FiRE: Free cell phone plans and home internet for those above 135% poverty?

[FIREin2018]

1) if you make BELOW 135% poverty levels (ie: Medicaid), then:
https://www.reviews.org/mobile/how-to-get-free-government-cell-phones/

What free cell phone plans in your area:
https://data.usac.org/publicreports/CompaniesNearMe/Download/Report

But first, You have to get verified before getting the govt backed program:
https://nationalverifier.servicenowservices.com/lifeline


2a) But i'm on Obamacare (ie: OVER 135% poverty).
I'm single and income = 25k/yr.
Are there free cell phone plans for me? (Google keeps giving me info for UNDER 135% poverty)

2b) Are there free home internet plans/hotspot for me?

[terran]

There are reduced cost internet options for low income, but I think only if you have school aged kids.

[Sibley]

I've heard that the free internet/phone services are pretty basic, as in not worth bothering with even to save a few bucks. Don't know if that's true, or if it varies. Worth checking though.

[EricEng]

I don't think there is any govt support for above 135%.

$15/month plans from Tmobile are very reasonable. https://prepaid.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans/connect
$180 a year should be doable on that income.

[Daley]

Given how cheap MVNO plans have gotten, and the availability of many lower cost internet plans through third party providers in at least 21 states, along with a lot of hidden slower tier plans with major carriers? If you're financially desperate enough to do lifeline, it's fine if you really want to...

...but if you can otherwise afford it? When you can get a phone plan that provides 1000 minutes, 1000 SMS messages and 1GB of data for $10/month on any network you need with outfits like Redpocket, pay for it yourself so the people who do need these painfully underfunded programs can actually access them instead of being a stingy tightwad gaming the same system many of these "independent" lifeline providers are overcharging the government 300+% to give away anemic service on for free.

If you still want a "free" phone plan? Learn from the homeless people in my area who can't even access the services you're wanting to exploit. Go use either the Google Voice, TextNow or FreedomPop free plans and hope you have coverage or a free WiFi hotspot if you need to make or receive a call and go use the library when you need an internet connection.

[jim555]

There is a place called pcsfprpeople that has discounted Internet if your income is 2X poverty or lower.  Combine that with a smart phone and magicjack and you have a phone.

[Daley]

There is a place called pcsfprpeople that has discounted Internet if your income is 2X poverty or lower.  Combine that with a smart phone and magicjack and you have a phone.

Again, leave deeply underfunded resources for legitimately poor people alone if you can afford it.

OP, you're FIRE, IIRC. Pay for your stuff instead of being a welfare cheat.

[jim555]

There is a place called pcsfprpeople that has discounted Internet if your income is 2X poverty or lower.  Combine that with a smart phone and magicjack and you have a phone.

Again, leave deeply underfunded resources for legitimately poor people alone if you can afford it.

OP, you're FIRE, IIRC. Pay for your stuff instead of being a welfare cheat.

What is your problem?  Cheating by meeting the eligibility requirements?? 

[Daley]

There is a place called pcsfprpeople that has discounted Internet if your income is 2X poverty or lower.  Combine that with a smart phone and magicjack and you have a phone.

Again, leave deeply underfunded resources for legitimately poor people alone if you can afford it.

OP, you're FIRE, IIRC. Pay for your stuff instead of being a welfare cheat.

What is your problem?  Cheating by meeting the eligibility requirements??

We shouldn't need to have this discussion in this community, but here we are.

Would you also go stand in a breadline just to save a couple hundred dollars a month while sitting on millions in investments and holding no debt but the debt that charges less interest than your investments earn?

Cheating, as in having enough money put away that you can easily afford to pay far more for an already excessive glut of cheap technology without breaking a sweat... but instead choose to deliberately exploit and take advantage of deeply underfunded non-profits and government services explicitly set up to serve underprivileged and financially challenged communities that try to help people who are so impoverished that a $1000 is a life-changing quantity of money, and not for people who re-arrange their assets just enough to ensure the interest made off of their millions doesn't "rob" them of the opportunity to game the system to exploit what few cheaper services there are in this country that are intended specifically for the systemically poor.

That is well past the line separating frugal from cheap into the territory of stingy.

Technology and connectivity is already cheap enough that there's no excuse for not paying for what you need if you already have the resources available.

You want to go play poor like the common people and not pay for internet and phone service? Your taxes are already paying for internet access at the library, there's free hotspots at commercial plazas, and there's a couple of services that advertise and datamine the ever-loving stuffing out of you for free WiFi phone minutes. Go play poor person that way if you're that cheap to not pay for what you claim to need instead of dipping into programs that don't even have the resources available to provide enough assistance to the people who actually do need it.

The only people who choose to live in poverty are the only ones who can actually afford to do so. At least have the stones to pay for what you actually need.

