obamacare marital separation

[skigirl1689]

I think that we realize that - in fact one poster commented that to game the system results in taking money from those that truly need the assistance - I believe if you look back through the posts it reads something like *taking food from children that really need the assistance *

But there are those that are committing welfare fraud - similar to what the OP is proposing … I know that I want my tax dollars spent appropriately - I do not want the government to support those who have adequate resources, those that are able bodied and those that are gaming the system …

In fact - I think this is why government should get out of the safety net business - especially at the federal level - there is no way to economical way to feed people locally by first sending a dollar to Washington DC - having it roll around the Federal Bureaucracy - then make it back to the states to put food on the table - one size fits all, no oversight … no accountability

I do agree the fraud is out of control; I see it all the time and it just makes it worse for us that really do need help as we have to go above and beyond to prove we are really disabled, etc. It is frustrating to no end. But the OP did comment most welfare recipients are unchaste so my comments were founded.

Sorry to hear you have had such troubles. My wife and I also have disabilities and it cost me a few jobs but I have been fortunate to be able to work through the set backs, not so much for my wife. I’d be happy if they changed the laws to provide jobs instead of hand outs, but if this is the game they want to play, we might as well play it.

Umm, that’s no excuse to screw the system. I did it all legally, and every time I report new info, I am warned that I will be charged with perjury if I lie. So what you want to do is no different if they catch you.

 

[bluerose]

No one said “beach house” so I believe that you may be reading things into this based on something other than what was written.

I don’t “need” a tax write off for donating money to charity but I am entitled to take it if I am operating within the law.

**What I am trying to do is understand the law so I can take advantage of what money we (my wife) would be legally entitled to if we went through a civil divorce. **

The whole system is corrupted beyond repair so I don’t thing my money going to my wife is any less moral than it going to some other woman who chooses to not be in a legal civil marriage.

Not going to bother reading the whole thread since the very idea of what is being suggested appalls me, but regarding the highlighted above…

Why don’t you go ask a lawyer?

You might need one if you decide to follow through, anyway…

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So you strive to be only as moral as the law requires. That’s sad.

I suppose you’re ok with your wife getting an abortion, since in getting one you’re still acting within the law. Oh, you think abortion should be made illegal? Fine, but it’s ok if she takes advantage of it while it’s legal though, right? Other women do.

Rather than trying to scam money that poor people receive to survive, why don’t you put your arms around your wife and give thanks that you have her and that the two of you are financially safe and comfortable.

 

[Jon_S_1]

AFHGOLD:

Cheating a system that should not exist in the first place!!! Our poster has every right to look for alternatives to survive. This system you speak of is forcing you into slavery!

Read the system of our founding fathers and I am sure you will feel differently!

Your absolutely ridiculous.

Alternatives to survive? Go spend some time on India and then talk to me about surviving.

This louse is wanting to buy vacation homes with our tax dollars buy dividing his family and playing a game of deception with the welfare dept.

 

[freeRadical]

Yes you do have to declare a reason, your wife will also be entitled to alimony and child support. The court should order those amounts paid to her which she will have to declare as income and pay tax on (the alimony) and factor in to welfare reception.

At the end I the day I doubt you would be ahead, and f she ever gets pissed at you she’s halfway to taking all you have.

The wife can deny alimony and child support in the divorce settlement.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The wife can deny alimony and child support in the divorce settlement.

Yes, but if she then goes to get welfare because she is “destitute” the government will go after the children’s father to repay the welfare.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Your absolutely ridiculous.

Alternatives to survive? Go spend some time on India and then talk to me about surviving.

This louse is wanting to buy vacation homes with our tax dollars buy dividing his family and playing a game of deception with the welfare dept.

I am sorry sir but you know nothing about me.

Me speaking out against someone committing fraud, no matter what his frustration, bears no weight in my political ideals. You also claimed he just needs to survive. No he wants to have it all for free. He is consumed by selfishness , and as a veteran who has seen what true survival looks like both for you and the communities in the Middle East , I hope you can reflect a bit more on that.

I am only a sheep to my shepherd Pope Francis and my Savior Jesus Christ.

Thank you for your service.

If you’re interested in my political leanings I suggest you read through some of my posts on this forum to better educate yourself on your baseless assumptions.

 

[freeRadical]

Yes, but if she then goes to get welfare because she is “destitute” the government will go after the children’s father to repay the welfare.

No they won’t. They legally can’t. They are divorced, the father’s wage has nothing to do with welfare. It only comes into play for alimony and child support, which she can deny.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No they won’t. They legally can’t. They are divorced, the father’s wage has nothing to do with welfare. It only comes into play for alimony and child support, which she can deny.

That’s not true at all.

