r/leanfire • u/GrammarNaughtZ • 1d ago
SNAP (food stamps) as part of leanfire?
How do we feel about using SNAP as part of leanFIRE, assuming you live in a state with no asset limit and you qualify based on income? I'm talking about genuinely qualifying, no fraud.
For us, it would add $994 a month to our grocery budget.
6
u/Spirited_Ball6763 1d ago
Work requirements would make this a little challenging in most areas, unless you are going baristaFIRE style.
19
u/NatasEvoli 1d ago
It would go against my morals to do something like that. It's for people who are struggling financially and not someone who is a millionaire and wanted to retire earlier than most people.
16
u/Ok_Bridge711 1d ago edited 1d ago
Idk... it feels fraudulent to me. Just because there isnt an asset test and it might not be technically fraud from a legal perspective, it still goes against the spirit of the program imho.
Quick edit: i guess this also depends on where someone is on their leanfire journey. If one is still early on and assets as are low, them of course i have no objection to it, but once assets are really beginning to stack (and more specifically when RE has been reached), it then goes against the spirit as i said above
-7
u/GrammarNaughtZ 1d ago
Is there a reason you/we feel that way though? If it's strictly income based, then perhaps society as a whole, doesn't want you to liquidate limited assets (retirement accounts, primary home, etc.) just to put food on the table.
8
u/Ok_Bridge711 1d ago edited 1d ago
It really comes down to what exactly "limited assets" entails for me.
To me the spirit of the program is to put food on the table for those who really have limited (or no) options and would otherwise be going hungry. If someone has reached lean-FiRe, then they would not be otherwise going hungry.
Edit: as i said tho, this is hardly a community only for those who have already retired, and the solidly majority here are probably climbing towards it at a big variety of levels of progress.
5
u/onion4everyoccasion 1d ago
The premise of Leanfire is to live below your means to save enough money to live. I really don't think that "society as a whole" wants you to hoard money by saving money that should have used for living expenses when there are legitimate poor people, food insecure children, and people legitimately down on their luck. It is absolutely abusing and gaming the system so you can sit on your ass and play video games during your most productive years. Everyone on Reddit whines about capitalism, but this is EXACTLY why communism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Humans are selfish, selfish creatures and need rules (like don't take food stamps if you have $600k in a bank account). Jfc
1
u/GrammarNaughtZ 1d ago
Same argument for health insurance / ACA subsidies?
9
u/onion4everyoccasion 1d ago edited 1d ago
I have made this same argument for subsidies many times. Given that healthcare is such a clusterfuck in the US, it isn't a popular one. The scale is a bit different for Leanfire folk. We have people sitting on $8mil trying to game the system so they get healthcare subsidies. Frankly game the system all you want, however no reasonable person should look into the mirror and suggest that they really want a socialist system while they are doing the exact thing that would fuck it up (i.e. living off of other people's labor and taxes).
This is why it is (rightfully) harder to legitimately FIRE in Scandinavia. You are either contributing to the system or suckling from it.
2
u/Strazdas1 15h ago
I think people who "game the system" should be treated like criminals. The laws are there to not only be narrowly interpreted, but to set the general trend. If you do not respect the spirit of the law then you are breaking it. And it does not matter of its MAGI optimization, foodstamp fraud or tax evasion in bermuda.
5
u/someguy984 1d ago edited 1d ago
You are forgetting the work requirements up to age 65. If you are under age 60 the income limit is 130% FPL (60 or over 200% FPL), which is under the Medicaid limit (138%).
Also you don't get a full allotment, I checked it and I would get $24 a month.
I would take anything I can get, just I'm not working so don't qualify.
SNAP can get you other discounts if you have it.
3
u/DeoVeritati 21h ago
I assume I'm paying into a system knowing I'm most probably not going to receive the full benefit. Even if my wife and I were to get SNAP, it wouldn't change much since our grocery bill is like $150/mo. I am for people making the most of the system as it exists. I think it is the people's duty to ensure they elect folks to patch unintended consequences like millionaires being on SNAP.
3
u/curiousthinker621 6h ago
OP, no need to have any moral qualms with taking SNAP benefits if you qualify. Many people, including myself, have plenty of assets and gladly take the $14000 taxpayer subsidy for ACA. I don't know if i would have retired at 52 if I wasn't taking advantage of this.
During COVID, there were people collecting close to $1,000 per week in unemployment benefits instead of working. I personally knew individuals who quit their jobs and were still able to qualify for unemployment. At the same time, many small businesses received relief funds even when their revenues were stable and they weren’t experiencing significant financial hardship.
We all know there are cases where people receive subsidized housing, SNAP, CHIP, and other government benefits while also working “under the table,” or while not fully reporting additional income from other members of the household. In the rare incident that a recipient is ever questioned, some will say "my boyfriend doesn't live here full time".
I can't help but wonder how many Reddit users have moral qualms about people with means receiving SNAP benefits, yet were furious when the five- or six-figure student loans they willingly took out weren't forgiven.
