What should be done when people on welfare spend money on vacations?

[Aidensmom]

Someone who owns DVC shouldn't have been eligible for assistance in the first place, they have too many assets. That is where I think much of the fraud problem occurs, applications are being processed without any research behind them.

Jenny is correct about SSDI, it is not easy to get. People are typically turned down 2 or 3 times before they ever get approved, if they get approved.

I don't think someone getting what is meant to be temporary assistance should use that money for Disney vacations. If they are, there is probably something fraudulent going on, because welfare does not give a person enough money to do so. Most people who receive welfare are not taking extravagant vacations.

However, I don't agree with the overall notion of "if you receive any government assistance, you shouldn't take a vacation" as an all-sweeping statement. People who are earning their own money should have the right to spend it how they want, and if that means taking thier cousin who is on assistance on vacation with them, they should be able to. I sure as heck don't want the government telling me what to spend my money on. They already take enough from me that gets spent on a lot of things I don't agree with. There are also people with disabilities that truly cannot work. (Yes, I know there is fraud in this area, but there really are a lot of people who can't work. Severely mentally ill people are some who come to mind.) If their family is going on vacation, should they figure out how much they would have spent on this person coming with them, give them the cash, and suddenly this person will have no more need for disability payments?

 

[sanctus]

Do you have any hard evidence that this is actually happening? Has the GAO done an audit lately? Please link. What are the statistics, please.

I refuse to get upset or worry about things before there is hard evidence that the thing actually happened. Anecdotes are not hard evidence, btw.

I realize I'm just anecdotal evidence to you, but I do eligibility for cash assistance, and just 2 days ago I interviewed a woman who just got back from Disney. Her Aunt paid.

Oh, and every winter we get a few phone calls from people who want to know if their food stamp card will work in Florida. So people do this.

That said, I may personally hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it. And really, I resent it, because on my social worker salary, I can't afford to do it.

 

[cardaway]

I realize that I'm coming late to this party, but I didn't see in the OP's original post where she asked about the percentage of people cheating the system this way. I thought the debate topic was whether it was right or wrong for those people to cheat the system, regarless of the actual percentage of people who may do so.

I'm a he, but otherwise you got it right. Even if there were stats for this kind of thing I'm not arguing anythign other than right or wrong. There are plenty of checks in this world to prevent a minority from doing the majority wrong.

 

[BuzznBelle'smom]

And how, exactly, would cardaway (or anyone else) GET hard data on how many people scam the system? Could you do a poll and expect to get honest answers? Seriously! And if, somehow, you could GET hard data, what percentage of scammers would be acceptable? 1%? 5? 10?

Personally, I think it's a crime that some people cam manage to go to WDW 5 times a year, while on government handouts. We go every other year...and give up other things to have the money to go. Our choice. I don't begrudge people making different choices with their money. Welfare programs USED to be about helping the less fortunate through a rough patch. I would be ashamed to go on a Disney vacation while on one. But hey, clearly shame is out of vogue these days.

 

[JoyG]

And if, somehow, you could GET hard data, what percentage of scammers would be acceptable? 1%? 5? 10?
.

I think that's an easy question to answer. If the amount of money scammed out of the system due to luxurious vacations is less than the cost of increased monitoring of the recipients than it is an acceptable risk for the govt to take.

I think a harder question to answer is what constitutes a scammed vacation?

Driving to Uncle Joe's house?
Driving to Uncle Joe's house if he lives in Orlando?
Buying a one day Disney pass?
Accepting a gift of Disney passes from Uncle Joe?

Everyone can agree that buying DVC is scamming, but what about smaller vacations?

 

[nut4disney]

I realize I'm just anecdotal evidence to you, but I do eligibility for cash assistance, and just 2 days ago I interviewed a woman who just got back from Disney. Her Aunt paid.

As an aunt myself, who is about to fund a Disney cruise for my nephew, it's no one else's business who I spend money on. I am not on any benefit program of any kind, and I work hard for all my earnings. If my nephew was on SSDI, or my pregnant SIL was on WIC, it's none of the government's business I took the child on vacation. I'm not on benefits.

Heck, if I wanted to fund a Disney cruise for an entire group of hospitalized Medicaid children, it's still none of the government's business. What I do with MY earnings as an American citizen is my own concern.

