Poll

Which of these would you be comfortable doing in ER?

Collecting welfare benefits and/or SNAP
Having you child get free or reduced lunch
Claiming the EIC
Having your child use a Pell grant or other income-based funding for college
None of the above

Author Topic: Ethics of ER  (Read 61327 times)

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #100 on: November 19, 2013, 12:47:12 PM »
I see that you want to believe this, but having worked in the school system for years, I assure you that you've twisted this into something it isn't.  You're comfortable believing this, and you don't want to hear facts.  Fine.

Anyone else who wants to know facts, The truth is that if X percentage of the students in a certain school receive free lunch, that school is labeled a "Title 1 School", and the school does get extra funding; however, it cannot be used for anything they please.  Its use is limited to very specific things aimed at helping children of poverty "catch up" to other kids.  It is all "extra", not anything that will ever hire extra teachers who will provide enrichment or alleviate overcrowding during the school day.  The designation "Title 1" also requires the school to jump through quite a few hoops, and it is in no way just an extra check that the principal can use to help the school.

This is probably as frustrating for you as it is for me.  I figured I might be misinformed, so I did a little digging this morning while I was volunteering at my kids' school.  I asked a few teachers how much a free/reduced kid brings the school, if any.  Answers varied, and tended to be vague and of low quality.  Some said "yes, kids get money for lunch" others said "we get a small amount". 

Then I spent about 30 minutes catching up with the principal.  Straight from my discussion with him:  Schools in our district are Title I when they exceed 30% free/reduced lunch.  We are at ~80% free/reduced.  Title I schools (in our district) receive funding base on a per pupil rate. In April, they give the school an estimated F/R headcount and an associated budget of Title I funding.  They true it up later in the summer and finalize it based on actual headcount of F/R students shortly after school begins.  The principal didn't have an exact per student Title I supplement amount, but said around $800 (but it wasn't exactly that), and that it varies each year based on a number of factors.  He said the funds resulted in almost $300k extra money for our school, which allowed him to hire five additional teachers above what he was allotted based on state funding formulas and class size requirements. 

He said that those extra teachers were placed into classrooms as primary teachers in order to significantly reduce class sizes.  Instead of 23-24 kids per class, he brought class size down to 16-17 for grades K-4 (screw 5th grade I guess??).  I am almost certain he is telling the truth about this, as each grade has an average of 69 children, which would have been 23 students per teacher with 3 teachers per grade.  With 4 teachers per grade K-4 (what we actually have), there is an average of 17.25 students per teacher.  I did a quick count in the lunchroom today, and the 2nd and 3rd grades had right around 16 kids per class (probably 1 per class sick on any given day).  I also know my kids have 16 and 17 kids in their respective classrooms. 

He said he had the flexibility to hire teachers and place them in different roles, but that small class size was the best choice for our population.  He could have bought a shit ton of iPads/pods/whatever instead of hiring teachers but we already have tons of tech toys (er, instructional aids). 

He's also spending a very small part of Title I funding (I estimate at around $12000) to provide free after school tutoring for students who need extra help.  That cost consists of overtime for teachers and snacks/supplies budget. 

I did a quick back of the envelope BS check on his numbers and $800/student seems about right given the 5 additional staff and after school tutoring program.  I think this number was higher in previous years, but I might be wrong.  It may even vary by school, but these were the numbers at my school. 

I'm providing this summary to you not to prove I'm right and you're wrong, because it could be that things work differently in different districts within our state.  Or K-5 funding works differently than high school.  Another alternative is that your administration doesn't want to do what my school's administration did.  Or they aren't being transparent with what they are doing.  Given the relative lack of knowledge of budgets, funding sources, and school finances among teachers I talked to, it could be that your administration is doing something creative (but totally permissible) with Title I funding and you aren't fully aware of it. 

I hope I haven't "twisted this into something it isn't" as you say, since I hold facts and truth in high regard. 

Since our school receives $800 per kid that qualifies for free/reduced lunch, when we qualify, I'll sign up for the program mainly to get more money for the school.  I can quantify the impact - I'm buying part of an additional teacher or additional after school tutoring for kids in need (not my kids).  Given our district's total (local, state, fed) expenditures of under $8,000 per pupil, an additional $800 per pupil is a huge amount of money (over 10% for those who haven't attended school recently).  Hey, I'll take it.  My kids might take advantage of free lunch, they might not. 


MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #101 on: November 19, 2013, 03:47:11 PM »
Root, I understand you've convinced yourself, and I'm not going to argue with you, but I have years of experience with this topic. 

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5950
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #102 on: November 19, 2013, 04:00:29 PM »
Then provide some evidence to support your position!

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #103 on: November 19, 2013, 04:12:05 PM »
Yeah. RootOfGood's kids' principal seems pretty convinced that each free/reduced lunch student in his school causes his budget to go up by about $800, and that he is able to use this additional money to hire more teachers and reduce class sizes. This money may come with strings attached, but he and/or the school board consider it to be a worthwhile trade. Until proven otherwise, I'll assume the principal knows a thing or two about where the budget he manages comes from.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #104 on: November 19, 2013, 04:23:06 PM »
Here's a paper from the Institute of Education Sciences on the subject

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158

Seems to back up much of what RootofGood is saying:

Quote
Schools enrolling at least 40 percent of children from low-income families are eligible to use Title I funds for schoolwide programs designed to upgrade their entire educational programs to improve achievement for all students, particularly the lowest-achieving students.

And..

Quote
In school year 2009-10, more than 56,000 public schools across the country used Title I funds to provide additional academic support and learning opportunities to help low-achieving children master challenging curricula and meet state standards in core academic subjects. For example, funds support extra instruction in reading and mathematics, as well as special preschool, after-school, and summer programs to extend and reinforce the regular school curriculum

I may not be a fan of Root's student loan re-payment avoidance program either, but he seems to know his facts in this case.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #105 on: November 19, 2013, 04:39:37 PM »
I agree with thepokercab, seattlecyclone, and grantmeaname: RootOfGood has provided pretty detailed support for his position, and any counterargument needs to provide a similar level of support.

I am, however, still waiting for RootOfGood to elaborate on why he thinks government pensions aren't compensation for employees.

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #106 on: November 19, 2013, 08:52:07 PM »
I may not be a fan of Root's student loan re-payment avoidance program either, but he seems to know his facts in this case.

I'm not a fan of it either. I think the program is stupid and a waste of taxpayer money.  In the Ethical Dimensions of Income Based Repayment thread I started, I provided at least six ways the income based repayment program could be modified to cost less taxpayer money. 

I just fail to see how participating in a program for which you qualify that has extremely broad eligibility guidelines means you have somehow breached an ethical duty to the taxpayers.

Thanks for providing that link to Title I school funding.  I think the free school lunch = a bunch of money for my kids' school is well settled, perhaps with the exception of one individual. 


RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #107 on: November 19, 2013, 09:28:13 PM »
I agree with thepokercab, seattlecyclone, and grantmeaname: RootOfGood has provided pretty detailed support for his position, and any counterargument needs to provide a similar level of support.

I am, however, still waiting for RootOfGood to elaborate on why he thinks government pensions aren't compensation for employees.

I'm probably biased because I think government pensions tend to retain the worst employees because the best employees leave for greener pastures.  The worst employees are unemployable in the private sector due to poor performance, outdated skills, lack of work ethic or creativity, or some combination of those factors.  This is an ugly, broad generalization but based on my experience working with a particular governmental employer (from the public side and private side).  Good employees got offers for private employment and left.  Bad employees had no other recourse beside remain on the government payroll and continue sucking on the Hoover Dam spillway sized stream of government bennies (a fat paycheck and eventually a pension).

