But they’re really not the same result. Some people may have a greater need for cash than others. They end up paying more bank fees.
If the state pays the bank fees then everyone ends up with the same benefit regardless of how much they engage in cash transactions. If the fees come out of the benefit than different people essentially end up with different benefits depending on their need for cash.
If this benefit is for people with low paying jobs then the cards would logically be used directly for food and other essentials without the need for cash. What it deters is the use of the benefit for cigarettes, booze, drugs, gambling and other non essentials. The income from the job is used for anything requiring cash.
The notion that the restriction on withdrawals is to prevent the poors from using their money on morally-objectionable purposes is an utter red herring. What other government benefit is administered this way? Social Security? No. What measures are in place to make sure the mortgage-interest tax break–a massive government subsidy–is not spent on hookers and blow?
It is only when government money is spent to help poor people that an obsession develops with preventing the recipients from spending it as they wish. And it is only poor people who get ripped off with scams like this per-transaction fee BS.
Yes, actually, I did.
bolding mine
You’re the one caught up in this “banks shouldn’t be paid” strawman, not me. I have no problem with a fee for each transaction. I have a problem with requiring many transactions instead of a few.
You know what? I’ve been pondering this question more, and I’d like another chance to answer it more honestly.
No.
No, in fact, I think there is an inverse connection. I grew up lower middle class. I learned how to bargain hunt. I understood the concept of bulk discounts, coupons, shopping sales. I was raised to not carry credit card debt, to keep my checking account in the positive, to invest extra funds in interest bearing accounts or investments, to never finance a car through a dealership if you could get a loan from your bank. I got all that stuff. I lived that life.
Then shit happened, and I couldn’t anymore. And what I learned when I was poor was a whole lot of really bad habits. I learned that if I bought the 12 pack of toilet paper for $7 on Tuesday, some emergency would come up where I needed 6 of those dollars. So I learned to buy the single rolls for $1, just in case I needed that other $6. I learned that my family of four needed half a pound of meat in a meat-based meal, so I’d buy the smallest package of chicken thighs I could find, because while it was cheaper per pound to buy the big family pack, who can gamble that they won’t need that extra $9 before the next check comes in? I bought dollar store crap that broke down and needed replacement frequently, because it was just a dollar, and there was always the hope that it would last. I learned to be really, really anxious with money, punctuated by moments of sheer fucking relief when we had a little to spare…which I’d promptly blow on take-out, because “we deserved it.”
I ate. So many beans. I gained so much weight.
I’m still recovering. What made me realize this was that I was portioning out my pills for the week in my pillbox. I stopped at CVS today and got the smallest bottle of Fish Oil they had, because I’m out and I need some. And money feels really tight right now, so I don’t dare to go to Costco and buy the bigger bottle for a few bucks more until payday on Friday. I *have *the money. I *could *have gone to Costco and gotten the better deal…but my anxiety won’t let me. Now, instead of “What if I need that $5?” it’s “What if I need that $500?”
We still have too many celebratory meals because “we deserve it.” And now that we have the money to do that (although it’s money we should be saving) it means we’re eating too many restaurant meals with too many calories and not enough vegetables.
So, no, I don’t really think that struggling under public aid helped me to become better at handling my money. In fact it taught me some really awful habits that I’m still trying to shake.
So, you get busted for a drug offense. Maybe it’s a petty one. You don’t have the money for a lawyer to reduce petty offenses to something trivial. (see, when people get caught with half a joint who can afford good lawyers, they are generally punished much less than people who have to take the public defender)
Now you have a record. You can’t get a job. You’re starving. No money for food.
What, exactly, does Kansas expect you to do? Do they expect you to quietly die in a gutter? For those with a survival instinct, if they cannot get what they need to live honestly, that means they have to resort to crime. Whatever it takes. Drug dealing, theft, robbery, etc. I would like to think that if I were in such a situation I would be a careful thief but, regardless, crime is the only viable option.
I assume they are hoping you’ll just leave Kansas. There are 40 or so superior states, so this is probably the best option for everyone. Once the place is emptied out, it will make a great wind farm.
And then you can yell at poor people for wasting their money at Target and Safeway rather than frugally shopping garage sales and cheap farm stands.
I also have no reason to believe that this “deters” anything. Do you?
Then why did you liquidate this money into cash? You could have used this money on that food, goods, etc., by purchasing at places not requiring cash.
