Seattle woman lives in multi-million dollar home, whicle receiving welfare

[IDrinkaRum]

She lives in a waterfront lake home on Lake Washington worth millions of dollars

... federal documents obtained by KING 5 News show the couple currently receives more than $1,200 a month in public housing vouchers, plus state and government disability checks and food stamps. They have been receiving the benefits since 2003.

Also from the article:

A federal official told KING 5 that the couple likely took advantage of a loophole, which allows low-income individuals to receive financial assistance to help them pay their rent and move away from housing projects. However, the law does not require officials to verify what type of home the benefits recipient is living in.

It should be noted that they did put the address of their 1.2 million dollar home on the paperwork to get their benefits. They didn't say they were living at 123 Really Poor Street in Really Poor Town. They put exactly where they were living. Officials, as noted above, don't have to verfy the type of home, so they were able to get away with it.

[jackfaire]

I believe this happens more often than people would like to admit. At one point my mom was on disabilty and she had a really nice car that they asked her to sell and buy a lower level car. She refused and they declined her benefits but I think she is the exception as I have left the food stamps office to witness people hopping in very expensive cars that if sold would give them enough money to eat for a year and that is after buying cheaper more cost effective car.

[Andara Bledin]

$1200 a month lets them afford to live in a million dollar home? Where can I sign up?

That'd barely net you rent for a low-end 2-bedroom apartment. If you were lucky and didn't mind living in an area with gang violence.

^-.-^

[Dreamstalker]

When we applied for housing assistance, we were told that our current apartment is "above market value"...where are these mythical 2br for under $2000/month in this town?

[HYHYBT]

This will, of course, be used as an excuse to say that nobody should get assistance at all.

[Panacea]

The article also noted the couple was on disability, which you can get regardless of your previous income level.

So if you make a high level income, get disabled, then you can get disability.

Your benefits depend a lot of whether you are listed permanently 100% disabled, esp if your disability comes through the VA. However, you can in many cases lose your disability if you go back to work.

However, the combination of some types of benefits can legitimately and legally allow some folks to live a middle class lifestyle.

In the case of disabled vets, I don't begrudge it one bit.

However, Social Security disability by itself will not allow you to afford to live in a home like that, much less travel out of the country. Nor will also collecting food stamps or other forms of public assistance.

Do they own the home? Do they own it free and clear? When did they buy the home? Did they inherit money that allowed them to buy the home? Do they rent the home from someone else?

Or is there something else involved, like drug money or do they run some sort to scam that allows them to live this life style?

There's a lot the article doesn't say. We don't know enough to make a judgement about what happened in this case.

[boringscreenname]

I believe this happens more often than people would like to admit. At one point my mom was on disabilty and she had a really nice car that they asked her to sell and buy a lower level car. She refused and they declined her benefits but I think she is the exception as I have left the food stamps office to witness people hopping in very expensive cars that if sold would give them enough money to eat for a year and that is after buying cheaper more cost effective car.

Well when my husband and I applied for food stamps they didn't ask what type of car we drove or what our monthly payment was, but that is just the food stamps program I don't know the requirements for other programs.

[fireheart17]

Do they own the home? Do they own it free and clear? When did they buy the home? Did they inherit money that allowed them to buy the home? Do they rent the home from someone else?

Or is there something else involved, like drug money or do they run some sort to scam that allows them to live this life style?

There's a lot the article doesn't say. We don't know enough to make a judgement about what happened in this case.

Another one you forgot: they could have inherited the home from a family member.

[jackfaire]

The way I see it no matter how they got the home or have the home if they are taking money that I can barely afford to pay in taxes to live a cushy lifestyle they should sell their house first buy a smaller cheaper one and then go for assistance.

I know this seems cold but the thing is that's my money they are using when they have resources.

I can't get public assistance because technically I make too much money on a monthly basis even though that isn't enough to rent my own place and pay all my bills.

So people who own large houses that could be sold, expensive cars etc should sell them before relying on my money.

But me I am a pragmatist before being sentimental and if it means food on my table or a giant house I don't need then I don't care how long it's been in my family.

[Panacea]

Another one you forgot: they could have inherited the home from a family member.

Good point

The way I see it no matter how they got the home or have the home if they are taking money that I can barely afford to pay in taxes to live a cushy lifestyle they should sell their house first buy a smaller cheaper one and then go for assistance.

