[geeks] PC Repair shop fun...

[hike]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net>
wrote:

> Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> >
> >> I'm considering something like that myself, part-time from home.  I
> >> don't need to make a *lot* of money off it, because I can't make over
> >> $900 a month without jeopardizing disability, and I can't afford to do
> >> that until I *know* I can maintain a steady income.
> >
> > Mmmm, one of the favorite US government rants.  Whether disabled or on
> > welfare, people are encouraged by the system to not get back to working
> > as much as they're able because there's a huge income gap where they're
> > working a lot harder and making a lot less than you would by doing
> > nothing.
> >
> > This benefits neither society as a whole nor any one person in
> > particular.
>
> Well, actually, in this case, the problem's not that there's an income
> hole as such.  I'm allowed up to $900 a month indefinitely with no
> problems; if I make more than that, I need to let them know and they
> make adjustments, but it's not an automatic complete loss of benefits.
>
> What I'm concerned about is that anything under three months is
> considered an unsuccessful return to work, and we just go back to square
> one.  But if I manage to get a full-time job and go even a single day
> over three months, that's automatically considered a *successful* return
> to work and I lose benefits.  Then if I lose the job for any reason,
> even if that reason is "Trying to do this has left me in so much pain I
> can't function", I can't just resume where I was, I have to re-qualify
> all over again -- and even if I get re-qualified *immediately* (which is
> unlikely, bureaucracy happens slowly, it took something like 13 months
> last time) there's an automatic 5 months lock-out period.  They
> back-date benefits, up to a certain limit, but that doesn't keep us from
> getting foreclosed on in the meantime.
>
> That means that any time I try to go back to work full-time, *just in
> case* it doesn't work out, I've somehow got to make enough in those
> first three months to cover us for *at minimum* the next five months as
> well, and probably more like twice that.  Which means in order not to
> risk financial disaster if it goes wrong, I've got to go more or less
> directly from "disabled, hasn't had a permanent job since 2001" to "six
> figure income".  And that seems to be all but impossible, short of
> robbing banks.[1]  I haven't managed to get a job offer at all since
> 2001, let alone one making six figures.
>
>
> So, I don't think the problem is so much an income gap, as a lack of
> safety net if you try to go back to work and can't make it long-term.
> However much you'd like to go back to work, you don't dare take the
> chance, because trying and failing could leave you on the street.
>
>
>
> [1]  Which offers great short-term profits, but the job security sucks.
>
>
> --
>   Phil Stracchino, CDK#2         ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
>   Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
>   alaric at caerllewys.net            alaric at metrocast.net
>           It's not the years, it's the mileage.
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks
>


This is a common situation that people get into.
It is also the reason, the U.S.A. federal government should not be in the
welfare/disability/whatever-name-you-like business.
They have screwed lots of families with this absurd help scheme.

The best help is given locally.
(Much less administrative overhead which means the help is cheaper and more
people can be helped.)
We contribute to organizations that are non-profits/non-government-agency.
In our area they provide more help on the same $$.

The U.S.A. federal government is disgusting on many levels.