Staying single to collect welfare benefits

[Hannathy]

A fmily of 4 can recieve a maximum benefit to the tune of $600+ a month. I NEVER spend that much and I do occasionally buy a steak or a nice piece of fish.

I don't spend that much either and my kids get their fair share of junk and cookies, soda, ice cream, etc (meaning we aren't living on rice and oatmeal)
PLUS don't forget these kids are also getting free breakfast and lunch at school and if they go to afterschool programs a snack. so take out all those meals and say you can't feed a family of 4 on that amount.

 

[chobie]

I agree!

And to the poster who said they wouldn't want to live where this could be forced on someone (how many kids ) I agree BUT if we quit supporting these people they would come to this conclusion themselves.

They could also have an abortion.

 

[robinb]

I have not read what others have said because it won't change the way I feel about this issue. I just can't get all worked up over this. I think the state (or, more specifically federal government) should pay for everyone's heath care.

 

[Purseval]

No, it's actually just the opposite. It is setup so that if she has to become a ward of the state, then the state won't be able to touch it and she can enjoy all the comforts she enjoys now.

Then there isn't a problem with that. As I said before, plenty of people set aside sheltered assets. I'll do it myself. The problem is when people set aside those assets with the express goal of going on public assistance and using the taxpayers as their retirement fund/medical insurance. Here's an example:

My father had a stroke and lingered on before he died. My mother got help from the state. When she dies 50% of her estate goes to the state to pay for my father's medical bills. That would be a reasonable solution even if they took it all. She could have transferred everything to us and paid nothing, plus we could have "lent" her back everything she gave us in the first place. Would you think that was fair, ethical, good financial planning, or whatever you'd like to call it? Personally I don't.

 

[penn19]

That's not a bad theory but I sincerly would hate to live somewhere that forced someone to give their chidl up for adoption.

No, no one should be "forced" to give a child up for adoption, but when did we get to the point that it was ok and socially acceptable to have a child out of wedlock? Maybe if we didn't send the message to people that it was ok to do this, and it did happen to them, then maybe they would think of this on their own.
And yes, I DID get pregnant before I was married. I got married, and just celebrated 20 years last week. If it wasn't the right thing to do at the time, I would have given my baby up in a hearbeat to give him a better life.

 

[princessmom29]

I have not read what others have said because it won't change the way I feel about this issue. I just can't get all worked up over this. I think the state (or, more specifically federal government) should pay for everyone's heath care.

the federal government doesn't have any of its own money, so it would actually be you and I paying for everyone else's healthcare.

 

[robinb]

the federal government doesn't have any of its own money, so it would actually be you and I paying for everyone else's healthcare.

That's okay with me too .

 

[Inigo]

It's the income of the total household that counts towards benefits, not their marital status. He probably had a job and made to much money for the household to qualify.

Instead of moving out, maybe he should have manned up and supported his child.

If only. I don't think people should get additional benefits from welfare if they have additional children on welfare. My boss doesn't give me a raise when I have more children, and I WORK for my income.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

I agree with OP, it seems there are more couples not marrying today so one of them can collect on our tax dime. And that, I am dead against. I don't see why I have to support them while they stay home and not work.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

If only. I don't think people should get additional benefits from welfare if they have additional children on welfare. My boss doesn't give me a raise when I have more children, and I WORK for my income.

very good and valid points!! Why does the government give out more when welfare recipients have more children

 

[luvsJack]

Thed 14 year old i am talking about is not set, but she thinks she is. She still lives with mom, who also milks the system, and has been taught that she doesn't need an education or job skills, so any attempt by me to provide her with those things is met with resistance and "attitude". Believe me I try to convince then that it is no way to live, but when they are being raised in a household that doesn't value education or hard work it is almost impossible for me to change their mind. I have succeeded with a few, but it is HARD! If parents would place value on education and job skills these kids COULD get real jobs and support themselves as adults. Because mom and dad milk the system and encourage them to continue to do so, any effort I make to convince them that they are capable of more is severly hindered.



A fmily of 4 can recieve a maximum benefit to the tune of $600+ a month. I NEVER spend that much and I do occasionally buy a steak or a nice piece of fish.

That rule is on the books a lot of places, but rarely is it enforced. I know there is an average DNA backlog of 4 months at the ABI for criminal DNA (courtesy of our forensics course at school). Civil matters would take a backseat to that, not to mention it would be prohibitively expensive to go after every possible father of every welfare baby. DNA tsting is NOT a cheap or easy porcess. They are just not going to invest those kinds of resources.

I think that training or some type of educational program should be mandatory for recipients of welfare and I have always thought they should be required to work in some capacity for the county and/or the state. There needs to be policies in place to get them off the system and to show them how to get off the system.

When I was a single mom, I received benefits. It took a lot to get away from that and I don't think its any kind of ideal life for anyone. Thank God, I had family that could help me through the rough spots and the ability to work 2 jobs to get there (with family to help me with my kids). But while receiving them, I can assure you I never thought about buying a piece of steak.

