But whose landlord accepts credit cards?
So really, they get $24.15 a day (once the fee for taking out the money is removed).
Still appalling.
NM
If you mean housing vouchers,that portion of the rent is paid directly to the landlord- no credit card required.
Regards,
Shodan
So… these folks are expected to shop exactly twice in a month, or pay for the privilege? Again, WTF? And folks wonder why the poor stock up on non-perishable junk food instead of fresh fruits and vegetables? Way to go, guys. What, people have Magic Milk that doesn’t go off for weeks at a time?
That’s appalling.
You know, I live in a Red State and last time I checked I don’t get charged jack for using my benefit card no matter how many times I use it a month. In other words, this is a decision Kansas has made to allow banks to skim benefit money, instead of insisting it all go to the poor. You know, the people it is supposed to be helping?
At the store where I work the cash back limit on TANF is the same as for debit cards, that is, up to $100. That is set by the store, not the state. (I’ve yet to see any TANF recipient ask for that much, usually it’s in the $10-25 range. People asking for more than $25 on cash-back is unusual enough I take note of it.). But that’s Indiana, not Kansas, and obviously programs vary from state to state.
Sort of an important point to clarify.
I know of no landlord that takes benefit cards for rent. Such may well exist, but I think knowing if that’s an option is sort of important.
Otherwise, yes, you ARE paying in cash or check… and having a checking account when you’re that poor isn’t a given.
One (among many) positives of my current employer is that when you’re hired they essentially set up a bank/checking account for you - that’s kind of weird if you’re used to a middle-class situation, but for poor employees (and they do hire the poor and unemployed) it’s actually a good thing, as there is no charge for the account and thus the employees don’t need to seek out “currency exchanges” or get charged for cashing their paychecks. For a certain percentage of my co-workers that account is the only “bank” they have, and for some it’s the only one they’ve ever had.
Obviously, you’ve never checked out the cheap booze that’s available. I don’t know about the drugs angle, but you can buy a LOT of alcohol for $25 if you don’t give a damn about flavor.
Hell, back when I worked at the clinic we had two guys who were fans of rubbing alcohol. For drinking. No, that shit isn’t good for you, it is horrible… and dirt cheap. If you’re looking to get blasted out of your skull it’s quick and a big bang for the buck. Not so good for your long-term health, but whatever. Also, easy to overdose and kill yourself accidentally.
The problem is that addicts are addicts - they can place “obtaining drug” above “obtaining food” on the priority list. This isn’t going to stop the hardcore.
It will annoy poor folks who don’t have that particular problem, and whittle away at their benefits via bank and transaction fees.
I don’t doubt that some supporters are coming from a position of wanting to help people, but I just don’t think this measure will do that. Period. Meanwhile, I think there are some people wishing to profit off the idea. It’s one thing to earn a living by providing actually needed goods and services to the poor (both parties benefit) but in this case the banks are getting money and the poor are getting jack from the deal.
Why don’t we just transfer ALL of their welfare benefits directly to the banks? That will prevent those lazy mooches from wasting any of it!
Nm
There are a couple of ways around that.
If the card allows for cash back, then take out enough cash to pay for groceries for the next few weeks. If not, use the card to buy a gift card from the grocery store and use the gift card to pay for your groceries. Of course, that locks you into just shopping at that one store.
[QUOTE=even sven]
Why don’t we just transfer ALL of their welfare benefits directly to the banks? That will prevent those lazy mooches from wasting any of it!
[/QUOTE]
That’s not necessary - the eighty five cent charge is going to make ALL OF THEM DIE STARVING IN THE STREETS!
Regards,
Shodan
Also:
Babysitters
The guy down the block who fixes cars
Garage sales and Craig’s list
Many thrift stores
Flea markets
Bodegas with minimums for card transactions
Farmers markets, or they guy down the street who sells cheap tomatoes from his garden
Your kid’s school play
The dude you carpool with
The relative whose couch you are staying on
A poor person isn’t going to last a minute swiping their card all over the place. The economics of the very poor are just completely different, and involve a lot of used goods, informal labor, bartering and resource sharing within families. And these are largely cash-only economies. Grandma doesn’t accept Visa when you help her out with five bucks here and there when she feeds your kids dinner after dinner.
Surviving on welfare requires an enormous amount of creativity when it comes to purchasing. I’m sure people would love to just be able to go to the store and buy what they need without having to source things from an array of unusual places, but it’s just not a reality on that kind of money.
Okay. I have no issue with the liquor and fortune teller stuff part of the law. I do object to the requirements that result in poor-to-bank transfers. How do you feel about those requirements?
There’s no need to rape them with this charge every time they want cash out. 85 cents out of their pocket may be like taking a 10 dollar bill out of yours- not going to kill them but why does Kansas want to fuck them over so badly?
But as already stated, most people on TANF don’t have housing assistance. The current average time spent on TANF is under 2 years, and housing assistance has waits measured in decades.
When we were very poor (not on TANF, but still poor enough that we couldn’t cash-flow manage our checking account for rent, because often my paycheck came in the day rent was due), we used a currency exchange. Take the paycheck in, cash it, and then buy a money order with the cash and drop the money order to the management office on the way home. Then we’d deposit the rest of the cash in my checking account to pay the other bills with without money order fees.
So, sometimes, even when you *have *a checking account, you can’t use it for rent or other large bills. Even a 24 hour “pending” on your deposit ties up funds you can’t spare for 24 hours. Had we been using TANF for our rent, or even a significant portion of our rent, this would likely make us late on our rent payments, incurring even more late fees (on the rent) and 5 day notices to vacate.
That won’t work if the money allotted for your food benefits is locked solely to food items - in other words you can’t purchase a store gift card with food stamp money. You can only purchase food.
Of course, this gets back to whether or not all benefits of all sorts are folded into these restrictions or just the TANF part of them.
One might just as well ask why the state doesn’t restrict access to the card benefits to just those stores that are approved - say, grocery and clothing stores, maybe a bit of gas station as well, then make all transactions POS instead of allowing cash withdrawals… except, of course, as pointed out the local babysitter probably doesn’t accept plastic.
Why is Kansas charging the poor to use the benefits the state sees fit to grant based on poverty?
Especially when other states seem to do just fine without adding fees on to accessing government benefits?
They are great, because then ALL POOR PEOPLE WILL BE RAPED AND DIE!!!
Regards,
Shodan
I apologize for attempting a reasonable discussion with you. Let me know if you’re actually interested in one.
There’s no time for that! POOR PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE BECAUSE IT COSTS THEM EIGHTY FIVE CENTS TO PAY THE BABYSITTER!!!
Regards,
Shodan
The 85 cent fee would cost a maximum of $14.45 per month for a family of 3 receiving maximum cash benefits and choosing to spend it all in cash. Or they could just get a checking account – why is this considered some hideous hardship?
It’s also very difficult to understand why keeping someone from spending their welfare benefits on gambling or fortune tellers is objectionable to anyone besides the thwarted would-be spenders. Is using money that is supposedly needed for food, clothing, toiletries, housing, etc. on things that are completely idiotic worth defending?
While I disagree with the vehemence of your assertions, it’s refreshing to see some compassion on your part for the poor. 
Did a mod delete some posts from this thread? I keep looking for the ones that are pro-gambling-and-fortune-teller, but damned if I can see them.