For this reflection paper, I would like to write about Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). From what I can recall, SNAP is a program that gives temporary money to households and individuals for food. Individuals with dependents and/or disabilities get longer periods of time for them to use SNAP. If people do not have dependents or a disability, they have to be working to be considered for SNAP benefits. This program is regulated in the Food Bill, and executed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
I think that more money should be given to this program as it is greatly essential for those trying to get out of poverty, meaning that each household/individual would get more SNAP money each month. People receiving these benefits often do not have enough money to feed themselves or their families by the end of the month, even if they try to budget the benefits.
Especially now with the inflation on food in the country. I believe that the program did increase its budget because of inflation, but that still kept the people in the program struggling for 3 meals a day.
I am glad that this program allows struggling people to receive quality foods as well, such as from farmer’s markets and whole foods markets. However, the amount of these locations that accept EBT cards are limited. I wish that more or all of these locations would be encouraged to accept SNAP. Owners of these shops would still be paid for their products, and these families would get the quality food that they required to improve their lives. Similarly, not all locally and/or family owned restaurants/markets accept SNAP either, and if the Food Bill had more easy programming for these restaurants and shops to transition into also accepting EBT, that would benefit the local economies and the people overall.
I know many individuals who are using SNAP or who have used SNAP in the past to meet their dietary needs. They often had to go through hoops to receive their EBT cards and the benefits that they needed as some of them had difficulty proving their disability. I believe that this process humiliates those that desperately need this assistance. I understand that those working behind the scenes and with the loads of paperwork are likely to be overburdened and
behind on the processes behind SNAP. So I suggest a more streamlined process for the SNAP application should be created. This way, those working behind the scenes have less loads of work to take on, and it would be easier for the people who require SNAP to obtain the assistance they need.
The numbers of households and persons benefiting from SNAP benefits had been relatively consistent (around 10 million households and 20-25 million persons between 1980 and 2008) during most of my life, but the Great Recession sent the number of households using SNAP up to over 20 million, and the number of persons benefiting from SNAP has been above 40 million. SNAP was a program that always ha da cost around $30 to $50 billion, but then during the Great Recession the SNAP program went up to about $100 billion for a few years, and it went up to nearly $120 billion during the COVID recession in 2020-21. In FY 2022, 41.2 million persons in 21.6 million households were using SNAP each month. The most recent information I could find (for August 2024) showed 42.2 million persons in 22.5 million households receiving benefits worth $8.053 billion ($96.6 billion per year). Average benefits were $211.52 per person in 2023. Over a third (37%) of those receiving SNAP receive the minimum benefit, 26% of all SNAP recipient households have earned income, and among SNAP-receiving households with children, 50% have earned income (Key Statistics, 2024). Generally, most households earning less than 130% of the poverty threshold qualify for SNAP benefits. The exception are the non-disabled adults without children, who can receive only three months of SNAP benefits, but if they are in job training or working at least 20 hours per week, they can continue receiving SNAP benefits.
For decades, people had pointed out that SNAP benefits were set at a low level that would not cover actual food expenses. The food budget used to set maximum SNAP benefits was outdated. However, starting in 2021, benefit levels were increased to match more accurately the actual costs of eating nutritious food. As a result, if you look at the costs of the program, they have dramatically increased in the past couple years, and will likely remain about $100 billion per year (after including the cost of administering the program).
One thing that interests me is how real (inflation-adjusted) incomes for persons at the 10th, 20th, and 30th percentile have gone up (according to the 2023 income report from the Census Bureau that came out in September of of 2024). Unemployment is low, and incomes are rising faster than inflation even for low-income earning households, and yet, the percentage of the population receiving SNAP (at 130% of poverty or lower) is remaining fairly steady, or even slightly increasing. This suggests to me that much of the improvement in this “good economy” for low-income households has meant going from terrible low-paying jobs to bad low-paying jobs, or from no jobs to bad low-paying jobs (even a bad low-paying job is an improvement over no job in terms of income). Ideally, a booming economy would mean that persons who work full-time and still don’t earn enough to get over 130% of poverty (still qualify for SNAP) would become rare.