I have relatives that draw disability, their kids draw disability and they receive government assistance in many forms. The young woman and her husband has 3 kids of their own (young teens), a disabled mother and her adopted brother and sister (11 and 12) all living in one house. I see how they live and I think, "how can anyone think THIS is a good way to live? How can anyone think that someone would CHOOSE to live this way?" I can assure you all that she has never bought a piece of steak in her adult life. She has never bought anything but the cheapest of meals.

As for the DNA testing, it may not be enforced everywhere but it is here. I couldn't guarantee that it is all the time but it is at least part of the time. If a mother is receiving assistance she must attempt to get child support from the father or stop receiving benefits. They may not get the DNA tests done in a timely manner, I have no idea but I do know that they tell the single moms this up front and have cut off many benefits.

 

[luvsJack]

No, no one should be "forced" to give a child up for adoption, but when did we get to the point that it was ok and socially acceptable to have a child out of wedlock? Maybe if we didn't send the message to people that it was ok to do this, and it did happen to them, then maybe they would think of this on their own.
And yes, I DID get pregnant before I was married. I got married, and just celebrated 20 years last week. If it wasn't the right thing to do at the time, I would have given my baby up in a hearbeat to give him a better life.

That is wonderful for you. I did too and I got married too. He was an idiot and a drunk and it was the biggest mistake I ever made and we divorced 5 years later. Would I have given up my child? Not a chance.

I personally do not believe that it is morally ok to have a child out of wedlock or to even have sex out of wedlock. But, do we now want the government to be the morality police too?




Several have said that they don't spend whatever their state's amount is for a family of 4 on food stamps. I have no clue what a family gets here, but I know darn well that I cannot buy groceries for a family of 3 on $100 a week. It would definitely be closer to the $600 per month that some of you were saying. In order for us to have healthy meals every morning and night, plenty of fresh fruits and veggies for snacks and such and my lunch for work (dd eats at school) plus the items that dh keeps in the truck to eat (drives a 18 wheeler) it ranges from $120-$180 per week. I have tried everything to get it down, but if it goes down one week its just right back up the next. And I do use coupons and I ad match and watch the ads closely.

 

[Inigo]

I think people think that others enjoy paying for their children.

News flash..I do not !!!

I told that to a 15 year old father of a seven month old today. I was like, "I don't want to pay to raise your children. If I'm not the one having the sex, then the child that results shouldn't be my responsibility."

As part of his probation, he's being Court ordered to get a job.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

I told that to a 15 year old father of a seven month old today. I was like, "I don't want to pay to raise your children. If I'm not the one having the sex, then the child that results shouldn't be my responsibility."

As part of his probation, he's being Court ordered to get a job.

Not for nothing but being court ordered to get a job is just a joke. With the economy the way it is, chances are this kid will not get a job. He may try because he is forced to, but chances of him actually being hired are slim to none. When the court see's that he isn't working what will they do? If they "lock him up" who do you think will pay for the child then? I know it sounds nice on paper "court ordered to get a job" but what does it really mean in the working world...nothing.. sorry to sound like a downer but it is true.

 

[princessmom29]

I think that training or some type of educational program should be mandatory for recipients of welfare and I have always thought they should be required to work in some capacity for the county and/or the state. There needs to be policies in place to get them off the system and to show them how to get off the system.

When I was a single mom, I received benefits. It took a lot to get away from that and I don't think its any kind of ideal life for anyone. Thank God, I had family that could help me through the rough spots and the ability to work 2 jobs to get there (with family to help me with my kids). But while receiving them, I can assure you I never thought about buying a piece of steak.

I have relatives that draw disability, their kids draw disability and they receive government assistance in many forms. The young woman and her husband has 3 kids of their own (young teens), a disabled mother and her adopted brother and sister (11 and 12) all living in one house. I see how they live and I think, "how can anyone think THIS is a good way to live? How can anyone think that someone would CHOOSE to live this way?" I can assure you all that she has never bought a piece of steak in her adult life. She has never bought anything but the cheapest of meals.

As for the DNA testing, it may not be enforced everywhere but it is here. I couldn't guarantee that it is all the time but it is at least part of the time. If a mother is receiving assistance she must attempt to get child support from the father or stop receiving benefits. They may not get the DNA tests done in a timely manner, I have no idea but I do know that they tell the single moms this up front and have cut off many benefits.

You, I, and apparently your relatives know this. We KNOW it is no way to live, but many of my students and their parents don't know any other way. They have never been in anyone's house that lives a different way, and never seen anything but dependence on the system. They ARE taught that it is their way of life. I am not speculating or making any of this up. I have sat down at talked to these teens more times than I can count about just these issues. They really, truly do not believe that there is any other way of life open to them because it is what they and their parents have always known. They don't believe that there is any other way out there for them. They are going to live off the system, so it is pointless to bother trying to better themselves. If they are going to be geting government assistance, why bother. They honestly don't realize that their lives could be so different if they had marketable skills. The just do not see the value in it, or have any concept that there is a better way of life out there for them.

