Win lottery...stay on the dole

Article

In October, Clayton walked away with $1 million in the "Make Me Rich!" lottery game show. She also bought a car, WDIV reported.

After taking a lump sum and paying taxes, the unemployed woman said she ended up with just more than $500,000.

Asked if she had the right to the public assistance money, Clayton answered, "I kind of do. I have no income, and I have bills to pay. I have two houses."

There are so many issues here, I'll just pick one:
You're on the dole and playing the lottery? How about your winnings go to the taxpayers?

talljay said:   Article

In October, Clayton walked away with $1 million in the "Make Me Rich!" lottery game show. She also bought a car, WDIV reported.

After taking a lump sum and paying taxes, the unemployed woman said she ended up with just more than $500,000.

Asked if she had the right to the public assistance money, Clayton answered, "I kind of do. I have no income, and I have bills to pay. I have two houses."

There are so many issues here, I'll just pick one:
You're on the dole and playing the lottery? How about your winnings go to the taxpayers?

well, about half of them did.

MaxRC said:   Aren't public assistance both income and net-worth based? If not, why not? If they refuse to change it, I'll move there when I retire.

if only 401(k) didnt count as income on disbursement.

Strange how her net worth was not calculated in determining her eligibility.

There are enough posts on FWF about "gaming the system". Along those lines, she paid tax on the 1 mil, and is now getting some of that tax money back ($200/month, I think).

Why not just say "Win lottery...stay on public assistance." Or even "Win lottery...stay on welfare."

Did anybody actually read the article?According to Michigan law, welfare recipients must report any changes in assets or income to the agency within 10 days. The department "relies on clients being forthcoming about their actual financial status. If they are not, and continue to accept benefits, they may face criminal investigation and be required to pay back those benefits," Director Maura Corrigan said in a statement.The news here is pretty straightforward: If you lie, you can get away with a lot of things in systems both public and private.

FW10001, her net worth was determined when she was determined eligible, but was not updated after she won.

AdamW81, it does not say it was a $1 million house. It says: she used her $1 million prize to buy a new house

And finally, she got caught and will be asked to pay it back, but it is not illegal: A state lawmaker is trying to stop such assistance, which is not illegal. And - be required to pay back those benefits

What's really assinine is the push to pass a law that addresses lotto winners getting welfare. There's already asset-based eligibility, and a requirement to report any asset changes. Not to mention there was a brief timeframe that she had significant income, which also should have been reported and affected her benefits. So yes, she kept getting benefits, but she was breaking the law in doing so.

Creating a patchwork of laws that cover specific situations that are already covered by other laws is what makes the legal system so impossibly complex to navigate. "Winning the lottery" doesnt preclude you from being eligible for welfare benefits, not being eligible for welfare benefits is what makes you not eligible for welfare benefits - it doesnt matter where the windfall comes from. It's already covered by existing rules and regulations, and at worst she would continue receiving benefits until her annual recertification (at which point she would've had to repay the excess benefits or face criminal prosecution). Addressing this by creating a specific new law is implying the situation was the state's fault, not hers, and also implies that someone getting $1-million from another source (say, and inheritance) is fine to keep drawing benefits.

I also love her commment about having no income and having to pay alot of bills since she has 2 houses - if she has no income to pay her bills, she shouldnt have used her winnings to buy a second house!

AdamW81 said:   What I found funny is they said she bought a 1 million dollar house along with a car, etc...on $500k total cash. I'll give 5 to 1 odds she is bankrupt and house is foreclosed on in less than 5 years. Takers?

I saw a great interview with Will Smith once when he was describing his early success and reflecting on it:

"If you earn a Million dollars in one year and go out and buy a $1M House, you already screwed up"

...guess some people just have to learn the hard way like she will.

Some places only count liquid net worth towards eligibility (it varies by state). Typically this means your house, your car, and possibly your ranch of cattle aren't counted towards the asset cap.

dupe

Glitch99 said:   What's really assinine is the push to pass a law that addresses lotto winners getting welfare. There's already asset-based eligibility, and a requirement to report any asset changes. Not to mention there was a brief timeframe that she had significant income, which also should have been reported and affected her benefits. So yes, she kept getting benefits, but she was breaking the law in doing so.