[jim555]

You are creating your own arguments here, no one else.  You are right we don't need to have this discussion.  You just like to argue.  The OP was asking about ways to get discounted Internet or phone, which was answered.  Then you come in on your high horse.  This thread wasn't a discussion of ethics until you decided to derail it.  I am not getting further into an argument no one is having.

[PDXTabs]

We shouldn't need to have this discussion in this community, but here we are.

Would you also go stand in a breadline just to save a couple hundred dollars a month while sitting on millions in investments and holding no debt but the debt that charges less interest than your investments earn?

Cheating, as in having enough money put away that you can easily afford to pay far more for an already excessive glut of cheap technology without breaking a sweat... but instead choose to deliberately exploit and take advantage of deeply underfunded non-profits and government services explicitly set up to serve underprivileged and financially challenged communities that try to help people who are so impoverished that a $1000 is a life-changing quantity of money, and not for people who re-arrange their assets just enough to ensure the interest made off of their millions doesn't "rob" them of the opportunity to game the system to exploit what few cheaper services there are in this country that are intended specifically for the systemically poor.

So, I see your point, and I would not personally use these programs. But how is this fundamentally different from all the tax avoidance strategies popularized on this site? Should you stop maxing out your 401k just because you can afford to? Maybe just don't claim that Obamacare subsidy you qualify for, because you don't need it? Who needs Medicare when you got millions?

[EricEng]

We shouldn't need to have this discussion in this community, but here we are.

Would you also go stand in a breadline just to save a couple hundred dollars a month while sitting on millions in investments and holding no debt but the debt that charges less interest than your investments earn?

Cheating, as in having enough money put away that you can easily afford to pay far more for an already excessive glut of cheap technology without breaking a sweat... but instead choose to deliberately exploit and take advantage of deeply underfunded non-profits and government services explicitly set up to serve underprivileged and financially challenged communities that try to help people who are so impoverished that a $1000 is a life-changing quantity of money, and not for people who re-arrange their assets just enough to ensure the interest made off of their millions doesn't "rob" them of the opportunity to game the system to exploit what few cheaper services there are in this country that are intended specifically for the systemically poor.

So, I see your point, and I would not personally use these programs. But how is this fundamentally different from all the tax avoidance strategies popularized on this site? Should you stop maxing out your 401k just because you can afford to? Maybe just don't claim that Obamacare subsidy you qualify for, because you don't need it? Who needs Medicare when you got millions?

Those either aren't non profit welfare programs or so underfunded they can't provide for those in needs.  Utilizing 401k and ACA has no impact on the poor.  Using some of the very few dollars allocated to these poor support programs such as Free phone/internet/food stamps/charities means you are directly taking something from the actual poor who then can't get it.  When there are not enough seats at the table, let the true poor sit first.

You are basically making the argument "why can't I cheat and steal?  If you oppose me, you should just give 100% of your money to the govt or you are a hypocrit".  That is a flawed logical argument.

[PDXTabs]

Those either aren't non profit welfare programs or so underfunded they can't provide for those in needs.  Utilizing 401k and ACA has no impact on the poor.  Using some of the very few dollars allocated to these poor support programs such as Free phone/internet/food stamps/charities means you are directly taking something from the actual poor who then can't get it.  When there are not enough seats at the table, let the true poor sit first.

You are basically making the argument "why can't I cheat and steal?  If you oppose me, you should just give 100% of your money to the govt or you are a hypocrit".  That is a flawed logical argument.

How about FAFSA? Because contributing to my 401k lowers my AGI which helps my kids get more financial aid, which is an underfunded program that helps the poor. It also helps me get government stimulus checks that I have no need for.

EDITed to add - and Medicare is super underfunded. Maybe people with seven figures should just pay for medical expenses out of pocket.

EDIT2 - and I'm not arguing "why can't I cheat and steal?" I'm arguing that I live in a nation of laws, and if I follow the laws and tell the truth I'm not cheating and stealing.

[jim555]

New York just passed high speed Internet for low income families.  $15 a month for 25Mbps, $20 a month for 200Mbps. If you qualify for Medicaid, SNAP, School lunch, or Utility discounts.

https://news.wbfo.org/post/state-budget-sets-15-month-price-cap-high-speed-internet-low-income-earners

[Daley]

Maybe people with seven figures should just pay for medical expenses out of pocket.

Maybe they should.

I'm arguing that I live in a nation of laws, and if I follow the laws and tell the truth I'm not cheating and stealing.

And the programs you're mentioning are voluntary. There are no laws in this land demanding that you fill out those forms and qualify. You understand the purpose and the scarcity, and you choose to use them anyway. Just because you can and its legal to do so, doesn't mean you need to. There's a lot of messed up laws in this country that allow people to do awful, morally repugnant things without legal consequence. Does that mean you should go out and do them anyway just because you can?

