Current Events > The extra $600/week unemployment benefits are kicking people off SNAP

(+) Yeah! (+)

And other public assistance programs.

Makes sense when I think about it but it didn't occur to me that that would happen

---

Weird

I got a call saying due to corona all SNAP recipients in my state were getting the maximum amount.

---

I actually like means testing as a general rule but I might use this as an opportunity to talk about how means testing is a bitch

---

One of the downsides of rushing a bill out the door. There were inevitably going to be things like this that fell through the crack.

---

KillerSlaw posted...

Weird

I got a call saying due to corona all SNAP recipients in my state were getting the maximum amount.

Right... And this money means you aren't a SNAP recipient anymore

---

Balrog0 posted...

Right... And this money means you aren't a SNAP recipient anymore

If 600 dollars puts you over I have to wonder wtf they were making before as I only make 980 a month on disability and get like 16 dollars a month in SNAP benefits.

Snap is weird

---

KillerSlaw posted...

If 600 dollars puts you over I have to wonder wtf they were making before as I only make 980 a month on disability and get like 16 dollars a month.

It's $2400 a month, $600 a week

---

s0nicfan posted...

One of the downsides of rushing a bill out the door. There were inevitably going to be things like this that fell through the crack.

it's a feature, not a bug

Balrog0 posted...

It's $2400 a month, $600 a week

Isn't that on top of what they were already getting?

Shit, no wonder it puts them off SNAP. They're way over the threshold.

s0nicfan posted...

One of the downsides of rushing a bill out the door. There were inevitably going to be things like this that fell through the crack.

what if it's not a bug? some of this bill's cost is then refunded by leaner SNAP operations. all recipients are better off. post-unemployment surge they could renew their SNAP benefit.

not like it could afford to wait though, it was the definition of a bill that needed to be rushed out the door

---

Are you sure? On my state's site it specifically says the $600 extra doesn't affect anything, but the normal payout can, but that shouldn't be enough to get kicked in most states. Though I think I can understand MA, since their payout is one of the highest in the country.

---

Id imagine it also screwed with student loan statuses.

---

Sackgurl posted...

what if it's not a bug? some of this bill's cost is then refunded by leaner SNAP operations. all recipients are better off. post-unemployment surge they could renew their SNAP benefit.

not like it could afford to wait though, it was the definition of a bill that needed to be rushed out the door

Had anyone actually discovered during negotiating that this added benefit would kick people off of food stamps, Democrats would be on every channel screaming up and down about Republicans stealing candy from babies.

I agree that if the audit income allows them to buy food than they don't necessarily need to be on both, but I just didn't see anybody making that compromise in the bill and I'm keeping their mouths shut about it. The reaction to this seems to imply it's more of an oversight than anything. Either that, or one of the systems at the state level wasn't updated to accurately reflect the intent of the bill.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Had anyone actually discovered during negotiating that this added benefit would kick people off of food stamps, Democrats would be on every channel screaming up and down about Republicans stealing candy from babies.

unlikely: the original bill had nothing for unemployment

s0nicfan posted...

I agree that if the audit income allows them to buy food than they don't necessarily need to be on both, but I just didn't see anybody making that compromise in the bill and I'm keeping their mouths shut about it. The reaction to this seems to imply it's more of an oversight than anything. Either that, or one of the systems at the state level wasn't updated to accurately reflect the intent of the bill.

or republicans knew that once democrats called their bluff at the bill's outset (when it contained only business loans and a one-time cash payout to families) they couldn't afford to dig in on any of the specifics because the policy of hurting the country for political gain wouldn't work when they were in control

i could believe that part of the compromise effort would be "unemployed people get this, but it doesn't come without strings attached"

dems are very fond of starting their negotiations halfway to what republicans want, after all!

---

It's always seemed strange to me that there is this whole other part of society where people are stuck on some kind of welfare benefit or a combination of welfare benefits for their entire lives.

Godnorgosh posted...

Why?

Because scarce public resources are best used on the poor and needy.

Sackgurl posted...

what if it's not a bug? some of this bill's cost is then refunded by leaner SNAP operations. all recipients are better off. post-unemployment surge they could renew their SNAP benefit.

not like it could afford to wait though, it was the definition of a bill that needed to be rushed out the door

I don't think it was considered based on my understanding of the wheeling and dealing behind the relief package. Politicians don't know anything about that stuff without a CBO score. I'm just guessing though. This is how unemployment benefits work so possibly the smarter members of Congress were thinking about it

InfinityMonster posted...

Are you sure? On my state's site it specifically says the $600 extra doesn't affect anything, but the normal payout can, but that shouldn't be enough to get kicked in most states. Though I think I can understand MA, since their payout is one of the highest in the country.

Yeah I'm sure, you should double check that.

---

Atralis posted...

It's always seemed strange to me that there is this whole other part of society where people are stuck on some kind of welfare benefit or a combination of welfare benefits for their entire lives.

There's a theory for that:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap

---

Balrog0 posted...

Yeah I'm sure, you should double check that.

Thank you. I double checked and it says it doesn't affect Medicaid eligibility and that's it.

Really fucked up shit.

---

InfinityMonster posted...

Thank you. I double checked and it says it doesn't affect Medicaid eligibility and that's it.

Really fucked up shit.

The fact that it exempts the income from counting against Medicaid and CHIP probably implies it was a conscious trade-off though it might also imply healthcare lobbyists are particularly influential which is also believable

---

Godnorgosh posted...

Isn't it simpler and more resource-efficient to opt for universal programs, then tax back any excess later? Or does that count as means testing in your view?

Maybe there is a better way to do means testing, but we tend to focus on income almost to the exclusion of other individual circumstances people might be dealing with. Even people with "high" incomes (>75k) might need that money depending on their unique situations, or if they live in higher-COL areas.

Means tested is fine. The issue is the benefits cliff making it a bad decision to even try to work and get off benefits. To reference the wiki link earlier, one solution is:

An incentive to get out of the welfare trap is that the return to the labour market gives a person chances of moving up the career ladder, improving old and acquiring new job skills, etc., thus eventually improving standard of living.[7] Policies that allow for the continued receipt of benefit payments for a period of time after entering work or up to a specific earnings ceiling may also eliminate the welfare trap. For example, for UK claimants of Incapacity Benefit or Employment Support Allowance, "permitted work" arrangements allow for paid work up to either 16 hours or 95 per week without the withdrawal of the disability benefit payments, leading to a net overall increase in income.[8] However, any earnings over 20 may be taxed, and additional earnings may affect receipt of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, which is an example of the welfare trap remaining potentially in effect. To eliminate the welfare trap entirely would require a policy that permanently continues benefit payments regardless of any conditions, with no income from paid work being withdrawn. One example of this would be unconditional basic income.[9]

---

Atralis posted...

It's always seemed strange to me that there is this whole other part of society where people are stuck on some kind of welfare benefit or a combination of welfare benefits for their entire lives.

The flaw of the system is not putting a reasonable cut off point to the benefits, thus forcing participants back to work eventually regardless of the position it put them in afterward.

---

Prismsblade posted...

The flaw of the system is not putting a reasonable cut off point to the benefits, thus forcing participants back to work eventually regardless of the position it put them in afterward.

Think about this whole debate though. It's people that have been on food stamps for so long that they are confused and scared when they dont even if the reason is that they are getting too much other money from the government to get them.

Thanks obama

---