Creating a patchwork of laws that cover specific situations that are already covered by other laws is what makes the legal system so impossibly complex to navigate. "Winning the lottery" doesnt preclude you from being eligible for welfare benefits, not being eligible for welfare benefits is what makes you not eligible for welfare benefits - it doesnt matter where the windfall comes from. It's already covered by existing rules and regulations, and at worst she would continue receiving benefits until her annual recertification (at which point she would've had to repay the excess benefits or face criminal prosecution). Addressing this by creating a specific new law is implying the situation was the state's fault, not hers, and also implies that someone getting $1-million from another source (say, and inheritance) is fine to keep drawing benefits.

I also love her commment about having no income and having to pay alot of bills since she has 2 houses - if she has no income to pay her bills, she shouldnt have used her winnings to buy a second house!

Wrong, SNAP (FOOD STAMPS_GOV HAND OUT_TAXPAYER THEFT) has no asset cap as long as you're under a median income threshold. You could have a billion dollars in the bank and still receive food stamps thanks to very recent changes in the law. The 8000 dollars this women gets handed out at tax time doesn't count towards income either ('earned' income tax credit aka handout).

Income only based eligibility.

This is in addition to the two free meals a day your kids get and other numerous benefits you are 'entitled' to automatically based on SNAP eligibility. The other niffty thing is you can use your FOOD STAMP WELFARE card at restaurants, or withdraw cash at casinos in CA. The system is quite perverse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-million-dollar-mortgage-goes-unpaid-for-years-while-couple-fights-foreclosure/2012/03/01/gIQAb4DBpR_story_1.html

They're probably on benefits also.

Glitch99 said:   AdamW81 said:   I'll give 5 to 1 odds she is bankrupt and house is foreclosed on in less than 5 years. Takers?
Depending on the state, I'd lean more towards 5 months than 5 years....

bookreader54321 said:   And finally, she got caught and will be asked to pay it back, but it is not illegal: Why not? Eligibility is based on assets. A change in assets must be reported within 10 days. Her new assets made her ineligible for benefits. She did not report those assets within 10 days. She broke the law, and now faces repayment/criminal prosecution. Instead of letting it slide, they just need to start enforcing the existing rules and actively punishing those who break them.

It's not like she followed the rules, and the county failed to stop sending the checks.

First off ... 5 months? You have no idea how lonnnnnnnnnng it takes for bank to forclose these days. Especailly when the are gonna take the hit on the books ... and in the media for loaning money to a woman on welfare.

Secondly ... welfare is state run ?? with different states rules to whether or not she has 10 days to report change in assets or 20 or never.

its hard, i am struggling

are you talking about your boyfriend's ....?

funkxl said:   Glitch99 said:   What's really assinine is the push to pass a law that addresses lotto winners getting welfare. There's already asset-based eligibility, and a requirement to report any asset changes. Not to mention there was a brief timeframe that she had significant income, which also should have been reported and affected her benefits. So yes, she kept getting benefits, but she was breaking the law in doing so.

Creating a patchwork of laws that cover specific situations that are already covered by other laws is what makes the legal system so impossibly complex to navigate. "Winning the lottery" doesnt preclude you from being eligible for welfare benefits, not being eligible for welfare benefits is what makes you not eligible for welfare benefits - it doesnt matter where the windfall comes from. It's already covered by existing rules and regulations, and at worst she would continue receiving benefits until her annual recertification (at which point she would've had to repay the excess benefits or face criminal prosecution). Addressing this by creating a specific new law is implying the situation was the state's fault, not hers, and also implies that someone getting $1-million from another source (say, and inheritance) is fine to keep drawing benefits.

I also love her commment about having no income and having to pay alot of bills since she has 2 houses - if she has no income to pay her bills, she shouldnt have used her winnings to buy a second house!

