Lottery winner still on food stamps

http://detnews.com/article/201.....ood-stamps

This guy is still eligible for food stamps after winning $2 million in the state lottery.

I thought it was interesting in light of past discussions on collecting food stamps while owning a bugaboo/ sheitel/ big furry hat/ what have you. Apparently the food stamps program just has a bizarrely limited approach to determining poverty.

Beginner Joined: May 24 2011 Posts: 3

Yeah I agree pretty bizarre, I think the guy should have to give up at least one. I would personally offer to take the millions of his hands as a personal favor...

Diamond Member Joined: Nov 30 2006 Posts: 2595

Ora, it depends on the state. Some states retain an asset test, some do not. The idea was that a person should not have to go through all their savings (or lose their house, cars, 401Ks) before receiving assistance; in addition, asset testing costs money to administer. What legislatures envisioned was that this would benefit families where someone had lost their job; they would be able to get FS to help them, without having to bankrupt themselves and wind up worse off in the long run.

People like this guy will lead to calls to reinstate the asset test (there are already calls to change the asset test so large lump sum payments would count as income). He's greedy. I think common sense should come into play with the no asset test rules: it wasn't meant to subsidize people with lottery winnings or trust funds. Also, he thinks the government owes him FS because he paid taxes on his winnings. By that logic, my husband is owed welfare since he pays a nice chunk in income tax.

Any interest he receives on his winnings would be income, though, so he may get tossed anyway when he goes to recertify.

Moderator Joined: Mar 29 2005 Posts: 18300

Like nylon, I see both sides of the coin.

Those who have saved up for a rainy day and have now reached that rainy day due to unemployment should not have to give up everything before they can get foodstamps. Because of the job market these days, this is unfortunately all too typical.

But on the other hand, someone who isn't at risk of losing all his hard earned money quickly should not be given money to buy food when, yes, he CAN afford it.

I hear NJ is now changing the law again. They (in the past couple years) switched the law to not look at assets, but they're starting to look again...
_________________
http://a-natural-birth.com
Let me know privately what you would like to see on this; I'm still working on it Smile

Complimentary ad for being a mod

Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 9:28 am Post subject:

Gold Member Joined: Jul 31 2009 Posts: 1238

I think I read they are changing the law to close the loophole this person is exploiting.

lets say there is a family with 10 children. They live in a house they bought many years ago which is now worth one million dollars. Being prudent people, the parents both have pension plans, and saving accounts for all the kids for college/yeshiva/seminary/wedding expenses. Plus they both own cars. Altogether these accounts and other possesions are worth another million.

Tragically, both parents lose their jobs. Hopefully they will find other jobs soon but meanwhile, should they dip into their pensions or kids saving accounts? or sell their house?

Moderator Joined: Mar 29 2005 Posts: 18300

Silver Member Joined: Feb 28 2011 Posts: 669

Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 10:52 am Post subject:

Moderator Joined: Mar 29 2005 Posts: 18300

I think part of it is where they started from. Is it right to have high school kids quickly thrust into public school (which is still money coming from the public!) when they've been in a private school their whole life just because the parents are taking 6 months to find a new job in this sucky economy? Or are the benefits greater to allow the money be used to the tuition that was budgeted for previously (not that someone couldn't afford it and decided they deserve it now), and help subsidize food instead, for a hopefully temporary situation?

I don't think it's so clear cut. I see advantages and disadvantages to both, but it's way too much work to look at it on an individual basis, which is why either way you'll have people stuck or people getting away with loopholes like this. Where is the benefit greater?
I think this is why NJ is like a pendulum, going back and forth, wavering between the 2 options.

(My state officially looks at assets. From online it seems like you can't have 2K worth which is nothing, in my mind. That's not even a month's cushion! Perhaps the more complex criteria are not posted on the site.
But I have heard that the caseworkers do sometimes take other things to account and don't follow that guideline by the book...so maybe they're granted leeway. I have no idea. I've B"H never tried to apply.)

Moderator Joined: Mar 29 2005 Posts: 18300

Diamond Member Joined: Mar 17 2008 Posts: 3557

And here's the other question that should be asked: Why was someone on food stamps wasting his money on lottery tickets?

Moderator Joined: Mar 29 2005 Posts: 18300

Because it was the "easiest" way to make money? Wink

(From what I hear unemployment in MI is terrible...sometimes people feel like they don't have a choice but to try unconventional means, and $2 doesn't seem like such a large amount if the payoff is big. That's the problem with gambling.)

I actually know someone who pays for lottery tickets because he's made a little here and there from it (say $100 every so often), and then he uses that money to pay for future ones. Once that lottery winning fund runs out, he'll stop, but it keeps on getting replenished by small time earnings....

I'm not a gambler, but I can see the attraction some people would have to that.

(Oh, and this foodstamp shnorrer is paying back the state for all the freebies they give him...Isn't that nice?)

it was on a tv show, not a lottery ticket.

Moderator Joined: Mar 29 2005 Posts: 18300

Thanks for clarifying Smile

Platinum Member Joined: Nov 01 2009 Posts: 8222

I think NJ changed the law during the terrible economy. It was so that people wouldn't lose their homes as quickly because they could still pay their mortgage and have food on the table.

In theory, I'm not opposed to the philosophy during times like this. However, I do think its unethical to continue getting foodstamps if your cushion is large enough to sustain yourself. I think $2 million is Razz

_________________
Never mistake activity for achievement.

Posted: Fri, May 27 2011, 2:44 pm Post subject:

Silver Member Joined: Feb 28 2011 Posts: 669