhat neglected (those from Yemen or Bangladesh are fed better at home than at school) or taken it to the homeless encampment downriver.

ffj said: Currently you are juggling three paramours, but they entered into relationships with you voluntarily. Taxpayers don't have as much of a choice.

But, but, but....my paramours are the taxpayers!!! As you may recall, I did suggest that allowing affluent individuals to take on welfare recipients as second spouses might be a solution to perception of unfair tax burden. I have expanded the vision of my suggested program to also include the sponsorship of incarcerated individuals, so as to increase the selection for affluent heterosexual females. I would think that the combined income/tax burden on the head of an IT department, a financial products broker/administrator and a senior engineer should be enough to afford/cover the social burden of me. I think it is a bit harsh that you require that your gentlemen peers must go additionally out of pocket for Lemongrass Beef, chocolate croissants and Cucumber Martinis, rather than seeing the logic and long-term benefits to society of my proposed PlayFare program.

Ego said: I think you're lucky that they haven't yet figured out how to include your particular assets into the means test. Yet.

Well, I am 51 years old, so I would think any standardized formula would allow me to depreciate those assets right off the books. Unless you meant my curious brain or cheerful disposition? Hopefully, I will still have those (and my knees!) when I am super-round and wrinkled.

[Dragline]

@7
I don't understand your reasoning to be honest. Multiply $40 by 47,000,000. Kinda matters now, doesn't it? It's never "only" $40.

Also, your opportunity to transfer funds to your pet interests is not a valid reason to take money from taxpayers. If you feel strongly about supporting these causes then use your own money. Why would you place the burden on others who probably don't share your own interests?

. . .

This line of reasoning by millions and millions of people is not self-sustaining. The government cannot fund everyone's lifestyle from cradle to grave. This country can't even pay for what it is doing now, as evidenced by the huge deficits and overall debt we carry.

You are aware, of course, that this is just multiple iterations of the "slippery slope" fallacy of the "what if everybody does it?" variety? And the chances of 7W5 having any effect on anybody's taxes are essentially nil, because she does not run the legislature?

Compare with "people have a duty to consume lots of goods because if everybody is frugal, the economy will crash and society will collapse."

See http://earlyretirementextreme.com/wiki/ ... Objections for other similar examples.

I think what you really have here is a variation of the Calvinist argument/objection in disguise.

[jennypenny]

I tend to view things like ffj. Setting aside moral arguments, statistics show that it's very hard to get off assistance once you're on it. Even those who only see it as a temporary stop-gap find themselves on it permanently more often than not. Participating in an assistance program for any reason can leave you stuck there if you're not very careful. Of course, most people here are very careful, which is why I don't always think what applies to 'everyone' also applies to EREs.

That said, I still think there's a danger of becoming less resilient with every handout you get, whether it's from the government or somewhere else. DH and I never took any money from our parents after moving out. There were times we really could have used it (and they could afford it) but we felt it was worth the pain to learn how to fend for ourselves. All of our siblings took money when it was offered. As I look at all of us now in middle age, our siblings are years if not decades behind us in FI terms. They still have the occasional financial crisis and we've helped them all in one way or another. Are we more secure because we learned early on to get by on our own? I think yes.

I will agree with ffj, too, that the money adds up and someone will have to pay. I feel that way about student loans. They are actively telling students now to borrow all they can for college because they're sure that there will be some sort of bail out and they won't have to pay it all back. What are they teaching them? And who will need a bail out after those loans are wiped out? (And will I feel stupid again for paying OOP for college and then find out that my kids' loans would have been forgiven?)

To the moral argument, I see it as more of an issue of dignity than morality. During election years, people always say that their main concern is jobs. I don't think it's just about the income from a job, it's also about the dignity and satisfaction that comes from earning the money and taking care of yourself and your family without assistance. I'll admit my viewpoint might be culturally based, but it's the culture we live in, or used to.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what's worse. I know that I couldn't sleep at night if I felt like we were taking money from programs that we really didn't need. I'd be uncomfortable taking the money even if we did need it. OTOH, I'm less critical of others than I used to be because assistance in all forms has been normalized and the stigma seems to be long gone. In the end though, I can't help but feel that you hurt yourself as much as society by taking assistance when you don't need it.

