Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 17, 2015 12:42:06 GMT -5
There's a huge difference between these two situations. Bonny's Dad reported the assets to the same department tloonya is trying to shield assets from and you don't see a difference, whoisjohngalt? Really? Yes, really. Bonny's dad IS shielding the assets. He still has those $17K, he has full access to them. But he makes it seem like he doesn't by putting it in bonny's name. The OP guy actually gave up the assets for real. He has no more access to them. The only "wrong" thing he did, is didn't spent it in the allowed time. Bonny's dad didn't spent it in the allowed time either. In both cases the money belonged to the individuals. They were given to them through either pension or govt assistance.
That's only 1/2 the difference. The other half is not reporting. Thank you for at least acknowledging the difference between the 2 situations. 1 legal (disclosure then transfer of ownership of assets), 1 fraud (fraudulently completing forms for indeterminate length of time prior to transfer of ownership)
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,088
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Oct 17, 2015 13:07:47 GMT -5
I think there is a difference too, because as Bonny stated, "the $17k windfall was nearly 15 years of $100 mthly pension payments that was paid in a lump sum. Had they been paid in a timely fashion the lump sum never would have been an issue".
So it's not like her father was socking it away as it came. They screwed up and they made it right in a chunk. Can't really hold him responsible for their error. He had no intent to hide money, and *didn't* hide it when he got it, either.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 17, 2015 13:24:03 GMT -5
I also don't recall a discussion about Bonny's father stashing away cash while going to foodbanks and taking from people who may not have any resources at all.
Because we all know foodbanks have excess capacity.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 17, 2015 14:13:35 GMT -5
I think there is a difference too, because as Bonny stated, "the $17k windfall was nearly 15 years of $100 mthly pension payments that was paid in a lump sum. Had they been paid in a timely fashion the lump sum never would have been an issue". So it's not like her father was socking it away as it came. They screwed up and they made it right in a chunk. Can't really hold him responsible for their error. He had no intent to hide money, and *didn't* hide it when he got it, either. But this is so ironic. Guy 1 - received all the $$ through the years, stashed some away, can't keep any legally. Guy 2 - didn't receive all $$ through the years, finally got it, can't keep it legally. Regardless of what happened in the past, they are both doing the exactly same thing - hiding the money. You guys are all arguing details, but when you cut out all the noise - the bottom line is the same. You can't keep your own money if govt thinks you have too much. To me, that's the real problem.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 17, 2015 14:17:34 GMT -5
I also don't recall a discussion about Bonny's father stashing away cash while going to foodbanks and taking from people who may not have any resources at all. Because we all know foodbanks have excess capacity. re: foodbanks. may be questionable ethically, but certainly not illegal. Also, not to get off the topic too much, but I know how people from where I am from viewed/view food, so I can understand that mentality.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 17, 2015 14:45:54 GMT -5
I think there is a difference too, because as Bonny stated, "the $17k windfall was nearly 15 years of $100 mthly pension payments that was paid in a lump sum. Had they been paid in a timely fashion the lump sum never would have been an issue". So it's not like her father was socking it away as it came. They screwed up and they made it right in a chunk. Can't really hold him responsible for their error. He had no intent to hide money, and *didn't* hide it when he got it, either. But this is so ironic. Guy 1 - received all the $$ through the years, stashed some away, can't keep any legally. Guy 2 - didn't receive all $$ through the years, finally got it, can't keep it legally. Regardless of what happened in the past, they are both doing the exactly same thing - hiding the money. You guys are all arguing details, but when you cut out all the noise - the bottom line is the same. You can't keep your own money if govt thinks you have too much. No. Guy 2 reported it Guy 1 didn't Failure to report = fraud
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 17, 2015 14:53:55 GMT -5
The guy in OP did report it. He didn't get it in cash originally. He got it via govt check. Govt knew exactly how much he got and if he had to file taxes, it was on it all through the years.
