Food Stamps (SNAP)

[jim584672]

I have done some research on Food Stamps (in NY).

I am not interested in the political aspects of food stamps. I do not care if you love them or hate them.

Max monthly income 130% FPL $1245 month.

No resource test for most people, only income test, except for those previously sanctioned for violations, and some other instances.

Work and training component (60 yo and over is exempt). If not exempt, must meet local district's work requirements once on SNAP.

Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) Person between 18-49 who is not disabled with no dependents.
Looks like the max benefit is capped at 3 months once every three years. Can be more if approved work activity is for 80 hours in a calendar month. This is more stringent than the regular work requirements.

Max benefit for one person is $189 a month. A budget must be constructed that reduces this amount.

Effective 1/1/12 finger imaging is prohibited for SNAP purposes.

So based on all this, it looks like I could only get SNAP for 3 months and then it would cut off. I would have to wait to 60 to get it without the major hassle of work / training requirements. Seems like they want a lot of information for not a lot of money being handed out.

 

[Act2]

I think SNAP is designed as a temporary bridge until someone gets a job or otherwise becomes financially self-supporting.

 

[Major Tom]

No resource test for most people, only income test, except for those previously sanctioned for violations, and some other instances.

Maybe no resource test but, at least in California (where I live) there is a resource requirement of no more than $2,000.

In other words, anyone who has savings/investments of more than $2,000 shouldn't be applying, regardless of whether there is a test for it or not.

I'd apply if I qualified, but my portfolio disqualifies me.

 

[Independent]

I have done some research on Food Stamps (in NY).

I am not interested in the political aspects of food stamps. I do not care if you love them or hate them.

Max monthly income 130% FPL $1245 month.
.

Note that being "eligible" for SNAP is not the same as actually getting a benefit.

In the crudest terms, the monthly benefit for a single person whose $975 monthly income comes entirely from work would be

$189 - .3 x ($975 - (.2 x $975) - $152) = $0.60

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service

People posting here who have figured out how to get their incomes down to these levels may also have "excess housing expense" which would increase the benefit.

 

[jim584672]

Maybe no resource test but, at least in California (where I live) there is a resource requirement of no more than $2,000.

In other words, anyone who has savings/investments of more than $2,000 shouldn't be applying, regardless of whether there is a test for it or not.

I'd apply if I qualified, but my portfolio disqualifies me.

Effective February 1st, 2011 all CalFresh (Food Stamps) households are exempt from the resource test.* Resources include money in bank accounts, cash on hand, stocks and bonds, etc.* Resources also include the value of real estate, autos, and retirement accounts.* You will no longer need to answer questions regarding resources when applying or renewing for CalFresh benefits.
Income generated by resources, including bank interests, dividends, rental income, etc is counted to determine the household's total gross income.
source: Am I Eligible for CalFresh (Food Stamps)?

 

[haha]

I absolutely think you should get all the money you want, with no hassle of work, or qualifying, or even showing up to get your card.

What good is welfare that requires something of the recipient?

 

[Major Tom]

Jim - I am, as some of my fellow Brits might say, somewhat gobsmacked. Not sure how I feel about that.

Ha - good to see you posting again. Hope you're nearly back to your old self.

 

[Cedar]

Food Stamps

Just for information Food Stamps are not a legislative bill for to feed the poor. They were designed as an agricultural subsidy bill for farmers. The larger farmers that benefit are mostly larger corporations.

 

[Turboslacker]

Just for information Food Stamps are not a legislative bill for to feed the poor. They were designed as an agricultural subsidy bill for farmers. The larger farmers that benefit are mostly larger corporations.

News to my ignorance. Wonder if this counts towards me learning something new everyday.

As you portray it, I would have to declare this legislation a smashing success then!

 

[2B]

I was on food stamps way back in their early days. I truly didn't have much income but I was trying. I wasn't going to starve without them but someone convinced me to take them. I eventually out earned the ability to qualify. When I was getting them, it sure made a difference in my food spending. I bought solid meat instead of the cheapest ground beef.

