Woe is Me

[Maggie]

Dcb of this mom came in this morning and tells me that if his older brother, who is 13 and always in trouble, brings up his grades mom is going to buy him a PlayStation 4, so nope no sympathy from me.

[spud912]

I agree about the extras, but there is a huge gap for a person/family when they get a raise and then lose out on assistance. So a nominal raise can disqualify them from assistance so that their total income takes a huge drop due to a raise. I think it's called the Welfare Cliff.

I don't think assistance should help families forever, but there should something in place to encourage rather than discourage people to get off of it.

For my family, even with two kids, we made JUST over (by like 1-2k) the EIC limit the past couple years. So essentially, DH getting a raise resulted in a much lower tax refund and in the end we actually made less.

Yes, we are at the cusp of assistance but manage without. We did get EIC last year but I'm thinking we might be over by barely anything this year (like maybe $50 or something). We are expecting our third child this summer so 2014 taxes should earn us EIC again.

What I find interesting is that our lifestyle (although different) is very much just as enriching or more so as when we made double our current income (before I quit to do home daycare). I wouldn't change our current situation though because I would rather scrape together and spend these precious few years with our children when they are young. I have the rest of my life to "go back to work" and make money .

I think there is a word or saying for those of us who barely don't qualify for assistance and actually live significantly "poorer" than those who make a couple thousand less and qualify for assistance.

[Wubby]

I agree about the extras, but there is a huge gap for a person/family when they get a raise and then lose out on assistance. So a nominal raise can disqualify them from assistance so that their total income takes a huge drop due to a raise. I think it's called the Welfare Cliff.

I don't think assistance should help families forever, but there should something in place to encourage rather than discourage people to get off of it.

For my family, even with two kids, we made JUST over (by like 1-2k) the EIC limit the past couple years. So essentially, DH getting a raise resulted in a much lower tax refund and in the end we actually made less.

My main problem with this is, she spent $1500 on new tires, won't get rid of a $90 tv bill, $120 cell phone bill. The kids have DsI's, x-box, playstation, their own computers. She has been on assistance for close to 12 years. I reduced her daycare bill to within $100 of what her state help was, but she still cried and complained that she had no money.

On the flip side, I have a single parent, with no child support, no state assistance for anything , and she drives a 2002, no cable, basic cell, everything the kids have are hand me downs. They don't eat out or have any video games.

Parent #1 was only making $1.00 an hour less than parent #2. Now she is making .50 cents less. I think my problem with this is, she acts like she is entitled to the assistance, that she shouldn't have to reduce her lifestyle. Assistance has given her the ability to live that lifestyle. Now she is one of the working poor. They have to know that sooner or later it is going to end.

[spud912]

My main problem with this is, she spent $1500 on new tires, won't get rid of a $90 tv bill, $120 cell phone bill. The kids have DsI's, x-box, playstation, their own computers. She has been on assistance for close to 12 years. I reduced her daycare bill to within $100 of what her state help was, but she still cried and complained that she had no money.

On the flip side, I have a single parent, with no child support, no state assistance for anything , and she drives a 2002, no cable, basic cell, everything the kids have are hand me downs. They don't eat out or have any video games.

Parent #1 was only making $1.00 an hour less than parent #2. Now she is making .50 cents less. I think my problem with this is, she acts like she is entitled to the assistance, that she shouldn't have to reduce her lifestyle. Assistance has given her the ability to live that lifestyle. Now she is one of the working poor. They have to know that sooner or later it is going to end.

See, the problem here lies in that there IS a huge gap between assistance and no assistance. I hope this doesn't come out wrong or insensitive, BUT if perhaps those on assistance (at least on the higher end) received less than they currently do, there would be more motivation to get out of the hole they are in and work harder to obtain those luxuries.