The fact that he chose to save some of it in his mattress doesn't mean he didn't report it.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 17, 2015 15:01:57 GMT -5
The guy in OP did report it. He didn't get it in cash originally. He got it via govt check. Govt knew exactly how much he got and if he had to file taxes, it was on it all through the years. The fact that he chose to save some of it in his mattress doesn't mean he didn't report it. in order to maintain eligibility to SSI he needed to report his assets. That means he needed to include that "save some of it in his mattress" money to the big bad government every time he completed an eligibility update who then would have told him he had to get his assets in line by end of month or not get the next check. Which is why the OP was so concerned as to how to get it to her without having it go thru a bank to keep it under the big bad government's radar. SSI recepients don't file taxes
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 17, 2015 15:04:56 GMT -5
Ok, let's put it this way.
Guy 1 got govt aid that was supposed to cover living expenses. To the extent it doesn't, there's food banks to help. Decided he wants to leave some to his grandchildren so he hides the money and takes food from some people who don't have the same resources he does.
Guy 2 gets govt aid. Gets a windfall and reports it. Does as he is directed so he doesn't have assets at the end of the 30 day testing period. Doesn't take food from the mouths of people who need it more than he does and doesn't leave a wad to his grandchildren.
I get really disgusted especially when immigrants tell me they understand the mentality of "America is so rich it doesn't matter if I steal from it". We permitted you entry into the greatest nation on earth and you slap us in the face by stealing from us and Americans who may have greater needs than you.
Did you come here to contribute or to take? If it's the latter, let me show you the door.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Oct 17, 2015 15:08:36 GMT -5
The guy in OP did report it. He didn't get it in cash originally. He got it via govt check. Govt knew exactly how much he got and if he had to file taxes, it was on it all through the years. The fact that he chose to save some of it in his mattress doesn't mean he didn't report it. The problem with your theory about the government not allowing people off the system is that many of these people don't want off the system. Three scenarios in this sting alone. Guy #1 saves $25K and hides it, Guy #2 receives $17K and transfers it, Guy #3 refuses an inheritance. None have any intention of getting of the dole and never will and it's not because of government limitations. All that does is prevent people from becoming hugely wealthy and still taking tax payer money. Which, you better believe if people have a problem with some of these scenarios, they would with the folks who managed to save $100,000s and still collect welfare.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 17, 2015 15:20:21 GMT -5
Guy 1: SSI - never paid in
Guy 2: Medical & SSA also aged, but his cash back that he paid during working life -- medical similar to ACA
Guy 3: SSI
None can work
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 17, 2015 15:34:55 GMT -5
Had my teeth cleaned the other day. I got into a discussion about going on Medicare this coming May. I asked her what was the cost of teeth cleaning without any dental insurance. She quoted me a price which was acceptable even without insurance (for me). In my city we have a college of dentistry. We also have a community college which trains hygienists where she was a past teacher/instructor. She recommended going to either for dental work if money is a problem, especially the community college for hygienists. The hygienists-in-training's work is monitored by the teachers. It may take a bit longer for the cleaning but you end up with a good cleaning. The college of dentistry does more complex dental work for much lower prices too. Everyone recommends a college of dentistry for treatment, but they really don't understand the implications of what is involved on the patient's part. For student dentists, patients are scheduled during the students clinics all rotation day and time. It might take 2-3x the amount of time and a couple visits to complete a treatment that would take 30 min by a dentist. When I have had cleanings done by hygienist students, it has pretty much taken 3-4 hours, when normally I'm out in an hour. Like with dentists, you are scheduled during the hygienists clinical hours. There are also treatments done by faculty and residents, who are dentists who are going for specialty training. The last cost structure I looked at was the 2013 schedule. Faculty prices were not much less than dentists, maybe about 10% max. Residents about 20% less, and students 25-30% less. My last set of 2 crowns was done by a resident. It took a LONG time, but he did a phenomenal job. I paid about 60% of the full rate, but that was also with an employee discount. One of the crowns fractured about 3 years later, so I had it fixed by someone in the prosthodontics faculty. The one crown cost about the same as both did a few years earlier. For me, it was easy to handle this schedule as I worked in the dental school and just needed to walk down the corridor.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 17, 2015 15:37:25 GMT -5
I don't know about any of you, but I see a huge difference between some old guy who's SSA retirement check doesn't go very far so he needs Medical to go with his Medicare and the other 2.