Too many people have gotten too wrapped up and invested on the logical fallacy of the impossible concept of financial independence (an oxymoron if there ever was one as the more money and assets you have, the more dependent you become upon the labor of others in order to survive), and lost sight of the financial stewardship angle that was specifically promoted in the original message for the purpose of trying to make the world a better place.


My point is simple: If you have to rely on dividends, tax breaks, social programs and/or charity to be able to stop working and claim to be financially independent... are you?

[jim555]

Daley, glad you will never sign up for Social Security and are sending back your $1,400 to the Treasury.  You don't need the money so you are a better person than me.

[Tigerpine]

Maybe people with seven figures should just pay for medical expenses out of pocket.

Maybe they should.

I'm arguing that I live in a nation of laws, and if I follow the laws and tell the truth I'm not cheating and stealing.

And the programs you're mentioning are voluntary. There are no laws in this land demanding that you fill out those forms and qualify. You understand the purpose and the scarcity, and you choose to use them anyway. Just because you can and its legal to do so, doesn't mean you need to. There's a lot of messed up laws in this country that allow people to do awful, morally repugnant things without legal consequence. Does that mean you should go out and do them anyway just because you can?

Too many people have gotten too wrapped up and invested on the logical fallacy of the impossible concept of financial independence (an oxymoron if there ever was one as the more money and assets you have, the more dependent you become upon the labor of others in order to survive), and lost sight of the financial stewardship angle that was specifically promoted in the original message for the purpose of trying to make the world a better place.


My point is simple: If you have to rely on dividends, tax breaks, social programs and/or charity to be able to stop working and claim to be financially independent... are you?

It's almost as if you're saying that ethics and legality are not one and the same.  ;)

[TomTX]

Daley, glad you will never sign up for Social Security and are sending back your $1,400 to the Treasury.  You don't need the money so you are a better person than me.

Daley appears to just have a bizarre, hypocritical position. Read their tagline - apparently somehow dividends are an affront as well. Gotta sell those utility stocks, I guess.

[NumberJohnny5]

Speaking on the morality part of it...well...morals differ from person to person, so of course there's going to be some arguing about it.

The way I look at it...if the government (federal, state, local) is subsidizing it, then it's really no different than claiming a tax credit. Getting free healthcare because the government considers you poor? As long as you're not lying about the situation, I think it's no different than claiming the child tax credit (again, assuming you're not lying and counting your fur babies as regular babies). Getting SNAP benefits is no different than getting an ACA subsidy, even if you have to juggle some numbers around. If you technically qualify for government funds, then you technically qualify. Rich people do this all the time, why can't common people? Oh, because they're common...that's a bit of a recurring theme actually.

Where I draw the line is government program vs charity. If it's a government program that has set rules (that I follow), I have no problem taking advantage. If it's a charity...even if I qualify, I'm not taking advantage of it (unless I have an actual need, even then I probably wouldn't unless it was for my kids). Driving down the road to pick up free school meals twice a week, I have no problem with...they're being funded by the federal government (and the less people that take advantage of the program, the less funds the school gets...eventually it means people lose their job). Driving the other direction once a week to a location that not only gives out free school meals, but also some extra goodies from the food bank? Nope. We don't need it, thanks but no thanks.

Sometimes there are grey areas. I don't know that we'd refuse to use an expensive instrument that was donated to the school that no one else wanted to use. And if a company came through and offered free internet access to everyone living in a certain area...sure! Though if that company instead offered X number of people free internet, then we'd likely decline.

I don't know about all the free/reduced internet plans, but I know there's a government funded free mobile plan that Tracfone ran (think they still do). I would have no problem signing up if we qualified and if it suited our needs.

[EricEng]

Daley, glad you will never sign up for Social Security and are sending back your $1,400 to the Treasury.  You don't need the money so you are a better person than me.

There's that flawed logic that comes up everytime someone calls for higher taxes, "why don't you just pay more and leave tax rate alone?".  That isn't a valid argument.

The way I look at it...if the government (federal, state, local) is subsidizing it, then it's really no different than claiming a tax credit.

There is a big difference.  The US could dump a lot of money into these welfare programs, but they choke them with just a fixed trickle that then has to get shared among those in need leaving a lot in the literal cold at times.  ACA and 401k go out to everyone that qualifies with no shortage.  The US chooses to greatly limit funding for these welfare programs.  If the number that can get help is limited then it should go to those most in need.

EDITed to add - and Medicare is super underfunded. Maybe people with seven figures should just pay for medical expenses out of pocket.

EDIT2 - and I'm not arguing "why can't I cheat and steal?" I'm arguing that I live in a nation of laws, and if I follow the laws and tell the truth I'm not cheating and stealing.

