4 ms·

I disagree to an extent. I know people on WIC, TANF, etc. who get subsidized internet, discounted property taxes, etc. Almost all of the ones I know game the sy

I disagree to an extent. I know people on WIC, TANF, etc. who get subsidized internet, discounted property taxes, etc. Almost all of the ones I know game the system to their advantage one way or another. I see people stop working because they'd rather not deal with others when they already have their needs met - I have no problem with this. I see people who continuously pop more kids to keep the gravy train running - this is an issue. I have seen people sell the products (a lot of it is food) they get for free and people who sell the vouchers because they already have too much; this to me is an issue too. I see people who lie all of the time to get benefits they wouldn't qualify for otherwise; literally millionaires lying to get free stuff from the government. I don't have a big social circle but it seems everyone I come into contact with is on the take and sucking hard on the government teat. I think the approach needs to be more holistic and consider all of the different programs people qualify for - between WIC/TANF most people will get more food than they can consume. I think they should be nontransferable (maybe it already is, I don't understand how people end up selling them) and I don't think they should be progressive. Means-testing should be ended and everybody should qualify for these programs.

lthornberry 4y ago
I also support a shift to UBI, but your description of TANF/WIC is not grounded in reality. TANF has a 5 year lifetime, and many states actually have lower limits food stamps do not come close to covering the costs of feeding a family People do sell food stamps sometimes, not because they have more than they need, but because they are desperate for cash to pay for other necessities such as utilities. The idea that people are getting by for years and years based on these as sources of income is a myth.
- Aloha 4y ago
  We also make staying on benefits functionally a full time job too. The programs are too complex, they also don't cover all basic needs.
- arenaninja 4y ago
  Thanks, to clarify I don't begrudge TANF/WIC but those two are a short list of benefits that are available. Rent assistance ($), daycare assistance ($), free healthcare that's better than what I can get on the market regardless of $$$$, etc. I explained in other comments how a lot of it works, and I think rather than means testing I would like to see a different form of enforcement for these programs.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
michaelmrose 4y ago
> I see people stop working because they'd rather not deal with others when they already have their needs met. While some folks do get benefits when they could be working many more are denied anything despite obviously being disabled and the money that is paid is a relative pittance that few would choose given any alternative. > I see people who continuously pop more kids to keep the gravy train running - this is an issue. This is basically a myth. There are TANF in most states has a lifetime limit of 5 years or less and we are talking about $283 per month for a single parent single child household and it doesn't scale linearly. The next child nets you an additional $44 for instance. Exact figures vary by state. People effectively sell vouchers or food benefits because they are desperately poor and need other things. As the refrain goes "food stamps don't buy diapers". In the case of WIC the vouchers may be for things that they literally don't need can't eat which will expire and thereby be lost. This is an example of the inefficiency of buying things for people instead of letting them buy their own things.
- pnutjam 4y ago
  Thanks, the popping out babies is such a garbage take. It's not designed to argue in good faith, it's just a moron talking point.
  - arenaninja 4y ago
    Just because a plurality or even majority of people aren't doing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As I've stated, I'm recounting these scenarios from my experience which isn't vast but it tracks in every state/city I have lived in (and I have lived in several). It's a miserable living experience for their children. Welfare queens do exist even if they don't look like the media portrays them. As I stated, I'm not against social programs, but I think there's substantial waste and program goals need to be realigned. It needs to be reimagined, and not from ivory towers like the techno-elite that gathers here on HN.
    - pnutjam 4y ago
      It's just a silly scenario. Nobody gets more in assistance then it costs to raise a child. People might scam the system because they can't afford the kids they have, but nobody is having more kids just to scam the system.
afpx 4y ago
I don't know what it's like now, but in the 1980s, we received aid, and you certainly couldn't live on it. It was a horrible existence. Yeah, we'd sometimes game the system. For instance, we knew if we bought something for $4.01, we'd get the $0.99 change back as cash. We'd trade vouchers for cash sometimes (to, say, put kerosene in the heater) But, we're only talking about gaining a few hundred dollars a year. If people in your social circle are living large, I'd love to know their trick.
- arenaninja 4y ago
  Yeah as I said in another comment, it's a mostly miserable experience on the kids and yet some garbage humans do decide to live strictly off of it. I'm not sure how we could disincentivize that, but I do think means testing should go. The people I have seen who really milk the system work for cash, live with their boyfriend/SO and remain unmarried to keep the benefits coming (and just lie saying that the father isn't in the picture). So the burden of healthcare/food/rent is on the state and all of the income is fun money. Trucks/SUVs, jewelry, trips, rental houses, etc. follow. The kids only benefit as far as not starving, but they get free food at school/day care most of the year anyway so most stamps get sold. There's some who do very well and just stop caring about TANF anyway because it's overall pretty low value. Another I've seen is just lying on the application so they get their benefits (I imagine similar to the others they say their husband/SO isn't in the picture) while they have a steady income stream from renting out their house.