 

[sanctus]

Since I'm already in this thread, let me go ahead and say this.

Cash assistance (tanf) is time limited, with a lifetime total of 60 months over your lifetime. The amount you receive varies by states, and varies widely. Here in Tennessee, a single parent with 1 child could not get more than $142 a month. They could also get a max of $284 a month in food stamps. And medicaid.

You can qualify for this even with a job, so it would conceivably be possible for someone to meet all the guidelines and save up for a trip legally.

From 5 years of doing eligibility for this stuff, I'd guess that the percentage of fraud cases is somewhere between 10-20% But that's a guess.

Lump sum money - like if a relative gives you $2000 or so, is not counted as income in the month it is received, it does count as an available resource in the following month. So, it wouldn;'t close your case if you spent it.

Tax refunds do not count as income, because when we do eligibility, we count GROSS income, and so have already counted that income on your case.

EITC (earned income tax credit) does not count as income on your case, if you have any left after a year, it is a resource. Thank your legislators for that, they write the policy.

Just thought I'd throw some actual information in the mix.

 

[sanctus]

I realize I'm just anecdotal evidence to you, but I do eligibility for cash assistance, and just 2 days ago I interviewed a woman who just got back from Disney. Her Aunt paid.

As an aunt myself, who is about to fund a Disney cruise for my nephew, it's no one else's business who I spend money on. I am not on any benefit program of any kind, and I work hard for all my earnings. If my nephew was on SSDI, or my pregnant SIL was on WIC, it's none of the government's business I took the child on vacation. I'm not on benefits.

Heck, if I wanted to fund a Disney cruise for an entire group of hospitalized Medicaid children, it's still none of the government's business. What I do with MY earnings as an American citizen is my own concern.

You're absolutely right. I only brought it up because someone questioned whether welfare recipients actually do go on vacations. They do.

And you can take as many benefit recipients on vacation as you want, and the government doesn't care. It only matters on a welfare case if you given them cash. Then they, not you, are responsible for reporting it.

 

[nut4disney]

EITC (earned income tax credit) does not count as income on your case, if you have any left after a year, it is a resource. Thank your legislators for that, they write the policy.

Just thought I'd throw some actual information in the mix.

First, let me say thanks for bringing facts to the table. I love facts.

Now, from what you say, it sounds like poor people are in a difficult position, because if they don't spend the equivalent of their EITC, then it gets counted as a resource and could potentially lose their benefits. For a family with a Make a Wish child on Medicaid that could be disasterous.

If it were me in that scenario, I'd spend it too.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Agreed. But you have to realize the sentiment operating here.

It's more of a "Bu...bu...I read it on a recreational message board, so it must be true...I don't need statistics, data or GAO reports! The data doesn't exist." instead of a serious debate on the percentage of benefit recipients who engage in fraud.

You're right I don't need statistics or data to know that people cheat and take advantage of the system. For some odd reason, these people feel the need to "brag" about what they are doing.

I work and live in an inner city section of Brooklyn (grew up here). Yes, there are plenty of people who really need assistance, but there are plenty who are cheating.

I have several students who live in the projects, receive foodstamps... Three of those children went to WDW in the last year. (One goes every year) They Their parents have the latest cell phones, digital cameras and Ipods.

I have a coworker who receives WIC. Her family of 4 flies down to Guyana several times every year. They pay close to $1000.00 for their airline tickets. Her kids attend a private school.

Several of the students in my center spend summers or Christmas in the Dominica Republic or Honduras, every year. These children live in public housing and the city subsidizes their day care fee and many receive foodstamps and/or WIC.

The majority of my students live in two parent homes. Both parents work. However, when you look at the budget sheet, the mother is a single mom. Her income is low enough for her to qualify for assistance.

Then there are the threads I've read here on the DIS. People from all walks of life take advantage of the system. Why? I believe they do it because they can. Why should they buy food, when they can get foodstamps or WIC? Why should they pay for day care when they can get the city to pay for it? All the money they save can then be used for luxuries.

 

[Northstar]

Going back to the Budget Board poster who's getting SSI and owns DVC and travels frequently to Disney... assuming that's all true, it still doesn't mean she has so much income she shouldn't be getting assistance. She may have borrowed for her luxuries and now be deeply in debt.