What is up in the air to a degree is the implementation of the disbursement limit and other restrictions in the bill. Reading an outdated brochure that has been taken down is not useful. Hint: they take these things down when they don’t apply anymore.
And I have sufficient first-hand knowledge of life in poverty. What I have not experienced is life in poverty where you get a little pile of free money every month. Is the money really making the situation so much worse?
I’m not saying you “learned your lesson” or anything like that, and I’m confused about how receiving money made you fat and anxious. Or was it being poor that made you fat and anxious and the hassles of jumping through the hoops to get aid?
I’ve known many poor people. I’ve been one. I’ve employed some. I’ve housed some. Your impression that most are like you were, diligently doing their best to stretch a small amount of money on essentials does not match my observations. Unfortunately, there’s no way to really measure this or define exactly who falls into which categories, so observations are all I have.
Yes, being poor, and being subject to all sorts of fees and penalties for being poor. Which is exactly what this measure increases.
WADR, you seem to be the one assuming that $420 a month would be their only income, because you said that would mean they were homeless.
Sure, but that speaks against the idea that limiting withdrawals means that poor people can’t live. They can spend their other, immediately accessible income however they like, including wasting it. But the limit on withdrawals means they can’t spend everything - whether they like it or not.
The limit on withdrawals might be a good idea or it might not, but it doesn’t mean they will starve or be homeless or be raped, or any of the other foolish hysteria liberals always trot out whenever some one suggests that welfare recipients might want to budget their money instead of wasting it.
Regards,
Shodan
No one is against recipients budgeting and not wasting. Surely you don’t believe otherwise? What will it take to pound this point home?
Of course they should budget and avoid waste. That’s not what this argument is about. Why do conservatives so often argue things other than the actual point? Is it because they’re afraid that they can’t win that argument, or are they really genuinely missing the point?
Welfare didn’t make you poor. Maybe it didn’t alleviate all of the burdens and unpleasantness of being poor, but why should it?
But the discussion isn’t about alleviating all the burdens of poverty. It’s about this particular law and what it ends up doing. If the state legitimately threw its hands up in the air and said “we tried our best, but there’s simply nothing left in the budget to further help out with aid towards food. You’ll have to make do on your own” well, that’s one thing. I wouldn’t actually believe it. OK, with the tax slashing that’s been going on in KS since Brownback, I actually kinda would, but regardless that’s a completely separate discussion here.
What this law does is state that you can’t get more than $25 a day in benefits instead of all at once. How much can you buy at the grocery store for $25? How much does it take to feed a family of 4 for a week? How many withdraws will you need to make so that you don’t have to go back to the grocery store again and again and again?
And the larger question: how does this benefit the state in any way? I can’t think of a way it does. It just fucks the poor.
So they have to withdraw money and they get socked with a fee each time they do. Does this save the state any money? Does this help Kansas in any way? No. Again, it just fucks the poor.
So the discussion is not whether the poor should never want for anything. The question is why the state is passing laws that neither benefits the state, nor benefits the recipients of the allocations. And when you look at it that way, you’ll see that the only reason this passed was to provide additional revenue to lending institutions courtesy of the taxpayers of Kansas.
D’Anconia and AnaMen, you’re also missing the point that the state doesn’t do direct deposits to the recipient’s bank account. The EBT card vendor has a monopoly on access to their money. In addition, the state likely pays a handling fee for each account. Any bank’s ATM that is used is also getting a cut. It all comes out of the pockets of both the taxpayer and the recipient.
That’s not how the article claims it works: it is a fee and limit for ATM cash withdrawals (according to the article), NOT for purchases like buying groceries. Also, TANF is separate from SNAP benefits, though apparently they are put on the same card in Kansas. So apparently one typically would be receiving a similar/slightly higher additional amount on the card that is the SNAP food benefit.
I understand completely. Sorry. I hope your recovery is fast and successful.
Why do complete strangers, most of whom have never been there, feel the need to make suggestions to welfare recipients? Why is that ok, unless you are a trained financial counselor who has been asked for his advice? The implication that welfare recipients all need to be retrained, don’t know how to budget or spend wisely, and make poor choices, while the rest of us have infinite wisdom, is what leads to stupid policies like the one we’re discussing.
Do you think it’s a good idea, or not? I think it’s a bad idea – the only ones who benefit are the banks, it seems to me, while it makes life more difficult for beneficiaries.
So, how do you pay your rent then? Is that “wasting money”?