Just like Social Security, Medicare can't really run out of money as long as the economy is operating.  The excess build up might run out, but they will just increase medicare taxes or reduce pay out rates.  Funny your link is from July 2020 when we were all still doom and gloom over covid being a multi year drag.  Economic outlook has changed a lot since then.

If you are abusing the system to qualify for lifeline measures that weren't intended for you, then you are deceiving and cheating the system even if you aren't breaking a law.  We are talking about lifeline measures that have a very limited number of openings that are far exceeded by those in need.  Look for cost savings elsewhere and don't compare using 401k deduction to consuming a poor person's spot for a lifeline.  Its like being a guy in a lifeboat snatching a life preserver from the water because, while you are technically in need, others are drowning around you without that life preserver.

[jim555]

The government programs are not limited, except for HEAP and some Medicare Savings Programs.  SNAP, Medicaid, phones, ACA, Internet, are an open checkbook.  More people signing up has no impact on others.

[PDXTabs]

If you are abusing the system to qualify for lifeline measures that weren't intended for you, then you are deceiving and cheating the system even if you aren't breaking a law.  We are talking about lifeline measures that have a very limited number of openings that are far exceeded by those in need.  Look for cost savings elsewhere and don't compare using 401k deduction to consuming a poor person's spot for a lifeline.  Its like being a guy in a lifeboat snatching a life preserver from the water because, while you are technically in need, others are drowning around you without that life preserver.

So, life according to EricEng is that I can take advantage of any program that has an open checkbook and none that are block grants?

That is, as a matter of fact, how I live my life.

But I wouldn't go as far as to tell others to live theirs that way. Because again, we are a nation of laws.

[EricEng]

So, life according to EricEng is that I can take advantage of any program that has an open checkbook and none that are block grants?

That is, as a matter of fact, how I live my life.

But I wouldn't go as far as to tell others to live theirs that way. Because again, we are a nation of laws.

If you want to pretend you can't tell the difference between a welfare program (IE: Literally called "Lifeline" or "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program") and a retirement savings incentive (401k), then you are playing dumb.  There are programs meant to be optimized such 401k, capital gains, tax brackets and then there are programs meant as critical support for the very poor. 

Legal does not make morale.  Yes, I will call someone immorale if they (edit: someone on this site with 7 figure investment account) tried to get these welfare systems.  Most of those have strict asset limits and income limits, so you shouldn't qualify without lying somewhere.

[PDXTabs]

So, life according to EricEng is that I can take advantage of any program that has an open checkbook and none that are block grants?

That is, as a matter of fact, how I live my life.

But I wouldn't go as far as to tell others to live theirs that way. Because again, we are a nation of laws.

If you want to pretend you can't tell the difference between a welfare program (IE: Literally called "Lifeline" or "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program") and a retirement savings incentive (401k), then you are playing dumb.  There are programs meant to be optimized such 401k, capital gains, tax brackets and then there are programs meant as critical support for the very poor. 

Legal does not make morale.  Yes, I will call someone immorale if they tried to get these welfare systems.  Most of those have strict asset limits and income limits, so you shouldn't qualify without lying somewhere.

Well, when I finally have $627,500 in my 401k and I quit my job to live on $12,550 AGI I'll qualify for quite a few programs. Thankfully you'll be around to call me immorale if I choose to take advantage of them.

[NumberJohnny5]

Legal does not make morale.  Yes, I will call someone immorale if they (edit: someone on this site with 7 figure investment account) tried to get these welfare systems.  Most of those have strict asset limits and income limits, so you shouldn't qualify without lying somewhere.

As far as I know, we're NOT discussing lying. Juggling numbers (legally), sure.

Some programs have a list of qualifications, which can be pushed to the side if you already are a recipient of another program. A good example would be SNAP, though I think free/reduced lunches is another (I'm sure someone will check me...and regardless this stuff is often state specific, so good luck!). It appears as though SNAP now excludes retirement accounts from the asset test (this used to not be the case). Relevant link:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/deduction-excluded-retirement-accounts

So, I bet there's quite a few people here who are keeping their taxable income low enough for those sweet sweet ACA subsidies who actually qualify for SNAP. It's not hard. The asset test only lets you have a few grand or so in cash (includes cash-like accounts like checking, savings, etc.), but if you pull out small amounts from your retirement accounts and don't let it pile up in the checking account, looks pretty doable to me.

And if you qualify for SNAP, you often directly qualify for other programs such as lifeline. Again, relevant link:

https://www.lifelinesupport.org/do-i-qualify/#programs

Again, I see nothing wrong with "gaming" the system as long as you are doing so in a completely legal way. If you're lying and have $100k in an offshore checking account (or onshore, or in $100s under the mattress), then you lied and may be in a world of hurt. But if you checked and rechecked all the requirements, crossed all your i's and dotted all your t's (come at me grammar nerds, next time I'll type you're), followed all the rules and were 100% truthful in all your dealings...go for it. I see nothing immoral about that.