And given Bonny's age, I doubt he's under 65. I mean, he probably wasn't 11 when she was born
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,459
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Oct 17, 2015 15:39:47 GMT -5
There's a huge difference between these two situations. Bonny's Dad reported the assets to the same department tloonya is trying to shield assets from and you don't see a difference, whoisjohngalt? Really? Yes, really. Bonny's dad IS shielding the assets. He still has those $17K, he has full access to them. But he makes it seem like he doesn't by putting it in bonny's name. The OP guy actually gave up the assets for real. He has no more access to them. The only "wrong" thing he did, is didn't spent it in the allowed time. Bonny's dad didn't spent it in the allowed time either. In both cases the money belonged to the individuals. They were given to them through either pension or govt assistance. My father doesn't have full access to the money. It's in a bank account in my name. He must ask me for the money and that's the risk that someone takes when they give away assets. It might not be there in the future.
Here's what will really fry you Lena. My dad could have blown that $17k on a cruise and he would be still eligible so long as the money was out of his account by the end of the month. There is no requirement that the money be spent on any particular item so "gifting" qualifies and therefore you cannot call it fraud.
You seem to be upset that he didn't blow it and gave it to someone he trusts. I think it's a prudent move to set aside some money for health purposes. I also told him that there needs to be a large enough cushion to cover burial costs because it's really not fair to stick the people he loves with that extra cost. Or go through the County's indigent burial process and stick the tax payers with another cost.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 17, 2015 15:39:43 GMT -5
Ok, let's put it this way. Guy 1 got govt aid that was supposed to cover living expenses. To the extent it doesn't, there's food banks to help. Decided he wants to leave some to his grandchildren so he hides the money and takes food from some people who don't have the same resources he does.Guy 2 gets govt aid. Gets a windfall and reports it. Does as he is directed so he doesn't have assets at the end of the 30 day testing period. Doesn't take food from the mouths of people who need it more than he does and doesn't leave a wad to his grandchildren. I get really disgusted especially when immigrants tell me they understand the mentality of "America is so rich it doesn't matter if I steal from it". We permitted you entry into the greatest nation on earth and you slap us in the face by stealing from us and Americans who may have greater needs than you. Did you come here to contribute or to take? If it's the latter, let me show you the door. So, if the guy 1 didn't take the food from food banks, but was still able to save $1K/yr - you would be more OK with him sending the money? What if he didn't wait 25 yrs, but sent it every two years - $2k at a time? Would that be OK? I wasn't talking about "steal it bc America is rich" mentality. It's not an immigrant mentality, it's the mentality of people who went through severe hardships. My friend's mom is the same way. Born and raised in US. I've met many elderly people like that. And some younger ones too who went through various circumstances. I have no idea how I got into such details, my original point was simply that it's a very odd, and in my opinion, broken system - where you can't save out of your circumstances.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 17, 2015 15:45:42 GMT -5
The guy in OP did report it. He didn't get it in cash originally. He got it via govt check. Govt knew exactly how much he got and if he had to file taxes, it was on it all through the years. The fact that he chose to save some of it in his mattress doesn't mean he didn't report it. The problem with your theory about the government not allowing people off the system is that many of these people don't want off the system. Three scenarios in this sting alone. Guy #1 saves $25K and hides it, Guy #2 receives $17K and transfers it, Guy #3 refuses an inheritance. None have any intention of getting of the dole and never will and it's not because of government limitations. All that does is prevent people from becoming hugely wealthy and still taking tax payer money. Which, you better believe if people have a problem with some of these scenarios, they would with the folks who managed to save $100,000s and still collect welfare. Well, in all fairness, in the instance of guy 1 and 2 we are talking about 85 yr old and 79 yr old. And if you ever read any of my posts, you know how anti welfare I am for the most part. But those two scenarios, OP and the other example, makes me think that we are also setting people up for failure in some cases. There has to be some kind of balanced system where if you need help - fine, and no, you can't have $100K in the bank at the same time. But you should be able to save up for some emergencies or even regular expenses. And especially when it comes to people receiving disability. They should definitely be able to save up bc holy shit medical stuff is expensive and may be CA covers everything, but many states don't