Let’s think about what the family close to that 130%-of-poverty margin might experience. Imagine a family with two young children and one adult staying home to care for the children while the other adult works full-time in one job, 37.5 paid-hours per week with 9 unpaid holidays and 10 paid days off each year (sick leave and vacation), so essentially 240 work days each year and 1,800 hours worked each year. Families with 4 persons have a poverty threshold of $31,200, and 130% of that is $40,560, which is what about what a person earns working for $22.50 for 1,800 hours per year (they would earn $40,500). With two children and an income of $40,500, the family would have $4,000 in refundable tax credits for the children, and an EITC of $3,992. Thus, after payroll withholding for Social Security and Medicare and the benefits of EITC and Child Tax Credits, the income before state and federal income taxes would be $45,394, and the household (in Illinois) would probably qualify for about $400 extra SNAP money for help with groceries (assuming about $1,200 for rent and no significant assets over $5,000 in value). For Federal income taxes, there would be something like a $32K standard deduction, leaving $4,500 of taxable income to pay 10% (so, total tax bill is about $450, and the EITC would actually only get a payback of $3544, approximately). If they lived in Illinois, they would have about $360 in state income tax, but the state of Illinois earned income tax credit would erase most of that, leaving them with possibly $160 in state income taxes to pay.
So, after taxes and EITC and Child Tax Credits and Social Security and Medicare withholding, we’re looking at $3,732 earned income and $400 per month in SNAP benefits, and if the children were in school, they would qualify for free lunches (also, like SNAP, a 130% of poverty threshold). I’ve already said their rent is $1,200, so they have $2532 each month for other expenses, and as their income is under 133% of poverty, they would be covered by Medicaid (if they lived in Illinois or any of the other states that has expanded Medicaid up to 133% of poverty). Insurance on two cars: $120, maintenance and repairs and gas for two cars over a year would average about $160 per month. Utilities in their apartment might average $200 per month (more in winter and summer, less in late spring and early autumn), and their internet service, cell phone service, and cost of their phones might run about $130 per month. Let’s guess one car is paid for, and the other car has a loan that they are paying off with $400 per month payments. Let’s say also that one of them is paying off college student loans, about $400 per month. That covers basics of transportation and utilities and such, and leaves them $1,522 per month. Typically, adults might spend about $450 per month on food, I’ll suggest a monthly food budget for this family of about $1,300. SNAP benefits cover $400, and $900 comes from their income, leaving them about $622 for all other expenditures. Other expenditures would include durable goods like computers and appliances and clothing and shoes and furniture, nondurable goods like toilet paper and soap, entertainment other than the internet, services like child care, out-of-pocket medical care, and putting aside money for savings. The $1,200 monthly rent I estimated is about right for a two-bedroom apartment in Sangamon County (fair market rent for a two-bedroom, which is the 40th percentile, is $1,132). In Chicago, the two-bedroom apartment cost is going to be closer to $1,800, which is $600 more than what they would pay in Springfield, and leave them with about $22 for everything else after covering food, housing, utilities, transportation, and debt serving on college loans and car loans. The higher rent would increase their SNAP benefit, but still, they would be in a tight squeeze.
The result of this examination of a hypothetical family is to determine that at just under 130% of poverty, a household with one full-time adult earning $22.50 per hour and a stay-at-home partner and two children can just about make ends meet, but only because they are helped by about $400 per month in SNAP, plus the benefits of the child tax credits, Earned Income Tax Credits, and Medicaid, as well as free school lunches. But them in a place like Chicago where they would pay $600 more each month for rent, and they can’t make it. They seriously must cut down on food (very rarely eat out, or only eat the least expensive sort of food you can get when eating out), get by with just one car, and have a very small budget for clothing, appliances, and probably but nothing in savings each month. For such a family, the $400 per month in SNAP benefits and the free school lunches (if their children are in school) make a huge difference, because their income is close to the minimum they need to live a dignified and autonomous life. If the stay-at-home parent takes a job, child care expenses will go up substantially, as will the costs of transportation, and the increased income will diminish the EITC and get the family off Medicaid and on to the subsidized health care exchanges to find a subsidized health care plan for their family. If the second adult income is over about $800 per month, the family would lose the $400 in SNAP benefits.
Actually, for the adult earning “a little bit” by working very part time, bringing in another $1000 per month, is going to be paying about $226 of that $1,000 in payroll and income taxes, another $500 in lost SNAP and Medicaid benefits and decreasing EITC benefits, and end up with only about $274 more in spending money, which might be lost if they need to pay more for day care or child care and mass transit or use of a second car while off at their job earning that $1,000. This shows that for a family with one income-earner at about 130% of poverty (one adult earning $22.50 working full-time year-round), it’s probably not economically viable for the second adult in the household to work part-time, as the loss of benefits and increased taxes cancel out most of the higher gross pre-tax household income.
No comments:
Post a Comment