On a philosophical level, I agree with you. If you have an asset, you should sell it before you ask the taxpayers to bail you out.

On a practical level, it's not as easy as it looks, especially in this economy.

First of all, home prices are in the toilet, and qualified buyers are hard to come by. The house will likely sit on the market for months . . . what are the owners to do until it sells?

In some cases (though I doubt this one), the property might have been in the family for generations . . . should a family that has hit temporary hard times be forced to part with something so valuable just to get a little help? It's easy to say yes . . . until it's you.

If I were in dire straights, I would sell everything I have and cut, cut, cut the budget. I've done it before, and I survived it. I lost some things I wanted to keep, and kept others, and found it wasn't the end of the world.

[jackfaire]

In some cases (though I doubt this one), the property might have been in the family for generations . . . should a family that has hit temporary hard times be forced to part with something so valuable just to get a little help? It's easy to say yes . . . until it's you..

My mom sold the house that my dad and her worked for years to get because the alternative was lose the home and starve on the streets.

And yes I have had to sell things that I have a deep emotional connection to in order to survive. I have had to start over multiple times.

So it has been me. That's why I feel free endorsing people balance their sentimentality with reality.

Although I think part of what helps is that unlike other people my familiy doesn't have deep connections to our ancestors. My grandmother didn't marry until she was in her late 30s in a time when that made you a spinster and didn't have my mom until she was 48. Our whole family was ostracized.

So I will admit that for me it is easier to ignore sentimentality when it comes to my own survival.

I won't vote for any laws forcing people to sell multigenerational homes before being allowed assistance but I will thank them kindly to not complain to me about needing help when I have less resources than they do and am only not currently living in a homeless shelter because my mom was awesome enough to let me rent her spare room.

[protege]

I believe this happens more often than people would like to admit. At one point my mom was on disabilty and she had a really nice car that they asked her to sell and buy a lower level car. She refused and they declined her benefits but I think she is the exception as I have left the food stamps office to witness people hopping in very expensive cars that if sold would give them enough money to eat for a year and that is after buying cheaper more cost effective car.

When my dad was unemployed, we couldn't get benefits at all. Mainly, because we lived out in the 'burbs, and my mom "made too much money." Yeah, her salary was barely enough to keep food in the 'fridge, and the lights and heat on Sure, we had things to eat...but home maintenance tended to suffer. I remember one extremely cold winter...our furnace blew up. It simply couldn't keep up with the weather, and failed. Even with space heaters in bedrooms, it was sooooo cold!

That's why I get a bit pissed off when I hear that some asshole in a million-dollar home is able to get benefits...yet my parents, who live in an average home...cannot. What the fuck is up with that?

Also annoying, are the people who can afford Cadillacs and BMWs, yet live in county-assisted housing. Sorry, but if you can afford those, you can easily afford to pay your own damn rent. Quit leeching off the taxpayers.

[AdminAssistant]

My mom lives in HUD housing, but has a relatively new Toyota Camry. But she got the car when her and Dad were married....at the time she had no way of knowing that Dad would get raging drunk and threaten to kill her. HUD housing was the only place she could go. That's one way a person with a nice car might end up in government housing.

If a piece of property is paid for or mostly paid for and has some vital function (shelter, transportation) then a person should be able to keep it. If it's something blatantly frivolous (jet skis, speedboat, etc.) then it should be sold.

[jackfaire]

My mom lives in HUD housing, but has a relatively new Toyota Camry.

Huge difference. If your mom sold the Camry that wouldn't make sense because that is a nice car and probably in good condition and trading down would mean pretty much an old beat up car not in as good of condition.

A BMW or Cadillac could be sold and the person could buy a Camry and use the rest of the money to help support themselves. That's not idle talk either I checked on Kelly's.

I don't mind seeing someone on assistance driving a nice car. I mind seeing them driving an extravagent car.

If a piece of property is paid for or mostly paid for and has some vital function (shelter, transportation) then a person should be able to keep it. If it's something blatantly frivolous (jet skis, speedboat, etc.) then it should be sold.

And to my mind if the piece of property is more than you need and you could sell it buy another house and still have money left over to support yourself for quite a few years then you should do so and stop taking public assistance that other people need more.

[AdminAssistant]

But you can't just sell a house in this market. You'd lose thousands due to having to sell it below value.