Hacker News Reader

I also support a shift to UBI, but your description of TANF/WIC is not grounded in reality. TANF has a 5 year lifetime, and many states actually have lower limits food stamps do not come close to covering the costs of feeding a family People do sell food stamps sometimes, not because they have more than they need, but because they are desperate for cash to pay for other necessities such as utilities.

The idea that people are getting by for years and years based on these as sources of income is a myth.

We also make staying on benefits functionally a full time job too. The programs are too complex, they also don't cover all basic needs.

Thanks, to clarify I don't begrudge TANF/WIC but those two are a short list of benefits that are available. Rent assistance ($), daycare assistance ($), free healthcare that's better than what I can get on the market regardless of $$$$, etc. I explained in other comments how a lot of it works, and I think rather than means testing I would like to see a different form of enforcement for these programs.

> I see people stop working because they'd rather not deal with others when they already have their needs met.

While some folks do get benefits when they could be working many more are denied anything despite obviously being disabled and the money that is paid is a relative pittance that few would choose given any alternative.

> I see people who continuously pop more kids to keep the gravy train running - this is an issue.

This is basically a myth. There are TANF in most states has a lifetime limit of 5 years or less and we are talking about $283 per month for a single parent single child household and it doesn't scale linearly. The next child nets you an additional $44 for instance. Exact figures vary by state.

People effectively sell vouchers or food benefits because they are desperately poor and need other things. As the refrain goes "food stamps don't buy diapers". In the case of WIC the vouchers may be for things that they literally don't need can't eat which will expire and thereby be lost.

This is an example of the inefficiency of buying things for people instead of letting them buy their own things.

Thanks, the popping out babies is such a garbage take. It's not designed to argue in good faith, it's just a moron talking point.

Just because a plurality or even majority of people aren't doing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As I've stated, I'm recounting these scenarios from my experience which isn't vast but it tracks in every state/city I have lived in (and I have lived in several).

It's a miserable living experience for their children. Welfare queens do exist even if they don't look like the media portrays them.

As I stated, I'm not against social programs, but I think there's substantial waste and program goals need to be realigned. It needs to be reimagined, and not from ivory towers like the techno-elite that gathers here on HN.

It's just a silly scenario. Nobody gets more in assistance then it costs to raise a child.

People might scam the system because they can't afford the kids they have, but nobody is having more kids just to scam the system.

> Nobody gets more in assistance then it costs to raise a child.

Absolutely utterly false. Witnessed it personally.

Please give an example case in a real place based on actual benefit programs that exactly exist with links to information on said programs.

The 100% truth is that you had no idea of any of the detail about whatever you saw. Unless someone has a massive trust with a procreation requirement, there is no free ride for children in America.

I had direct 100% access to every single aspect of one individuals life. Talked directly about the subject dozens to hundreds of times.

I absolutely know both the financial details as well as personal motivations. Others in that sphere I do not have as much intimate knowledge of but they follow the same pattern and social circles.

This topic is something HN (or rather the demographics that tend to post on HN) simply has a giant blind spot on.

It's not so much that each kid is a net benefit. It's that having kids are a requirement to access many government programs in my state. Single folks simply don't get help. I still know people in my past life who have never worked a single day and have had all expenses paid for by the state using such programs. Add some child support in and it's a way to live, even if a pretty crappy one. There is also very little planning for when the benefits end as the kids age out.

I really think every young adult should have to spend a year living in a section 8 complex as an assistant super. It may open many eyes to the state of the US and our social condition.

You've just modified your previous statement. I absolutely believe someone might have a child to get child support or even qualify for benefits. I don't believe anyone is popping out multiple kids to rake in extra benefits. There is no situation where multiple kids make life easier for the poor in America.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. You pop out multiple kids so you extend the clock, not so you get multiples on any sort of payments (aside from perhaps child support, but that's a different topic). This is what OP meant by "extend the gravy train". Much subsidized housing is only practically available to women with dependent children.

As stated, I have personally witnessed this exact behavior. The common belief in certain circles seems to be this is unheard of and uncommon but I absolutely do not believe the mainstream statistics on the matter.

It's not just kids. It's a whole way of life. Usually SSDI is involved among other such shenanigans as well. It goes deep - to the point of ensuring your teenage kids show up to school exactly the minimum number of days to not get dinged on benefits.

Having one kids gives one a dependant child for at least 18 years which is virtually all of a woman's child rearing years. There is no clock to reset.

" not just kids. It's a whole way of life. Usually SSDI is involved among other such shenanigans as well. It goes deep - to the point of ensuring your teenage kids show up to school exactly the minimum number of days to not get dinged on benefits."

Adding details isn't making this more plausible. Nobody is denying YOUR life experience just your third hand misunderstanding of other people's.

Now you have them living on child support, fraudulent disability, and neglecting their kids.

Have you considered that maybe you have skeevy family and this is not normal.

> This is basically a myth. There are TANF in most states has a lifetime limit of 5 years or less ....

Because you can't imagine it or haven't seen it that doesn't mean it's a myth. I have known women who continuously have more kids from different fathers. I think many people ignore the fact that people can also qualify for getting their rent paid, free healthcare for the kids, etc. I have seen it in several different states, lived in the same apartments as them and now know about them from their family members who are my acquaintances.

But I agree with you on inefficiency. As I said, I think we need a holistic approach that looks at the overall needs and gets rid of some of the programs and just hands out cash as you said maybe.

> This is basically a myth.

It's very interesting to me that so many people these days are telling me what I've personally witnessed is not real.

Amazing how my personal bubble growing up apparently are the only ones committing such acts and literally no one else if you go by the stats.

If 2+2=4 it doesn't matter if you "witnessed" it being 3. Anyone who has actually interacted with poverty in the past 30 years would know that benefits are miserly, sparse, and limited.

Notable virtually no cash money which is basically required to live and work requirements for other benefits.

Welfare is what poor people rely on in addition to working not what they do instead of working.

This is why virtually everyone on food stamps is either temporarily between jobs, working, retired, disabled.

You can't just keep having kids and actually live indoors because the government will give you more food stamps but not more money.

What part of tanif being a few hundred a month and having a lifetime maximum of 5 years isn't getting through?

More kids = more poverty. The only angle to work is child support not welfare which is obviously the disconnect here.

I don't think I have seen something as disingenuous on HN as trying to negate somebody else's life experience by saying "2+2=4". I won't be engaging the contents of a bad faith argument.

I don't know what it's like now, but in the 1980s, we received aid, and you certainly couldn't live on it. It was a horrible existence. Yeah, we'd sometimes game the system. For instance, we knew if we bought something for $4.01, we'd get the $0.99 change back as cash. We'd trade vouchers for cash sometimes (to, say, put kerosene in the heater) But, we're only talking about gaining a few hundred dollars a year. If people in your social circle are living large, I'd love to know their trick.

Yeah as I said in another comment, it's a mostly miserable experience on the kids and yet some garbage humans do decide to live strictly off of it. I'm not sure how we could disincentivize that, but I do think means testing should go.

The people I have seen who really milk the system work for cash, live with their boyfriend/SO and remain unmarried to keep the benefits coming (and just lie saying that the father isn't in the picture). So the burden of healthcare/food/rent is on the state and all of the income is fun money. Trucks/SUVs, jewelry, trips, rental houses, etc. follow. The kids only benefit as far as not starving, but they get free food at school/day care most of the year anyway so most stamps get sold. There's some who do very well and just stop caring about TANF anyway because it's overall pretty low value.

Another I've seen is just lying on the application so they get their benefits (I imagine similar to the others they say their husband/SO isn't in the picture) while they have a steady income stream from renting out their house.