Thank you for writing about this. I have a friend on SSI who can't work outside the home but is probably the hardest worker I know. Once when she was at risk of going over the asset limit, she was told to spend money on going out to eat or to the movies - nothing keepable that would count as an asset - in order to keep the health insurance that she relies on. And of course, with the chronic health condition that she needs SSI for, there's no way that $2,000 and change would cover her health care needs without insurance. It absolutely is a poverty trap.
Eliminating the savings penalty seems like such an obvious and long-overdue solution; not that it's all that's needed, but it would be a huge step in the right direction: allowing a pathway out of poverty though savings, reducing reliance on public benefits, and as you point out here, making some badly-needed room for communities of care.
It's long past time to stop punishing people both for the individual hard work that our culture claims to value so much, and for the unavoidable and socially enriching interdependence that our culture too often undervalues.
I really appreciate this article. I'm on SSI and you do feel like you have to take a vow of extreme poverty in exchange for meager, but needed, benefits. The resource limits really do need to be increased and it would be a major win for the quality of life for disabled people. Currently there are a variety of convoluted ways to avoid this trap which just add an unnecessary layer of complexity. Or you may not qualify due to the particulars of your disability and/or SSA for a particular type of account. Often times it's just easier to eschew these schemes altogether for the simplicity of mandatory income reporting.
It's sad that I watched a documentary about SSI and disability in marriage not too long ago that was made in the 1990s. Nothing has changed since then. It really does need to change.
Thank you for writing the article. My youngest brother (who is single) has been trying to get SSI for his disabilities this year, and when my mom heard him tell her some of the stipulations, she thought he had misunderstood something, because it sounded crazy to her. I shared the article with her, and she was of course outraged, but also appreciated being able to read a clear explanation of what is going on.
California addressed this issue by creating Able Accounts where savings can be legally deposited. It's only for people who became disabled below a certain age though; at first early childhood, now early adulthood.
While much less severe in most cases, even if a couple is ready to abandon SSI after marriage, the process to get off is complex, and often the Social Security Administration will ask for money to be paid back.
I do think people should not be overly scrupulous in reporting in kind support. One of the main obstacles to healthy family life and community building is commitment to rules when there is no reasonable expectation that getting caught is a possibility. Meals are a good example of this.
If family wants to care for an ailing loved one at home instead of packing them off to a nursing home, but they’re really struggling with day to day care, too bad so sad. A nursing home is covered by Medicaid but home health aides aren’t.
Ultimately almost all "poverty" benefits have a marriage tax. Since Section 8 is income based, the addition of a second income almost assuredly knocks a woman and her children off the benefit and can lead to instable housing for a family; same for childcare vouchers and, perhaps the cruelest, Medicaid. Add to this that women who previously received the Earned Income tax credit may not after marriage, and that women become liable for the back child support their husbands might owe to other women when they marry them, and marriage is a downright dreadful prospect for poor single mothers. When women I know through the homeless shelter I run consider marriage everyone in their circle warns them vehemently against it. The odds that a man will be more reliable than Section 8+childcare vouchers+foodstamps+ medicaid+ the EITC are pretty slim in this circle.
Another example: when communities require a car to get around (especially to pick up groceries and other necessities) it reduces opportunities for community building through casual encounters. And for folks who can't drive, it makes the communities that much less livable.
Thank you for writing about this. I have a friend on SSI who can't work outside the home but is probably the hardest worker I know. Once when she was at risk of going over the asset limit, she was told to spend money on going out to eat or to the movies - nothing keepable that would count as an asset - in order to keep the health insurance that she relies on. And of course, with the chronic health condition that she needs SSI for, there's no way that $2,000 and change would cover her health care needs without insurance. It absolutely is a poverty trap.
Eliminating the savings penalty seems like such an obvious and long-overdue solution; not that it's all that's needed, but it would be a huge step in the right direction: allowing a pathway out of poverty though savings, reducing reliance on public benefits, and as you point out here, making some badly-needed room for communities of care.
It's long past time to stop punishing people both for the individual hard work that our culture claims to value so much, and for the unavoidable and socially enriching interdependence that our culture too often undervalues.
I really appreciate this article. I'm on SSI and you do feel like you have to take a vow of extreme poverty in exchange for meager, but needed, benefits. The resource limits really do need to be increased and it would be a major win for the quality of life for disabled people. Currently there are a variety of convoluted ways to avoid this trap which just add an unnecessary layer of complexity. Or you may not qualify due to the particulars of your disability and/or SSA for a particular type of account. Often times it's just easier to eschew these schemes altogether for the simplicity of mandatory income reporting.
It's sad that I watched a documentary about SSI and disability in marriage not too long ago that was made in the 1990s. Nothing has changed since then. It really does need to change.
Thank you for writing the article. My youngest brother (who is single) has been trying to get SSI for his disabilities this year, and when my mom heard him tell her some of the stipulations, she thought he had misunderstood something, because it sounded crazy to her. I shared the article with her, and she was of course outraged, but also appreciated being able to read a clear explanation of what is going on.
California addressed this issue by creating Able Accounts where savings can be legally deposited. It's only for people who became disabled below a certain age though; at first early childhood, now early adulthood.
While much less severe in most cases, even if a couple is ready to abandon SSI after marriage, the process to get off is complex, and often the Social Security Administration will ask for money to be paid back.
I do think people should not be overly scrupulous in reporting in kind support. One of the main obstacles to healthy family life and community building is commitment to rules when there is no reasonable expectation that getting caught is a possibility. Meals are a good example of this.
If family wants to care for an ailing loved one at home instead of packing them off to a nursing home, but they’re really struggling with day to day care, too bad so sad. A nursing home is covered by Medicaid but home health aides aren’t.
I wrote about zoning restrictions on who can be "family": http://www.altfemmag.com/zoning-boards-go-nuclear-on-too-traditional-families/
thank you for highlighting this important issue, Leah.
Ultimately almost all "poverty" benefits have a marriage tax. Since Section 8 is income based, the addition of a second income almost assuredly knocks a woman and her children off the benefit and can lead to instable housing for a family; same for childcare vouchers and, perhaps the cruelest, Medicaid. Add to this that women who previously received the Earned Income tax credit may not after marriage, and that women become liable for the back child support their husbands might owe to other women when they marry them, and marriage is a downright dreadful prospect for poor single mothers. When women I know through the homeless shelter I run consider marriage everyone in their circle warns them vehemently against it. The odds that a man will be more reliable than Section 8+childcare vouchers+foodstamps+ medicaid+ the EITC are pretty slim in this circle.
Another example: when communities require a car to get around (especially to pick up groceries and other necessities) it reduces opportunities for community building through casual encounters. And for folks who can't drive, it makes the communities that much less livable.
All the more reason to support UBI. No means test, no discrimination, no penalties, no perverse incentives.