 

[deerhart]

If your co-worker is the father of her babies, then he is in for a world of trouble at some later date. If he is on the birth certificate, listed as the father, and the state is paying the childrens' way, at some point in the future, when the state puts two and two together, they can and probably will come after him for being a dead beat dad. The state will come after him and his wages to reimburse the state for every penny they have paid out for those two children. When the state finds out his address is the same as hers, then she too will be in a world of trouble. Her trouble will be a criminal matter though. The state most likely will come after her for fraud. Somewhere she filled out paper work stating that she has no knowledge of the father's whereabouts and/or employment status and/or income.

Eventually, his wages will be garnished as child support for his two children and she will be charged with welfare fraud. All it takes is one child welfare worker to do a check on the file. Due to the new premie baby, and all the money being spent for the baby's medical bills, this may just be what red flags the state's file. Hopefully, a worker will look at the birth parents, names and addresses and put the pieces together and bust them both. She will have to file additional paperwork to get more money for the new baby...and she will, yet again, commit fraud when listing the father's information on all her new paperwork. She's looking at a felony if she's been doing this for a while.

Marriage has nothing to do with being legally financially responsible for one's children. This is the type of situation and fraud the welfare office loves to put and end to. They get a lot of anonymous calls turning in people for just this type of welfare fraud.

If he is living with the children, then child support CANNOT be ordered. But yes, the state can come after Dad for the TANF (but not medicaid, food stamps) support even if he lives with the children.

 

[deerhart]

they are NOT playing by the rules, at least in my state. By now they would be common law husband and wife and legally required to report both incomes. As i understand it, in most states, if you maintain a household together you must report all household incomes, including minors earning income in the household.

Common law marriages only exist in ta few states (like 9).

As for public assistance, the rules vary by state on that and they can vary greatly.

Here are the "rules" in my state

Who Is Eligible?

The child who:

* is under the age of 18 years or 19 and attending high school or equivalent and expected to graduate;
* is in need of assistance because there is insufficient income to meet basic needs;
* is deprived of support because of the death, physical or mental incapacity or the continued absence from the home or unemployment;
* is living with one or both parents or a close relative who makes application for assistance.

and whose parent(s) with whom he or she is living:

* has not been convicted after August 22, 1996 in a Federal or State court of a felony or any crime related to illegal possession, use, or distribution of a controlled substance;
* does not own resources valued at more than $1,000 at application, excluding the home and one car. Recipients may own resources valued to $5000 once a self-sufficiency pact is signed;
* assigns his or her rights for child support to FSD and further cooperates in identifying, locating and collecting child support from any parent who is absent from the home because of divorce, desertion, or abandonment;
* uses the money for the benefit of the children;
* attempts to support or help support the children by accepting employment when offered;
* applies for social security numbers for all members of the assistance group;
* is not a fleeing felon and is not in violation of a condition of probation or parole imposed under a Federal of State Law.

 

[Ericandjenng]

This is the first year that tax season has not driven me nuts with these kinds of situations. Until this year, even though we both work and pay in $$$, we hardly would get anything back and yet hear about relatives and others who paid in almost nothing and get $K's back. I could never see how that was fair, right, legal or moral.

This year we got back more not because we made less or paid more in but because our little Princess showed up just in time to be deducted and we spent $$$ on a new heat pump that qualified for the energy credit. I have always found it frustrating to get back about 5% of what we paid in and others would get back tons more than they have paid in in several years combined.

Unfortunately there is so much about the government programs that skew things one way or another.

 

[deerhart]

I think that training or some type of educational program should be mandatory for recipients of welfare and I have always thought they should be required to work in some capacity for the county and/or the state. There needs to be policies in place to get them off the system and to show them how to get off the system.

.

Federal law was changed in the mid 90's that only allow someone to stay on temp assistance for 5 years, but you have to be trying to work and after 2 years MUST be working at least 35 hours a week to continue receiving assistance.

ALSO realize (for all those people bashing people with public assistance) that families who adopt children through the state and those that foster for the state also receive state benefits (some may get subsidized money, some food stamps, medicaid etc) as an incentive to take in these kids. This is REGARDLESS of the families income.

 

[deerhart]

Not for nothing but being court ordered to get a job is just a joke. With the economy the way it is, chances are this kid will not get a job. He may try because he is forced to, but chances of him actually being hired are slim to none. When the court see's that he isn't working what will they do? If they "lock him up" who do you think will pay for the child then? I know it sounds nice on paper "court ordered to get a job" but what does it really mean in the working world...nothing.. sorry to sound like a downer but it is true.

What they do here is if the person shows proof that he is applying to a significant amount of jobs that he is qualified for, the judge will not do anything because they are complying with the order to get employed.