Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE

[SimpleLife]

First off, let me say, I've paid well over my fair share into the system. When I FIRE, I am not above using some of the benefits my tax dollars have paid for.

It looks like for health insurance, I qualify for medicaid in FIRE. Hooray! That shaves hundreds a month off my budgeted expenses.

On top of that, it appears I qualify for food stamps, to the tune of $200 a month. Hooray! My state does not apply asset tests below a certain income threshold, which surprisingly, would qualify me for food stamps based on my old career/income long ago.

Anyways, it looks like I can get discounted transit passes, phone service, food stamps, healthcare, etc. This saves me about $500+ a month!

What a huge win! I am starting to buy into the socialist system because for once, it looks like I finally stand to benefit from it rather than being gang raped by it on a daily basis.

[Dragline]

Quite a stoic viewpoint, SL -- Both an acceptance of what you cannot change and positive attitude as to what it might mean.

These items probably should be a factor as to which state one chooses to live in -- the rules and availability of certain programs have changed drastically state-to-state over the past few years.

[jim234]

I looked into SNAP in my state, NY, which is one of the most liberal states around. The only way you could get $200 would be to have NO income. They work a budget based on your income, this greatly reduces the amount. Also the most a childless adult could get is SNAP for 3 months in a 3 year period. Any more requires workfare, spending x hours a month working or looking for work. Clinton ended welfare as we used to knew it.

[SimpleLife]

In WA as long as your income is below roughly 2K/month, for a 1 person household, you qualify. How much you qualify for also depends on your rent, mortgage, utilities, and phone costs as well. It appears to be expense and income based. I qualify for about $200 a month, which is huge!!

Yeah, maybe my views are changing. Only because they benefit me for a change. Can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[jim234]

Even if you could get $200 ($194 is max right now) after the budgeting process, which is doubtful, it would only last for 3 months.

[SimpleLife]

Even if you could get $200 ($194 is max right now) after the budgeting process, which is doubtful, it would only last for 3 months.

You must live in WA, yes, it is $194, I was rounding when I said "to the tune of $200".

You can only be on FS for 3 months?? How are all these people with no jobs and 5 kids able to get it as a lifestyle then?

[ether]

Just make sure the media doesn't find out.
I can only imagine the headlines: rich fat cat collects dividends and food stamps!

Please keep us posted on the process, I'm quite curious.
FYI, I read that you can get actual cash out of your EBT card legally now a days.

[George the original one]

Underlining the important bit about how to live the welfare lifestyle...

How long do SNAP benefits last?


SNAP benefits vary from household to household, depending on the number of people within a household, the employment status of the recipient(s), the age and health of the recipient(s), etc. For most healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 50 (without children), SNAP benefits are limited to a 3-month period, at which point the recipient will have to submit a renewal application. Most households under the SNAP program receive benefits for a 6-month period before requiring renewal. Benefit periods can range from 1 month to 3 years.

[SimpleLife]

Thanks George. Doesn't sound too bad, just submit a renewal application. Kind of to be expected, otherwise if you only had to apply once and get the benefit for life...

I think a lot of it will depend on whether I stay in WA or not. North Idaho and Florida are sounding pretty good.

[jim234]

It is not just a matter of resubmitting an application. Over 3 months means you would need to do workfare for it to continue.


-----------
Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs)

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) limits the receipt of SNAP benefits to 3 months in a 3-year period for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) who are not working, participating in, and complying with the requirements of a work program for 20 hours or more each week, or a workfare program. Individuals are exempt from this provision if they are:

Under 18 or 50 years of age or older,
Responsible for the care of a child or incapacitated household member,
Medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment, pregnant, or
Already exempt from SNAP general work requirements.

[OldPro]

Some people might want to look up the meaning of situational ethics. It allows you to justify any unjustifiable action. 'I paid in so I feel I am not doing anything wrong if I collect what is intended for someone on hard times, not someone who has CHOSEN to opt out.'

Well, I don't buy that story. Anyone who drinks off the public tit when they could have continued to support themself is a leech, pure and simple. Either you are self-sufficient or you are not. If you want to live off of welfare when in fact you are capable of working, keep in mind what that makes you.

The only thing lower than politicians, lawyers and forum moderators, is pond scum. In that scum you find those who abuse welfare systems.

