Kansas moves to implement $25 ATM withdrawal limit for welfare recipients [W:190]

[ttwtt78640]

Just to comment on your first question, and it's a good one, it must then be assumed that legislators "believe" welfare recipients are using welfare funds for lap dances but have no proof. I suppose, anecdotally, one legislator was at his favourite strip joint and some guy who looked like he was on welfare stole his honey and so he was ticked off and moved to ensure welfare boy couldn't do it again.

I don't have answers for the whole fraud in the system argument. That's not the basis of my comments here. My comments are basically that limiting a single transaction to $25 if more than $25 may be withdrawn from a card is simply vindictive and does nothing to address fraud. But it sounds good to those who believe all welfare recipients frequent strip clubs, casinos, bingo halls and liquor stores.

It would also limit legitimate expenses like the sudden need for a motel room and fuel fill-up in connection with a job interview. It seems those that want less of this "nanny state" nonsense are, in fact, attempting to increase it.

Any responsible insurance company will verify a claim before simply paying it - why should social insurance ("welfare") be any different? When I bill a customer, for a time and material contract, I supply a detailed accounting of my labor hours and copies of all material/tool rental receipts - why not demand that of "welfare" recipients as verification of expenses billed to the taxpayers?

 

[Lovebug]

most lap dances cost 30 or 40 depending on the place?

So what? Just withdraw 25 on Monday and another 25 on Friday and you have enough left for a tip.

 

[JasperL]

Am I really claiming anything by asking you a question that did not include any of the words you used?
I seriously wanted to know what the problem is?

Is there some problem that this law is supposed to fix? Is there some problem that this law would create?

See how the question I asked can be taken either way? You just assumed I was in support of this but the truth is, so far, I don't give a crap. That's why I was asking the question, so I could determine whether I wanted to give a crap. Thanks for your help sending me more toward not.

The most obvious problem is every ATM transaction comes with a state-imposed fee of $1, or 4% on $25. One ATM withdrawal of $100 would cost the same $1, or 1%. Any bank fees, which are common on low balance bank accounts, would add fees to each transaction as well, and $25 per trip means more transactions and more fees. The total fees could easily approach 10% per dollar withdrawn, or just 2.5% with a more reasonable limit of $100.

And if they want to limit cash advances, then do THAT - just set a monthly dollar limit on cash advances or whatever. This kind of stuff serves no purpose that I can see except divert welfare dollars to banks, ATM owners and the state through higher fees, which is probably the point anyway.

 

[mnicholson2]

actually you can. all bills can be paid with a atm card.
the fees for schools are all up front an well known in advanced. I have yet to see a bill from school over 25 dollars.
at any rate most of those have to be paid by the end of a school year that is plenty of time to withdraw enough cash.

actually you can.

don't insult people when what you are stating is wrong.

You must live a perfect world...shame everybody else don't.

 

[ludin]

The most obvious problem is every ATM transaction comes with a state-imposed fee of $1, or 4% on $25. One ATM withdrawal of $100 would cost the same $1, or 1%. Any bank fees, which are common on low balance bank accounts, would add fees to each transaction as well, and $25 per trip means more transactions and more fees. The total fees could easily approach 10% per dollar withdrawn, or just 2.5% with a more reasonable limit of $100.

And if they want to limit cash advances, then do THAT - just set a monthly dollar limit on cash advances or whatever. This kind of stuff serves no purpose that I can see except divert welfare dollars to banks, ATM owners and the state through higher fees, which is probably the point anyway.

Then use a ATM in the system and there is no charge. there is only a charge if for ATM networks outside your system.

 

[mnicholson2]

How, exactly, do you know what cash is being spent on? Giving taxpayer cash directly to folks, as opposed to paying the approved living expense providers directly, is the easiest way that can be done. The problem occurs when TANF and EBT funds are mixed since the rules for each program are different.

Also, the benefits are often said to be for their children. The left will squeal that the children are thus being punished for the "illness" or "sins" of their parent(s). The bottom line is that "welfare" buys votes, primarily for rhe left, and they will never allow that source of that "campaign" cash to be stopped.

The Left don't need to buy votes...look at the idiots running on the right for President. They are shooting their party in the foot...