Wrong, SNAP (FOOD STAMPS_GOV HAND OUT_TAXPAYER THEFT) has no asset cap as long as you're under a median income threshold. You could have a billion dollars in the bank and still receive food stamps thanks to very recent changes in the law. The 8000 dollars this women gets handed out at tax time doesn't count towards income either ('earned' income tax credit aka handout).

Income only based eligibility.

This is in addition to the two free meals a day your kids get and other numerous benefits you are 'entitled' to automatically based on SNAP eligibility. The other niffty thing is you can use your FOOD STAMP WELFARE card at restaurants, or withdraw cash at casinos in CA. The system is quite perverse.
Did you bother to read the article, or are you just blindly ranting? Whatever happens in CA is irrelevant, since this happened in Michigan.

funkxl said:   Glitch99 said:   funkxl said:   Glitch99 said:   What's really assinine is the push to pass a law that addresses lotto winners getting welfare. There's already asset-based eligibility, and a requirement to report any asset changes. Not to mention there was a brief timeframe that she had significant income, which also should have been reported and affected her benefits. So yes, she kept getting benefits, but she was breaking the law in doing so.

Creating a patchwork of laws that cover specific situations that are already covered by other laws is what makes the legal system so impossibly complex to navigate. "Winning the lottery" doesnt preclude you from being eligible for welfare benefits, not being eligible for welfare benefits is what makes you not eligible for welfare benefits - it doesnt matter where the windfall comes from. It's already covered by existing rules and regulations, and at worst she would continue receiving benefits until her annual recertification (at which point she would've had to repay the excess benefits or face criminal prosecution). Addressing this by creating a specific new law is implying the situation was the state's fault, not hers, and also implies that someone getting $1-million from another source (say, and inheritance) is fine to keep drawing benefits.

I also love her commment about having no income and having to pay alot of bills since she has 2 houses - if she has no income to pay her bills, she shouldnt have used her winnings to buy a second house!

Wrong, SNAP (FOOD STAMPS_GOV HAND OUT_TAXPAYER THEFT) has no asset cap as long as you're under a median income threshold. You could have a billion dollars in the bank and still receive food stamps thanks to very recent changes in the law. The 8000 dollars this women gets handed out at tax time doesn't count towards income either ('earned' income tax credit aka handout).

Income only based eligibility.

This is in addition to the two free meals a day your kids get and other numerous benefits you are 'entitled' to automatically based on SNAP eligibility. The other niffty thing is you can use your FOOD STAMP WELFARE card at restaurants, or withdraw cash at casinos in CA. The system is quite perverse.
Did you bother to read the article, or are you just blindly ranting? Whatever happens in CA is irrelevant, since this happened in Michigan.

Talk about cherry picking. SNAP (FOOD STAMPS) is a federal program. Rules apply to all states. There is NO ASSET REQUIREMENT. Only income. You can have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the bank and still get benefits.

Let me ask you this. Should those people who have $1m+ in the bank get Social Security?

funkxl said:   Glitch99 said:   funkxl said:   Glitch99 said:   What's really assinine is the push to pass a law that addresses lotto winners getting welfare. There's already asset-based eligibility, and a requirement to report any asset changes. Not to mention there was a brief timeframe that she had significant income, which also should have been reported and affected her benefits. So yes, she kept getting benefits, but she was breaking the law in doing so.

Creating a patchwork of laws that cover specific situations that are already covered by other laws is what makes the legal system so impossibly complex to navigate. "Winning the lottery" doesnt preclude you from being eligible for welfare benefits, not being eligible for welfare benefits is what makes you not eligible for welfare benefits - it doesnt matter where the windfall comes from. It's already covered by existing rules and regulations, and at worst she would continue receiving benefits until her annual recertification (at which point she would've had to repay the excess benefits or face criminal prosecution). Addressing this by creating a specific new law is implying the situation was the state's fault, not hers, and also implies that someone getting $1-million from another source (say, and inheritance) is fine to keep drawing benefits.

I also love her commment about having no income and having to pay alot of bills since she has 2 houses - if she has no income to pay her bills, she shouldnt have used her winnings to buy a second house!