The pension system also means there isn't a lot of job mobility between public and private entities.  That stifles the information flow and creativity that comes from having different people from different backgrounds coming and going at your organization.  In other words, some degree of turnover is good.  I could write a book on the subject, so I'll leave it at that since it could be a controversial subject.  I might even exempt teachers from the generalization since there may not be enough of a private market to jump to and from (and I don't want to have an argument devoid of facts with certain teachers who post here).

I never stated government pensions aren't compensation for employees.  You can call it what you want, but at the end of the day, you're taking money from a public source that is funded by taxpayers.  In fact, government pensions are more funded by taxpayers than social security (which is funded solely through contributions of workers into their own system - it's a closed loop).  As a taxpayer, I'm funding the general fund that then contributes 13% of the salary of state employees to the pension plan.  If very wealthy retirees who don't "need" the pension opted out of the pension plan, then the state could spend less on funding the pension. 

Therefore, the ethical question arises "Should you retire early and draw on a pension when you don't really need it?".  Unquestionably you are depleting the treasury's coffers by taking a pension when you don't need (need - such a tricky word) it. 

Why are food stamps, free lunches, EIC, and Pell Grants similar to government pensions?  Your agreement to do your duty as a citizen and in return to avail yourself of the benefits of citizenship and membership in our society.

For men at least, you sign up for the selective service.  What I'm about to say is ridiculous today, but horribly relevant to anyone who lived during the Vietnam War era. The government can institute a draft and have your ass stuck in fatigues and shipped off to some god-forsaken wasteland to fight somebody you don't want to fight. 

You have to serve on a jury.  Try not doing so and getting slapped with contempt of court. 

You have to follow the laws.  Even ones that are stupid.

You have to pay tax.  Of course it is completely encouraged by the IRS to use any part of the tax code to minimize your tax burden.  It has to be legal though (tax avoidance ok, tax evasion is bad).  Taxes impact you in two ways.  You pay them on income you earn, and the onerous nature of taxation can dissuade you from earning more money or working harder.

In return for fulfilling your obligations as a citizen, you have earned the right to avail yourself of the benefits that we, through the government, have decided to offer. 

It's up to you whether you call this "compensation" in the same sense as a government pension.  But I think it is disingenuous to characterize government programs as "gifts" or "free".  To me, it is part of the social contract I implicitly agree to by remaining a citizen.  I haven't found a better country yet, so I'm just going to bunker down here as long as possible and make the place as good as I can. 
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 09:33:20 PM by RootofGood »

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #108 on: November 19, 2013, 10:04:30 PM »
Two problems I see with this strand of the argument, Root.

One, that response doesn't address the criticism that it may still be unethical to take advantage of a program for which you satisfy the applicable test if you do not believe the test to properly reflect the intent of the program and you do not believe you have a need intended to be served by the program.

Two, I suspect that your comparisons of "earning" some benefits to government pensions are in at least some cases completely false. If you don't register for the selective service, I recall (without checking to confirm) that would disqualify you from receiving federal financial aid for college, but so far as I know your kids could still receive free lunch. Similarly, you could thumb your nose at jury duty and still claim the EIC.

Does that matter?

I tend to agree with the big picture criticism I think you touched on earlier, that the web of taxes and benefits is so messy that it renders meaningless the isolated questions of whether taking an individual benefit is ethical. In other words, I don't actually see those decisions as ethical ones at all. But if some are going to argue one way or the other, I don't think the points you make above are that convincing, on at least the two grounds I mentioned.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 10:36:56 PM by Undecided »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #109 on: November 19, 2013, 10:22:48 PM »
That is a nice, thoughtful response.  Thank you for it!

I'm sorry for your experience with government employees, and I agree that it's an ugly, broad generalization (though I don't doubt your experience).  My experience with government employees has only been for jobs that do not and cannot exist in the private sector, for which it's pointless to make comparisons.

You have some good points that I completely agree with on the disincentives on job mobility provided by pensions.  It'd be great if you could create a portable pension that moved from job to job, whether private or government (local, state, or federal).

I see what you're saying on government pensions, but I see a huge difference among government programs. Sure, there are benefits provided simply by membership in society.  There are other programs where your contributions correlate to your benefits, like Social Security.  But that's very different from an employer-employee relationship.  A pension is a portion of compensation provided by employment.  Would you similarly say that you should give back salary or health insurance that you don't "need?"

Insanity

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #110 on: November 19, 2013, 10:46:45 PM »
You have to serve on a jury.  Try not doing so and getting slapped with contempt of court. 

That is simply not true.  I tried to not serve on a jury and was perfectly allowed.  I simply had proof that I had surgery and a chronic illness which would make it difficult.

My brother in law simply tells the truth about his views guns.

My wife simple states she works for attorneys.

All of this is true and in general gets you out of serving on a jury -- and in some cases even having to report to go through the process (why does that word escape me!!!).

As far as the actual issues:
It could be argued that all the services provided to the US by the government you have provided some amount of dollars for so you should be entitled to that percentage of the money back or for your own good.  I simply don't believe that is true.  As a society, like anything else, we are as strong as our weakest link.   I am all for charities, providing a services for the needy, and providing for education of kids without the expectation that I will get in kind.  Karma is supposed to have a way of working that out (it doesn't, but hey).

I liken it to the sports analogy of: "If you aren't cheating, then you aren't trying."  That isn't about the "sport" that is about "winning".  If "life" is about winning, then it is about ego and the self.  That does not help society at all.  That isn't to say you shouldn't take care of yourself or get what you need, but if you can do more than you should.

I look at what MMM does - he goes around and has helped people put on f'ing ADDITIONS TO HOUSES at no real labor cost (when compared to what actual labor would be). (yes, this is all in a blog but I tend to believe a lot of what he says simply because it would be way to f'ing complicated to make this a lie -- but if he wants to prove it is real, I have a 40+ year old house that could use some major upgrades including solar panel installation, changing the driveway, adding a master bedroom/suite, and modifying the layout of our main floor…. and you can visit historic philadelphia, nyc, washington, DC all while you are here -- I jest;about the proving it not about the fact that work needs to be done, wishing I could do it, and you could really visit those places).  He isn't taking advantage of government services (though I think he said he might be using some of the ACA advantages - don't remember). 




Insanity

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #111 on: November 19, 2013, 10:56:18 PM »
Quote
Reduced price lunch I might qualify for eventually, and I would take it if I qualify.  It would benefit me slightly, but benefit our kids' school greatly.  They get large subsidies for each qualifying free/reduced priced kid, and the school needs all the help it can get.  I help the school out however I can, and this would be another way. 
Not true.  At least, not true in the way you've presented it.  If X number of kids get free lunch, the school does get extra funding . . . but they are required to use it to provide specific remediation programs, etc.  It requires more work from the school, takes effort away from basic classes, and the school is not free to use the money in the spots they believe it's most needed.  It means greater federal control within the school. 

You are NOT "helping" your child's school by having them take free lunch.

Pretty sure I am.  These things work differently in different districts.  So I wouldn't assume too much about the different funding structures and flexibility of using funds in your school or your district and extrapolating them to other districts.

The remedial help my children receive or don't receive is based on assessments by their teachers and fairly objective tests.  My kids can get straight 4's on their assessments (like an A or A+ for those not familiar) and receive zero remedial help.  But if I check the box for free/reduced lunch, the school gets money.  You may say it has to be spent in certain areas.  Sure, maybe in some cases, and I am familiar with a few cases.  But it isn't generally true.  We definitely get the option for certain programs if we are Economically Disadvantaged (free after school tutoring being one program). 