My personal morals would stop me from taking charity from a food drive, where people (who likely have way less than we do) have donated their money to help those in need. I won't apply for any kind of charity. Haven't asked for handouts on facebook so my kids can go to some camp (if we want them to go that bad, we'll just save and use our own money thank-you-very-much). I even try to talk our kids out of participating in fundraisers. I'll just send some cash if they need it for whatever school thing.

Speaking of fundraisers.... How many here have no issue asking people to pay for overpriced crap (school fundraisers), but a huge issue taking a $10/mo handout from the federal government? Why?

[Paul der Krake]

There are government programs that have a fixed amount of money allocated to it every year and once it's gone, it's gone.

The Indian Health Service infamously runs out of funds every year and when the money is gone, tough shit, you're not getting your surgery.

But I don't see this being the case for lifeline? As far as I can tell, lifeline providers always advertise and try to enroll, year round. Or is the argument that by oversubscribing we're indirectly pushing down the discounts made available to everyone?

BTW: school fundraisers are pathetic and shouldn't happen in the first world. I will die on this hill.

[wageslave23]

The government decides who these programs are "for" and they do it by establishing requirements to qualify.  If you qualify then by definition the program is "for" you. End of discussion.  If you don't like the requirements then run for congress or become a lobbyist. 

[jim555]

Not all states have asset tests for SNAP, NY doesn't.  The problem with SNAP that you can only get it for 3 months and then workfare comes in.  Also the amount is minimal once they apply your expenses vs. your income.  In times of high unemployment the workfare requirement can be waived.

No one is saying commit fraud to get benefits, the discussion is following the rules is it ethical to take benefits.  Why should savers be punished for saving?  If I was a spendthrift and irresponsible it would be ok to get a benefits but not if I am responsible and save?  The reason why asset tests have been removed in many places is to avoid a poverty trap where people intentionally keep themselves poor so they don't lose benefits.

[Daley]

But I don't see this being the case for lifeline? As far as I can tell, lifeline providers always advertise and try to enroll, year round. Or is the argument that by oversubscribing we're indirectly pushing down the discounts made available to everyone?

I want to encourage you and others to learn about how the Universal Service Fund is actually funded and administered by the USAC and FCC.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund
https://www.usac.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/01/with-universal-service-fund-contributions-at-32-percent-experts-debate-its-sustainability/
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-308A1.pdf

[Samuel]

You are creating your own arguments here, no one else.  You are right we don't need to have this discussion.  You just like to argue.  The OP was asking about ways to get discounted Internet or phone, which was answered.  Then you come in on your high horse.  This thread wasn't a discussion of ethics until you decided to derail it.  I am not getting further into an argument no one is having.

For the record there are plenty of people in the background nodding our heads to Daley's argument who are glad someone raised it.

[jim555]

You are creating your own arguments here, no one else.  You are right we don't need to have this discussion.  You just like to argue.  The OP was asking about ways to get discounted Internet or phone, which was answered.  Then you come in on your high horse.  This thread wasn't a discussion of ethics until you decided to derail it.  I am not getting further into an argument no one is having.

For the record there are plenty of people in the background nodding our heads to Daley's argument who are glad someone raised it.

He should start his own thread instead of thread jacking and insulting other posters who don't agree with his personal ethical value system.

[Dicey]

You are creating your own arguments here, no one else.  You are right we don't need to have this discussion.  You just like to argue.  The OP was asking about ways to get discounted Internet or phone, which was answered.  Then you come in on your high horse.  This thread wasn't a discussion of ethics until you decided to derail it.  I am not getting further into an argument no one is having.

I just found this thread and I completely agree with @Daley. Presenting a different opinion is exactly what this forum is for. It is not "derailing" to bring up ethics or any other point of view.

[EricEng]

He should start his own thread instead of thread jacking and insulting other posters who don't agree with his personal ethical value system.

If anyone is thread jacking, it is you.  The OP abandon this thread after a single post and choose not to reply to any of the suggested alternatives nor options instead of using limited welfare resources.  You then jacked the thread to go on tear about how no one should judge you immoral for exploiting charity and welfare programs by gaming the system and poking at Daley.  Daley was directing his responses at OP until you attacked him.

I want to encourage you and others to learn about how the Universal Service Fund is actually funded and administered by the USAC and FCC.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund
https://www.usac.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/01/with-universal-service-fund-contributions-at-32-percent-experts-debate-its-sustainability/
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-308A1.pdf

TLDR for others.  It's a 20-32% fee on telecommunication services that gets passed onto the consumer.  The % changes quarterly based on expected demand.  So basically everyone else has to cover it with their phone/internet/(tv?).  So it is a tax on everyone that goes up the more it is used.

