I don't see any phase-out information in the eligibility pages I'm finding online. Is there an actual administrative or logistical reason that people making slightly over the income limits cannot...
In general, a household qualifies for the program if it has a gross monthly income at or below 130% of the federal poverty level as well as a net monthly income at or below 100% of the federal poverty level. [...] And households of all types are limited in how much they can have in cash, investments and other assets and still qualify for SNAP.
I don't see any phase-out information in the eligibility pages I'm finding online. Is there an actual administrative or logistical reason that people making slightly over the income limits cannot just receive... correspondingly fewer benefits, rather than zero benefits? The "benefits cliff" seems unnecessary.
If the IRS can have a phased income eligibility matrix for a Roth IRA, the Department of Agriculture can surely do the same with SNAP.
IMO it'd be easier to just turn SNAP into a basic-income style program. Remove all requirements for joining the program, everyone gets a monthly SNAP balance with $500 for food and $100 cash on it...
IMO it'd be easier to just turn SNAP into a basic-income style program. Remove all requirements for joining the program, everyone gets a monthly SNAP balance with $500 for food and $100 cash on it (arbitrary amounts).
Increase taxes elsewhere accordingly to fund it. I suggest a wealth/asset tax and a solid 20% tax hike for all income over $200k.
My general experience with laws re benefits whether federal, state or local is that programs for poor people are 'harsher' than programs targeting the middle class. The Department of Ag could...
My general experience with laws re benefits whether federal, state or local is that programs for poor people are 'harsher' than programs targeting the middle class. The Department of Ag could absolutely do what you are describing for recipients of SNAP. Did congress want it to? The benefits cliff is a known problem in public policy but there is strong (but not universal) public opinion for there to be punitive aspects to benefits for poor people.
Sadly the reason is that most states will fight tooth and nail to prevent that expansion to include people who make a few cents more than the cut off point. And the USDA knows this, they already...
Sadly the reason is that most states will fight tooth and nail to prevent that expansion to include people who make a few cents more than the cut off point. And the USDA knows this, they already have a hard time getting people onto SNAP that would qualify normally. But some states have that work requirement or job training to try to kick people off of SNAP, these states really don't want to have people on SNAP at all if they were allowed to.
I don't see any phase-out information in the eligibility pages I'm finding online. Is there an actual administrative or logistical reason that people making slightly over the income limits cannot just receive... correspondingly fewer benefits, rather than zero benefits? The "benefits cliff" seems unnecessary.
If the IRS can have a phased income eligibility matrix for a Roth IRA, the Department of Agriculture can surely do the same with SNAP.
IMO it'd be easier to just turn SNAP into a basic-income style program. Remove all requirements for joining the program, everyone gets a monthly SNAP balance with $500 for food and $100 cash on it (arbitrary amounts).
Increase taxes elsewhere accordingly to fund it. I suggest a wealth/asset tax and a solid 20% tax hike for all income over $200k.
My general experience with laws re benefits whether federal, state or local is that programs for poor people are 'harsher' than programs targeting the middle class. The Department of Ag could absolutely do what you are describing for recipients of SNAP. Did congress want it to? The benefits cliff is a known problem in public policy but there is strong (but not universal) public opinion for there to be punitive aspects to benefits for poor people.
Sadly the reason is that most states will fight tooth and nail to prevent that expansion to include people who make a few cents more than the cut off point. And the USDA knows this, they already have a hard time getting people onto SNAP that would qualify normally. But some states have that work requirement or job training to try to kick people off of SNAP, these states really don't want to have people on SNAP at all if they were allowed to.