It's like this: the school has to hire X number of literacy and math coaches and remedial teachers and ESL teachers.  The administration might decide they need a couple extra to get the job done.  They lose the music teacher and art teacher to provide the extra remedial teachers (the administration wants to hit their growth targets after all).  In steps the root of good family, and checks a few boxes and the school gets a few thousand bucks.  Boom!  A little closer to rehiring that music or art teacher.

just remember, those funds are also taken from somewhere else….  it isn't like just because the number of "kids needing free lunches" went up that other people are paying more in taxes to compensate for it.  lord knows there isn't that kind of buffer.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #112 on: November 19, 2013, 11:00:19 PM »
Quote
I just fail to see how participating in a program for which you qualify that has extremely broad eligibility guidelines means you have somehow breached an ethical duty to the taxpayers.

My assumption, at least based on these poll results, is that a lot of us aren't as sure. But, ultimately, I'm in no position to judge. I'm paying student loans right now myself, and I would be lying if I said I never thought of ways I couldn't either lower them or get around them all together. 

One of the driving forces behind FIRE, in my mind anyway, seems to be a ruthless pursuit of maximum efficiency.  This is what i've been all about since I starting reading MMM- cutting bills, cutting spending, trying to radically make my life more efficient.  But- if you take this to its logical conclusion, then its also going to include being as efficient as possible with the taxes you have to pay, the benefits you can receive, the loopholes that you can find.  If you're all about rational self-interest, then this makes absolute sense.  Of course, it is perfectly ethical to take the free lunches, or the food stamps, or whatever, since you are pursuing what is in your best interest, i.e. increasing your budget's efficiency and getting close or achieving FIRE.  However, I guess my worldview isn't so Ayn Randian, so to speak, so this relentless pursuit of efficiency can contradict with other feelings I might have on community, responsibility, etc.. 

Once again, very interesting topic...     




CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #113 on: November 19, 2013, 11:20:33 PM »
There used to be something called pride in this country, people felt it when they worked hard and met their duties as parents and neighbors. Pride is earned, it isn't given. There's more important things in life than never missing a meal or scoring a handout, it's the pride I feel knowing I can fend for myself, feed my family and not be dependent on others. My path is hardwork, family, and morals, and I'd rather starve than take a handout. I want to meet people who share my values, that's why I'm typing here, and my path is clear, I hope everyone else can find their path.

NV Teacher

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #114 on: November 20, 2013, 12:48:30 PM »
There used to be something called pride in this country, people felt it when they worked hard and met their duties as parents and neighbors. Pride is earned, it isn't given. There's more important things in life than never missing a meal or scoring a handout, it's the pride I feel knowing I can fend for myself, feed my family and not be dependent on others. My path is hardwork, family, and morals, and I'd rather starve than take a handout. I want to meet people who share my values, that's why I'm typing here, and my path is clear, I hope everyone else can find their path.

I'm with you.  I stood in a line one time (during college) to get a free brick of government cheese and decided that would be the last time.  Short of a life altering catastrophe I'll take care of myself and not look to someone/something else to do it.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1928
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #115 on: November 20, 2013, 02:01:58 PM »
I would only take a hand-out if I needed it to eat. To me ER does not mean rorting the system.

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #116 on: November 20, 2013, 02:42:49 PM »
That is simply not true.  I tried to not serve on a jury and was perfectly allowed.  I simply had proof that I had surgery and a chronic illness which would make it difficult.

I should say you have to at least show up not lie.  If you get to voir dire anyway.  I'm a freaking attorney (retired; inactive) and I had to show up, then they didn't need me.  Don't show up, you might have sheriffs knocking on the door with handcuffs.  At least in some judicial districts I'm familiar with.  Not saying that applies to other areas of the country. 

Jury duty is a duty, but I'm not saying you can't get out of it.  Kinda like paying income taxes.  Just do what I do, and you won't pay much if any.  Or have a short bus full of children and that'll get you out of most income taxes. 


Quote
I look at what MMM does - he goes around and has helped people put on f'ing ADDITIONS TO HOUSES at no real labor cost (when compared to what actual labor would be). (yes, this is all in a blog but I tend to believe a lot of what he says simply because it would be way to f'ing complicated to make this a lie -- but if he wants to prove it is real, I have a 40+ year old house that could use some major upgrades including solar panel installation, changing the driveway, adding a master bedroom/suite, and modifying the layout of our main floor…. and you can visit historic philadelphia, nyc, washington, DC all while you are here -- I jest;about the proving it not about the fact that work needs to be done, wishing I could do it, and you could really visit those places).  He isn't taking advantage of government services (though I think he said he might be using some of the ACA advantages - don't remember).

Sounds like you need to step into the government handouts line.  Get some "energy efficiency tax credits".  Although then you might be on the stand here for partaking in a government program that you don't "need" (need - such a slippery word). 

CNM

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #117 on: November 20, 2013, 02:49:19 PM »
The college money is in a different category because it's for your young adult, who has not had time to build up assets.  Likewise, I have no problem with Social Security because that's an earned benefit.  If you've paid in, you should be able to receive benefits. 

The others, however, I would not use, nor would I accept the closely-related free health care for the poor (in its numerous names) or reduced-cost public housing or school-clothes-for-kids programs. Why?  Because a person should support himself, if he is able to do so.  If you need help to make ends meet, you should continue working.  Living off the public doll, if you're able to work, makes you no better than the crooks in Congress -- and I would like to think of myself as more moral than that bunch. 

Taking these unearned payments, if you are able to work, will continue to drive up the national debt, which is a huge problem that will affect us . . . But will really be our children's problem. 

If you can, through a combination of hard work and frugal living, quit working, good for you!  But looking to collect from others is nothing short of dishonest.

+1

+1

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #118 on: November 20, 2013, 04:21:45 PM »
That is simply not true.  I tried to not serve on a jury and was perfectly allowed.  I simply had proof that I had surgery and a chronic illness which would make it difficult.

I should say you have to at least show up not lie.  If you get to voir dire anyway.  I'm a freaking attorney (retired; inactive) and I had to show up, then they didn't need me.  Don't show up, you might have sheriffs knocking on the door with handcuffs.  At least in some judicial districts I'm familiar with.  Not saying that applies to other areas of the country. 

Jury duty is a duty, but I'm not saying you can't get out of it.  Kinda like paying income taxes.  Just do what I do, and you won't pay much if any.  Or have a short bus full of children and that'll get you out of most income taxes. 

Yes, the duty is just to show up if called, not to actually be empanelled (although in many places, I'm not sure that showing up is a duty on the basis of citizenship alone, since the venire is often drawn from registered voters, or licensed drivers, or some other voluntarily-entered subset of "citizens.") But even disregarding it altogether won't cost you eligibility for the benefits that you were trying to equate to a government pension.

Neither I nor my spouse has ever worked for any governmental or quasi-governmental employer that offered a tax-payer funded pension. Beyond that, we've never worked anywhere that offers any sort of defined-benefit pension, so we wouldn't even have the indirect benefit of a PBGC-backed private pension. So this isn't an interested defense of governmental pensions, just a differentiation of them (as earned compensation) from unearned benefits.

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #119 on: November 20, 2013, 05:02:10 PM »
I don't see food stamps as a handout. Food banks...yes. If you're perfectly capable of buying your own food, feel free to apply for food stamps. But don't go to your nearest church and ask for a handout there.

Same with taking, say, a tax deduction on installing energy efficient windows/appliances/whatever. If you're perfectly capable of paying for your $300/mo electric bill...feel free to spend some money upfront to get that bill lowered, and take a tax credit while you're at it. But don't put out donation cans in local businesses to raise money to get some new windows installed in your house.

