3
58

[–] kna5041 3 points 58 points (+61|-3) ago 

I just don't think placing fees on the poor are going to help them financially.

1
42

[–] DownByTheRiver 1 points 42 points (+43|-1) ago 

The fees act as an incentive for them to leave the state.

2
27

[–] USonic 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago 

I thought it was shitty, now it became double shitty.

1
14

[–] Beers 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

Ah... Now we know why they are implementing shitty policies. They know the policies will not help, that's the entire point. That's pretty malicious.

1
5

[–] Werdd 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

This is brilliant I love it.

1
-1

[–] pushthis 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Thats problem laundering

2
5

[–] Angry_fapkin [S] 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

I thought the same thing.

1
3

[–] reconstructedcaribou 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

It's not like they're being fee'd without recourse. If they use the card as intended, there's no penalty. I don't live in Kansas, but I wouldn't be happy to see my tax money being used to buy whatever it is you can't buy in a normal store with a card reader.

0
0

[–] Detente01 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

i am not on welfare but dont like using plastic because it doesnt feel like using real money just numbers and so its too easy to overspend your budget and also hard to tell how much is left in your card which can be embarrasing or worse if you have overdraft facility and dont realise that youve gone over until yoir next pay comes and bam there is a big irreversible hole in your budget

i always take my money out of my pay account put a little into mu savings then spend the rest in cash

1
-1

[–] chakan2 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Silly rabbit, helping the poor isn't actually about helping the poor...it's about how much corporate donors can skim off the system.

4
47

[–] Klaxon 4 points 47 points (+51|-4) ago 

Because being poor isn't humiliating enough.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 21 points (+26|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

2
18

[–] Klaxon 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

The just world fallacy is extremely attractive to the wealthy, because it means they must be very good people indeed to have been rewarded so richly.

3
2

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

We need to start a class war. I have no idea why people think that is a bad idea.

1
2

[–] reconstructedcaribou 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Social stature isn't really important if basic needs like being fed and having housing is an issue. Ensuring that the people that actually need taxpayer money –a finite resource– is a significant reason to stop abuse.

0
1

[–] 123_456 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Because being poor isn't humiliating enough.

Well, then how come people seem to love saying "I'm poor!" ?

3
37

[–] AnTi90d 3 points 37 points (+40|-3) ago  (edited ago)

So, this isn't SNAP / foodstamps, this is cash assistance to poor families, right? Like.. money that helps them pay bills. How are they supposed to pay bills, $25 at a time?

A fee of $1 will be collected for every transaction, not including additional bank ATM fees.

Oh, I see, they're trying to reduce their welfare benefits by taking 1/26th of their money.

Out-of-state purchases also will be blocked.

Isn't this a federally funded program? How can that be legal?

1
17

[–] BecauseImBatman 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

The $25 limit is only for withdrawing cash from an ATM. They can still use the card to pay a $100 electric bill or other bills without going over the balance.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 7 points (+11|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

1
0

[–] derbyvoice71 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Well, Kansas did just pass higher sales taxes across the board - even on food products. Got to make sure that anyone living along state lines won't try to get more bang for the buck by finding better prices. Can't even buy a pair of bootstraps for an economical price.

3
17

[–] duannguyen 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago 

It's a preventive measure. Abuse is pretty common.

The $25 ATM withdrawal limit was passed as part of a strict welfare overhaul bill that also prevented welfare recipients from using their benefits certain places, including movie theaters and swimming pools, and shortened the amount of time people in Kansas can receive assistance.

That being said, I been offered on numerous occasion to exchange EBT for cash at some fixed rate right outside the grocery store before. Basically, they will pay for my food using their credits and I pay them ~60-80% in cash afterwards. I shop at shady hours ...

2
12

[–] Beers 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

I get multiple EBT offers every time I post something on Craigslist. Usually 50 to 75 cents per EBT dollar.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] thelordofcheese 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

They give single adult males $190 in PA. It does not cost $190 for a single adult male to eat, unless all they are buying is pre-packaged food. You can eat a lot better for half of that, and get $45 extra each month.

0
3

[–] TooMuch 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It's possible that people get food from a food bank or even a friend or family and they need money to buy gas or for rent?

1
5

[–] TexasComments 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

They can still use it as a debit card. They can not use it to get cash in excess of $25.

You still ACH money for no fee to pay bills or buy a Western Union or MoneyGram with a debit card without a limit.

0
2

[–] Budza 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

For the non American people: is that illegal?

0
1

[–] duannguyen 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

@Budza, no it's fraud. To them it's free money, to me it's a small percentage of my taxes that is taken from me every paycheck. Now you may think this is a small operation between two people, but like the other commenters have said it's pretty rampant. In some areas there's actually a underground crime ring: see here for a Police Sting that caught them in act. Sometimes even your mom-pop stores are defrauding the tax payers.

31 arrested in Beaverton food stamp fraud sting

1
-1

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Why wouldn't they be allowed to go swimming? Are they not allowed to exercise?

20
10

[–] didntsayeeeee 20 points 10 points (+30|-20) ago 

Since ATMs presumably don't carry fives, this would actually be a $20 limit?

