Posted on 03/07/2012 9:01:10 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia
One million dollars may be a lot to most people, but apparently it is not enough for lottery winner Amanda Clayton, who is still receiving welfare assistance. The 24-year-old Michigan native won a $1 million state lottery prize in Sept., but has remained on the state's welfare system. Reports show that Clayton receives over $200 per month in food stamps and other state assistance. "I'm still struggling," she told WDIV, the local TV station.
After being tipped off about Clayton's benefits, reporters began following her around and investigating her claim. "I feel that it's okay [to receive welfare] because I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay. I have two houses," she told reporters.
This is after the television crew discovered that she had bought a house and car, paying cash for both. The station reported that Clayton received over $500,000 after taking a lump sum payment instead of annual installments.
(Excerpt) Read more at global.christianpost.com ...
I should also mention that houses in Canada are also much higher than in many places in the States.
In my local market, an average house is now about 400 grand and a townhouse is about 300 grand. That affects what I think I could do.
But one thing I would do is get something marketable that I could run out of my home and maximize those tax deductions like mad.
Yes, big difference in prices. With 3 rentals, one should be able to afford the upkeep and taxes on the 4th house - AND utilities and food.
If I had that kind of base income and no house payment - my options would EXPLODE!
Yep. Lottery winnings aren’t calculated as income.
Actually they are. The large payouts deduct both federal and state taxes from your winnings. Fed has a special category for such winnings. You really didn't think the house would let you get off lightly, did you?
Having two kids that are being raised on welfare insures that you pay for her lack of birth control. Remember, the more babies you have, the more welfare and food stamps you get.
I meant for the welfare office
The government should not be paying everyone a stipend, that is a statist, leftist wet dream.
Imagine Democrats every elections promising to raise the stipend as opposed to the greedy, evil Republicans.
When everyone gets a check from the government, liberty is DEAD
“You are almost always better off to keep your lifestyle as low-key as reasonably possible regardless of your actual income.”
In other words, “Live like now one else so that some day you can LIVE lik no one else!”
hehe, see my tag line....
Absolutely.
Also, making it seem like you may not have money makes people not want to borrow from you. :)
“50 years ago, whites weren’t like this—blacks as a whole were—”
I honestly don’t think that the urban entitlement lifestyle goes back that far in a manner that could be considered “typical.” It was probably starting to gain traction in the 60’s, but in the immediate preceeding generation I believe that traditional American and family values were still common place for American blacks.
I’d guess that the onslaught of the behaviour was established with the urban riots and the free love radicals. Of course, that is simply my guessing, so I am open to being corrected.
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. You sure you got today's codes? (with thanks to Major T.J. "King" Kong)
All I can say is "wow". Our safety net is full of (loop)holes that need to be closed.
Notice the conditional: if we as a society. . .
We’re already in the state where the government is subsidizing enough of the populace for your dire prediction of the left buying elections is realized, but the structure of the state subsidies has yet more drawbacks since “means testing” creates genuine disincentives for getting out of poverty. A universal flat stipend which is not taken away when one works or invests to earn more money is, as Milton Friedman (no leftist he) pointed out, the only income support measure which does not create such perverse incentives. (I’m not saying it should be done, just pointing out what we’re doing now to succor the poor with tax monies is worse.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.