She has the same right as anyone else to sign over her future income to servicing her debt. She's not going to be getting a higher dole from taxpayers just because she now has to pay high interest payments.

Of course there's welfare fraud. I'm not so naive that I don't think it happens. But I think what really is biting our butts here is not welfare fraud, but the grasshopper and the ant thing.... we ants want to see that grasshopper suffering the consequences of playing all summer long, while we enjoy the fruits of our labors with a good long winter vacation!

 

[cardaway]

I think that's an easy question to answer. If the amount of money scammed out of the system due to luxurious vacations is less than the cost of increased monitoring of the recipients than it is an acceptable risk for the govt to take.

There is more to rules and laws than just about getting money back or not losing too much in the first place.

 

[barkley]

SSI seems pretty easy to get IMO, SSDI is tough... People get turned down ocver and over again..Sick people with things like cancer and AIDS often die before they get the SSDI approval.. My ex ha been trying to get SSDI for 4 years.. He has had doctor after doctor telling them he needs it... He has AIDS, has had pnuemonia from it, now has a bad heart , has a low tecll count, has had 3 or 4 other medical issues related to HIV and they still turn him down

I was told I had 18 months to live and SSDI turned me down the first time.

to clarify-

ssi, the disability componant portion (because there is the companant for aged non disabled who do not have sufficient quarters for standard aged social security) and ssd have identical criteria as far as disability go. the marked difference in the programs are that ssi recipients must meet an earned and unearned income and resource criteria, whereas ssd recipients are not held to any unearned income or resource criteria. the ssd recipient however, must have sufficient work quarters in the social security system to draw. both have identical criteria for being deemed disabled under the program.

both programs can take years to qualify for-the social security website gives a graphic illustration of the percentage of applications that are denied initialy vs. those same applications that after appeal upon appeal are approved (and still the majority of applications are denied). the primary reason i saw applicants denied was because they were unsuccessful in coordinating their doctorS in completing their medical verifications such that all supported and concurred with each others diagnosis and prognosis-3 doctors can say the identical thing, if 1 does not support their statement ss will call into question (read deny the app) the other 3. the other issue is that a person MUST get their doctors to go beyond the diagnosis and prognosis and state emphaticly that the situation is such that the applicant can not work. ss will not draw that conclusion simply from the medical condition (because there are people who for whatever reason continue to work despite identical diagnosis/prognosis).

it is harder now to receive ssi or ssd because ss revised the programs in the 90's such that some diagnosis that traditionaly were considered compensable were deemed 'self contributing', so conditions directly due to drug or alcohol abuse were removed from eligibility. this contributed to a huge spike in traditional welfare applications (then-afdc, and ga/gr).

an ssd recipient is not held to any resource or property limit-they can have as much personal property as they wish. an ssd recipient can have unearned income that does not count against their ssd (pensions and annuities are probably the most common). the ssd program is NOT designated as an assistance program because the recipients by virtue of their work quarter connection are deemed as contributors. it is very rare that you will find 'younger' individuals receiving ssd because of that work quarter criteria-my application was called into question because ss could not fathom that despite their records showing i had sufficient work quarters, my age did not mesh with their normal demographics. it was'nt until they pulled their files and saw that i had been working non stop from age 15 in jobs wherein i contributed that they verified my eligibility for that portion of the criteria. the majority of younger (talking mid 40's and below) receive ssi.

for those who say 'i would never apply'-if you have long term disability insurance i'de suggest you review your policies. i too believed i would never have to apply, that my ltd would cover me until such a time as my pension and traditional ss kicked in. i was surprised to learn that it is a standard requirement in ltd policies that when an individual has been in receipt of ltd for a set period of time (in my case 6 months), in order to continue receipt, an application must be made for either ssi or ssd (whichever the recipient may be eligible for)-and upon approval the ltd is either terminated or drasticly reduced.

btw-the woman from the budget board people are bashing-is an ssd recipient. she is well within her rights to own and utilize dvc and any other assets she chooses. the fact that she has a protective payee (her husband) is nothing unusual, ss administration strongly encourages this practice when brain injury is an underlying factor (i opted to waive this but it is more often opted for than not). if she were on ssi and owned dvc, then 'yes' that would be social security fraud. that however is NOT the case.