How many of us have kids, didn't "need" the $1k tax credit, and refused to cash the check the IRS sent us? Anyone? But...but...that's money you "took" from the government, simply because you have kids. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD KIDS, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THEM! That argument doesn't really work, does it? Then why are we looking down on people who get food stamps because they qualify (no fraud involved), but do not "need" them? To me, the only difference is I HAVE to fill out the IRS paperwork each year, but the SNAP paperwork is optional. Other than that, I'm simply filling out some forms, giving truthful answers to the questions asked, and I (may) get some money out of it.

"But...but...intent! Intent! Food stamps were intended for people who are truly poor and don't want to be poor, not for people who have money in the bank and/or choose to be poor." Ok, who says? When I interpret the intent of a law, I don't look at what random people on the internet think the intent should be; instead, I prefer to go straight to the source. What was the intent of the people who made the law? What do they say?

Well, Tennessee's blurb on food stamps is "The Food Stamp program provides nutritional assistance benefits to children and families, the elderly, the disabled, unemployed and working families." Are you elderly, disabled, unemployed, a child, or part of a family (whether working or not)? If so...sounds like this program's for you! Ok, let's dig a bit deeper and read the actual manual, where it has these blurbs:

Quote
The Food Stamp Program is designated to promote the general welfare and to safeguard the health and well being of the Nation's population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households.

Quote
Section 2 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 states, in part: Congress hereby finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a Food Stamp Program is herein authorized which will permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power to all eligible households who apply for participation.

Ok, so when it was started in 1977, they said that they were worried about the nutrition levels among low-income households. The intent was to "alleviate such hunger and malnutrition" by "increasing food purchasing power to all eligible households who apply for participation."

Edit: The original wording I used was incorrect, it read as though in 1977 they didn't care about assets. In fact there was an asset test, but as with other laws that has been changed over the years. Below posts pointing out my error are 100% justified.

I'll agree, that's the one point where it gets a bit sticky. One side can point to "alleviate such hunger and malnutrition", where the other side can point to "all eligible households". Nowhere does it say they want to only target those who are hungry and malnourished; rather, that many low-income households have an issue with hunger and malnutrition, and they think the best way to fix it is to increase the food purchasing power to all eligible households. They don't think the best way to fix it is to simply give food to those most in need, they think the best way to fix it is to give grocery money to all those who are low-income.

So, it could go either way I guess, just based on that. But dig a bit further...hrm, looks like food stamps is largely a subsidy for farmers. A lot of the rules make sense, such as allowing lots of things that aren't really food to be classified as food (that soda and pack of cookies have lots of high fructose corn syrup which is made from...corn!). Oh, they throw out other reasons, like how it'd insult poor...er...low-income people if they were told what food they could and could not buy (so people on WIC just don't matter?); or how it'd be a logistics nightmare for supermarkets to implement (um...hello...it's me, WIC again).

A few point out that there's only a certain amount of money earmarked for food stamps. Perhaps, but that would only influence my decision if there were long waiting lists, people being denied simply because there's no more money left, or benefits being reduced so much that a truly needy family can't possibly buy enough food to live off of (if the max goes from $600 down to $500 for a family of four, and our family of four only spends $400/mo total, I wouldn't feel bad if I took the benefit; if it went down to $200 though, I may feel differently). I don't see any of those happening. All I see is that it may take a few weeks for benefits to start, and if you're in dire need they can put a rush on that.

In conclusion *applause drowns out the rest of the speech*
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 06:40:41 PM by josetann »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #120 on: November 20, 2013, 05:21:14 PM »
7 USC § 2014
(a) Income and other financial resources as substantial limiting factors in obtaining more nutritious diet; recipients under Social Security Act
Participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet.

from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2014

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #121 on: November 20, 2013, 05:22:38 PM »
7 USC § 2014
(a) Income and other financial resources as substantial limiting factors in obtaining more nutritious diet; recipients under Social Security Act
Participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet.

from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2014

Do you think the applause died down in time for him to hear that?

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #122 on: November 20, 2013, 05:34:33 PM »

Do you think the applause died down in time for him to hear that?

Ha!  Nice one.  Actually, I'm pretty pleased with josetann's response, as he directly addresses the issue of intent of the law.  My reading is that the intent is pretty clear, but he disagreed, and backed up his reasoning.  He's hanging a lot of weight on deriving intent from method, though, when that's not necessary because the intent is earlier in the passage he quoted.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #123 on: November 20, 2013, 06:02:36 PM »

Do you think the applause died down in time for him to hear that?

Ha!  Nice one.  Actually, I'm pretty pleased with josetann's response, as he directly addresses the issue of intent of the law.  My reading is that the intent is pretty clear, but he disagreed, and backed up his reasoning.  He's hanging a lot of weight on deriving intent from method, though, when that's not necessary because the intent is earlier in the passage he quoted.

You're more generous than I am. I would have said he "backed up his reasoning" in a dishonest way. His portrayal of the declaration of policy (which, to be clear to others who may be less familiar with legal interpretation, is just quoting the statement that makes it into the law itself, which is a very narrow slice of "legislative history" when it comes to demonstrating intent, but whatever) is so out-of-context as to be absurd. He claims "that they were worried about the nutrition levels among low-income households (not necessarily low-asset, just low-income)," without acknowledging that that the law they were signing included a strict asset test. To assert some meaning in the fact that the policy statement didn't address assets, without acknowledging that the law being adopted by the Congress making that policy statement itself imposed an asset limit, is seriously misleading in my book.  Take a look at Section 5(g) of the Act as it was originally adopted. But since he's gone "straight to the source," there's no way he could have an incomplete understanding, right?

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #124 on: November 20, 2013, 06:28:33 PM »
Do you think the applause died down in time for him to hear that?

Well, everyone cleared out so quickly, I thought I was in the middle of a marathon for a moment. Only a few people got trampled trying to get out, doctors say they should make a full recovery.

You're more generous than I am. I would have said he "backed up his reasoning" in a dishonest way.
....
To assert some meaning in the fact that the policy statement didn't address assets, without acknowledging that the law being adopted by the Congress making that policy statement itself imposed an asset limit, is seriously misleading in my book.  Take a look at Section 5(g) of the Act as it was originally adopted.

A fair point. That said, laws have a funny way of changing over time. Should we only look to the original Constitution that was written so long ago, or should we include all the changes that have been made since then?

At one point the law may have said I could drive at any speed that was reasonable and prudent. Today the law may say the speed limit is 70mph. Should I drive 90mph if I believe it's reasonable and prudent, since the law originally stated such? Or accept the fact that laws have changed, and try to keep it under 70-ish?

The law that was written and is still in force, says that they wanted to provide assistance to all "eligible" people. True, the definition of "eligible" may have changed over time, and even today may vary from state to state. Still, when I read it as it stands today, it says something like "This program is meant for all eligible people. To be eligible in Tennessee, you need less than $Y in non-exempt assets, and be making under $X per week/month/year." X and Y may change over the years. Asset test could be taken out altogether. The whole program may eventually be discarded. But that's how it reads right now.

I do admit I could have worded the previous post a bit better. The way I worded it is misleading, I apologize. I edited that part out, and left a note acknowledging my error (else subsequent posts pointing out my error would seem out of place).
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 06:45:08 PM by josetann »

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #125 on: November 20, 2013, 06:51:45 PM »
7 USC § 2014
(a) Income and other financial resources as substantial limiting factors in obtaining more nutritious diet; recipients under Social Security Act
Participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet.

from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2014

Who's doing the determining though? If the decision lies mainly with the individual, then I will agree 100% (ok, maybe 98%) with you. But all the individual is doing is giving out their information (disclosing assets, income level, information about who's living in your household, etc.).