There is some sense to it. If people want free money, they should be forced to show that they're spending it on staying alive, not on booze and cigarettes and black tar heroin. You can control how people spend their welfare money if it's in card form, you can't control it if they get cash. So, yeah, it's not a completely stupid idea. If you don't like it, don't be on welfare.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 29 points (+34|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 7 points 0 points (+7|-7) ago 

[Deleted]

8
15

[–] WentRightOverMyHead 8 points 15 points (+23|-8) ago 

We are ALL on welfare, essentially. The poor get SNAP, the unemployed get unemployment, homeowners get tax write offs, the wealthiest get to send their money to the Caymans for tax free earnings. Why do we feel the need to let the rest of our country decide how the low income earners spend theirs? Shouldn't we also dictate how the rich spend all of their tax breaks? Or unemployment money? Let's stop acting like being on SNAP means you don't know how to care for your family or that you waste it on booze. It's insulting.

5
7

[–] Marble68 5 points 7 points (+12|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Not exactly.tax credits are not welfare since it is in relation to money the government wants to take, not give; and second because a tax break \ credit are mechanisms to stimulate activity that is empirically proven to have a benefit to economic activity holistically, and this vehicle of encouragement is more effective and efficient than if the government tried to do it itself.

Since the government produces nothing, it must take from someone to facilitate an action.

It's not the government's money.

Conflating temporary social assistance provided through seizure of property (in this case money) for non earners with highly effective taxation vehicles (none seizure) used to encourage specific activity, isn't rational.

It implies a sense of scarcity and the incorrect presumption that wealth is finite and that money is the property of the state. It completely forgets the idea of private property.

It's like that lunacy Warren spews about roads and companies. There is no 'rest of us', quite the opposite. The employees also pay for roads, especially the wealthy business owner who actually pays more for the road than a consumer. Never mind that property developers pay to build the roads and improvements in many cases in exchange for permits and approvals.

Some things, when boiled down into simple, sound bite taking points, become so removed from reality that they sound alien and insulated; devoid of critical thought or practicality.

Pardon the typos, written on phone

2
4

[–] spookybm 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

I qualify for tax returns because I live below poverty level, with a wife. I also qualify for food stamps because I am dislocated veteran. I also qualify for unemployment, but I don't, because I don't believe socialism is the right thing to abuse.

1
3

[–] Werdd 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Yeah this is a good way to keep track of where the publics money is going. This is smart policy to fight abuse.

3
1

[–] Beers 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Same goes for all physical goods, actually. If someone on welfare is able to buy something physical, valuable, and transferrable, then their spending is not controlled. Stopping cash is one thing, but what happens when their dealer says "just go buy stuff on my shopping list and I'll give you 50 cents on the dollar in drugs"

The amount of effort and the cost of controlling every single aspect of a welfare recipient's life is not worth the benefit. Perhaps we would see a better return on our welfare expenses if we focused on helping, not controlling, the recipients. Give them options and a reason to try and live better, instead of generating conflict. Perhaps that would be more effective?

The goal is to get as many people out of welfare, and into productive lives, right? Or is the goal something along the lines of total control and punishment of the poor for being poor?

1
6

[–] SybilVimes 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

I'm a pretty financially conservative person, but I fail to see how this would actually be of any benefit. Are they worried that people will use the funds for drugs or such? I've known people that buy allowable items and then sell them for drug money. This policy will not prevent it, it will simply cause difficulties for those that truly need the programs.

2
6

[–] Darthe 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Sure, Kansas could elect to not do this but then they'd be under budget for that sweet new pool they're putting in to draw people to the state. You guys just don't know economics.

1
0

[–] reconstructedcaribou 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Why would installing new infrastructure invalidate disallowing the abuse of taxpayer money?

0
0

[–] Darthe 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If one were to empower use of taxpayer cashflow through government subsidies it would likely only be in the form of government based dividends, potentially running off of a redistribution program based in Kansas economic growth as a whole but then you're talking government corporate entities and that's a clearly awful idea even disregarding that Kansas is likely a fairly poor state relative to most others. All that said it's probably a poor idea to look for rational discussion within the confines of off the cuff considerations or, as in the instance above, in a weak and innocuous joke.

2
6

[–] daskapitalist 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

This makes sense, and is in place for the same reason your company doesn't let you withdraw cash and pinky-swear it was used for legitimate business expenses (or in this case living expenses). Legitimate living expenses like rent/utilities/food/etc aren't going to be paid in cash. But things welfare isn't allowed to be spent on like alcohol or tobacco products are where cash is likely to disappear to.

3
1

[–] Zodi 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

Assuming it's cash aid, don't you think it'll be spent on household supplies and toiletries? How are they going to get their shopping done?

3
5

[–] spookybm 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

I buy all that on a card. Problem?

0
2

[–] daskapitalist 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

These days these funds are disbursed through debit cards that can be used for approved types of items at almost any store. E.g. you can use these debit cards for food and toiletries, but not beer and tobacco.

There's very little reason to allow cash disbursements given the risk of abuse.

load more comments ▼ (10 remaining)