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 17, 2015 15:48:05 GMT -5
my original point was simply that it's a very odd, and in my opinion, broken system - where you can't save out of your circumstances. Correct in the USA you cannot collect welfare (SSI) and have over $2000 in the bank. You can work and do it however. System isn't broken. It's designed that way. For those who disagree, they are welcome to see if they can change it through the elections system (fat chance) or find a place more in line with their views. Like I said earlier, people do it all the time .... but in my family, it's others moving here
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Oct 17, 2015 15:47:45 GMT -5
You can save out of your circumstances, but people won't or will do so illegally because that means they'll lose their free money. Few will willingly walk away from a guaranteed paycheck for life when they can't work. It's just the way it is. There is no way to fix the system. If the government took care of my grandfather for life- food, shelter, medical and my family had to contribute little to nothing, I shouldn't get an inheritance- that money should be returned to the government for others in the program.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 17, 2015 15:52:52 GMT -5
Yes, really. Bonny's dad IS shielding the assets. He still has those $17K, he has full access to them. But he makes it seem like he doesn't by putting it in bonny's name. The OP guy actually gave up the assets for real. He has no more access to them. The only "wrong" thing he did, is didn't spent it in the allowed time. Bonny's dad didn't spent it in the allowed time either. In both cases the money belonged to the individuals. They were given to them through either pension or govt assistance. My father doesn't have full access to the money. It's in a bank account in my name. He must ask me for the money and that's the risk that someone takes when they give away assets. It might not be there in the future.
Here's what will really fry you Lena. My dad could have blown that $17k on a cruise and he would be still eligible so long as the money was out of his account by the end of the month. There is no requirement that the money be spent on any particular item so "gifting" qualifies and therefore you cannot call it fraud.
You seem to be upset that he didn't blow it and gave it to someone he trusts. I think it's a prudent move to set aside some money for health purposes. I also told him that there needs to be a large enough cushion to cover burial costs because it's really not fair to stick the people he loves with that extra cost. Or go through the County's indigent burial process and stick the tax payers with another cost.
Not at all!!! Actually, I don't really care what your dad or OP does with the money. I am simply saying that your dad and OP should be able to have more than $2K in the bank under their names without having their benefits revoked. Why should you and your dad have jumped through all the hoops of consulting people and transferring the money? Your father is not going to be "living the life" on those $17K. He should have been able to keep it.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 17, 2015 15:58:54 GMT -5
Guy 1: SSI - never paid in Guy 2: Medical & SSA also aged, but his cash back that he paid during working life -- medical similar to ACA (premium paid by the big bad governmentGuy 3: SSI None can work SSI = welfare, minimalistic support based on % of FPL SSA = retirement benefits based on the amount pd in by recepient
|
|
Works4me
Senior Member
Someone responded to your personal ad - a German Shepherd named Tara wants to have you for dinner...
Joined: May 5, 2012 12:11:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,552
|
Post by Works4me on Oct 18, 2015 4:28:48 GMT -5
Bonny - have you looked into a funeral or burial trust for him?
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,459
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Oct 18, 2015 14:09:38 GMT -5
Bonny - have you looked into a funeral or burial trust for him? No. I haven't heard of such a thing. How do they work?
He'll probably be cremated or whatever the cheapest option is. At least he's stopped saying to put him out with the trash. I got really annoyed with him and told him that wasn't an option and it wasn't fair to stick his girlfriend or me with the decision.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,651
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Oct 18, 2015 15:09:06 GMT -5
Wait a minute...he might have a point here. Are his parts too old for recycling? (Sorry...I had to ask. I just have a mental picture of him propped up on a lawn chair between the newspaper bin and the bottles/plastics bin with a sign around his neck that says "One old dead dude. Take what you can and family will donate the rest of the bits to Goodwill.")
|
|
Works4me
Senior Member
Someone responded to your personal ad - a German Shepherd named Tara wants to have you for dinner...
