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

[cardaway]

Double post - site working strangely

 

[cardaway]

Ummmm.. . Usually it is the mom in the same clothes for years, busting her rear to feed her kids and get them through college all while sacrificing EVERYTHING because her husband couldn't keep his pants on and ran off with someone else.

It steams me when people rip on women who expect father's to pay child support. As if that is some sort of gift!!! That is BASIC responsibility!

First of all, in many cases it was the mom who broke up the marriage because SHE couldn't keep her pants on.

Secondly, I said nothing about child support not being a requirement. Only that it should go directly to pay pills rather than there be the opportunity for the recipient to use it for non-essentials.

I also would feel the same way if this was one of those cases where the dad was receiving the support.

 

[DMRick]

I may be reading this wrong, but is someone actually suggesting that the father pay his support directly to the electric company, the heat company, etc? Give him that much control? You have to be kidding. I'm sure he would love that. So many men assume the wife is partying, on his dime. Heck, most men, if they were still home, would be spending wayyy more to support their child, than the amount of child support paid. All the women I know getting child support work full time, and put way more money towards their child, than the dad does. I think it's a very small percentage of women who use the child support for something other than the child. The women I know also go for a long time without stuff for themselves, to make sure their child has the basics.
I find it funny, when a mom who is working (some more than one job), does do good for herself, with a good job and good savings, just to hear the dad say HE paid for her good life. Yeah, right. He paid for a portion of his childs support..usually much less than he would have paid had he been living with the child. Heck, even when women do try to bring up their standard of living, perhaps by working long hours, then the guy tries to get custody saying the mom isn't spending enough time with their child/children. Of course he may be workign long hours too..but some men think that's ok..it's only when the mom does it, that it's wrong. It's a no win situation. I know one man who was ordered to pay child support and $75 a week alimony, for a limited time until the mom got on her feet. He took her to support court to get it lowered, because he said he was paying it, so the mom could stay home with their child and not work. $75 and child support was supposed to allow the mom to stay home LOL. I think the judge is stil laughing at that one. By the way, this same guy had no problem taking his new family on vacation..but when the gal took a vacation with her child, he told everyone it was on his dime!

 

[cardaway]

I may be reading this wrong, but is someone actually suggesting that the father pay his support directly to the electric company, the heat company, etc? Give him that much control? You have to be kidding.

Not kidding. And for every situation like the one you desribed there is guy being taken to the cleaners because the ex feels the guy shouldn't have any extra funds for himself while the ex and her new husband use the support money for non-essentials for themselves.

Either way the situaiton goes I see no problems with the money going directly to pay bills. That's what the support is suppoed to be for.

 

[barkley]

Where in NY state do you live that people on welfare own two cars and a house in the suburbs? Seriously. That sounds really hard to believe. Do you have any evidence to show that this is happening?

a person can own a home and receive assistance-the home in which they reside is exempt for property/resource consideration. as for cars-it depends on the household composition. generaly one car is entirely exempt from consideration, and then subsequent cars have a valuation done on them, but often people owe so much on a new car that there is no tangible value that effects their eligibility OR they own the car with another person listed as the co-owner and that precludes it from being considered their sole assett.

these rules are in place for a good reason-the old wpa which started the welfare program as we know it now had the intent of offering assistance/a hand up for people for the short term-so rules were put in place such that a person did not have to become homeless and devoid of vehicals such that they could'nt seek and accept employment. there is still a significant percentage of applicants who truly are using it to this intent-the parents who have lost their jobs, spent all their savings while seeking employment-they've managed to keep their homes and cars, and the small assitance check they get helps keep them afloat until that new job starts. the widows who have gone through all of their assets and their social security has'nt started for them or the kids yet-the funds for a couple of months help to keep them in their homes while they get things settled and get back into a job...

in my experience the bulk of big time welfare frauders were not technicly the 'career welfare' clients-when they did 'technicly' fraud (not report income, household changes...) it was generaly something that when applied to the case and the budget resulted in no or a very low overpayment (and these are reported to credit bureaus-so if someone goes off aide and it has'nt all been recoup'd it is pursued through wage attachments and propery liens). the BIG money frauders were professionals who had fallen on hard times and went onto the system during that period of time THEN got back on their feet and decided to abuse the system. the largest (as in tens of thousands in fraud) defrauders i personaly had in my units were-a very respected nursing supervisor at a major hospital, a former welfare fraud employee (judge threw the book at her), a beautician, and a married couple where the wife worked for a large telecommunications company and the husband worked for a large restaurant supply distributor all were professionals who openly stated that their 'reasoning' for fraud was to 'get back some of the money that all those OTHER people who were frauding the system had STOLEN from THEM'

 

[DMRick]