 

[ludin]

You must live a perfect world...shame everybody else don't.

I live in the real world. all my bills are paid with my debt card. there isn't a bill I can't pay with a debt card.
what world are you living in?

 

[ludin]

The Left don't need to buy votes...look at the idiots running on the right for President. They are shooting their party in the foot...

yep the left has plenty of idiots that run for president. keep promising prosperity to people at the cost of others.
yet these people they constantly make promises to still live in poverty and never get out.

16 trillion dollars spent on war with poverty and only a 2% drop in the poverty level is well pathetic. it is very definition of insanity.
yet the left doubles down on it every time.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Left don't need to buy votes...look at the idiots running on the right for President. They are shooting their party in the foot...

That must explain why HRC feels that she needs to raise billions to beat one of those "idiots".

Hillary’s $2.5 billion obscene fundraising goal | New York Post

 

[Glowpun]

Another salvo in the war on the poor.

Kansas moves to implement $25 ATM withdrawal limit for welfare recipients | The Wichita Eagle

Kansas plans to keep a controversial $25 limit on ATM withdrawals by welfare recipients, despite the possibility that the restriction might violate federal law. Legislation was passed earlier this year to raise the limit, or do away with it entirely, but a newly revised version of Kansas’ welfare plan does not permit withdrawals of more than $25 per transaction per day. Out-of-state purchases also will be blocked.

Why does the RP Kansas legislature want to limit the daily spending of welfare recipients? Do not these idiots realize what that does to the state's economy? How about they limit the daily spending of their upper classes? WHAT IS THE REASONING BEHIND THIS IDIOCY?

 

[Beaudreaux]

What is the problem???? Really you have to ask that????
Got a bill that needs to paid and can't draw enough from the ATM to pay for it and it can't be paid with a card?
Your child has to pay an unexpected fee for school and once again you can't draw out enough to pay for at the ATM.
You CAN'T always use a card for everything.
Use your head for something other then a hat rack dude.

Did you read where there is no limit on the amount of money they can get as "cash back" while making a purchase at a store? Kinda kills your argument above.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The most obvious problem is every ATM transaction comes with a state-imposed fee of $1, or 4% on $25. One ATM withdrawal of $100 would cost the same $1, or 1%. Any bank fees, which are common on low balance bank accounts, would add fees to each transaction as well, and $25 per trip means more transactions and more fees. The total fees could easily approach 10% per dollar withdrawn, or just 2.5% with a more reasonable limit of $100.

And if they want to limit cash advances, then do THAT - just set a monthly dollar limit on cash advances or whatever. This kind of stuff serves no purpose that I can see except divert welfare dollars to banks, ATM owners and the state through higher fees, which is probably the point anyway.

I agree you about the fees. Those I don't understand the need for them, or support.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It would also limit legitimate expenses like the sudden need for a motel room and fuel fill-up in connection with a job interview. It seems those that want less of this "nanny state" nonsense are, in fact, attempting to increase it.

Any responsible insurance company will verify a claim before simply paying it - why should social insurance ("welfare") be any different? When I bill a customer, for a time and material contract, I supply a detailed accounting of my labor hours and copies of all material/tool rental receipts - why not demand that of "welfare" recipients as verification of expenses billed to the taxpayers?

In principle, I support that. But you know the big government types are going to insist that such a move would require about a million new public employees to manage it. But something similar to the parole system where you have to check in occasionally and indicate what you've been up to and provide some proof isn't a bad idea.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In principle, I support that. But you know the big government types are going to insist that such a move would require about a million new public employees to manage it. But something similar to the parole system where you have to check in occasionally and indicate what you've been up to and provide some proof isn't a bad idea.

That (added overhead cost) is a valid concern. It can likely be mitigated in two ways: 1) the added personnel are new federal jobs that are then spending income and paying taxes in that state, county and city and 2) if "welfare" fraud is anywhere near the levels suspected then savings should also occur from a reduction in the number of folks eligible to keep getting funding.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's knock off he personal attacks and snarky back and forth. If you can't debate the topic without resorting to name calling, take the "debate" somewhere else.