 

[cardaway]

Many of the folks getting assistance find way to increase their income without reporting the extra cash flow. That's hot they afford vacations and other non-essentials. One of the most common ways is to bring in a live in boyfriend (or girlfriend) and continuing to live in low income housing, getting WIC or food stamps, and even welfare checks. All while living better than many people who do not qualify because they actually play by the rules and report all their household income.

 

[JennyMominRI]

to clarify-


btw-the woman from the budget board people are bashing-is an ssd recipient. she is well within her rights to own and utilize dvc and any other assets she chooses. the fact that she has a protective payee (her husband) is nothing unusual, ss administration strongly encourages this practice when brain injury is an underlying factor (i opted to waive this but it is more often opted for than not). if she were on ssi and owned dvc, then 'yes' that would be social security fraud. that however is NOT the case.

If that is the case and she is an SSD recipient than I am equal to her and should be bashed the same way she is being bashed..I recieve SSDI, a good sized VA pension and ED works...He was back at work 4 months after his Aortic Dissection, instead of the 8 or so months they expected him not to work..We go to WDW 2-3 times a year and plan to buy DVC, in fact we almost bought it a month ago
I worked and paid into SSD. I started working at 14. In fact, I served in the Marines. SSDI is an INSURANCE program... If you pay into it enough, you are eligable for the INSURANCE benefits.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Double post...sorry

 

[mickeyfan2]

If that is the case and she is an SSD recipient than I am equal to her and should be bashed the same way she is being bashed..I recieve SSDI, a good sized VA pension and ED works...He was back at work 4 months after his Aortic Dissection, instead of the 8 or so months they expected him not to work..We go to WDW 2-3 times a year and plan to buy DVC, in fact we almost bought it a month ago
I worked and paid into SSD. I started working at 14. In fact, I served in the Marines. SSDI is an INSURANCE program... If you pay into it enough, you are eligable for the INSURANCE benefits.

Jenny, Did you just apply for food stamps. That poster did.

ETA: If you cannot feed your family you need to sell your DVC to stop the DVC payments for the loan and fees and us that money to feed your family. (Jenny the you is not you).

 

[JennyMominRI]

Jenny, Did you just apply for food stamps. That poster did.

No,,I forgot the food stamps portion...I don't think she will get them though

 

[GoofieRuthie]

What if a child is in a class that has a chance to go to Disney World (or Universal Studios, in this case) and her family is on welfare, should she not be allowed to go?

I ask, because 2 years ago, my daughters friend was in this situation. The Chorus did fund raisers to help fund the trip, but some of it still had to come out of pocket. It came down to the wire and the girl almost didn't get to go, because her mom just didn't have the money (single mom, working full time, with two kids, still gets assistance) to send her. At the last minute a friend of her mom gave the girl the money so that she could go. Then the girls grandmother, who is not rich by any means, gave her some spending money to take with her.

What if the mom scrimped to get the money herself? Is it ok, since the mom didn't go?


I've been on welfare myself and I sure as hell didn't have the money to take a lavish vacation, but you can bet your butt that if my child had that same opportunity, I would have found a way for her to go. I wouldn't have seen it as scamming the system either.

 

[Crankyshank]

btw-the woman from the budget board people are bashing-is an ssd recipient. she is well within her rights to own and utilize dvc and any other assets she chooses. the fact that she has a protective payee (her husband) is nothing unusual, ss administration strongly encourages this practice when brain injury is an underlying factor (i opted to waive this but it is more often opted for than not). if she were on ssi and owned dvc, then 'yes' that would be social security fraud. that however is NOT the case.

I can only speak for myself, but with the situation with the woman in question on the BB, it is not the fact she collects ssd and owns dvc that disturbs me. It's the fact she admits she has applied for food stamps and yet owns dvc and has gone into serious debt by her own admission to make those 5 disney trips this year.
If you can't afford to eat, then you can't afford Disney once - let alone 5 times in a year imho
********************************************************

I'm curious about all of these people receiving assistance due to financial reasons (not medical) and getting free disney trips paid for by their relatives. There's been quite a few on these boards. I know my family would never ever enable anyone by paying thousands for a vacation when the recipient can't afford the basics without assistance. Instead they would help out with food, utilities, etc... I guess I just find it curious that so many others put supporting luxuries over supporting basics. (NOTE: ill or disabled family members are not included in this statement. Neither are children)