You think for every case where the mom is doing a good job and using support to support her child, there is an equal amount of cases where the guy is being taken to the cleaners and mom is squandering? How do you know this? Support court, who has to work overtime to get a good percentage of guys to pay anything, would not agree with you. They get to hear all the cases, and it's far more likely that the guy would not be paying enough, than that a guy is being taken to the cleaners. It's not up to the mom to decide how much support is given her, it's a very tightly figured out payment amount. Men do come to court sometimes to try to have the amount lowered, expecting the court to take their word, that the support money isn't being used right, but they seldom see a change, because most people don't understand just what the support covers. The judge does. Even though Dad is quick to let all his friends know that Susie is going on vacation on his dime..that's seldom true. Support is not just so Johnny can have new shoes..it's also meant to cover the percent of Johnny's rent, heat, lights, etc. and all the other items that children need, like food, school supplies, haircuts, etc. Most women have other income, and they are allowed to use that on non-essentials for themselves..it doesn't mean they aren't supporting their child in addition to the support money. Most dads paying support also get to go on vacation and out with their friends, and they too remarry and have working wives..but have a real problem if their exes do that. They just assume the mom is using their support money anytime she has a little fun.

You may have already done this, but if not, I suggest you sit a couple of days in support court..not just with someone you may know (because I have had two opinions, depending on if I know the gal, or the guy), but a couple days in a row and listen to what goes on. It's pitiful what some women have to go through to get a few bucks for their kids. I serve woman at the mission, who hold minimal paying jobs, because they had been SAHM's, and get support money, but it's just not enough to pay the rent and all the other things. Some have new husbands, and there is help there, but it's not his children, so support is still needed. Many of these women get nothing, because they don't have the money to enforce the law...and support court will only help actually collect the money as best they can.

Not kidding. And for every situation like the one you desribed there is guy being taken to the cleaners because the ex feels the guy shouldn't have any extra funds for himself while the ex and her new husband use the support money for non-essentials for themselves.

Either way the situaiton goes I see no problems with the money going directly to pay bills. That's what the support is suppoed to be for.

 

[wvjules]

Not kidding. And for every situation like the one you desribed there is guy being taken to the cleaners because the ex feels the guy shouldn't have any extra funds for himself while the ex and her new husband use the support money for non-essentials for themselves.

Either way the situaiton goes I see no problems with the money going directly to pay bills. That's what the support is suppoed to be for.

I pay my monthly bills, feed and clothe DD, buy her nice things, support school fundraisers, put money in her and my savings, pay the car payment, etc. When the child support money comes you can bet your *** I spend it any way I want. The $400 a month doesn't even come close to her monthly expenses. If I spend all of MY money paying bills, when the CS comes, I'll go on a shopping spree if I so desire.

 

[cardaway]

You think for every case where the mom is doing a good job and using support to support her child, there is an equal amount of cases where the guy is being taken to the cleaners and mom is squandering? How do you know this?

How do you know what you are claiming? Works both ways.

I still believe the support money should go directly to pay the bills whether the parent on the receiving end was using exclusively for the kids of not.

But that's my last post on the subject. I do not want this to turn into a divorce court thread.

 

[cardaway]

I pay my monthly bills, feed and clothe DD, buy her nice things, support school fundraisers, put money in her and my savings, pay the car payment, etc. When the child support money comes you can bet your *** I spend it any way I want. The $400 a month doesn't even come close to her monthly expenses. If I spend all of MY money paying bills, when the CS comes, I'll go on a shopping spree if I so desire.

I didn't say you did anything wrong. If the money went directly into her savings account, and paid a portion of the car payment, and paid off her clothes bill, more of your paycheck could go anywhere you want to spend it.

 

[wvjules]

I didn't say you did anything wrong. If the money went directly into her savings account, and paid a portion of the car payment, and paid off her clothes bill, more of your paycheck could go anywhere you want to spend it.

tom-a-toe, tom-ah-to...

Same amount of money being spent. Does it really matter which source is paying which bill?

 

[kribit]

I pay my monthly bills, feed and clothe DD, buy her nice things, support school fundraisers, put money in her and my savings, pay the car payment, etc. When the child support money comes you can bet your *** I spend it any way I want. The $400 a month doesn't even come close to her monthly expenses. If I spend all of MY money paying bills, when the CS comes, I'll go on a shopping spree if I so desire.

I had to re-read your post. $400 per month??? That barely covers food.

I know someone who receives that per week (and she complains).

 

[wvjules]

I had to re-read your post. $400 per month??? That barely covers food.

I know someone who receives that per week (and she complains).

Its funny that when I lived in WV that $400/month seemed like a good amount. Now that I'm making way more than I used to make and live in a more expensive area the $400 seems like very little.

 

[spima3]

So in short, you see nothing wrong with the fact that somebody NOT on assistance can't afford a vacation that somebody CAN afford only because they are on assistance?
If that's the case then I have to agree in taking a much closer look at the numbers that qualify people for assistance. If somebody who works hard can't afford a vacation, and others can just because they make a little less, that is one messed up system IMO.

Well, maybe it isn't the system, but the people not on assistance who don't know how to manage their money correctly, as I think you will often see on these boards. IF they really and truly wanted to go to Disney they could probably find a way to do it. I have found most people always find money to fund what they consider important.

lori

 

[cardaway]

tom-a-toe, tom-ah-to...