It's a stretch, but I could see someone's point of view if they say "Well, you determined you needed assistance just by filling out the documentation!" I wouldn't agree, but I'd understand where you're coming from.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #126 on: November 20, 2013, 07:08:23 PM »
7 USC § 2014
(a) Income and other financial resources as substantial limiting factors in obtaining more nutritious diet; recipients under Social Security Act
Participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet.

from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2014

Who's doing the determining though? If the decision lies mainly with the individual, then I will agree 100% (ok, maybe 98%) with you. But all the individual is doing is giving out their information (disclosing assets, income level, information about who's living in your household, etc.).

It's a stretch, but I could see someone's point of view if they say "Well, you determined you needed assistance just by filling out the documentation!" I wouldn't agree, but I'd understand where you're coming from.

Well, you do have to apply for benefits, and then be determined to be eligible, so I think it's both.  You have to judge that you deserve the benefits, and then the government has to agree with you.

LRS

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #127 on: November 20, 2013, 07:11:48 PM »
I think Undecided's analysis of legislative intent based on the actual language of the statute pretty much refutes the central thrust of josetann's contentions, and I'll defer to him or her to refute josetann's follow-up legal arguments, which I think are even more confused as to the nature of legislation and the interpretation of statutory language. But I'd like to supplement with a little nonlegal, intuition-based argument that gets to what I think is the core of this issue.

By my reading, josetann's position seems essentially to be that, because the legislature specified that the intent of the welfare legislation was to benefit low-income households, a high-wealth low-income household claiming welfare is not actually subverting the intent of the legislature.

I can't agree. I think this a case of the legislature using the term "low-income" as an imprecise and possibly more politically correct proxy for "poor." This false equivalency does hold in most cases, as the vast majority of low-income households are also low-wealth and legitimately poor, and so it is, as they say, good enough for government work. But my intuition is that, if you were to ask the legislature whether they intended the program to cover people with hundreds of thousands of dollars of net worth socked away in tax-advantaged retirement accounts and home equity who have structured their distributions in ways that keep their income relatively low, the legislature's answer would be a resounding no.

That the legislature did a poor job of reducing its intent to statutory language might render welfare claims by high-wealth individuals legal; it does not necessarily render them right. The position articulated by josetann seems to be roughly on the same moral footing as "neener neener, I'm not actually touching you" (people who have spent much time around small children know what I'm talking about).

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #128 on: November 20, 2013, 07:35:09 PM »

By my reading, josetann's position seems essentially to be that, because the legislature specified that the intent of the welfare legislation was to benefit low-income households, a high-wealth low-income household claiming welfare is not actually subverting the intent of the legislature.

I can't agree. I think this a case of the legislature using the term "low-income" as an imprecise and possibly more politically correct proxy for "poor." This false equivalency does hold in most cases, as the vast majority of low-income households are also low-wealth and legitimately poor, and so it is, as they say, good enough for government work.

Yes, I tried, perhaps miserably, to make a similar point above, that the written standard can be an imperfect expression of the actual intent. You've pointed out that the two-sentence written summation of the vast and complex development of a law might also be an imperfect expression of the actual intent. I don't particularly feel any need to further refute josetann's position. Perhaps s/he really thinks that it's important to develop and articulate a portrayal of the intent of STAMP, or a school lunch program, or any other benefit program, that helps a mid-thirties millionaire rest confidently in the believe that he should take the benefit. Like I said, I'm not sure that one's choice to participate in any one program within the vast network of taxes and benefits should be seen as a matter for extensive ethical deliberation. But I don't have to respect wealthy people who choose to take those benefits.   

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #129 on: November 20, 2013, 07:55:34 PM »
I can't agree. I think this a case of the legislature using the term "low-income" as an imprecise and possibly more politically correct proxy for "poor." This false equivalency does hold in most cases, as the vast majority of low-income households are also low-wealth and legitimately poor, and so it is, as they say, good enough for government work. But my intuition is that, if you were to ask the legislature whether they intended the program to cover people with hundreds of thousands of dollars of net worth socked away in tax-advantaged retirement accounts and home equity who have structured their distributions in ways that keep their income relatively low, the legislature's answer would be a resounding no.

*Disclaimer, rules vary by state; I've looked up the rules for Tennessee, so please don't scream "YOU'RE AN IDIOT!" if what I say isn't true in your state. Just tell me how it is in your state, and correct me if I got Tennessee's rules wrong.

At one point, retirement assets counted against you when applying for various programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, etc. Now, not so much.

If it's their intent to only provide food stamps to those with low income and low assets, then why would they go to the trouble of specifically excluding assets in retirement accounts (especially when the law as originally written counted those assets)?

I think the main reason they stopped looking at retirement assets, is because a lot of people were getting on food stamps and realizing "Hey, if I keep saving money, I'll go over this $2k asset thingy, and will stop getting food stamps. Then I'll have to use that money to buy food. Then I'll go below $2k and can get food stamps again. Which means I can save more, and go over $2k in assets. Which means I'll get kicked off again...." An obvious solution (from the individual's point of view) is to make sure their assets never go above $2k. If they get a windfall, they better spend it as fast as possible. Which is poor money management.

Now, we don't want people with millions in various investment accounts to qualify for food stamps (I doubt many would bother, but all it takes is one person to make the headlines). But we do want to encourage people to save SOMETHING for their future. Oh hey, there's an idea...feel free to put money in retirement accounts. It's ok, it won't affect present/future eligibility for food stamps (of course it may affect future eligibility because laws change...but let's not point this out). Now Billy Bob who works on and off, feels confident to save money in a Roth IRA when he is working. If he gets laid off, they won't look at his Roth IRA balance to determine eligibility (yes, you must disclose the account, but it won't count against you), so he'll get benefits right away. That Roth can grow and grow during his years of on-again off-again working career. Eventually work dries up, but he's got a hundred thousand or so in retirement accounts. Not enough to live off of, but he's less of a burden on society.

Anyways...let me get to the point before the rest of you fall asleep.

- Food stamp program started to help out poor people.

- Program doesn't work 100% as expected, there's some flaws found that need to be ironed out.

- One issue is that people on food stamps may not be saving as much as they should (could?) be, and may be becoming dependent on the program.

- Changing the program to encourage saving for retirement may help. If we can get low-income people to save for retirement, maybe they won't be as much of a burden now and in the future.

- Lawmakers make changes to the food stamp program, in the hopes of encouraging people to save for retirement.

- A higher percentage of people on food stamps now have retirement savings of varying amounts.

- People are now upset that many on food stamps have money in a retirement account.

Yup, sounds about right.

stevewisc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #130 on: November 20, 2013, 08:34:40 PM »
A challenge with government programs like the ones listed is that they encourage people to take things from government (the recipients and their neighbors) on the justification that the rules allow it, and also maybe they paid in and deserve some back.  This encourages more programs as the politicians and government employees and some recipients benefit, while the community as a whole is worse off. 

The concern with this logic and attitude is then so many things can be justified that lead to massive problems for our communities.  For example, if the government wants to hire you for a web site because you are friends with the specifier but they don't have a clause requiring it to work for you to get paid why worry if it works - you still get paid? 

It's legal to lobby so if you spend $1 million lobbing for a $20 million special tax loophole this may be legal but is it moral?   

It's legal to request grant money from the DOE for research and if you spend most of the money on a big salary and travel but your research but turns out nothing useful is that moral?  (Per the contract it was legal) 

Too many legal but immoral decisions will cause much of society to not work very well. 
 

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #131 on: November 20, 2013, 09:01:18 PM »
Well, you do have to apply for benefits, and then be determined to be eligible, so I think it's both.  You have to judge that you deserve the benefits, and then the government has to agree with you.

