Tuna check?

[Fermion]

Saw this today:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/families-were-cheated-low-income-123000733.html

"To help low-income families impacted by these price gouging scandals, the Attorney General’s Office is sending checks to every Washington household whose income is at or below 175% of the federal poverty level.

Single-person households will receive a $50 check and multi-person households will receive a $120 check. The first round of checks were sent on Dec. 5 and the rest will be sent before Dec. 31. In total, more than 1.2 million Washingtonians, or approximately 15% of the state population, reside in households receiving checks."


I have not received a tuna check yet, although it has only been 4 days. Our household is definitely below 175% of fed poverty level but I have no idea how the state knows this since we don't file state income tax. Maybe through ACA? I don't even know if they know our mailing address at this state level.

Anyone in Washington get a tuna check yet?

 

[GrayHare]

What a great country, get paid just for the halibut!

 

[MichaelB]

Washington state, not DC.

 

[Fermion]

What a great country, get paid just for the halibut!

I'm not chickening out though, I want my check!

I love Washington state though. They enact a $0.60 a gallon carbon tax on gasoline which is very regressive on poor people who have to commute to their low paying job but they champion this fight against Big Tuna.

 

[MichaelB]

From the Washington Attorney General website https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-re...me-washingtonians-result-ag-ferguson-lawsuits

The first round of checks were mailed on Tuesday, Dec. 5. All checks will be sent before December 31. Washingtonians who do not receive a check by the end of the year but think they qualify should visit refundcheck.atg.wa.gov. They will have six months to complete a short claims form and get their share of the funds.

There is a link to check the status of the payment along with a link to submit a claim

 

[Sunset]

This is basically a Welfare payment, as people above the 175% poverty level would have probably bought more chicken and tuna and therefore been more cheated.

So if you were cheated a little, you get $$$, but cheated more get $0.

I think by making it a hidden Welfare payment, it makes it look better for the State, because if they gave it to all folks, it would work out to a whooping $8 pp which sounds stupid compared to $50 for decades of being overcharged.

Does seem the State settled far too low, at roughly 1 cent per pound overcharge <estimated>, for the past decades long price gouging scandal

 

[O2Bfree]

What a great country, get paid just for the halibut!

I dunno, there's something fishy about this payout.

 

[Fermion]

This is basically a Welfare payment, as people above the 175% poverty level would have probably bought more chicken and tuna and therefore been more cheated.

So if you were cheated a little, you get $$$, but cheated more get $0.

I think by making it a hidden Welfare payment, it makes it look better for the State, because if they gave it to all folks, it would work out to a whooping $8 pp which sounds stupid compared to $50 for decades of being overcharged.

Does seem the State settled far too low, at roughly 1 cent per pound overcharge <estimated>, for the past decades long price gouging scandal

You really do get rewarded well for managing MAGI in retirement.

 

[aja8888]

Reminds me of: "It's my money and I want it now!"

 

[Koolau]

I wonder how much state tax money was spent to get this settlement. In any case, it all sounds a bit fishy to me though YMMV.

 

[Nash]

You can teach a man to fish . . . . but he'll vote for the guy that gives him a fish.

 

[MichaelB]

Funny, folks complain about high attorney fees and low consumer reimbursement for class action suits. Now we have a situation where the attorneys work for the state on salary that doesn’t come close to matching private sector wages, they don’t get any share of the award, and low income consumers receive a far more substantial settlement of $150 per family.

I would have expected celebration, not criticism, of this outcome.

 

[audreyh1]

So just one state? If they uncovered enough skulduggery to warrant a big settlement it seems like other states would be piling on?

 

[Texas Proud]

Wow... interesting...


On another side is the stores themselves... one of my sisters worked at a grocery when young in a poor neighborhood and they would raise the prices on many items the 1st of the month since people got their welfare check then... lowered them after a week... most had spent the whole check...

 

[MichaelB]

So just one state? If they uncovered enough skulduggery to warrant a big settlement it seems like other states would be piling on?

Good point. I know they share, so maybe we’ll see something similar in other states.

 

[Koolau]

Funny, folks complain about high attorney fees and low consumer reimbursement for class action suits. Now we have a situation where the attorneys work for the state on salary that doesn’t come close to matching private sector wages, they don’t get any share of the award, and low income consumers receive a far more substantial settlement of $150 per family.