Same amount of money being spent. Does it really matter which source is paying which bill?

Only because there are many out there not a resonsible as you.

And I agree that you should get more per month now that you have moved out of WV and have a higher cost of living.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I had to re-read your post. $400 per month??? That barely covers food.

I know someone who receives that per week (and she complains).

I know somebody who gets $1K/month/child (2 kids) and $1K/month alimony.

 

[blanq]

On a side note I just thought of because of a post about single moms and child support, I think shild support should work the same way. Money goes to part of the bills for esentials. No more shopping trips for mom while the kid wears the same clothes for years.

As someone who manages a county child support office, who has worked in the child support system for 17 years and who often deals first hand with payers who have a similar philosphy, I have to disagree with you.

First of all, I think that parent's who use their child support for "shopping trips while the kids wear the same clothes for years" is a significant minority. If a child has a roof over their head, the electric bill is paid, and the child is fed and clothed they are being financially supported. How can kids possibly wear the same clothes for years? They outgrow them. I know; I have a 14 year old who I have purchased 4 pairs of tennis shoes so far this year, because he has outgrown each pair.

Most child support awards don't begin to cover the cost of raising children, and they shouldn't since it's the responsibility of both parents to support their children. It is the parent's combined contribution that is supposed to meet the child's needs. Parents who earn, or have the potential to earn, more money pay more in support than parents who earn less. The average amount of child support collected and sent to families in the state of MN was $2404 in SFY 2006. The national collection average in FFY 2005 was $1450 per case. I don't know a lot of custodial parents getting rich on that kind of money.

Secondly, instituting a system where child support money needs to be accounted for would lead to the worst form of government intrusion and it would cost a mint (not that this program doesn't already cost taxpayers a bundle) It would create huge backlogs for the courts, and force judicial officers to spend their time looking at checkbooks and receipts, and to make decisions on how parents should spend money on their child. "Let's see Ms. Smith, I note that you purchased Doritos during your shopping trip on October 1st. Are you aware that the government views Doritos as a non essential?" No thanks! There have been noncustodial parent groups in our state who have been trying for years, unsuccessfully, to push this philosphy into legislation in my state. The proposals haven't gone anywhere because the whole concept is a ridiculous slippery slope.

There is reason we have the concepts of "physical" and "legal" custody in this country, and those terms actually mean something. They determine who gets to make decisions on behalf of their child in a situation where the parents don't live together.

 

[cardaway]

Well, maybe it isn't the system, but the people not on assistance who don't know how to manage their money correctly, as I think you will often see on these boards. IF they really and truly wanted to go to Disney they could probably find a way to do it. I have found most people always find money to fund what they consider important.

I agree with you about managing money, but you can't manage what you don't have. There are people just over the qualifying amount that can't afford the things that others get with the handouts they get from our tax money.

 

[lookingforward]

So in short, you see nothing wrong with the fact that somebody NOT on assistance can't afford a vacation that somebody CAN afford only because they are on assistance?

If that's the case then I have to agree in taking a much closer look at the numbers that qualify people for assistance. If somebody who works hard can't afford a vacation, and others can just because they make a little less, that is one messed up system IMO.

Actually, thats not what I said at all. I was talking about my clients who WORK hard, really, really hard, all day, and raise kids ALONE. They utilize public housing (which is on a sliding scale) and limited medicaid funds for their kids and some food stamps to make ends meet. They have limited education and have been abandoned by their ex-partners. So when they get the income tax money back they head out for a few days of fun, once a year. When did I EVER say I see nothing wrong with someone not on assistance who can't afford a vacation. I don't get how you got that out of what I said.


I was just hoping that my fellow social workers could be happy for the little bright spots our clients can achieve by working hard and playing fair within the system. Not everyone who takes assistance is milking the system. There are some great people who find themselves in difficult positions and do their very, very best in very menial jobs. We should empower them and their children to dream bigger.

 

[cardaway]

Not everyone who takes assistance is milking the system.

Speaking of things nobody ever said...

 

[lookingforward]

Um, yo do understand that this isn't a "real" tax refund? It's EITC--The earned Income Tax Credit. That would be cash money handed to them by the government. And they're using it to go to WDW rather than other necessities for their children. the reason the social workers can't do this is because they're not getting checks from the government! If they get a tax refund, it's because they actually paid some taxes!

.

So wrong! I was commenting on my clients (and I am a social worker) who pay TAXES. There are plenty of people on government assistance who WORK full time and pay plenty of taxes (even on low wage jobs). They get the money back at the end of the year because of their low income and dependent status. THAT was what I was referring to. And they don't use the entire check on disney. They drive up (yes, they have cars so they can go to work) and stay at a cheap hotel, and pack food, and buy one or two days of tickets. They go to thrift stores for school clothes and pay their bills. Those in need are not all scamming. My point was to say that unless we know their individual situations we should not judge. There are people who take and take and take...there are others that work really hard to do right.