Just hypothetical here...but what if someone simply hands you the form to fill out, you ask "What's this for?" and they say "Just want to see if you are eligible for XYZ benefits." I don't think I've seen the actual form used, but I have played with the online eligibility calculator for SNAP (food stamps). At no point did it say "Hey, this is only to be used if you're experiencing a financial hardship/inability to properly feed your family." In fact, the only time I've seen anything like that, was in regards to getting IMMEDIATE assistance, vs the weeks it may take otherwise.

Anyways....

It's a very, very slippery slope, that's all. Let's say that food stamps started out as being for everybody. Ok, no one looks down on anyone else using them to buy food. Now, make it just for poor people. There's a stigma attached now, and lots of judging. "Hey, look at that woman buying food using MY money! She's wearing nice clothes and has a newish iphone, that b****! She's stealing from me, I'm outraged and I'm going to confront her!" That's great...except maybe she bought those things before losing a well paying job. Perhaps she could sell the $200 designer clothes on Craigslist for $15, but then she won't look as presentable at the job interviews she goes to (in fact, she just left one; else she would have worn jeans and a t-shirt). The industry she's in requires immediate availability to land a job, so she does need a smart-ish phone with a data plan (when my wife did travel nursing, you had to be quick to get submitted to an opening; wait an hour and you may be #80 and not even looked at). Maybe she's an authorized card user, and an elderly relative is the one with the food stamp benefits (yelling "How dare you do the grocery shopping for your disabled aunt and use her food stamps!" just doesn't have a good ring to it).

Anyways, we judge. Lots of people who could really benefit from the program decide to not apply, because of the stigma. And they look down on others who do apply. Those who are on the program are full of self-loathing. Maybe they get so depressed that things have got this bad, that they lose the will to dig themselves out.

It makes it much easier to judge people for other things, like filing a claim on your insurance. "Whoa now, who said anything about filing claims on insurance, I wouldn't have a problem with that, you're putting words in my mouth!" Oh, ok, I was under the false impression that people who are against non-needy people taking food stamps, might also be against non-needy people filing for Unemployment Insurance. You know, the INSURANCE which has premiums paid (whether by you, your employer, or both), and if a covered event occurs, you can file a claim.

I would absolutely love it if we could try to change the laws themselves, and not attack the people that are following said laws. You think people with $100k in a 401k shouldn't qualify for food stamps? Let your Congressman know! And Senator, tell the people at the state level as well. Start a website. Start a petition. Let your opinion be known and try to rally support. But please don't look down on people who are taking part in the current program, or speak ill of their morals.

I'm not saying I love the current program, don't want a thing to change, etc. I'm only arguing against the way many of us judge people who are following the rules, not lying or cheating, etc. Oh, and it looked like RootofGood could use some backup.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 09:03:18 PM by josetann »

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #132 on: November 20, 2013, 09:17:01 PM »

I'm not saying I love the current program, don't want a thing to change, etc. I'm only arguing against the way many of us judge people who are following the rules, not lying or cheating, etc. Oh, and it looked like RootofGood could use some backup.

Some of what you're saying is reasonable, no doubt, but I think you're arguing against not just "the way" many of us judge people (which of course you don't really know, unless we tell you), but against all judging of people "following the rules." My judgment has been reserved for those who describe their circumstances, boasting of wealth, very early retirement, and the decision to collect, or the consideration of collecting, food assistance benefits. I don't insist that you should share in my judgment, but I'm completely comfortable in making it.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #133 on: November 20, 2013, 09:26:48 PM »
Well, you do have to apply for benefits, and then be determined to be eligible, so I think it's both.  You have to judge that you deserve the benefits, and then the government has to agree with you.

It's a very, very slippery slope, that's all.

No, not really.  You need assistance paying for food? I'm sorry about that - we should give you money so that you don't go hungry.  Do you not need money to pay for food? Then you probably shouldn't apply for food stamps. 

Your point about savings is well taken, but that's not the issue here.  The question posed was whether one would take SNAP benefits in early retirement.

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #134 on: November 20, 2013, 10:04:47 PM »
My judgment has been reserved for those who describe their circumstances, boasting of wealth, very early retirement, and the decision to collect, or the consideration of collecting, food assistance benefits.

So the takeaway is, if you have some money stashed away and retired early, don't tell anyone that you qualified for food stamps with the current system in place? Quite the contrary, I think we should applaud these people. Whether it's because they helped me realize I could stretch my retirement dollars further; or because they alerted me to a loophole that countless others (who aren't so forthcoming) are taking advantage of, so now I can petition my representatives to close that loophole stat!

I don't insist that you should share in my judgment, but I'm completely comfortable in making it.

I really want to agree with this statement. If you replace "judgment" with "values", I'm with you 100%. Else...I guess I'm with you 50%?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 10:10:42 PM by josetann »

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #135 on: November 20, 2013, 10:26:54 PM »
No, not really.  You need assistance paying for food? I'm sorry about that - we should give you money so that you don't go hungry.  Do you not need money to pay for food? Then you probably shouldn't apply for food stamps. 

As has been alluded to already..."need" is such a subjective thing. Do I "need" both shelter and food? I mean, if I can scrounge up $500/mo, shouldn't I be paying for food instead of an apartment? Or let's say I have just enough money for food and shelter; I don't "need" electricity or indoor plumbing. I don't "need" to live near family, you can relocate me to the middle of nowhere. I don't "need" phone service, if I need an ambulance I'll just light one of these flares (shouldn't have an ordinance against lighting flares, all the poor people will be moved out of the expensive cities). I don't "need" internet service. I don't "need" an ipad to watch videos and let my kids play educational games. I don't "need"...ok, you get the picture. There's a lot of things that aren't strictly necessary, but our society either considers it a need, or there's at least a decent argument for letting poor people have access to it (I don't mind if a poor person has an ipad, especially if it's taking the place of a desktop, laptop, ebook reader, etc.).

As I read the current legislation, if your income and non-retirement assets are below a certain amount, then you're deemed to be in need of various forms of assistance. I may think a shelter with three walls and a roof is sufficient, but society may think otherwise. I may think peeing on the grass and going #2 in a hole is sufficient, but society may think otherwise. I may think living on $18k/yr is way more than sufficient, but society may think otherwise.

Your point about savings is well taken, but that's not the issue here.  The question posed was whether one would take SNAP benefits in early retirement.

That was the ORIGINAL issue (which I answered pages ago; said I thought it'd be ethical to take SNAP and other benefits in retirement, but would not consider one FI if they depended on those programs). But the conversation drifted toward the morality of taking said benefits. In another few pages, we may be discussing the merits of colonizing Mars (fyi, I say let's do it).

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #136 on: November 20, 2013, 11:04:53 PM »
No, not really.  You need assistance paying for food? I'm sorry about that - we should give you money so that you don't go hungry.  Do you not need money to pay for food? Then you probably shouldn't apply for food stamps. 

As has been alluded to already..."need" is such a subjective thing.

Do you think you need food stamps? If you had two million dollars in retirement assets, and considered yourself retired, would you consider yourself to need those benefits? If yes, I'd be interested to hear why.

That was the ORIGINAL issue (which I answered pages ago; said I thought it'd be ethical to take SNAP and other benefits in retirement, but would not consider one FI if they depended on those programs). But the conversation drifted toward the morality of taking said benefits. In another few pages, we may be discussing the merits of colonizing Mars (fyi, I say let's do it).

No thanks. 

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #137 on: November 20, 2013, 11:54:38 PM »
Do you think you need food stamps? If you had two million dollars in retirement assets, and considered yourself retired, would you consider yourself to need those benefits? If yes, I'd be interested to hear why.

I may not, but the government might think otherwise.