lthornberry 4y ago

I also support a shift to UBI, but your description of TANF/WIC is not grounded in reality. TANF has a 5 year lifetime, and many states actually have lower limits food stamps do not come close to covering the costs of feeding a family People do sell food stamps sometimes, not because they have more than they need, but because they are desperate for cash to pay for other necessities such as utilities. The idea that people are getting by for years and years based on these as sources of income is a myth.

Aloha 4y ago
We also make staying on benefits functionally a full time job too. The programs are too complex, they also don't cover all basic needs.
arenaninja 4y ago
Thanks, to clarify I don't begrudge TANF/WIC but those two are a short list of benefits that are available. Rent assistance ($), daycare assistance ($), free healthcare that's better than what I can get on the market regardless of $$$$, etc. I explained in other comments how a lot of it works, and I think rather than means testing I would like to see a different form of enforcement for these programs.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

michaelmrose 4y ago

> I see people stop working because they'd rather not deal with others when they already have their needs met. While some folks do get benefits when they could be working many more are denied anything despite obviously being disabled and the money that is paid is a relative pittance that few would choose given any alternative. > I see people who continuously pop more kids to keep the gravy train running - this is an issue. This is basically a myth. There are TANF in most states has a lifetime limit of 5 years or less and we are talking about $283 per month for a single parent single child household and it doesn't scale linearly. The next child nets you an additional $44 for instance. Exact figures vary by state. People effectively sell vouchers or food benefits because they are desperately poor and need other things. As the refrain goes "food stamps don't buy diapers". In the case of WIC the vouchers may be for things that they literally don't need can't eat which will expire and thereby be lost. This is an example of the inefficiency of buying things for people instead of letting them buy their own things.

pnutjam 4y ago
Thanks, the popping out babies is such a garbage take. It's not designed to argue in good faith, it's just a moron talking point.
- arenaninja 4y ago
  Just because a plurality or even majority of people aren't doing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As I've stated, I'm recounting these scenarios from my experience which isn't vast but it tracks in every state/city I have lived in (and I have lived in several). It's a miserable living experience for their children. Welfare queens do exist even if they don't look like the media portrays them. As I stated, I'm not against social programs, but I think there's substantial waste and program goals need to be realigned. It needs to be reimagined, and not from ivory towers like the techno-elite that gathers here on HN.
  - pnutjam 4y ago
    It's just a silly scenario. Nobody gets more in assistance then it costs to raise a child. People might scam the system because they can't afford the kids they have, but nobody is having more kids just to scam the system.

afpx 4y ago

I don't know what it's like now, but in the 1980s, we received aid, and you certainly couldn't live on it. It was a horrible existence. Yeah, we'd sometimes game the system. For instance, we knew if we bought something for $4.01, we'd get the $0.99 change back as cash. We'd trade vouchers for cash sometimes (to, say, put kerosene in the heater) But, we're only talking about gaining a few hundred dollars a year. If people in your social circle are living large, I'd love to know their trick.

arenaninja 4y ago
Yeah as I said in another comment, it's a mostly miserable experience on the kids and yet some garbage humans do decide to live strictly off of it. I'm not sure how we could disincentivize that, but I do think means testing should go. The people I have seen who really milk the system work for cash, live with their boyfriend/SO and remain unmarried to keep the benefits coming (and just lie saying that the father isn't in the picture). So the burden of healthcare/food/rent is on the state and all of the income is fun money. Trucks/SUVs, jewelry, trips, rental houses, etc. follow. The kids only benefit as far as not starving, but they get free food at school/day care most of the year anyway so most stamps get sold. There's some who do very well and just stop caring about TANF anyway because it's overall pretty low value. Another I've seen is just lying on the application so they get their benefits (I imagine similar to the others they say their husband/SO isn't in the picture) while they have a steady income stream from renting out their house.