[7Wannabe5]

ffj said: The government cannot fund everyone's lifestyle from cradle to grave.

Who is this "the government?" That is just a concept. All that exists in reality are people and desks and file cabinets and little fiat fictions printed upon green paper. Who is this "anonymous taxpayer?" I wish to believe in his existence, but as soon as he makes the slightest detectable move to step forward and reveal himself, he disappears. Thus, I must also place him in the category of the mythical.

Perhaps, then, what you wish to communicate is that you, ffj, do not want to contribute $40/47,000,000 to the support of the likes of me and/or any of my "babies." Fair enough : ) However, I would note for the record, that it is my personal belief that nobody should work more than 16 hrs/wk for money, and the world would be a better place if this happened ASAP. The funny thing is that every time I suggest to somebody that they should just quit or scale back their job if they don't want to pay more than their fair share of tax or wish for a smaller government, they kind of don't like it or act confused. I wonder why?

Also, I have considered that I could simply request cash to contribute to my "babies" rather than expensive outings and such from my paramours, but that is against the law of "the government." So, I let one buy me a new used bicycle which I rode to a meeting yesterday where I got a little bit grouchy and made use of the phrase "rigorous application of stupidity" when addressing a panel of administrators of current environmental policy. And I let one help me dumpster dive for cardboard and give me strawberries for my garden which I intend to share with my community in some manner. And I let the other one help me with the design of my swale system. And I let all of them keep me very well entertained, so that I am more cheerful and relaxed when I attempt to teach some of the rotten little ragamuffins, etc. etc. etc.

I'm sorry if I am not explaining any of this very well. You might try watching the movie "Metropolis" for more insight.

[JL13]

Yeah I agree. If you replace "The government" with "people" a lot of the arguments can sound a bit silly:

"People cannot fund everyone's lifestyle from cradle to grave".

[jennypenny]

Yeah I agree. If you replace "The government" with "people" a lot of the arguments can sound a bit silly:

"People cannot fund everyone's lifestyle from cradle to grave".

I think it would be more accurate to say "Other people cannot fund everyone's lifestyle from cradle to grave." It's the 'other' part that's in question. If everyone funded their own lifestyle, no discussion necessary.

Sometimes I wonder if it would be easier to give everyone a federal version of a PFD and then say "That's all you get. Make it work." In the end, it might be cheaper than funding all of the different assistance programs out there now. I'd like a PFD better than a UBI because if the payment had to come from a surplus, people would push congress to pass a budget that actually had one.

[7Wannabe5]

JL13 said: Yeah I agree. If you replace "The government" with "people" a lot of the arguments can sound a bit silly:

"People cannot fund everyone's lifestyle from cradle to grave".

Right, but "lifestyle" is a bit of a vague term. What we are specifically addressing here might be better stated as "Some people cannot provide funds for other people's food from cradle to grave." What we also might be concerned with would be something like "The earth's soil cannot provide more than X people with food from cradle to grave, and the equation may become much worse if foresight is not applied." IOW, if current efforts towards better agricultural practices are not supported, then it may become even more difficult and expensive for some people to afford to feed the other people (whom, according to some reports, shall always be among us.) I'm happy with my lifestyle and feel little worry about my future, and I don't have to support my own children anymore, so to me it doesn't seem like a big deal to throw some support to the community. There really are people who can't take care of themselves very well for a variety of reasons. For instance, there are children who need somebody else to help them learn algebra, senior citizens who need somebody else to drive an emergency vehicle, and affluent men over the age of 50 in my community are apparently having great difficulty getting their basic (2x week?) sexual needs met, but... "Other people cannot provide everyone with sex from puberty to grave." I am picking up as much responsibility as I can for my slacker middle-aged female peers out there, but I am about taxed out.