[Daley]

I want to encourage you and others to learn about how the Universal Service Fund is actually funded and administered by the USAC and FCC.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund
https://www.usac.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/01/with-universal-service-fund-contributions-at-32-percent-experts-debate-its-sustainability/
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-308A1.pdf

TLDR for others.  It's a 20-32% fee on telecommunication services that gets passed onto the consumer.  The % changes quarterly based on expected demand.  So basically everyone else has to cover it with their phone/internet/(tv?).  So it is a tax on everyone that goes up the more it is used.

Additional teal deer: Zero funding comes from congressional appropriations, and 100% of the funding comes from an unsustainable source - voice telecommunications services, which is a market segment that's shrunk by more than 50% in the past decade. Further, what funding there is, is split between four programs: Lifeline as everyone knows, rural service connectivity (Connect America Fund), school and library connectivity (E-Rate), and the Rural Healthcare Program. The enrollment never closes because the fund is perpetually re-adjusting quarterly to ensure everyone who needs service gets it.

And that Lifeline payout outside of tribal lands? $10/month.

Using Lifeline after saving enough to claim you can retire and never work another day in your life is basically saying that you'd rather drive up prices and force millions of people to pay for your phone service for you than save an extra $2000 to have that extra $10 a month available yourself, only to get a level of phone service that's maybe worth $7 at the screaming most while the current market has plans with three times the minutes and the same SMS and data availability for as low as $8.25/month when purchased as an annual plan (at least on the wireless end). But hey! It's only $10/month earmarked for you, and when you divide it up among the millions of customers and the telecom giants paying in, you're not even a drop in the bucket, right? Savers shouldn't be punished! Just those welfare queens who live in constant poverty and don't try and pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

If you're really the sort of person who's comfortable with saying that? More power to you, but if you're feeling angry or shamed simply by having people remind you where that "free" money comes from? There's hope for you yet! You can choose to stop instead of tearing yourself apart at the seams trying to justify a behavior that you know deep down is even hurting yourself.

[PDXTabs]

I want to encourage you and others to learn about how the Universal Service Fund is actually funded and administered by the USAC and FCC.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund
https://www.usac.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/01/with-universal-service-fund-contributions-at-32-percent-experts-debate-its-sustainability/
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-308A1.pdf

TLDR for others.  It's a 20-32% fee on telecommunication services that gets passed onto the consumer.  The % changes quarterly based on expected demand.  So basically everyone else has to cover it with their phone/internet/(tv?).  So it is a tax on everyone that goes up the more it is used.

If you're really the sort of person who's comfortable with saying that? More power to you, but if you're feeling angry or shamed simply by having people remind you where that "free" money comes from? There's hope for you yet! You can choose to stop instead of tearing yourself apart at the seams trying to justify a behavior that you know deep down is even hurting yourself.

I think that what some of us are stuck on is that there is no free money. Not Medicare, not Medicaid, not subsidized ACA plans, nor government stimulus checks. In the long run, every penny that you take is a penny that didn't go to some other tax payer, to some other citizen. I get that, I just don't get why I should listen to you about which plans the OP is entitled to.

[Daley]

I just don't get why I should listen to you about which plans the OP is entitled to.

It's free advice chacho, and it answered the OPs question. He wanted free phone and internet service, and the dude who's fielded about 90% of this community's US-based telecommunications savings questions for the past decade told him where the only free service exists for people in his posted income bracket, while noting his active FIRE status and referencing how underfunded these specific types of welfare services really are.

[seattlecyclone]

The government decides who these programs are "for" and they do it by establishing requirements to qualify.  If you qualify then by definition the program is "for" you. End of discussion.  If you don't like the requirements then run for congress or become a lobbyist. 

This largely mirrors my opinion. I see a phenomenon on this thread and elsewhere, where people invent a set of shadow criteria above and beyond the stated criteria for the program, and try to make people feel shame for considering participation in the program despite failing to meet that unwritten, higher bar. I believe this type of behavior harms many of the people these programs are intended to help, by making them think twice about accepting help that they could really use.

Social pressure is a strong thing. How many people decide not to apply for SNAP because they have been made to feel shame in accepting it unless they're literally starving? How many of these folks could have benefited from the ability to buy more nutritious food, or to have just a bit of extra slack in their budget to make it more likely that they can pay their rent and other bills? Eliminate the stigma around programs of this nature and you make a lot of peoples' lives better.

Not all states have asset tests for SNAP, NY doesn't.  The problem with SNAP that you can only get it for 3 months and then workfare comes in.  Also the amount is minimal once they apply your expenses vs. your income.  In times of high unemployment the workfare requirement can be waived.