Like I said, we are on the cusp of assistance AND actually live pretty comfortably in my opinion without assistance. Yes, we don't have cable and we don't go on many trips. We don't purchase new clothing often and we cut our own hair. We price match our groceries and bargain shop. We do cut a lot of corners, but we live very happily and get what we need (and sometimes we even splurge). If we were to get assistance, we would have a pretty big surplus of money (well, for us anyway) and I can see why so many who are on assistance can afford many luxuries we cannot.

I've heard of so many who reject raises because it would put them in a higher bracket, thus making any raise more like a significant pay cut. There needs to be more inherent motivation.

[Wubby]

See, the problem here lies in that there IS a huge gap between assistance and no assistance. I hope this doesn't come out wrong or insensitive, BUT if perhaps those on assistance (at least on the higher end) received less than they currently do, there would be more motivation to get out of the hole they are in and work harder to obtain those luxuries.

Like I said, we are on the cusp of assistance AND actually live pretty comfortably in my opinion without assistance. Yes, we don't have cable and we don't go on many trips. We don't purchase new clothing often and we cut our own hair. We price match our groceries and bargain shop. We do cut a lot of corners, but we live very happily and get what we need (and sometimes we even splurge). If we were to get assistance, we would have a pretty big surplus of money (well, for us anyway) and I can see why so many who are on assistance can afford many luxuries we cannot.

I've heard of so many who reject raises because it would put them in a higher bracket, thus making any raise more like a significant pay cut. There needs to be more inherent motivation.

Yes, to everything you said. Those that are on the edge are the working poor. Not those on assistance.

We have a $25,000 hospital bill, no assistance for us because we make $125.00 a year to much. They would of wiped out our bill. Now I am paying $300 a month for this bill.

[hwichlaz]

I agree about the extras, but there is a huge gap for a person/family when they get a raise and then lose out on assistance. So a nominal raise can disqualify them from assistance so that their total income takes a huge drop due to a raise. I think it's called the Welfare Cliff.

I don't think assistance should help families forever, but there should something in place to encourage rather than discourage people to get off of it.

For my family, even with two kids, we made JUST over (by like 1-2k) the EIC limit the past couple years. So essentially, DH getting a raise resulted in a much lower tax refund and in the end we actually made less.

Yes, it makes it nearly impossible to work your way off of it, because a 50 cent raise can loose you $1000 in daycare benefits.

[Oss_cc]

See, the problem here lies in that there IS a huge gap between assistance and no assistance. I hope this doesn't come out wrong or insensitive, BUT if perhaps those on assistance (at least on the higher end) received less than they currently do, there would be more motivation to get out of the hole they are in and work harder to obtain those luxuries.

Like I said, we are on the cusp of assistance AND actually live pretty comfortably in my opinion without assistance. Yes, we don't have cable and we don't go on many trips. We don't purchase new clothing often and we cut our own hair. We price match our groceries and bargain shop. We do cut a lot of corners, but we live very happily and get what we need (and sometimes we even splurge). If we were to get assistance, we would have a pretty big surplus of money (well, for us anyway) and I can see why so many who are on assistance can afford many luxuries we cannot.

I've heard of so many who reject raises because it would put them in a higher bracket, thus making any raise more like a significant pay cut. There needs to be more inherent motivation.

Totally agree with this. We have some luxuries now, and found a way for me to be home with our kids in the meantime by doing daycare, so I can't complain. The EIC would have been nice to have, but the cutoff has to be somewhere! It's just crazy that a slight raise changes your tax bracket so drastically.

Maybe there should be a sliding tax credit for working your way off of assistance? Something to offer an incentive for hard work.

[Oss_cc]

Yes, to everything you said. Those that are on the edge are the working poor. Not those on assistance.

We have a $25,000 hospital bill, no assistance for us because we make $125.00 a year to much. They would of wiped out our bill. Now I am paying $300 a month for this bill.

Geez! I'm shocked they didn't work with you with such a small difference in income.

[DaisyMamma]

Wubby, file bankruptcy! My goodness that's crazy.

As for original poster. I agree, enough is enough. And although it easily depends on the situation there should be a time limit. 6-7 years is more then enough time to get on your feet and help yourself!