 

[Helix]

I commented on your fairy tale belief that somehow making college free (you never actually get around to discussing how much it will cost, how it will be paid for and frankly I don't think you care about the harm of another massive entitlement would cause because economic reality isn't your strong suit) would solve poverty issues.

end the wars, and send the kids to college.

IHelix, NOTHING IS FREE.

well. no ****.

IOur public schools, are a disaster as a whole, and you want to extend that disaster to higher education? /boggle

if you'd like to talk about how to fix public schools, we can discuss that. however, yes, i support debt free access to post secondary education.

 

[Renae]

end the wars, and send the kids to college.



well. no ****.



if you'd like to talk about how to fix public schools, we can discuss that. however, yes, i support debt free access to post secondary education.

You know, isolationism has a steep price too.

 

[Helix]

then please start a scholarship fund to help kids pay for school. you do realize that you can do this of your own free will right?
ol yea that would require some work and effort on your part.

i've already explained my position on the benefits of educating kids to you in multiple threads. i won't have another fruitless discussion with you about this topic.

 

[Helix]

You know, isolationism has a steep price too.

and how much more in taxes are you personally willing to pay to fund perpetual interventionism?

 

[Mason66]

So you don't see a problem with a 25 dollar arm limit? Since fees cut into said limit, just saying. Food cost a lot more than twenty five dollars and some clothing cost more than a 25.00 dollars. Atm and debit card fees cut Into said money as well.

Do you not see the problem in what you said here?

 

[Mason66]

This is coming from the "heartland of the bible belt". What does the Bible have to say when taking care of the poor: "For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land."

How does this law not take care of the poor?

 

[Mason66]

I hate mean spirited, punitive things like this. People can be so petty at times. I don't know the circumstances of how Kansas serves welfare recipients, but people of all situations deserve at least the semblance of dignity in their lives. If the state/federal government deems a person eligible for a certain grant of funds, then provide the funds and let the recipient get on with their life as best they can.

There's lots of reasons why this could be foolish and none that I can think of that are good government policy.

What seems to have been missed so far in this thread is that the welfare recipient can use the card to buy what they need whenever they want to.

It is the cash withdraws that have been limited which is what is used to buy what is not allowed under the program.

Why would anybody have a problem with that?

 

[Mason66]

That's fair, and things operate differently here in Canada. Here, welfare recipients receive dollar payments, direct deposits to their bank accounts - cheques being phased out - so any ATM activity would be the responsibility of the welfare recipient. But if you're talking about what is in effect a pre-paid credit card and the recipient can in effect get cash advances from that credit card, then I suppose that makes more sense, but not much, and I'll bet any ATM fee is charged to the balance on the card and not to the government issuer, same as if you or I used our cards in the same way. I'm sure the banks are happy either way.

Then the welfare recipient shouldn't use the card at ATMs, but do you think they care about the fees? It is not their money after all.

 

[RedAkston]

What seems to have been missed so far in this thread is that the welfare recipient can use the card to buy what they need whenever they want to.

It is the cash withdraws that have been limited which is what is used to buy what is not allowed under the program.

Why would anybody have a problem with that?

Because there are literally millions of people who live off the government because they can. Any restriction to their "way of life" will be met with disdain and "racism" claims don't you know?

 

[CanadaJohn]

What seems to have been missed so far in this thread is that the welfare recipient can use the card to buy what they need whenever they want to.

It is the cash withdraws that have been limited which is what is used to buy what is not allowed under the program.

Why would anybody have a problem with that?

I'm not sure that's true although I don't know the details of the program. I'm assuming there would be no provision at all for cash withdrawals for such a program unless it was believed that some purchases would require cash. Otherwise, why have any limit? Secondly, I presume that in a State like Kansas, not everyone lives in a city or town where a grocery store, a pharmacy, clothing stores, etc. who accept the cards are readily available to those with cars, let alone those who may not have a car or drive or have other mobility issues. I don't know if you can pay for a taxi or a bus with the debit cards - some big cities have that facility, but I'm guessing that Kansas may not be equipped in all cases. Maybe even sending your child to school with a little lunch money, etc.

So I'll reiterate - if there is a provision for withdrawal of cash at ATMs using the card, why make it more difficult to exercise that provision or make it more cumbersome and costly for the welfare recipient?