Joined: May 5, 2012 12:11:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,552
|
Post by Works4me on Oct 18, 2015 21:30:02 GMT -5
Bonny - have you looked into a funeral or burial trust for him? No. I haven't heard of such a thing. How do they work?
He'll probably be cremated or whatever the cheapest option is. At least he's stopped saying to put him out with the trash. I got really annoyed with him and told him that wasn't an option and it wasn't fair to stick his girlfriend or me with the decision.
An Irrevocable Funeral Trust allows money to be set aside to pay for final expenses. Those funds are "exempt" from Medi-Cal.
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Oct 19, 2015 14:48:43 GMT -5
Wait a minute...he might have a point here. Are his parts too old for recycling? (Sorry...I had to ask. I just have a mental picture of him propped up on a lawn chair between the newspaper bin and the bottles/plastics bin with a sign around his neck that says "One old dead dude. Take what you can and family will donate the rest of the bits to Goodwill.") Some employees at UCLA got in trouble a few years ago for selling the more expensive parts of some bodies that had been donated. If you are going that route, you might as well make a buck.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,651
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Oct 19, 2015 14:53:16 GMT -5
Wait a minute...he might have a point here. Are his parts too old for recycling? (Sorry...I had to ask. I just have a mental picture of him propped up on a lawn chair between the newspaper bin and the bottles/plastics bin with a sign around his neck that says "One old dead dude. Take what you can and family will donate the rest of the bits to Goodwill.") Some employees at UCLA got in trouble a few years ago for selling the more expensive parts of some bodies that had been donated. If you are going that route, you might as well make a buck. Exactly! Gramps doesn't needs those parts where he's going, right?
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Oct 21, 2015 12:54:50 GMT -5
Geez! You have fun with it, don't you? And still polar opinions on the same question...and am I still considered an ass for not eating from your hands?
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Oct 21, 2015 13:01:34 GMT -5
The next step from here is a cash police who will have rights to enter your home and search for cash? GOVERMENT said this amount is given. One saves, another spends. One that saves gets the cash. So government gives and then takes back if one saved? Tloonya, it doesn't matter one bit whether you like the law, or not. It's still the law and you're still trying to find ways to break it. This man lived on other people's earnings, not his own. He wasn't saving his money to give to the grandkid. He was saving other people's money to give to the grandkids. The right thing to have done was to have given it back to those from whom it came. In other words, don't take from others more than you need. If he'd worked for the money it would be different. He didn't. So, since he took money that he didn't earn from the government, the government has every right to take it back if he didn't need it. I spoke with lawyers - bool!
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,651
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Oct 21, 2015 13:36:55 GMT -5
Tloonya, it doesn't matter one bit whether you like the law, or not. It's still the law and you're still trying to find ways to break it. This man lived on other people's earnings, not his own. He wasn't saving his money to give to the grandkid. He was saving other people's money to give to the grandkids. The right thing to have done was to have given it back to those from whom it came. In other words, don't take from others more than you need. If he'd worked for the money it would be different. He didn't. So, since he took money that he didn't earn from the government, the government has every right to take it back if he didn't need it. I spoke with lawyers - bool! But did you tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? And when you told them your DH picked up a stack of Benjamins and came back home with his cash-lined luggage, did your lawyers say:
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Oct 21, 2015 13:50:14 GMT -5
I spoke with lawyers - bool! But did you tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? And when you told them your DH picked up a stack of Benjamins and came back home with his cash-lined luggage, did your lawyers say: Ofcourse I told him the truth because I am still thinking you are wrong. Except those who are right. I just hate when people pretend to be so holly that their place is already in Heaven. No ONE THAT honest. Not on this Earth.
|
|