Wrong, SNAP (FOOD STAMPS_GOV HAND OUT_TAXPAYER THEFT) has no asset cap as long as you're under a median income threshold. You could have a billion dollars in the bank and still receive food stamps thanks to very recent changes in the law. The 8000 dollars this women gets handed out at tax time doesn't count towards income either ('earned' income tax credit aka handout).

Income only based eligibility.

This is in addition to the two free meals a day your kids get and other numerous benefits you are 'entitled' to automatically based on SNAP eligibility. The other niffty thing is you can use your FOOD STAMP WELFARE card at restaurants, or withdraw cash at casinos in CA. The system is quite perverse.
Did you bother to read the article, or are you just blindly ranting? Whatever happens in CA is irrelevant, since this happened in Michigan.

Talk about cherry picking. SNAP (FOOD STAMPS) is a federal program. Rules apply to all states. There is NO ASSET REQUIREMENT. Only income. You can have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the bank and still get benefits.Um, no? Ok, they dont include "assets", they include "available resources"...

From the PA SNAP Handbook (which just happened to be the first that came up on google):
540.3 COUNTABLE RESOURCES
The CAO will count all resources that are not specifically excluded.

Liquid resources which are counted include:
< cash on hand, checking and savings accounts;
< lump sum payments;
< funds withdrawn from educational savings accounts when the funds are used for purposes other than educational expenses;
< readily available amounts from trust accounts;
NOTE: Formal trusts with accompanying trust documentation count as a resource.
< stocks, bonds, savings certificates;
< non-recurring payments from retirement plans when an individual chooses to liquidate the funds. See section 540.5, Excluded Resources;
< jointly owned bank accounts if the funds are freely accessible, and appear to be used without any apparent restrictions.

Non-liquid resources are resources which are not easily converted to cash. Non-liquid resources which are counted include:
< the equity value of real property (land and buildings) unless specifically excluded because the property is used as a home, is income-producing, AND the income is consistent with the property's fair market value, it is essential to employment or full self-employment, or verification of the property’s ownership, market value, and efforts to sell it for fair market value, present undue hardship to client.
< personal property, such as licensed and unlicensed vehicles, boats, aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and mopeds.

Resources which the household is unaware of having are considered inaccessible. However, once the household becomes aware that resources are legally available to them, the resources must be counted from that time forward. This is the case regardless of the manner in which the household is informed.

So yes, having $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the bank would prevent you from being eligible.

Having an incorporated business, there were years in which I had literally zero income. Yes, I explored benefits that may be available (if eligible, then why not?), and was excluded do to my available resources (ie, "assets"). Aside from HEAP, which is purely income-based as long as you dont request "emergency" assistance.

I think the problem is with this line "Resources which the household is unaware of having are considered inaccessible"... Oh, I didn't know that I had *insert resource here*. These need programs are heavily abused... Doesn't surprise me that the webpage for SNAP has a bold/red statement to report suspicious activity/fraud on their main page -- http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/

Do those figures assume that income is earned as working full-time? Otherwise a LOT of students that are working a part-time job would qualify... :rolls eyes:

FW10001 said:   Social Security is earned by people who have paid into it, right. Why compare SS with Food Stamps?

That's not strictly on a 1:1 basis. My grandmother collects SS, has never worked a single day in her life, and is well off.

funkxl said:   
Doesn't matter if work part time, full time, or not at all. If you have less then the income stated in that table you get food stamps aka snap,welfare,taxpayerstolen money to feed yourself. Doesn't matter if you have 30 houses, 30 cars, 30 planes, 100000oz's of gold, and 1 trillion in the bank. You make under the income guidelines in 'earned' income and you get the handout. Why do you think there is a record number of people on food stamps. Almost 50million people you are paying to feed. This doesn't even count the free lunch that their kids get in school twice a day.

This. Is. Not. True.

We understand that you're not a big fan of poor people having food. But you don't get to make stuff up.

Woman from OPs article charged with welfare fraud