In aid cases, the welfare department refers the case to the CSE agency. They then pursue the noncustodial parent to establish paternity, set a current child support order, medical insurance order and possibly reimbursement to the state for cash aid previously paid to the custodial parent for the children. In instances where the children are in foster care, the state will pursue both the mother and the father as noncustodial parents. The basic idea here is that the parents absent from the home in which the child resides should be financially responsible for the care of the children - not the taxpayers. In cases where there is already a child support order in effect, the custodial parent assigns to the state, any and all child support arrears owed to her until he or she discontinues cash aid. At that point, the CSE agency will deduct the amount of “total aid paid” from the arrears owed the custodial parent and the remaining balance, if any, reverts back to the custodial parent. The noncustodial parent then has 2 arrears balances - one owed to the CSE agency to reimburse welfare and one owed to the custodial parent.

divorcesource.com/ds/childsupport/welfare-cases-and-welfare-reform-445.shtml

Dozens if not hundreds, more articles and sources online regarding this. Do a google search.

 

[freeRadical]

That’s not true at all.

divorcesource.com/ds/childsupport/welfare-cases-and-welfare-reform-445.shtml

Dozens if not hundreds, more articles and sources online regarding this. Do a google search.

I did. You are right. Thus I deleted my original post.

 

[MJJean]

The wife can deny alimony and child support in the divorce settlement.

Not necessarily true. I wanted to deny child support because my ex already had 2 children he was obligated to pay support for and he wasn’t paying. I knew he wouldn’t pay me, either, so why bother? The judge literally refused to grant my divorce unless there was a provision for support. He said “The support is not for you, it is for your children. If you don’t want it, put it in a bank account for them.” I was literally forced to open a child support case or my divorce would be on hold indefinitely.

Yes, but if she then goes to get welfare because she is “destitute” the government will go after the children’s father to repay the welfare.

Yup. If she applies for any welfare the state will open a case against her husband and require restitution for any assistance the children receive. Medical, cash benefit, daycare, etc. And, the kicker, if the wife refuses to go along with the state she will lose benefits.

Did I read wrong, or did the OP say they had a vacation home they could use as the second address so it wouldn’t look like they lived together and their total income wouldn’t be counted when the wife applied for benefits? If so, and health insurance is such a problem, perhaps they should sell the vacation home to pay for insurance costs…

 

[royal_archer]

Actually, I get this guy’s point–it took me reading a few responses and his replies before it sunk in with me–but I get it!

Actually somewhat open mindedly serious pending on how easy and the financial break even point. But based on what I learned here it seems to not be pragmatic.

Still thinking through all of the moral implications (more from a philosophical point of view at this point). Although my original opinion is that such an approach would not meet my personal moral standards, I would like to think this out. Those who are arguing that this is immoral are not doing a very good job. They have to resort to name calling, taking things out of context, and false accusations, basically very close minded not able to give reasoned objections to seemingly valid arguments that such an approach would not be immoral.

 

[Listener]

I thought Bill Clinton ended “welfare as we know it.” It is my understanding that a woman temporarily on welfare now has to look for a job. If she has kids, too bad! The state expects you to put them in a day care center.

Have you ever looked at how much savings a welfare a person receiving welfare can have? I think they have to be flat broke. Even $1000 in a savings account would probably be too much.

Do you live in a community property state? Then I have news for you. Your wife owns half of everything you have. If she owns half of the vacation house, they will probably make her sell it and use the money to live on before they give her a dime.

Have you been married for over ten years? If so, your wife can collect Social Security on your account when she turns 62. If you haven’t been married ten years, and your wife does not get a job, she will receive no Social Security check when she turns 62.

If I was your wife, I would get a job and hide all of my money in a secret bank account that was unknown to you.

 

[royal_archer]

Did I read wrong, or did the OP say they had a vacation home they could use as the second address so it wouldn’t look like they lived together and their total income wouldn’t be counted when the wife applied for benefits? If so, and health insurance is such a problem, perhaps they should sell the vacation home to pay for insurance costs…

you read wrong I never said vacation home. I said considering buying property for vacation use/ retirement. Our home is not handicap accessible. we will eventually have to move into a smaller home that is accessible. one plan is to buy a lot now while prices are still reasonable and I can begin building that retirement home. With the added benefit of being able to camp out on the property till the house is finished.

Do you recommend all people who are not getting the subsidy hand outs and can’t afford their run away insurance costs get forced out of their homes to pay for it?

 

[royal_archer]

I thought Bill Clinton ended “welfare as we know it.” It is my understanding that a woman temporarily on welfare now has to look for a job. If she has kids, too bad! The state expects you to put them in a day care center.

Obama overturned that and are not enforcing requirements to look for jobs like they used to. They have also extended unemployment to the point it no long represents the stop gap measure it was originally designed for.

Have you ever looked at how much savings a welfare a person receiving welfare can have? I think they have to be flat broke. Even $1000 in a savings account would probably be too much.

What a lot of seniors are doing is transferring their savings to their kids so they can get into retirement homes cheaper. I presume the same principle would apply.

Do you live in a community property state? Then I have news for you. Your wife owns half of everything you have. If she owns half of the vacation house, they will probably make her sell it and use the money to live on before they give her a dime.

that would have to get worked out in the paper work. the husband and wife would just have to determine who will be the one to carry on with the prior finances and who will be the one joining the government system. THERE IS NO VACATION HOUSE, just people with challenges reading.