[Laura Ingalls]

Some people might want to look up the meaning of situational ethics. It allows you to justify any unjustifiable action. 'I paid in so I feel I am not doing anything wrong if I collect what is intended for someone on hard times, not someone who has CHOSEN to opt out.'

Well, I don't buy that story. Anyone who drinks off the public tit when they could have continued to support themself is a leech, pure and simple. Either you are self-sufficient or you are not. If you want to live off of welfare when in fact you are capable of working, keep in mind what that makes you.

The only thing lower than politicians, lawyers and forum moderators, is pond scum. In that scum you find those who abuse welfare systems.

Old Pro couple of comments
1. Chill with the scum comment.
2. Asset limits were ended for medicaid for logic driven reasons (less costly to administer, policy holders/legistlators want a safety net for early retirees, cheaper to add healthy folks to medicaid than to pay subsides and cost sharing at 150%.)
3. Maybe we should worry more about real live cheats vs people qualifing that aren't who you think should be included. If culturally people collectively are all bent out of shape about a couple 100,000 thirty and forty somethings FIREing and going on Medicaid then the rules will change. Frankly, there just aren't enough people that are good enough at living below their means for it to be a big deal and many of the ones that are like their current paid gig or are too risk averse to quit working.

[slsdly]

It shouldn't matter whether others are abusing the system or not. That is the kind of justification a child gives when they do something they know is wrong ("But Bobby did it too!") but wanted to do anyways. It wasn't a good excuse back then, and it isn't any better now.

I am sick and tired of listening (in life in general) to talk about "rights." I never hear anyone talk about our collective duties, our responsibilities.

I'm more than happy, perhaps even proud, to pay my taxes. The money at times may be...misallocated. Misappropriated even. The programs may be abused by the society itself. But they still do a lot of good. If we could do more good for less money by scrapping a particular program and replacing it (or not) with something else, I would be happy with that too -- but *not* because I hope for lower taxes for myself.

You see, duty isn't about taxes, or money. It is about minimizing what you take, about striving to *give* more than you take. About creating a better world, even in the smallest and most unusual of ways. We all have that duty. Our society isn't sustainable without it.

With ERE, we are doing something wonderful. Creating a life style, a culture where happiness isn't about consumption of material goods, where we minimize our footprint. Despite the ultimately selfish intent, they are noble goals in of themselves given we live in a finite world. By changing the narrative that simple living is about "sacrifice" to being about "freedom", we can make that culture more appealing to the rest of society.

The food stamps program is not a contribution-defined benefit like a pension. If you give more, you aren't entitled to anything. It is intended as a needs based program. Even those who give *nothing* can qualify. And to be frank, if you are capable of ERE, you don't have that need. Let alone the tainting of ERE for the rest of us ("Oh he isn't self sustaining, he is on the dole just like the rest of them, I heard about it on the news").

Would you go to the food bank because they would give you food with no questions asked? Do you think that is right? Do you think that exercising your right does no harm to others?

[GandK]

This thread is getting under my skin. Trying to work through why that is...

1. I think part of the reason people come to this forum is that we tend to discuss all possibilities in a situation. That's pretty rare in any group, and I wouldn't want it to change.
2. Discussing whether something is feasible or not is not the same as approving of it.
3. I tend to have strong opinions about these issues, too. When we personally disapprove of an option that someone is suggesting, what should we do? Is that immediately a separate discussion, one for the political forum? Or should we leave it in the same thread?

It shouldn't matter whether others are abusing the system or not. That is the kind of justification a child gives when they do something they know is wrong ("But Bobby did it too!") but wanted to do anyways. It wasn't a good excuse back then, and it isn't any better now.

I am sick and tired of listening (in life in general) to talk about "rights." I never hear anyone talk about our collective duties, our responsibilities

In Myers-Briggs lingo, this is the difference between Introverted Feeling (values and moral judgments that are generated by and applicable only to the individual), and Extroverted Feeling (values and moral judgments that are applicable to all).