Family of four, Tennessee, the maximum NET income per month you can make and still qualify for food stamps is $1,963. That's after deductions (such as utility bills, rent payment, etc.). That's nearly $24k/yr in spending (more if you count the deductions). I don't "need" that much, what I "need" would be closer to $12k/yr. That said, if I had $600k in retirement accounts and was drawing about $2k/mo to lead a comfortable lifestyle, and learned that society thought I was in "need" of food stamps, I'd have no issue with applying. Heck, I might drop that $2k/mo down to $1,750, since that coupled with food stamps would be around the $2k I was spending before.

If I had $2 million in retirement assets, that's what...$80k/yr at 4% SWR, and $60k/yr at a 3% SWR. To be perfectly honest, I'd probably let hedonistic adaptation set in and never be able to qualify for food stamps anyways.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #138 on: November 21, 2013, 12:03:56 AM »
Do you think you need food stamps? If you had two million dollars in retirement assets, and considered yourself retired, would you consider yourself to need those benefits? If yes, I'd be interested to hear why.

I may not, but the government might think otherwise.

Family of four, Tennessee, the maximum NET income per month you can make and still qualify for food stamps is $1,963. That's after deductions (such as utility bills, rent payment, etc.). That's nearly $24k/yr in spending (more if you count the deductions). I don't "need" that much, what I "need" would be closer to $12k/yr. That said, if I had $600k in retirement accounts and was drawing about $2k/mo to lead a comfortable lifestyle, and learned that society thought I was in "need" of food stamps, I'd have no issue with applying. Heck, I might drop that $2k/mo down to $1,750, since that coupled with food stamps would be around the $2k I was spending before.

If I had $2 million in retirement assets, that's what...$80k/yr at 4% SWR, and $60k/yr at a 3% SWR. To be perfectly honest, I'd probably let hedonistic adaptation set in and never be able to qualify for food stamps anyways.

Right, so the question is at the level that you would retire. If you think you have enough money to never have to work again, why would you take benefits intended to feed people who don't have enough money to healthfully feed themselves?

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #139 on: November 21, 2013, 12:22:45 AM »
Right, so the question is at the level that you would retire. If you think you have enough money to never have to work again, why would you take benefits intended to feed people who don't have enough money to healthfully feed themselves?

The same reason I take the $1k per kid tax credit from the IRS, even though I don't need it and frankly think I shouldn't be able to qualify. Or take an energy credit for a new energy efficient appliance that I bought before learning about the tax credit (credit/deduction/refund/whatever).

To get me to give the answer you're wanting, we'd have to make some significant changes to food stamps. #1, there would need to be a set amount of money allocated to food stamps (Congress can't/won't just increase the amount allocated if there were a lot of people signing up; $X is allocated, whether one person or 100 million apply for benefits). Now, if I apply, I am literally taking money from others (whether they're truly in need, or like me and could get by without, is another story). #2, the amount that is currently available would need to be at or below an amount that I think a family of four can reasonably survive on. So...if I'm spending $400/mo, and think that's cutting it close...and benefits are currently $200/mo for a family of four; no, I'm not going to apply. Even if the amount is $450, I probably wouldn't apply (I could cut spending, there's a bit of waste even at $400/mo...but then I have to add in the whole "grocery deserts", and would probably come up with $450 or so as a baseline). But wait, grocery costs should go down during the school year thanks to free/reduced school lunches, food stamp benefits roll over...argh! As it is, the current maximum one could get is $632/mo for a family of four (down from $668 earlier this year, yeah there's been recent cuts).

I guess the only way to know for sure if I'd apply, is to wait and see if I ever end up applying. Otherwise, I might be here ranting and raving "Of COURSE I'd apply," but chicken out if the situation ever arose. I'll still try my best to not judge those who are on food stamps (without getting them fraudulently, of course).
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 12:35:13 AM by josetann »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #140 on: November 21, 2013, 12:32:32 AM »
Right, so the question is at the level that you would retire. If you think you have enough money to never have to work again, why would you take benefits intended to feed people who don't have enough money to healthfully feed themselves?

The same reason I take the $1k per kid tax credit from the IRS, even though I don't need it and frankly think I shouldn't be able to qualify. Or take an energy credit for a new energy efficient appliance that I bought before learning about the tax credit (credit/deduction/refund/whatever).


I'm not sure about the intended purpose of the tax credit for children, but I'd argue that you perfectly meet the intended goal of an energy efficient appliance: to reduce the energy used by installed appliances.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #141 on: November 21, 2013, 12:35:45 AM »
Right, so the question is at the level that you would retire. If you think you have enough money to never have to work again, why would you take benefits intended to feed people who don't have enough money to healthfully feed themselves?

To get me to give the answer you're wanting, we'd have to make some significant changes to food stamps. #1, there would need to be a set amount of money allocated to food stamps (Congress couldn't just increase the amount allocated if there were a lot of people signing up; $X is allocated, whether one person or 100 million apply for benefits). Now, if I apply, I am literally taking money from others (whether they're truly in need, or like me and could get by without, is another story).

So, assuming your other conditions, you'd be okay with having those who aren't retired, who are paying taxes to pay for this program designed to make sure hungry people are fed, pay higher taxes because you've structured your income in such a way as to be eligible for SNAP?

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #142 on: November 21, 2013, 12:46:06 AM »
I'm not sure about the intended purpose of the tax credit for children, but I'd argue that you perfectly meet the intended goal of an energy efficient appliance: to reduce the energy used by installed appliances.

Right, the intent of a tax credit for installing an energy efficient appliance would be to encourage people to purchase energy efficient appliances (whether to reduce energy used, or as a favor to the energy efficient appliance lobby). I'd argue that the intent of the current food stamp program is to give grocery money to those with a low income, and encourage them to save/preserve retirement funds (or maybe it's just to repay a favor to the high-fructose corn syrup lobby).

The person who bought the appliance before finding out about the credit obviously didn't "need" the tax credit to help pay for the purchase. Just as the person who was surviving on $2k/mo without food stamps didn't "need" food stamps to help pay for their groceries. Or at least, they didn't think they had the need.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #143 on: November 21, 2013, 12:54:17 AM »
I'm not sure about the intended purpose of the tax credit for children, but I'd argue that you perfectly meet the intended goal of an energy efficient appliance: to reduce the energy used by installed appliances.

Right, the intent of a tax credit for installing an energy efficient appliance would be to encourage people to purchase energy efficient appliances (whether to reduce energy used, or as a favor to the energy efficient appliance lobby). I'd argue that the intent of the current food stamp program is to give grocery money to those with a low income, and encourage them to save/preserve retirement funds (or maybe it's just to repay a favor to the high-fructose corn syrup lobby).

The person who bought the appliance before finding out about the credit obviously didn't "need" the tax credit to help pay for the purchase. Just as the person who was surviving on $2k/mo without food stamps didn't "need" food stamps to help pay for their groceries. Or at least, they didn't think they had the need.

Fine, let's not use need.  It seems that "need is nebulous" is the most common refrain here, so let's go back to the text:
7 USC § 2014
(a) Income and other financial resources as substantial limiting factors in obtaining more nutritious diet; recipients under Social Security Act
Participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet.

In the case where you have voluntarily retired, do you think that your income and assets are "a substantial limiting factor in permitting [you] to obtain a more nutritious diet?"

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #144 on: November 21, 2013, 12:56:41 AM »
So, assuming your other conditions, you'd be okay with having those who aren't retired, who are paying taxes to pay for this program designed to make sure hungry people are fed, pay higher taxes because you've structured your income in such a way as to be eligible for SNAP?

I may not agree with all the laws, but I do (try) to follow (most of) them. Some are beneficial to me. Some hinder me. The majority of the people chose the majority of representatives that passed these laws (yes, I know that's not 100% accurate...work with me here). If people don't like the current laws, they need to try to get them changed. Get enough support, you can make a difference.