No one is saying commit fraud to get benefits, the discussion is following the rules is it ethical to take benefits.  Why should savers be punished for saving?  If I was a spendthrift and irresponsible it would be ok to get a benefits but not if I am responsible and save?  The reason why asset tests have been removed in many places is to avoid a poverty trap where people intentionally keep themselves poor so they don't lose benefits.

This is an important note here. SNAP in particular has a work requirement most of the time. This is an effective way to separate out the FIREd individuals if that's something you feel is necessary for a given program. I have no interest in jumping through hoops of applying for jobs I don't want just to get money I don't need, so I'll never even think about applying for SNAP. Again, the written requirements describe who the program is "for." SNAP isn't for me.

On the other hand if it was structured so that anyone reporting a certain income on their tax return got an EBT card in the mail with no other strings attached, I'd use the thing. It would then be no different from accepting the COVID stimulus or child tax credit or ACA subsidies or social security or the 10% tax bracket or anything else available only based on income.

[robartsd]

If you still want a "free" phone plan? Learn from the homeless people in my area who can't even access the services you're wanting to exploit. Go use either the Google Voice, TextNow or FreedomPop free plans and hope you have coverage or a free WiFi hotspot if you need to make or receive a call and go use the library when you need an internet connection.

I basically do this except that I do pay for internet at home (~$45/month) and have a prepaid pay as you go plan (~$10.35 / 120 days). Works pretty well for my very light phone usage. I do usually leave mobile data off and do not forward GV texts, so I only get those when on WiFi too. I don't receive enough calls when away from WiFi enough to really worry about the costs, and usually just make my calls when at home. If I really want to reach someone when away from WiFi I can just call them or activate mobile data and use text messaging in the Google Voice app.

[Paul der Krake]

Yeah, I see where Daley is coming from, but it seems no very different than any other government program with questionable funding (which is all of them). Ultimately, money is fungible and If I qualified and it seemed like a good service, I would probably apply. Just like every program I have ever qualified for.

[PDXTabs]

Not all states have asset tests for SNAP, NY doesn't.  The problem with SNAP that you can only get it for 3 months and then workfare comes in.  Also the amount is minimal once they apply your expenses vs. your income.  In times of high unemployment the workfare requirement can be waived.

No one is saying commit fraud to get benefits, the discussion is following the rules is it ethical to take benefits.  Why should savers be punished for saving?  If I was a spendthrift and irresponsible it would be ok to get a benefits but not if I am responsible and save?  The reason why asset tests have been removed in many places is to avoid a poverty trap where people intentionally keep themselves poor so they don't lose benefits.

This is an important note here. SNAP in particular has a work requirement most of the time. This is an effective way to separate out the FIREd individuals if that's something you feel is necessary for a given program. I have no interest in jumping through hoops of applying for jobs I don't want just to get money I don't need, so I'll never even think about applying for SNAP. Again, the written requirements describe who the program is "for." SNAP isn't for me.

Yea, but the work requirement goes away on your 60th birthday. If you use SNAP to get from 59.5 to Social Security age I'm not going to tell you that you are a bad person.

[NumberJohnny5]

Yea, but the work requirement goes away on your 60th birthday. If you use SNAP to get from 59.5 to Social Security age I'm not going to tell you that you are a bad person.

There are even more exemptions. Per https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements , if you are taking care of a child under 6, the work requirement doesn't apply to you. The work requirement also doesn't exist for children under 16. So if you're retired early, qualify income/asset wise, and have some kids under 16, then you'd get benefits for your kids (but not for yourself if you refuse to look for work). No idea if this means you automatically qualify for other programs that have SNAP as a quick way to qualify (is it the household that needs to qualify or the individual person?).

[NumberJohnny5]

Social pressure is a strong thing. How many people decide not to apply for SNAP because they have been made to feel shame in accepting it unless they're literally starving? How many of these folks could have benefited from the ability to buy more nutritious food, or to have just a bit of extra slack in their budget to make it more likely that they can pay their rent and other bills? Eliminate the stigma around programs of this nature and you make a lot of peoples' lives better.

My dad was one of those types of people. Made a point to let me know that we qualified for free lunches, but he wouldn't apply because we were better than that. He taught me many life lessons, just not the ones he meant to teach.

[ender]

Social pressure is a strong thing. How many people decide not to apply for SNAP because they have been made to feel shame in accepting it unless they're literally starving? How many of these folks could have benefited from the ability to buy more nutritious food, or to have just a bit of extra slack in their budget to make it more likely that they can pay their rent and other bills? Eliminate the stigma around programs of this nature and you make a lot of peoples' lives better.

I am not sure that people who retired early because of a combination of earning significantly above average and then living off their investments are the type of folks who are going to meaningfully change this stigma.