I would have expected celebration, not criticism, of this outcome.

I suppose you make a good point. Still (and I guess that just goes to show that I - maybe we?? are spoiled) in what group is $150/family a lot of money? Sure. Better than a stick in the eye, but $150 for tuna refunds? Even at Costco (or even at Aldis) that's not a basket of groceries. Maybe it's relative. $150 vs $11.83 is maybe a big improvement for a class action settlement, but... aren't there bigger targets out there? Maybe bigger but not as easy to beat. Goldilocks - just right. Big enough to get a settlement, small enough not to fight it over precedent. YMMV

 

[CaptTom]

I'm conflicted on how to feel about this story.

On the one hand, it seems a bit pointless. If something costs too much, don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy canned tuna or chicken. They're certainly not the only products priced as high as the market will bear. Just look at snack foods, for example. Or cable and streaming services. The list goes on.

On the other hand, a win is a win and I don't begrudge the state going for what was apparently an easy target. Limiting the number of recipients so that each one gets a little more makes some sense, although sending checks to voters is a bit of a gimmick.

 

[jldavid47]

Remember. You can tuna piano but you can't tuna fish.

 

[djsander]

Remember. You can tuna piano but you can't tuna fish.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Aerides]

On the one hand, it seems a bit pointless. If something costs too much, don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy canned tuna or chicken. They're certainly not the only products priced as high as the market will bear. Just look at snack foods, for example. Or cable and streaming services. The list goes on.

For a very low income family, often without much time for shopping and relying on public transit, options can be very limited. Canned meats are a good way to meet some nutrition goals without need for refrigeration or a stove. In many towns across this country, there is only one grocery store, and that's dollar general...

Canned items are often also a food that folks stock up on for when they don't have electricity. There's a reason charities ask for donations of canned goods.

This lawsuit wasn't aiming to solve a problem that hurt middle class folks with options, but one that hurt those who don't.

 

[dmpi]

My thinking is you have to be on some sort of state aid program. Like reduced property tax, medicaid, disability or unemployment. Other than that the state has no idea how much you make.

 

[Fermion]

My thinking is you have to be on some sort of state aid program. Like reduced property tax, medicaid, disability or unemployment. Other than that the state has no idea how much you make.

I agree. You have to check a box on the ACA form for the state to be able to access your tax return and other than that I have no idea how they would know who is below 175% fed poverty level.

 

[MichaelB]

My thinking is you have to be on some sort of state aid program. Like reduced property tax, medicaid, disability or unemployment. Other than that the state has no idea how much you make.

I agree. You have to check a box on the ACA form for the state to be able to access your tax return and other than that I have no idea how they would know who is below 175% fed poverty level.

From the website linked earlier, eligibility is determined by income.

Refunds will go to every Washingtonian whose household income is 175% of the federal poverty level and below.

 

[dmpi]

I agree. You have to check a box on the ACA form for the state to be able to access your tax return and other than that I have no idea how they would know who is below 175% fed poverty level.

In theory just checking the ACA box should be enough, but we're talking the government here. They're not going to run complex database queries to see who does and doesn't qualify. My guess is they might eventually have a form where you can request the rebate if you think your qualify.

 

[ERD50]

I'm conflicted on how to feel about this story.

On the one hand, it seems a bit pointless. If something costs too much, don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy canned tuna or chicken. ....

But, at least according to the report, that is not the issue. The issue is these companies colluded to set pricing, and that's illegal and bad for consumers. I agree, that price fixing should be investigated and harshly punished if found.

But did they really have to include a bad pun in the write up?

The authorities assert that all 19 chicken producers egged each other on to drive up the price of chicken since at least 2008.

Also agree that sending checks is gimmicky, I guess I can understand trying to get the money into the hands of those most hurt (*), but how much did this cost in bureaucracy and implementation? There must be a better way.

(*) But, OTOH, if I steal $1,000 from a multi-millionaire, or someone at 175% of the poverty level, and while IANAL, I think in the eyes of the law, I stole $1,000 - that's the crime. Does the law set a different standard based on victim income? I suppose a Judge might take it into account in sentencing?

-ERD50