I'll try to do my part and point out how the current system works. If I'm able to live in a foreign country and still able to get the $1k per child tax credit, even though I never stepped foot in the US or paid a single cent in US taxes for the entire calendar year...I'll point it out. If that's ok with you, then thanks! If not, then see what you can do to get this changed. In the same vein, I may not like the current public school system in my hometown. I can either not say anything and hope it magically changes, homeschool my kids, or try to change the way things run (or find a good school on the other side of the world, but that may be a bit drastic for most).

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #145 on: November 21, 2013, 01:04:55 AM »
Fine, let's not use need.  It seems that "need is nebulous" is the most common refrain here, so let's go back to the text:
7 USC § 2014
(a) Income and other financial resources as substantial limiting factors in obtaining more nutritious diet; recipients under Social Security Act
Participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet.

In the case where you have voluntarily retired, do you think that your income and assets are "a substantial limiting factor in permitting [you] to obtain a more nutritious diet?"

That's still "need", just fancied up a bit. So the government determined that my income and financial resources are a substantial limiting factor in permitting me to obtain a more nutritious diet. I disagree with them. They want to give me extra money to "permit" me to obtain a more nutritious diet. Well, I guess that's exactly what they're accomplishing. I may not actually eat a healthier diet, but I am "permitted" to obtain a more nutritious diet (i.e., if I have $400/mo that I didn't have before, I'm sure I can figure out a way to get more nutrition in my diet; I may not exercise that option though).

It's still a bit of double-talk though. On the one hand, they're saying something that really helps make your point. Then they turn around and make my point. So, the program is meant for those truly in need, score one for you! Then they go on to define that need, score one for me!

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #146 on: November 21, 2013, 08:23:15 AM »
So the takeaway is, if you have some money stashed away and retired early, don't tell anyone that you qualified for food stamps with the current system in place? Quite the contrary, I think we should applaud these people. Whether it's because they helped me realize I could stretch my retirement dollars further; or because they alerted me to a loophole that countless others (who aren't so forthcoming) are taking advantage of, so now I can petition my representatives to close that loophole stat!

I'd like to see most of these handouts curtailed, and I'm a little surprised the mustachian community isn't a little more enraged at the extent to which you can do very little and still receive a mint from the helpful government.  Particularly if you pop out a few kids. 


I think SNAP gets the eligibility rules right for the most part, except I might change the law to exempt only a set amount of retirement assets ($100,000 or some biggish number in the eyes of the common people).  Retirement funding is different than it was in '77 when the food stamp law was enacted.  Pensions are rare for new employees outside government/union/non-profit employment.  Now we have defined contribution plans that are assets on our balance sheets (unlike pension rights).  But you don't want to dissuade hungry people from starting or continuing to save for retirement, and maybe you don't want to impoverish them in their old age by requiring a total depletion of their retirement accounts. 

I understand that many people are unhappy that someone can participate in the programs even though they don't "need" them.  I'm unhappy too because it's a waste of money.  But then I realize my unhappiness is focused on the wrong place.  The laws themselves are screwed up.  The crafters of our laws know how to narrowly tailor eligibility requirements, because they do so for some programs but not all.  I assume that was deliberate, given my faith in the competency and impartiality of lawmakers (/sarcasm). 

As for arguments that "administrative burden to enforce is too great" - there's already a system in place by means of the EIC or other tests.  Figure out the test parameters, and have a central clearinghouse for eligibility determination (just don't hire the Obamacare programmers to develop that platform).  Then social workers don't have to sort through literally reams of paperwork to determine whether someone qualifies.  They can click a button, pop in your SS or TIN, and get a green light or red light for eligibility for a particular program.  The "system" already works this way to a certain extent, as there are tons of cross eligibility classifications for the various social programs out there (if you get SNAP, you get free school lunches for example). 

I say publicly over and over that all these handouts are stupid and the tax code is stupid, and here's ways to fix them, but then avail myself of tax breaks and credits and those benefits for which I qualify.  I'm not comfortable with the system, but I'm comfortable with the general notion that people should (and will) participate in a program if they will benefit.  Warren Buffett has done the same thing - he derides the tax code for allowing him to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, but sends no additional checks to the Treasury.  And he has a team of tax accountants and attorneys and CFO's (for his holdings) to keep his personal and corporate tax liability to a minimum. 

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #147 on: November 21, 2013, 08:41:00 AM »
In response to "but if you are early retired and have X million dollars, do you "need" more money from government programs?":

You wouldn't know you need the help from government programs until it might be too late.  If I have a million dollars, and the government wants to give me $200 more dollars this year (retirement savings contribution credit, for example), I will take it if I qualify.  Having $1,000,200 means more safety and security than having an even million. 

By all reasonable measures, my "million dollars" has a 95-99% chance of lasting my lifetime.  Even higher if I add "cut spending" or "find a little supplemental income" to my repertoire of wealth management tools.  But hey, you never know what you'll end up "needing" down the road.  I could work for 10 more years and get 2 million or 3 million dollars saved.  It still wouldn't change the fact that more money means more security for myself and my family.


Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #148 on: November 21, 2013, 08:49:40 AM »
In response to "but if you are early retired and have X million dollars, do you "need" more money from government programs?":

You wouldn't know you need the help from government programs until it might be too late.  If I have a million dollars, and the government wants to give me $200 more dollars this year (retirement savings contribution credit, for example), I will take it if I qualify.  Having $1,000,200 means more safety and security than having an even million. 

By all reasonable measures, my "million dollars" has a 95-99% chance of lasting my lifetime.  Even higher if I add "cut spending" or "find a little supplemental income" to my repertoire of wealth management tools.  But hey, you never know what you'll end up "needing" down the road.  I could work for 10 more years and get 2 million or 3 million dollars saved.  It still wouldn't change the fact that more money means more security for myself and my family.

If a person is confident enough to choose, by that person's own standard, against working, to live off assets they consider sufficient, then these arguments, voiced in defense of such a person's receipt of assistance from these programs, are the thinnest attempts to justify selfishness and exploitation, in my opinion. Such a person could easily point out his or her farcical eligibility, without collecting, if the real point is to encourage legislative reconsideration.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 08:52:31 AM by Undecided »

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #149 on: November 21, 2013, 08:58:59 AM »
If a person is confident enough to choose, by that person's own standard, against working, then these arguments, voiced in defense of such a person's receipt of assistance from these programs, are the thinnest attempts to justify selfishness and exploitation, in my opinion. Such a person could easily point out his or her farcical eligibility, without collecting, if the real point is to encourage legislative reconsideration.

Ex post on my deathbed, I could tell you with certainty that I did or did not need a particular benefit that I was eligible for. 

Ex ante, which is how us non-time traveling humans make decisions, I couldn't tell you. 

And if you are ER like me, it's not necessarily that you choose to not work, it's just that you haven't found the right opportunity that meets your subjective criteria of what you want in a paid job.  Maybe I'm picky in what I'm willing to work for and what I'm willing to do.  Doesn't mean I'm not willing to work.  In fact, through volunteer work, I do work, just not for money.  I choose to do what I want today.  I would say I am more financially "responsible" than 95% of the population because I have prepared for a rainy day, and then some.  And I am producing multiple additional taxpayers that will become productive members of society one day too.  In fact, I'm probably laying the groundwork for generations of my progeny to become productive taxpayers!  I'm even helping my non-progeny become productive taxpayers (through tutoring and mentoring)! 

The reality is that 10 or 15 years down the road, I may be destitute (through no fault of my own).  I'm certain I wouldn't garner any additional sympathy (or nickels) if the cardboard sign I held by the side of the road read "Spare some change?  I didn't partake of thousands of dollars from the EIC 15 years ago when I could have". 

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!