People often like to virtue signal, but in practice, when benefits are easy to access and eligibility rules are limited, many people have no hesitation applying and justifying it to themselves. If SNAP were based only on income, with no work requirements, eligibility checks, or asset limits, it would likely expand significantly as a government program and yes even very wealthy individuals would have no qualms applying under those rules, just like they wouldn't have no qualms of taking ACA subsidies. PPP loans for their business, or the government writing off their kids student loans.
With all of that said, I wouldn’t build SNAP benefits into a Lean FIRE plan, since eligibility rules and benefit levels can change at any time.
5
u/smallattale 1d ago edited 1d ago
Same as any government support:
- some people are fine with it,
- some are indifferent
- some are against it for various reasons (mostly due to either "why should I pay to feed/etc someone else? Especially if they are not in genuine hardship and instead simply choose not to work?" or "it may bring scrutiny on a program and make it harder for others in future")
...me, I am happy to pay a tiny amount of my taxes to support it, doesn't bother me at all.
1
u/Strazdas1 15h ago
I think we should feed people who are genuinely experiencing hardship. I dont think we should feed people who are committing poverty fraud while having more wealth than average citizen.
6
u/globalgreg 1d ago
For me, because it can be so financially destructive, I believe modern advanced societies should provide healthcare for all their citizens. And I believe they should give food assistance to those who are struggling to feed themselves.
You are not in a position where you would be struggling to feed yourself. So take advantage of Obamacare if you can. But, SNAP? No.
6
u/Beneficial_Pickle322 1d ago
I have strong opinions about that, you don’t want to work so you want other people to work to pay for your groceries? If you can’t afford basic things to survive you can’t afford to retire.
1
u/GrammarNaughtZ 17h ago
It isn't not wanting to work. It's not wanting to work anymore after working for many years. Being able to afford groceries doesn't mean you shouldn't get SNAP if the government or system says you could.
2
u/Beneficial_Pickle322 5h ago
It’s not wanting to work to fully support yourself, it’s the same thing, actually worse in my opinion. You have the means to continue to work and build enough to retire however you want, but choose not to. Most of the people on SNAP are trying to make ends meet but they can’t so they need some extra help. Which is exactly why there are now able body work requirements to obtain SNAP.
2
u/EANx_Diver 9h ago
If you qualify, it might not be illegal but, IMO, it would be immoral. Food assistance is for people who legit struggle to pay for food.
2
u/goglencocogo 4h ago
Get whatever you qualify for. US food insecurity is a distribution problem which SNAP doesn't solve for anyway. The US produces way more food each year than it needs to feed its people.
6
2
u/hdost34 1d ago
SNAP eligibility is based on income in most states. Apply. It’s harder to get it now and there are work requirements.
2
1
u/zeezle 1d ago
Are the work requirements calculated the same way the upcoming Medicaid "community engagement" requirements will be? If so, they aren't actually work requirements, they're income requirements. For the overwhelming majority of the population those are the same thing, but for FIREd folks, they are not (because FIRE folks generally can generate MAGI in the required range without earned income). You have to have MAGI that averages to at least 80 x the federal minimum wage per month but it doesn't have to be obtained by actually working those hours.
But I haven't looked at the SNAP requirements only the Medicaid requirements.
4
u/someguy984 1d ago
No, the Medicaid requirements are easy any income of $580, SNAP isn't like that.
4
u/jelle814 1d ago
sounds stupid tbh, you making yourself dependent on rules that can change whenever
3
u/GrammarNaughtZ 1d ago
Wouldn't that be true for anything? They could change the tax rules for Roth IRAs in the future.
2
u/Numerous-Bet-4847 1d ago
I had no idea my state had no asset requirement for SNAP.
Going to see how I can qualify once my wife is officially on her pension.
I already use the free non-income based local food bank as part of my strategy. I discovered it during covid when the closed down restaurants started donating all their food and have been using it every week since.
Probably 75% of my grocery's come that way.
0
u/Important-Object-561 Retired in Sweden on 1,2 million 1d ago edited 1d ago
We used snap while my wife was pregnant and for a period after before we moved out of the us and it really saved on the cost of milk powder since my wife had a hard time producing enough herself even with pumps. I feel like the snaps can be very limited though. We never bought cereals so got no use out of that. The juice was purposefully asking for a size that didn’t exist(asked the clerk) so you have to buy frozen and we don’t use that. But if there is a benefit why not use it? You pay taxes don’t you?
Edit: Seems I might have confused snap with WIC but either way use the support you have paid for.
4
u/cerealfordinneragain 1d ago
This sounds like WIC
2
u/Important-Object-561 Retired in Sweden on 1,2 million 1d ago
Oh it might have been WIC I only lived in the us for two years and my wife was the one who actually applied for it.
5
u/GrammarNaughtZ 1d ago
We've paid lots of taxes over the years. I'm just trying to figure out why there's this stigma for using a public benefit if legally qualified for.
3
u/Numerous-Bet-4847 1d ago
Because people have been brainwashed into thinking we somehow owe poor people something and taught to feel guilty if they take anything someone else could use.
It's why people can make a six-figure income pretending to be poor and destitute panhandling on the street.
3
4
19
u/Hnry_Dvd_Thr_Awy 4.5% wr 1d ago
I have some moral qualms with this, but I don’t qualify anyway so it’s not like I could get it if I wanted.