Woman wins Lottery, still collects Food Stamps!

[handsonhosting]

Twitter is abuzz regarding Amanda Clayton and her continued use of Food Stamps

http://now.msn.com/money/0307-lottery-foodstamps.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/amanda-clayton-michigan-lottery-winner_n_1327156.html

What do you think? Is it an abuse of the system that someone who has $500,000 in their pocket, but is "unemployed", is still allowed to collect food stamps?

 

[ldcdc]

The system judges the needs of people based on income, not wealth, or assets. I suspect there's lots of people who are getting help from the state even though they still have some decent overall wealth.

I do agree that the system is flawed, but I don't find this person to be abusing anything. She's taking something that she is technically entitled to.

You could add a wealth assessment to the law, but that would be very easily be evaded (donate your possessions to say your mother/father/spouse/child).

I read there's a move towards considering lottery wins as income, to disqualify winners from getting help like this from that state. That would be fair, but the winners would have that income this year. How about the next one? I suppose they will qualify for help then.

 

[SenseiSteve]

I watched a video about this earlier today, and while technically, she's entitled to food stamps by law, ethically this is just wrong. I loved it when she said she was struggling. She just paid cash for a second home and a new car. Yipes!

 

[handsonhosting]

Yep - I guess legally (at least currently) there's nothing illegal about it. Huffington Post found 3 other people in Michigan (one a 2Million winner, and a 5 million winner) that are also doing the same thing.

For me, it's an abuse and ethically wrong for these people to continue to draw money/help when they were just given a check. While it may not be illegal, shouldn't there be a click in their head to say --- "hmmm, maybe this isn't right?" --- especially when there's so many others that really DO need the help.

 

[Artashes]

I think she was blocked from public assistance because she did not report on her updated assets when she won the lottery.

 

[ldcdc]

While it may not be illegal, shouldn't there be a click in their head to say --- "hmmm, maybe this isn't right?" --- especially when there's so many others that really DO need the help.

Is anyone deprived of the help that the state offers, because she's still collecting? I don't think so. The help is there for all who qualify for it, under the (current) law. She has just paid about $500K in taxes when she cashed her winnings, if I understand it correctly. I don't hear anyone patting her on the back for the hundreds who will get help this year because of the money she has paid into the system.

If the law gives you a right, it is your right, be it the right to walk on the sidewalk even if you haven't paid for it, speak freely, vote, you name it. It is the society, via the lawmakers, who needs to change the rules, if they're not fair. And the lawmakers should get the flack for passing poorly made laws.

That's not to say that I don't understand the moral argument made here. I do. However, my take is that she would deserve praise for stopping to accept the help because of the windfall that took her out of poverty. Such a thing is essentially no different from donating a portion of her winnings to some cause - praiseworthy, but not mandatory. So, I don't think she deserves to be accused for claiming help that the law says it's still hers to get (if that's true).

Because she's won the lottery, we should now start judging just how many benefits that come from the state (direct or indirect) she should forego? She's just parted with half her winnings, isn't that enough of a payment towards the state/society?

 

[lowesthost]

All I can say is WOW!! but the law is the law even if it is wrong
I know there was a time many years ago I lost a Job had 0 income & small income from wife at the time (barley paid the rent on a small apartment)
applied for assistance and was rejected because I had 2 cars (cant eat a car) I needed the second car to look for work

 

[Blue]

Is anyone deprived of the help that the state offers, because she's still collecting? I don't think so. The help is there for all who qualify for it, under the (current) law. She has just paid about $500K in taxes when she cashed her winnings, if I understand it correctly. I don't hear anyone patting her on the back for the hundreds who will get help this year because of the money she has paid into the system.

If the law gives you a right, it is your right, be it the right to walk on the sidewalk even if you haven't paid for it, speak freely, vote, you name it. It is the society, via the lawmakers, who needs to change the rules, if they're not fair. And the lawmakers should get the flack for passing poorly made laws.

That's not to say that I don't understand the moral argument made here. I do. However, my take is that she would deserve praise for stopping to accept the help because of the windfall that took her out of poverty. Such a thing is essentially no different from donating a portion of her winnings to some cause - praiseworthy, but not mandatory. So, I don't think she deserves to be accused for claiming help that the law says it's still hers to get (if that's true).

Because she's won the lottery, we should now start judging just how many benefits that come from the state (direct or indirect) she should forego? She's just parted with half her winnings, isn't that enough of a payment towards the state/society?

Sorry but that is a load of crap.
It is sleazy operators like this that screw the system for the people who actually need it.
There is a reason the US has a 16 trillion dollar debt. There is a reason that Greece had to bailed out yet again to the tune of 15k per person.
The reason has far more to do with abuse of the system then the actual systems themselves.

This woman is a lowlife.

 

[Artashes]

Is anyone deprived of the help that the state offers, because she's still collecting? I don't think so. The help is there for all who qualify for it, under the (current) law. She has just paid about $500K in taxes when she cashed her winnings, if I understand it correctly. I don't hear anyone patting her on the back for the hundreds who will get help this year because of the money she has paid into the system.

If the law gives you a right, it is your right, be it the right to walk on the sidewalk even if you haven't paid for it, speak freely, vote, you name it. It is the society, via the lawmakers, who needs to change the rules, if they're not fair. And the lawmakers should get the flack for passing poorly made laws.

That's not to say that I don't understand the moral argument made here. I do. However, my take is that she would deserve praise for stopping to accept the help because of the windfall that took her out of poverty. Such a thing is essentially no different from donating a portion of her winnings to some cause - praiseworthy, but not mandatory. So, I don't think she deserves to be accused for claiming help that the law says it's still hers to get (if that's true).

Because she's won the lottery, we should now start judging just how many benefits that come from the state (direct or indirect) she should forego? She's just parted with half her winnings, isn't that enough of a payment towards the state/society?

I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that she paid half her winnings. Tax is law and everyone pays it, doesn't make her anymore special. There are people who pay tens of millions in taxes every year.

It is also the law for lottery winners to update the government (the department that sends out the public assistance checks) on change in assets. She didn't do that, so she got cut off.

Regardless of the law, the way I look at it - it is an ethical issue and one of personal responsibility. She doesn't have any. Period.

The matter of fact is, if she would have won $5000 after tax, the State might have still qualified her for financial assistance. But the girl won half a million, enough to buy a second house and a new car. The least you can do is be decent enough not to take other people's money who are struggling to keep afloat.

 

[HostOX]

If I paid half a mil in tax I would be collecting as much as I can from the government.

Robbing bastards!

 

[Artashes]

If I paid half a mil in tax I would be collecting as much as I can from the government.

Robbing bastards!

The lottery winnings in the United States have always been taxed half. I know that and I am not even American.

 

[Blue]

If I paid half a mil in tax I would be collecting as much as I can from the government.

Robbing bastards!

How are they robbing anyone?
I guess you don't like to have police services, or roads to drive on, or safe planes to take your vacations on, or food inspection so you don't die when you eat. None of those things or any of the hundreds of other services provided by government apply to you?

 

[handsonhosting]

I guess the breakdown is between the State and Federal Level. The State runs the lottery, not the Federal Government. The Feds run the SNAP and Food Stamp systems. It's when people take things to mean that it's their right to something, rather than an assistance, that's where it bothers me most. I've no problem helping people when they need it. I have friends constantly ask for assistance, and depending on their situation, I lend them money. When I find out (and I have in the past) that they then used the money I gave them to cover rent/mortgage was used to buy new clothes, go on a vacation, buy beer for a holiday party etc - that's the last time they get my money.

To have a windfall of income such as the $500k, there should be no reason to still need assistance. Granted some people are foolish with money, but it's their money to be foolish with. With $500k, a person/family who was previously in need of help should EASILY be able to survive for 5 years at $100k/year, or 10 years at 50k (taking into account that they live a modest lifestyle and don't do anything stupid).

 

[ldcdc]

Sorry but that is a load of crap.

If I would say that I feel the same about your arguments, which path would this discussion go?

There is a reason the US has a 16 trillion dollar debt.

Maybe the unfunded wars and tax cuts for the rich explain most of it. But that is a different discussion.

Tax is law and everyone pays it, doesn't make her anymore special.

Food stamps are law, and they're available to anyone that qualifies. If she did qualify, then that's that. Winning the lottery doesn't make her special, IMHO, unless the law says so.

It is also the law for lottery winners to update the government (the department that sends out the public assistance checks) on change in assets. She didn't do that, so she got cut off.

Well now, if she did not obey the law, it's a completely different matter. She deserves serious punishment, and I hope there's a law for that.

 

[Blue]

If I would say that I feel the same about your arguments, which path would this discussion go?



Maybe the unfunded wars and tax cuts for the rich explain most of it. But that is a different discussion.

You could say what you like about the arguments. The path of the discussion will go where it will.

You can't hide behind unfunded wars and tax cuts. Those are issues that are a part of the problem.
A much much greater part of the problem is sleazy operators like this woman who abuse a system that was designed for people in NEED. Not some low rent shyster who decides to take everything they can get and screw the system.

You may argue that is legal so it is OK. That is fine. That is your opinion.
My opinion is that it is wrong. She is no better than a thief or a liar or a wall street scumbag that milks the system even though it is "legal".

 

[Artashes]

To have a windfall of income such as the $500k, there should be no reason to still need assistance. Granted some people are foolish with money, but it's their money to be foolish with. With $500k, a person/family who was previously in need of help should EASILY be able to survive for 5 years at $100k/year, or 10 years at 50k (taking into account that they live a modest lifestyle and don't do anything stupid).

Actually, I will be able to live indefinitely on $500k. All I need is generate a 10% return on invested capital. I won't lead a lavish lifestyle, but it can sustain a family.

 

[ldcdc]

You can't hide behind unfunded wars and tax cuts.

Me? Hide? Am I already on trial here?

a wall street scumbag that milks the system even though it is "legal".

Oh, most are heavily involved in outright fraud (stealing and lying from customers and shareholders), but the political clout keeps them safe. If their activities would actually be legal, I would have no problem with that.

Actually, I will be able to live indefinitely on $500k. All I need is generate a 10% return on invested capital.

Easier said than done Art, in this environment. That being said, on $500k, here, even without return on capital, I could live decently (by local standards) till I die.

A much much greater part of the problem is sleazy operators like this woman who abuse a system that was designed for people in NEED.

Even if 20% of the people in need are not really all that needy, that would still be a very small amount compared to the fiscal irresponsibility that I mentioned. Loopholes that allow these people to draw money they don't need, can be closed easily enough. A political system that can make the laws to forgive itself and its buddies, is a much harder problem to crack.

She is no better than a thief or a liar

If she did withhold information in order to keep on taking money, then yes, she is both a liar and a thief (to use basic sins for description). But if she didn't have to report, she's not a liar, and consequently, not a thief. While we can't really be proud of her decision, I don't really see the shame in it either.

This is all about "gut" feeling though, so we'll probably disagree about it till the end of time, unable to persuade one another.

 

[Blue]

This is all about "gut" feeling though, so we'll probably disagree about it till the end of time, unable to persuade one another.

On that we agree.
My gut feeling is a visceral hatred for people who abuse the systems we have in place to protect the less fortunate.
I pay a HELL of a lot in taxes every year and I do not complain about it because I see the benefit of those tax dollars to create equality in society.
That is not such a bad thing.

I also don't complain when my tax dollars are used to create jobs especially infrastructure job creation considering our bridges and sewers etc. are falling apart.

I do complain though when I see someone like this who had a tremendous windfall and still chooses to suck off the system that kept them above water when they were in actual need.

Sorry if I seemed out of bounds earlier Dan but this is a topic that really pushes my buttons because over all it is a simile for why we are so much in debt as a country and so many other countries are so much in debt.

 

[SenseiSteve]

Look what you started Conor
And 500K would last Sami and I for many many years.

 

[ldcdc]

Sorry if I seemed out of bounds earlier Dan but this is a topic that really pushes my buttons

I know how it is. We all have sensibilities, pet peeves and the like.