Far fewer than you'd think.

Your comment isn't a particularly helpful thing to say as it attempts to paint struggling people as frivolous, and undeserving of help.

There are many people who are barely scraping by, they drive an old car (because public transport in many places is a joke), and they're just one expensive repair away from having to make hard decisions.

That's an unnecessarily inflammatory way to put it, but yes, there are smarter ways to do this kind of regulation, that involve more "informing the consumer" and less "bad, symptom-of-problem! Go away and the problem is solved!"

In CA several years ago, I checked out a payday loan place for a cash advance, and what surprised me was that, apparently, they suggest a bunch of (cheaper, non-profit) alternatives to using them, and only then approve the loan. I don't know if that's a law that they have to, but that seems like a better way to go about this.

Similarly, like you say, maybe the core problem is bad spending patterns. Posters like to copypasta the Vimes bit about "the poor are poor because they don't have the upfront money to pay 2x for something that will last 10x". Well, if true, maybe mandate that kind of counseling at payday lenders.

Those seem like better ways to address the core problem than banning the practice.

How many are paying for unnecessary electric bills? Or cars? Or water when they could be digging wells like our forefathers did. Poor people should maintain a 16th century lifestyle.

/sarcasm /sorry

Very few, the "welfare queen" idea is largely unsupported by actual evidence, despite chain emails claiming to document someone buying [luxury food] on food stamps.

Food stamps can be used to purchase lobster. I don't know why you think that's impossible.

Edit: I've even seen fast food places accept EBT.

People who seriously object to SNAP, or find it to be too generous should seriously spend a month on it. It's legitimately difficult to shop and budget around because it so restrictive and you don't get much.

Yeah, you may technically be able buy some lobster with your SNAP, but it would cost several days worth of benefits to do so. But if someone is willing to go hungry for a few days in order to indulge in a modest luxury, then why not let them? The whole point of these "free market" welfare programs is that people know best how to spend their money.

>But if someone is willing to go hungry for a few days in order to indulge in a modest luxury, then why not let them? The whole point of these "free market" welfare programs is that people know best how to spend their money.

I completely agree, but the typical case isn't "hey, I rewarded myself for showing restraint in spending my benefits while I work myself out of poverty" (which I completely support) but "stars above, it wasn't enough, again, woe is me, I need more indefinitely and why change if they'll cut my benefits ones I have gainful employment?".

But back to the original topic, it's fine to argue that the typical food stamp recipient isn't high on the hog. It's not fine to act like no luxury good has ever been bought on food stamps, and every recipient is a meticulous steward of taxpayer's largesse, ceaselessly working toward the day when they don't need public assistance.

> It's not fine to act like no luxury good has ever been bought on food stamps, and every recipient is a meticulous steward of taxpayer's largesse, ceaselessly working toward the day when they don't need public assistance.

Can you please point out where anyone has ever legitimately argued that?

I think we're all aware social programs are abused. I also think we're better off with them, even being abused, than without.

Much, I would note, like so many in the broader discussion are arguing regarding these lenders...

Social Programs are abused, but not nearly at the levels that people assume. In 2016, SNAP abuse accounted for just 0.9% of SNAP benefits paid. This also coincided with a drastic reduction in overall utilization from the 4 prior years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-f...

>Can you please point out where anyone has ever legitimately argued that?

How about where I entered the thread?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19100636

>chain emails claiming to document someone buying [luxury food] on food stamps.

--

>I think we're all aware social programs are abused. I also think we're better off with them, even being abused, than without.

And I think it's unrealistic to model the abuse as one-off, contained events instead of "pockets of underclass that grows up not knowing anything different".

Do I read you correctly as saying that the anecdotal evidence of the kinds of abuse you're concerned about (in the form of chain emails, &c) outweighs the actual, you know, "research" that has been done on these programs, their use, and their outcomes, and that there is instead some kind of systemic abuse by "pockets of underclass that grows up not knowing anything different"?

Because, yeah. We're just going to talk past each other here if so. Back to my deadline.

Where did I say I was grounding any of this in a chain email? I started out objecting to someone's over-the-top skepticism that anyone has every bought a luxury food on foodstamps.

Are you saying there aren't pockets of near-permanent poverty in America that depend on social spending? Nice, didn't know that was patched up.

I guess I don't find referencing research in response to cultural tropes to be "over-the-top skepticism".

Have a good day.

Neither do I, which is why I never applied the appellation "over-the-top skepticism" to "referencing research"; it was applied to the commenter's ridicule of an account of someone buying a luxury food with foodstamps.

Is there a reason you thought my appellation was being applied to something else?

> the typical case isn't "hey, I rewarded myself for showing restraint in spending my benefits while I work myself out of poverty" (which I completely support) but "stars above, it wasn't enough, again, woe is me, I need more indefinitely and why change if they'll cut my benefits ones I have gainful employment?".

Source?

Cell phones are a necessity and cable provides enormous entertainment value for the money.

Cable is not a necessity. $15 cell plans on $100 phones are easily doable @ $280 per year. How many have a subsidized iPhone on a $50+ monthly plan?

Why don't you tell us, as you seem so sure of your point?

Do you think that $420/yr difference is really moving the needle on poverty?