He’s still a scumbag, though.
So what? Money from taxes is the government’s money. The government then chooses to pay the underprivileged. This isn’t social security. You might be paying to get services, but you aren’t paying into the system to get your money back.
If I were the owner of a grocery store, I’d refuse him service. Heck, if I owned any business, I would refuse him service if I financially could.
Keep in mind he probably have far less than $2m - 40%. When you win the lottery the only way you can get the full “advertised payout” that you win is by taking a 30 year annuity (in which something like 50% of your winnings are disbursed as a balloon payment in the 30th year.)
If you take the lump sum I think the average value of the lump sum is 65% of the payout, so $2m the payout would be $1.3m, and then that is taxed maximum Federal rate + State taxes so guess around 40%, you end up with $780,000.
If the attention he receives over this prompts a fix to the law, we should be thanking him.
No, money from taxes is the people’s money. Strictly speaking, you are paying into the system to get services back, and a few of the services involve a payout of money.
What do you propose as “the fix?” Would you like to use this one outlier as a justification to make it harder for everyone else?
Yeah, I don’t understand how this can be possible with the you-can’t-have-more-than-$2000 rule. Does Michigan not have that rule?
I can’t get outraged. The state is giving away money (or food in this case) and the guy is taking it. If it was a corporation that would be called “good business practice.”
I am more outraged by the fact that, before he was a lottery winner, he was probably wasting his food stamp money on lottery tickets. States luring the poor into wasting money they don’t have with false dreams is outrageous.
If he was, he was undoubtedly breaking the rules of the food stamp program and they’d have saved the embarrassment by yanking them by that route. The food stamps can only (by their technology; the register only counts food items in the food stamp total) be used for food - trade food for lottery tickets, and you’re breaking the rules and forfeit participation in the program and owe them the money back.
Which makes total sense for lottery tickets. It’s a little more frustrating when you’re flat broke and need to buy toilet paper - also verboten.
Actually, it’s around $2,500-3,000 in the bank permitted - you do still have to pay rent, utilities, buy clothes, soap, toothpaste, etc.
“Evaluations” are every 6 months, at least in my state, I can’t fathom he hasn’t had one by now.
Personally, if I won $2 million in a lottery one of the first things I’d do is turn in my damn food card, as I’ve had quite enough of the government demanding information about me, but I’m probably an outlier. It is outrageous and abuse of the intention of the program if not the exact letter of the rules.
Yes, that is essentially correct.
The point? You don’t starve to death.
More likely it will be pointed to as an example of a “welfare king” in an attempt to scrap the whole safety net system. Despite the fact that this situation is truly exceptional.
This is also why it doesn’t make much sense to save if you are very poor and have a very limited income. You can’t save enough to really weather a serious emergency, but help won’t kick in until you’ve spent everything. So a family that saves $5000 over several years and then gets cancer/loses their job/whatever basically runs through the $5000 and is then eligible for social services. The family next to them that lives better for those years and doesn’t save faces the same emergency and goes straight to social services. Who is the chump then?
I honestly don’t know how to fix this, but I think it’s a problem.
My understanding is that the law is specifically crafted to only count income and not assets so that you don’t wind up with stupid cases like “you can’t get food stamps until you sell your house”.
The fault here, if any, is with a law that counts lottery winnings as anything other than income.
He’s scoring pretty low on my scumometer, though.
I agree that that is probably the reason for the law, although you would think that they’d limit it specifically to necessities like a house and a car. You could certainly have a law that says that a house and a car aren’t counted but if you have more than x dollars in other liquid assets you are not eligible for food aid.
I think what it comes down to is that no matter how carefully you craft a law you’re going to end up either screwing edge cases that genuinely need it, or rewarding edge cases that don’t need it (or maybe even both).
This is one of the reasons I pitted the guy. People like him who take advantage of technicalities to access a government program they don’t really need can end up causing new restrictions which can then screw someone who really is needy.
Call me ignorant, perhaps, but I would have thought a house and car and such were very much not liquid assets.
Barring millionaires from receiving food stamps shouldn’t make it any harder for anyone who actually needs them to get them.
Likely true.
Okay, I worded that badly. I meant that a house and a car should be excluded up front regardless of liquidity, and then any remaining assets that happen to be liquid should count.
You could argue that a car in running condition is at least somewhat liquid since you can probably get something for it, and it’s value is whatever the market will bear.
From the Social Security website.
Lotteries are paid out as annuities (if you so choose).
Why no outcry about retirees receiving full Social Security benefits with other income but if you must work to make ends meet, you get penalized?