Re the story above
Kansas has currently passed legislation to reduce welfare benefits to a max of $ 25 per day. Are there any studies about what happens in states with very stingy welfare payouts? Do poor people leave, do they stay and tough it out? What happens?
I think the experience of New Orleans pre- and post-Katrina is relevant. The truly totally dependent poor are anchored to where they live and will only move if somebody else finds them new lodging and pays their way to get there. And even then there’s substantial non-compliance.
The working poor (ie folks with minimum wage or part time jobs) are the ones who get gutted by moves like this. And many will migrate in search of a combo of wages and gov’t subsidy that makes ends meet. And then retailers & other low wage payers will whine about a lack of workers.
Moving is tough when you are extremely poor, especially since you very likely rely heavily on family help and informal bartering (“I’ll watch your kid if you fix my car”, etc.) within the community to get by.
One thing that is happens when welfare restrictions get tighter is more people seek disability benefits, and disability rolls have swelled over the last decade or so. Some families may decide to “do without” luxuries llike nutritious food, certified child care providors, dental care, preventative health care, etc. Others may turn to illegal activities (sex work, etc.) to fill the gaps. Single parents might consider pairing with unsuitable partners (abusive, etc.) for the sake of keeping the family fed.
This law is appalling.
Let’s say I’m poor because I’m completely irresponsible with money. Because I’m stupid. I’m too smart to qualify for services devoted to the mentally disabled, but I’m too stupid to manage my finances or be anything other than a leech on society. I am the epitome of every welfare stereotype Gov. Brownback and the others hold to be true.
How does this law help me to be a better person? How does forcing me to get a checking account that I can’t afford, that I may not even be able to get, help me to become a more functional, productive citizen?
It’s not. This measure is entirely punitive.
There’s not much chance of Brownback vetoing this unless something happens involving three ghosts representing different time periods.
Not just punative, but a great backdoor transfer of raw cash from the government into the hnads of banks (who, I suspect, occasionally give political contributions), while screwing the poorest of the poor in the process. It’s almost genius in its scumminess.
How is reducing welfare benefits a “backdoor transfer of raw cash from the government into the hnads (sic) of banks?”
Explain the mechanics, please.
See post 4, or the article in the OP.
Why do you think this bill is good?
You don’t understand the article. Currently the maximum welfare (TANF) benefit is $429 per month. This is $14.30/ day for a 30 day month. This is a lot stingier than $25/day–so there is no cut in benefits. But previously you could take all the money out in one day–for example to pay rent or other big ticket purchases. But now you are limited to taking it out in daily 25 chunks and there is a .85 fee each time you take out the money. So a lot more hassle, a lot less flexibility and significant fees.
Luckily welfare recipients also have food stamps and Medicaid. And a significant number have housing benefits.
Let’s do this slowly, using small words. First, we must first posit that some welfare recipients need cash-- maybe the local bodega is cash only, or their babysitter needs cash, whatever. Some people need cash.
To take cash from an ATM, they must pay an $.85 fee to the bank. To make this clear, the money comes from their benefits, and is transferred directly to the bank.
With the new law, withdrawals are limited to $25 a day. Which means that if a person needs $100, they will now have to give the bank $3.40 in order to get their money. Getting access to their full benefit would be something like $14.00 a month. The bank ends up $14.00 richer (per customer) from money that comes directly from the government. The poor person is now $14.00 poorer because their welfare money is being transferred to thebank instead of its intended purpose.
This is a disgusting handout to banks on the backs of the poor.
I don’t know if it will make you a better person, but it will inhibit you from wasting money you don’t have on things you don’t need.
It seems a little odd to complain about eighty-five cents in ATM fees, but not about spending more than that on liquor or fortune tellers.
Regards,
Shodan
So, tell me more about this Nanny State you are advocating…
Did anyone in this thread complain about the liquor or fortune-teller stuff? It seems pretty clearly that the criticism was about the requirements that result in transfers from poor to banks. What do you think about those parts of the law?
Does Kansas do what a lot of other states do (like mine) and combine all benefits into one account accessed by one card/PIN? If they do, then it’s not just TANF that’s a problem, you won’t be able to access your food benefits at more than $25/day either. Which is survivable, but crimps your ability to take advantage of bulk deals (for example, buying 10 pounds of grand meat at $1.59/pound instead of $3.59/pound which I did this month, which represents a significant savings) and forces the poor to shop more frequently, eating up more of their time that might be otherwise spent on other things.
Oh, and food stamps have also been cut in recent years.
Most able-bodied adults without children do NOT qualify for Medicaid, or didn’t - I think it may have changed recently but I’m still sorting that out for how it applies to me, much less everyone else.
Housing benefits? It is to laugh. In my area the Section 8 benefit has a ten year waiting list. Yes, some poor people get housing benefits, a lot do not.
If you think TANF recipients will somehow be OK due to other benefits you’re sorely mistaken, and need to get better informed.
On top of that, charging people $0.85/transaction AND forcing them to have more transactions per month is just robbing the poor. Seriously, WTF?
Apparently, the $25/day limit applies to ATM withdrawals, not to purchase transactions.
I can’t find a source for this right now, but I would guess the fee only applies to ATM transactions, not purchases. But I could be wrong.
monstro asked about how “the law” would affect lazy, stupid welfare recipients. You know, where she said “the epitome of every welfare stereotype”. The law will affect those people in the ways I described.
If people are going to fulminate about how this law is simply a transfer away from welfare recipients to banks, it is legitimate to point out that it is not simply so. See also Alley Dweller’s point that this applies to ATM fees, not purchases.
I realize the temptation to try to limit discussion of the law only to the (rather misleading) assertion about part of the law, but I don’t want to do that. I would rather talk about the entire law, even if it touches on topics that you and others want to avoid.
Regards,
Shodan
The only information on Kansas benefit card fees I could find dates back to 2008, so take this with a grain of salt:
ATM withdrawals cost $1 each PLUS the ATM owner’s surcharge.
POS transactions (to make purchases at a store, for example) are free for the first two in any month and then cost 40 cents each.
Cash back IS allowed on POS purchases. So instead of going to an ATM, a benefit recipient can ask for cash when when they use their card at a grocery store, for example. I cannot find a limit on cash back amounts.
The bill explicitly sets a $25 daily limit on ATM withdrawals. It explicitly says “automated teller machine.” (page 14) So, I don’t know if they interpret this to include POS cash back.
OK. So to sum it up, Kansas :
Isn’t reducing the amount of money in welfare benefits.
Apparently, as long as your rent isn’t paid in cash, it isn’t making it difficult to pay rent or buy $200 in groceries in one shopping trip or anything.
It’s only preventing you from withdrawing more than $25 in cash at once. The reason is obvious : stereotypically, people on welfare have substance abuse problems. Naturally, the fraction of them boozing it up may actually be smaller than the number of rich people abusing drugs, but it’s an easy political argument to make. Anyways, the State has this bright idea to stop people from blowing their entire welfare check on booze or drugs in one go - they’d have to pull $25 a day out for a while before they have enough money to buy appreciable amounts of drugs or booze.
Is it going to make any difference? Probably will do fuck all - but it seems like a measure half intended to protect welfare recipients from themselves.
Either political party could justify something like this. Oh, but it also is a backdoor gift to the banks. That bit sounds a bit shady.