Frankly, SNAP is pretty clear about the purpose too. From their website:

SNAP provides nutrition benefits to supplement the food budget of needy families so they can purchase healthy food and move towards self-sufficiency.

Now, perhaps someone can justify FIRE folks being "needy families" or not capable of self-sufficiency and thus qualify in spirit for something like SNAP.

But reading the tagline for the purpose of SNAP from their website makes me hard pressed to find any scenario someone FIRE'd meets the spirit of the program.

[NumberJohnny5]

But reading the tagline for the purpose of SNAP from their website makes me hard pressed to find any scenario someone FIRE'd meets the spirit of the program.

The real reason for SNAP is to be a subsidy for Big Ag. Feel free to believe taglines from government websites if you want.

[jim555]

Yea, but the work requirement goes away on your 60th birthday. If you use SNAP to get from 59.5 to Social Security age I'm not going to tell you that you are a bad person.

Marking calendar.  $19 a month (min allotment) sounds good.  With SNAP I can get low cost high speed Internet in NY and a free cell phone.  Also $25 off my electric bill every month.  Welfare queens unite!

[seattlecyclone]

Social pressure is a strong thing. How many people decide not to apply for SNAP because they have been made to feel shame in accepting it unless they're literally starving? How many of these folks could have benefited from the ability to buy more nutritious food, or to have just a bit of extra slack in their budget to make it more likely that they can pay their rent and other bills? Eliminate the stigma around programs of this nature and you make a lot of peoples' lives better.

I am not sure that people who retired early because of a combination of earning significantly above average and then living off their investments are the type of folks who are going to meaningfully change this stigma.

It has to start somewhere. I'd bet that many (if not most) of us have people in our lives who qualify for some of these programs and are nowhere near FIRE. I'd also bet that many of us on the forum are also likely to be asked by family and friends for advice on matters of personal finance. When someone comes to us asking for advice I'd like to see it go more like "Hey, you might qualify for <program X> and <program Y>. Let's look into it, and sign you up if you meet the criteria!" instead of "Well, you might technically qualify for <program X>, but it's funded by taxes, and you don't really fit my mental profile of an intended recipient. Are you sure you're one of those people who really needs it?"

[ender]

Social pressure is a strong thing. How many people decide not to apply for SNAP because they have been made to feel shame in accepting it unless they're literally starving? How many of these folks could have benefited from the ability to buy more nutritious food, or to have just a bit of extra slack in their budget to make it more likely that they can pay their rent and other bills? Eliminate the stigma around programs of this nature and you make a lot of peoples' lives better.

I am not sure that people who retired early because of a combination of earning significantly above average and then living off their investments are the type of folks who are going to meaningfully change this stigma.

It has to start somewhere. I'd bet that many (if not most) of us have people in our lives who qualify for some of these programs and are nowhere near FIRE. I'd also bet that many of us on the forum are also likely to be asked by family and friends for advice on matters of personal finance. When someone comes to us asking for advice I'd like to see it go more like "Hey, you might qualify for <program X> and <program Y>. Let's look into it, and sign you up if you meet the criteria!" instead of "Well, you might technically qualify for <program X>, but it's funded by taxes, and you don't really fit my mental profile of an intended recipient. Are you sure you're one of those people who really needs it?"

But those outcomes and actions are not mutually exclusive. You can be disappointed in people who save well into the 6 or even 7 figures plotting about how to receive benefits from the program while simultaneously encouraging folks who aren't well on their way to FI or even FIRE'd to apply.

[jim555]

Marking calendar.  $19 a month (min allotment) sounds good.  With SNAP I can get low cost high speed Internet in NY and a free cell phone.  Also $25 off my electric bill every month.  Welfare queens unite!

Thinking on this a bit.  If you delay Social Security to 70 and you have income in the 135%/138% range you get some additional benefits.  At 65 Medicaid ends, now you can qualify for Medicare Savings Programs QI with income under 135%, this pays Part B ($145) and also gets you into Social Security Extra Help Part D cover ($42).  So 5 additional years of benefits for the ethically challenged.

Low income post 65 property tax reductions can be substantial.  In my area it can reduce your Property tax 50%.

[EricEng]

But reading the tagline for the purpose of SNAP from their website makes me hard pressed to find any scenario someone FIRE'd meets the spirit of the program.

The real reason for SNAP is to be a subsidy for Big Ag. Feel free to believe taglines from government websites if you want.

That was what the former President tried to turn it into with his food boxes (which incidentally cost way more for worse quality).  In the original form it's just a debit card to be used at grocery stores.  I'm not sure that's a very direct subsidy to any specific Agriculture sector. We already give massive subsidies directly to Agriculture sector, but I wouldn't call SNAP one really.  Poor people will buy food no matter what, they would just have to give up something else first (like electricity, heat, medicine).