Some people in this thread are saying that if a family member gives them a nice present, maybe to cheer them up, they should stop receiving aid. That’s what I mean about keeping them miserable.
If the Kansas legislature believes that people who are bad with money should be severely constrained in their ability to use it, I believe the proposal should be extended. Right now, the legislature budgets annually and has a projected shortfall of $344 million. Fuck that. Make the legislature pass a new budget every day.
When certifying or re-certifying for benefits, people should have to declare income from all sources, including cash and non-cash gifts received from others. It’s not about “keeping them miserable”, it’s about making sure that those who receive benefits actually qualify* for them.
*at least for those programs that have “income”, or lack thereof, as one of the qualifications.
What if it is? As you yourself mention, there are better, cheaper options.
I like this idea. Perhaps the KS legislature can amend the law so that everyone under 16 in a household has to maintain a C average, or their cable gets shut off.
As soon as they are self-supporting, they can buy whatever they want and nobody will say Boo about it. So all these differing motivations can be harnessed at the same time.
“You have been found guilty of the crime of poverty. I hereby sentence you to not having somebody else pay your cable bill.”
Call the Hague - its worse than Gitmo.
Regards,
Shodan
Or they can budget their money as they see fit and the haters of the poor can mind their own fucking business.
“Gift” does not imply that the recipient had any control over the giver’s decision, nor any reason to expect that the gift will continue. Now if these two criteria are proven, that’s a different situation. Consider, however, a case where Grandma pays the cable bill as a gift to the grandchildren. If the parent doesn’t have the ability to convince/compel Grandma to pay cash or some other bill instead, and has no ability to compel Grandma to keep paying the bill, is it really income? It’s not available to be spent as the recipient wants or needs, and it doesn’t put food on the table or a roof overhead, so why should it be used as a way to disqualify somebody?
Welfare applications do ask for all monies received (including gifts), and such applications also count any portion of the necessary bills (rent, utilities, food, etc.) routinely paid by or legally the responsibility of other people. Grandma paying the cable bill doesn’t fall into either category.
I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that at least in my state that IS a requirement.
Actually, if grandma does in fact pay the cable bill every month that could considered in the various calculations. Whether grandma pays the cable bill directly herself (perhaps it is in her name) or hands the family the money to pay the bill makes a considerable difference.
“It’s not a crime to be poor in America, but it might as well be.”
= Will Rogers (attrib.)
The problem is that a significant portion of the stuff the poor buy is only buyable with cash:
- Car problems: the middle class goes to high priced dealers and mechanics; the poor go to the shadetree mechanic working out of his house.
- Child care: the middle class has expensive daycare; the poor use a neighborhood babysitter.
- Clothes and furniture: the middle class goes to a huge range of furniture stores, department stores, specialty stores; the poor use garage sales and Craiglist.
…
Grandma handing the family cash to pay the cable bill is Grandma handing the family cash, a fungible commodity that can be used to pay whatever bill the family really needs. Grandma paying the bill directly, no matter whose name it is in, is not something that can be converted into anything else.
At least in my state, somebody outside the household paying (any part of) the rent/mortgage, property taxes, homeowner’s insurance, heating/cooling, water, sewer, telephone, electricity/gas for cooking and lights, and child care would be factored into the calculations, as would any predictable monetary payments or any monetary payments over $50. Non-monetary gifts that don’t meet those requirements, including paying for cable or Netflix or junior’s violin lessons, would not be considered.
Their money - sure.
Regards,
Shodan
I would say that is an eminently correct and applicable analysis of the situation.
It is their money. Once they get it, it’s theirs. Got a problem with that?
The people of Kansas disagree with you, insofar as they limited cash withdrawals to $25 per day. If it were truly the money of the recipients, no such limit would exist.
Whose viewpoints are decisive at the end of the day, people like you posting on a message board, or the people of Kansas through their elected Governor and Legislature?
You owe** Bricker** a nickel. Better pay him. He’s a lawyer.
The Legislature of Kansas made the bill and the governor signed it. This is because they are a bunch of petty, vindictive assholes. The people of Kansas didn’t directly weigh in. The purpose to the law is to fuck up poor people’s live to the greatest extent necessary, just as the purpose of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor.
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that this argument wouldn’t wash if the discussion were about how much you, personally, have to pay in taxes?
This reminds me of the people who say that the government should be able to dictate what teachers spend their paychecks on. After all, it’s the taxpayers’ money, right?
He probably will sign it, but I just googled this and can’t find evidence it has been signed.