[JL13]

@ffj

Most of those government expenditures are just pure waste. Think "distribution costs" in Borsodi terms. If you just took all tax revenues and distributed the dollars on a per capita basis, there's enough for probably two 7Wannabe5 lifestyles per person.

[7Wannabe5]

ffj said: I have no idea what the fuck this means. Seriously.

Apologize. I was "attempting" humor across threads.

There have been other discussions on this forum concerning how the health care system is so complex there is nothing resembling free market rational pricing to be found. I don't think this is quite true (yet) concerning the food production and distribution system, but...rather than applying for SNAP and transferring funds to local growers, I could just apply for a farm grant to build a sturdy greenhouse. The only reason I haven't done this is that I loathe dealing with bureaucracy.

The ironic thing is that fresh, healthy food is actually readily available and very inexpensive in my particular urban neighborhood because all the recent immigrants from the world's poorest regions are skilled and accustomed to the practice of cooking and eating a great deal of produce. However, in some other nearby urban neighborhoods the opposite is the case. Processed foods aren't the least expensive or easiest to grow. They are the least expensive and easiest to transport and store for long periods. One functional branch of the local school system is training mentally challenged young adults to be greenhouse workers. They grow produce which is used in school lunches and sold at a community farmer's market. People in the neighborhood who have SNAP benefits can double down purchasing fresh produce from this program rather than marked-up processed crap from the liquor store. Therefore, I could (if I didn't loathe all bureaucracy) take my theoretical $40 in SNAP funds and spend it at a completely government sponsored Farmer's Market which is attempting to help some of the people least able to be likely to care for themselves to do so.

The government considers the protection of our food production system to be a matter of public defense. I agree with this premise, if not the policy or methods. People who aren't getting laid get grouchy, but people who aren't getting fed get really grouchy. People who aren't fed well get sick. Do you know how much of your tax $$ are paying for the treatment of diabetic children vs. slacker Bohemian types taking advantage of loopholes in SNAP?

Anyways, my main point was that the energy/resource economy is more "real" than the money economy. Petroleum reserves, potable water, productive soil. That's real stuff. Fiat money and government debt vs. GDP (I have no idea what the fuck this means. Seriously.) , not so much. Therefore, I might argue that anything I can do to help preserve the energy/resource economy of my community/region/state/nation is more in alignment with forward-thinking good citizenship than frets having to do with the $$ debt. OTOH, I just attended a meeting where a panel of government employed scientists who are supposed to be protecting the environment made arguments along the lines of "Well, everybody likes their cars and their dry-cleaning." in support of granting permit to transport and store 10X more known-to-be-hazardous-to-health chemicals within mile zone of most densely populated neighborhood in the state. I'm thinking maybe we might as well just mix ourselves some cocktails and sit back and watch how it happens. We don't have to survive.

[JL13]

+1

Yes. (And BTW I think I knew what you were saying 7W5). I have NO problem taking $1,000 from someone who is going to spend it on bombs, guns, and gasoline to drive an SUV in a circle and instead using it on something that is not energy intensive at all.

We actually DO have (temporarily), through the massive power of fossil fuels, the ability to support a quality lifestyle for everyone with minimal taxes and minimal working. The fossil fuels are an actual, tangible resource that we need to be conserving. "tax revenues", on the other hand, are somewhat dubious and I'm not as worried about squandering them. Everyone would be just fine if the whole system shut down for a month as long as everyone had access to water, food, and energy.

[vexed87]

...The fossil fuels are an actual, tangible resource that we need to be conserving. "tax revenues", on the other hand, are somewhat dubious and I'm not as worried about squandering them.

But when tax revenues are used to support more (and often inefficient) consumption? Not so good.

Just so happens this blog post got recycled a few days back, thought I would share for those that had not seen it.
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/welfa ... ystem.html

I love the parallels of welfare recipient and rentier classes exploiting the producers. I genuinely would consider the welfare lifestyle option if I believed the welfare state would last indefinitely, but imo, it's not going to last much longer, what with the 'scarcity industrialism' society that is over the creeping over the horizon.