Have you been married for over ten years? If so, your wife can collect Social Security on your account when she turns 62. If you haven’t been married ten years, and your wife does not get a job, she will receive no Social Security check when she turns 62.

Despite greater than 10 years she can’t even collect disability because she is married to me.

If I was your wife, I would get a job and hide all of my money in a secret bank account that was unknown to you.

she can hide it in the joint account and it would still be unknown to me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I expect a lot of this under Obamacare, since the subsidies are based on “household” income. In some cases, it is a strong disincentive to marriage. Two people with two children, each making $35,000, will qualify for subsidies of about $3000.00. One household with a combined income of $70,000 won’t.

I have seen people get divorced collusively for reasons like social security, liability for nursing care, and disability benefits.

It is also discouraging to working teens in a family. Their income could push a person off the subsidy category into the non-subsidized category.

I pass no judgment on the OP. But this does remind me of something Solzhenitsyn said: “The state should not be so excessively fierce that it drives its citizens into deception.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

What a lot of seniors are doing is transferring their savings to their kids so they can get into retirement homes cheaper. I presume the same principle would apply.

.

There is a lot of that going on. The feds have tightened up the rules, but basically if they do it and don’t need long term care for five years after, the spouse in nursing care will qualify for Medicaid.

SSI eligibility is based on household income. SSD is not.

All of this stuff the government does is problematic, morally. On the one hand, we have a government that has no more regard for Catholic principles than it does of a feather in the wind, and additionally requires us to violate conscience in its mandates or be punished for it. It creates all kinds of exceptions and ill-considered rules that allow for perfectly legal evasions. And the system is abused horribly, and we all know it.

On the other hand, somebody else has to pay for all of that.

I’ll speak frankly, long, long ago I placed what I figured would be appreciating assets in trust for my children precisely because I did not want them to have to pay estate taxes or get no inheritance, either one. The assets have significantly grown since then. I can’t undo it, and didn’t want to then, and don’t now.

It does provide for my wife for her life if she survives me. But she can’t exercise dominion over it either. The trustee will.

I think I can face dying penniless with equanimity, and want my children and grandchildren to be able to afford homes, education, etc, that is getting harder and harder to accomplish for young people. I got an education when it was massively cheaper. I bought a home when it was much less expensive.

Entirely legal. But is it moral? Immoral?

I’m not sure the question admits of easy answers.

 

[royal_archer]

sorry, I could not be here to respond in a more timely manner. but I had to work, Millions on welfare depend on me.

It is important to approach complex issues with an open mind and discuss them with calm reason and facts, not knee jerk reactions, name calling, deceitful arguments based on statements taken out of context or false assertions.

Now part of the problem here is the definition of welfare. Which in the broader sense is a giant catch all for things that the government provides to citizens that the citizens did not earn or are not otherwise legally owed. If you believe that the sole reason that these programs exist is purely altruistic and for the benefit of a small number of people who could not survive with out it, I can understand objection to any but the most destitute receiving it. However, these programs are only altruistic in their façade. However, it is more apparent that these programs are designed to generate votes and increase the dependency of the populace on the government.

programs like the cash for clunkers, new home purchase money, Obamacare subsidies, Obama phones, and other hand outs are simply a way for politicians to use our money to buy votes, or in other words, a way to move money from people who voted against Obama to people who voted for Obama. With the understanding that these are merely campaigns to generate support for candidates, there is a different perspective on the morality of accepting this money.

If the gas station were celebrating the win for a local team by selling hot dogs for half price, would it be immoral to accept the half price hot dog if you were routing for the other team? Yes, you may not be the intended recipient of the deal, but you are an allowed recipient. As such, there is nothing wrong with accepting the deal.

I personally see no difference between someone having means and giving it up in order to receive government benefits and someone who has the opportunity to attain means but chooses not to and then receives government benefits.

 

[royal_archer]

I pass no judgment on the OP. But this does remind me of something Solzhenitsyn said: “The state should not be so excessively fierce that it drives its citizens into deception.”

Not deception, openly playing by the rules.

 

[Et_Cetera]

sorry, I could not be here to respond in a more timely manner. but I had to work, Millions on welfare depend on me.

Millions of people on welfare are working too. These rude ideas toward the poor are so un-Christian. How about bring thankful that you have a job that provides enough for you? This whole thread is sickening, and I’m surprised moderators haven’t shut it down. Go ahead, dude, scam the system and take money away from people who legitimately need it and tell yourself that you deserve it more than they do. It’s morally wrong, but you just want to keep justifying it to yourself. And if you’re not concerned with the ethical aspect, then go to a forum of attorneys or just hire your own for these questions. My suspicion is that you know what you’re doing is wrong and you want to try to talk CAF members into giving you the okay so that you won’t have to feel as guilty. Not sure how much Russian lit you’ve read, but crime is punishment. Your guilt will catch you if you’re a worthwhile person.