There is a rebellion in society right now against the idea that there is anything absolute. Facts are not really facts if I don't agree with them (read: to hell with Extraverted Thinking), and ethical norms that I haven't personally agreed to don't apply to me (to hell with Extraverted Feeling, too). It's probably backlash against a society that was too stifling for most for too long, but the pendulum has swung too far the other direction now, I think. Now the idea that a society should have bedrocks of any sort is being rejected. It causes problems discussing issues like climate change when we can't agree on the definition of the words involved. It causes problems in social interactions when there's no agreed-upon "right thing" anymore, as you suggest here. No standards of any kind = a social and intellectual free-for-all.

[jim234]

Some people might want to look up the meaning of situational ethics. It allows you to justify any unjustifiable action. 'I paid in so I feel I am not doing anything wrong if I collect what is intended for someone on hard times, not someone who has CHOSEN to opt out.'

Well, I don't buy that story. Anyone who drinks off the public tit when they could have continued to support themself is a leech, pure and simple. Either you are self-sufficient or you are not. If you want to live off of welfare when in fact you are capable of working, keep in mind what that makes you.

The only thing lower than politicians, lawyers and forum moderators, is pond scum. In that scum you find those who abuse welfare systems.

I honestly don't understand your objections. I have a neighbour who is on SSDI, she became mentally ill after working 10 years. I found out she could get 50% off her property tax due to her situation. Can she get by without 50% off, yes. Would this make her a leech to take the tax cut? She applied and got approved, so now she has some breathing room financially. The laws are what the laws are, it would be foolish not to take advantage of them when applicable. I don't think she is pond scum.

How about those who put 17.5k into a 401k to save taxes? Are these people "gaming the system" to cheat the tax man? No. The law is the law, they are working with what was given to them to their advantage.

[OldPro]

It's easy to cherry pick examples that you like the sound of jim234. I have no problem your examples.

However, the OP is talking about being financially independent and in the same breath talking about taking food stamps. I think slsdly and GandK have explained it pretty well. If you don't understand the differences,I can't help you.

LauraIngalls, you may find the pond scum comment too strong for your taste. I don't.

[jim234]

How about another example. A person is FI, has 2MM, but only has 20k in income. This would qualify the person for hundreds of dollars in ACA subsidies per month. Would that qualify the person as pond scum?

[Scrubby]

I think ethics are important, but where does one draw the line? Is it wrong because the subsidy is paid in the form of food stamps? Would it be better if it was money? Or as tax deductions? Or is it because not everybody can get it? If so, how many or how large percentage of the population needs to get it before it's acceptable?

[Laura Ingalls]

How about another example. A person is FI, has 2MM, but only has 20k in income. This would qualify the person for hundreds of dollars in ACA subsidies per month. Would that qualify the person as pond scum?

Remember a healthy family of four at 150% is going to cost they government way more then the same family at 133%.

$5000 vs $1600 how scummy of them saving tax payers $3400.

[steelerfan]

If you are FI, by my definition, you are not reliant on any assistance from the government, family or any other parties. If ERE becomes more prevalent, there will be a rewrite of the definition to qualify for handouts. You just aren't on the radar yet but you will be soon enough. If one chooses to adopt a low impact frugal lifestyle, they should be able to make their budget without obamacare subsidies, obamaphones, foodstamps and other handouts. If you partake in the government tit, you are no less dependent that the scores of other people on welfare. No semantic argument or rationalization that you somehow "earned this" or have it coming will change this.

Occasionally someone on the dole wins a powerball ticket. Some lady in Detroit recently comes to mind. If they continue to accept foodstamps and assistance post windfall - that in some cases they have drawn for years or decades, the outcry is predictible and the government quickly steps in to make an example of them. If a large number of able bodied people were to go ERE and game the system in this matter (and that is what is happening here), look for changes that will negate this and even punish the frugal. An asset test and severely imputing income based on this comes to mind. They may even come back retroactively if the outcry was loud enough. I got angry when a anti tax coworker a couple of years ago who "did not need health insurance" that he could afford (he was young and healthy you know) got sick, went to the emergency room and stiffed the indigent hospital to the tune of 40K and felt rightous in doing so. Personal responsibility cuts both ways and we have devolved into a country that no longer does the right thing and only cares about their wallet and "freedom". As long as I need to and can work I will never take a dime in money or subsidy even if some loophole exists to get a handout based on my being frugal. I would not be able to look myself in the mirror. I would not be free or self reliant in that case. I want to be FI someday and I don't want people to view me as a grifter.