I don't see anything wrong with taking a benefit available to someone as long as fraud is not involved. That would apply to taking tax breaks, getting ACA subsidies and food stamps. Politically, I'm to the right of Attilla the Hun so I won't fire up the moderators with any comments on the specific programs. Just because I don't agree with many of the aspects of these programs doesn't mean I don't believe individuals shouldn't utilize the system to their own benefit.

 

[Brett_Cameron]

When I was very young, they gave out "commodities" to the poor. I remember peanut butter in coffee can sized cans and cheese. I was told that this was food the government bought to subsidize farmers. The government then gave it away to poor folks like my father's family. My mother's family sneered at Commodity food.

 

[Fermion]

I am not going to complain about someone getting $200 a month for SNAP when we are going to get $4,000 to $15,000 for ACA

 

[tryan]

Even if I qualified, I would be hesitant to to give the feds um-teen more pages of personal info on my financial situation. Didn't trust them before ... trust them even less now.

 

[Major Tom]

I checked on jim's statement and indeed, as of 2011, there is no longer a resource requirement or test in most cases. Out of curiosity, I took a brief online test and found out that I qualify for somewhere between $140 - $160 a month in food stamps.

This is a bit mind-boggling to me. I may not be loaded by the standards of many members here, but I do have about 740K in my portfolio, a little more than half of which is in a taxable account. The income from interest and dividends in the taxable account was about $8200 last year, putting me within the threshold of eligibility for food stamps.

I'm still trying to get my head around this as, to me, there is a big difference between a person who has little or no savings in the bank and an income of $1200/month or less ($1200 is the cut-off for single people in CA according to the table I saw), and someone who has a substantial amount of assets from which they are drawing an income (even if it is a low income).

Why would this resource requirement have been dropped? Perhaps to increase subsidies to farmers and food producers in the wake of the recession, though I wonder how much impact dropping the resource requirement would have had?

Seems like they want a lot of information for not a lot of money being handed out.

Well, for folk with little or nothing in the way of assets who are living on low income, that extra money in food stamps can make a big difference. For them, it would be well worth the trouble applying. I'm comfortable with making people jump through a few hoops to get government help.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I checked on jim's statement and indeed, as of 2011, there is no longer a resource requirement or test in most cases. Out of curiosity, I took a brief online test and found out that I qualify for somewhere between $140 - $160 a month in food stamps.

I don't know specifically on the reasons the California asset test was dropped but I think in general asset tests with very low limits force people to cash in their retirement savings often in short term times of need. So long term the asset tests have been questioned by some as being counter productive and piling on to the long term societal problem of not enough retirement savings.

 

[youbet]

Why would this resource requirement have been dropped? .

Because:

There aren't too many folks with with significant assets whose income isn't over the $1.2k/mo cutoff? It's probably presumed that doing a deep dive asset search on everyone who applies might only yield a small handful of violators. Of course, they could do it on an audit basis like the IRS.........

Income is easy to verify using the local govt's link to IRS data. Assets are hard and expensive to verify. Say the cutoff for an asset test would be $10k not counting a house or car. How do you easily and inexpensively check on that? Do you check and see if the elderly widow who's applying still has her expensive engagement ring from decades ago? Has she yet to sell the piece of artwork she and her husband bought when they were young and which has appreciated nicely? How do you check to see whether she still has some savings bonds tucked in the bottom of a drawer she was saving for her grandkids? Etc.......

I 100% agree with you though. It bugs the hell out of me when folks I know collect welfare-like benefits based on the fact their only reportable income is SS (or even less if they're too young for SS) and they have hefty brokerage accounts mostly holding deferred money. I have a very close friend who is collecting SNAP and heating fuel assistance while having a hefty brokerage account, a house and a newer sports car. Prior to that it was 99 weeks of unemployment benefits while not seriously looking for a job. I don't blame him personally for doing it since it's legal. But I do blame our politicians for putting the system in place.

 

[MichaelB]

Thanks for the lively discussion,

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube