Michigan man still on food stamps despite winning $2M

[PiKA2001]

Bad timing...Bad location. What irks me the most is that this guy has more money than a lot of people (who aren't on public assistance) will make in a lifetime yet he's on food stamps.

Fick says the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with tax dollars. He told WNEM: "If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it."

The TV station says people have seen Fick driving a new Audi convertible. Messages seeking comment were left with his attorney and the state today.

@ bolded.


http://www.freep.com/article/2011051...ite-winning-2M

DHS officials confirmed that Fick had contacted them about his winnings and was notified that he could continue to receive aid because he had taken the winnings in a lump sum and still met the income threshold for food assistance.

Fick told the TV station that his use of food stamps was justified because the government took more than half of his winnings in taxes.

Talk about having a sense of entitlement. I think the government taxing his winnings is justified because of all the years/decades/whatever he was on public assistance .

http://www.freep.com/article/2011051...ff-food-stamps

[AGDee]

Definitely one of those loop holes that needs to be CLOSED.

[AOII Angel]

Insane.

[preciousjeni]

Apparently, because he took a lump sum, it's considered a liquid asset instead of income. Unfortunately, the "loophole" that allows him to do this is the same one that allows people who have lost their jobs to keep their homes.

It's unfortunate because I foresee a drastic decision being made that will affect thousands of people in the name of cutting off services to this man.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Apparently, because he took a lump sum, it's considered a liquid asset instead of income. Unfortunately, the "loophole" that allows him to do this is the same one that allows people who have lost their jobs to keep their homes.

It's unfortunate because I foresee a drastic decision being made that will affect thousands of people in the name of cutting off services to this man.

This may be true but it angers me (and others) no less. Not too long ago a friend lost her job and could barely make it week to week on unemployment. She went to see if she qualified for food stamps and they offered her $10 a month because she made too much

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

This may be true but it angers me (and others) no less. Not too long ago a friend lost her job and could barely make it week to week on unemployment. She went to see if she qualified for food stamps and they offered her $10 a month because she made too much

I can't speak for other states, but in NY, if you let a sufficient amount of time pass from when you lost your job, you can get various forms of public assistance. The worst time to go is right after you've lost your job and you had steady income up to that point.

Regardless, the way public assistance is set up, it mostly benefits children, elderly people, disabled people and the like. They seem to expect the rest of us to bounce back like nothing happened when we lose our jobs or undergo another major life crisis.

My point in commenting was to bring attention to the fact that people, like your friend, would really be up a creek if their assets (savings, house, car, etc.) were factored into how much they're eligible for.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Apparently, because he took a lump sum, it's considered a liquid asset instead of income. Unfortunately, the "loophole" that allows him to do this is the same one that allows people who have lost their jobs to keep their homes.

It's unfortunate because I foresee a drastic decision being made that will affect thousands of people in the name of cutting off services to this man.

I agree to an extent. If you liquidate retirement funds while in dire straits financially and use it to pay off your house or something, then I could see still allowing food stamps. There are ways to close this particular loophole without hurting too many people. There could be a threshold that is much lower than $850K after taxes.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I agree to an extent. If you liquidate retirement funds while in dire straits financially and use it to pay off your house or something, then I could see still allowing food stamps. There are ways to close this particular loophole without hurting too many people. There could be a threshold that is much lower than $850K after taxes.

I'm with on you the concept. I just can't help but think of people who have high value houses that they can't unload. Closing the loophole would get complicated pretty quickly, which is my concern. It will be interesting to see how the politicians spin this one.

[AGDee]

I'm getting a bit peeved with the way some are handling the housing crisis too. I'm seeing more and more people do something like liquidate their retirement, buy a foreclosed house for $40K or less (that is twice the size of their current home) and just walk away from the perfectly good house that they CAN afford the payment on, even though they are underwater with their mortgage. They just take the credit rating hit and move on. If you are employed and can afford your mortgage and don't have to move out of your house for any good reason (like re-locating), this is just irresponsible. My next door neighbor is doing it now. She bought her house a few years ago, before the bubble burst so she owes a lot more than it is currently worth. The house directly across the street is in foreclosure so my neighbor's live in boyfriend is buying it and they're going to abandon the current house. First they tried to do a short sale from her to him but the bank didn't go for that.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

It's unfortunate because I foresee a drastic decision being made that will affect thousands of people in the name of cutting off services to this man.

According to the articles I read the loophole fix will be a law stating that lottery winners cannot be eligible for public assistance.

I think it's misguided because what about the people who won the lotto 30 years ago but are legitimately broke now?

I also think that liquid assets should be factored into the equation. If you have $300k sitting in a savings account you shouldn't be eligible for welfare, regardless of income.

[ms_gwyn]

be careful of what type of welfare you are speaking on, because if you didn't know, the biggest "drain" in welfare are the medical programs....

If you are aware, I apologize.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

According to the articles I read the loophole fix will be a law stating that lottery winners cannot be eligible for public assistance.

I think it's misguided because what about the people who won the lotto 30 years ago but are legitimately broke now?

Um... tough luck?

People need to realize that even when you win 1 million dollars, it doesn't mean that you don't have to work (unless maybe you have a spouse that's willing to bring in all the money, or some other circumstance where money is still steadily coming through the door). Even a person who makes $40,000/year, every year, for 50 years, will make 2 million dollars in their lifetime (and that's not even factoring in taxes).

Why is it that the people who were handed half of that can't afford to eat and expect us to put food on the table for them, but the guy who worked his ass off for every penny his whole life is expected to feed himself?

I think everyone needs a wake-up call.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm getting a bit peeved with the way some are handling the housing crisis too. I'm seeing more and more people do something like liquidate their retirement, buy a foreclosed house for $40K or less (that is twice the size of their current home) and just walk away from the perfectly good house that they CAN afford the payment on, even though they are underwater with their mortgage. They just take the credit rating hit and move on. If you are employed and can afford your mortgage and don't have to move out of your house for any good reason (like re-locating), this is just irresponsible. My next door neighbor is doing it now. She bought her house a few years ago, before the bubble burst so she owes a lot more than it is currently worth. The house directly across the street is in foreclosure so my neighbor's live in boyfriend is buying it and they're going to abandon the current house. First they tried to do a short sale from her to him but the bank didn't go for that.

How are they able to get away with that?

[AGDee]

If you can buy a new house with cash, it is apparently as stopping payments on your mortgage. I know people who have just rented other living accommodations and let their house go too.

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

How are they able to get away with that?

It is actually more common than you think. I know several people who have done something similarly.

If girlfriend bought house (independently) before bust and boyfriend buys a house now (independently). It is almost like 2 different transactions