PDA

View Full Version : Seattle welfare recipient lives in million dollar water front mansion



pwaldo
12-05-2011, 07:00 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-welfare-recipient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html


A Seattle woman who is receiving welfare assistance from Washington state also happens to live in a waterfront house on Lake Washington worth more than a million dollars.

However, 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.

The 2,500 square-foot home, which includes gardens and a boat dock, is valued at $1.2 million. And even though the couple has been receiving the benefits for nearly 10 years, records show that they accurately listed the address of their current home when applying for the state and federal benefits.

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.

As if the million dollar home weren't enough, the supposedly low-income couple also gave money to various charities and traveled around the world to locales in Turkey, Tel Aviv and resort towns in Mexico, according to court records.

habsheaven
12-05-2011, 07:13 PM
Sounds like the system is based on income levels rather than net worth levels.

mrveggieman
12-05-2011, 10:29 PM
Typical conservative republican behavior. smh

ensbergcollector
12-05-2011, 10:35 PM
Typical conservative republican behavior. smh

huh?

AUTaxMan
12-05-2011, 11:34 PM
Typical conservative republican behavior. smh

what are you talking about?

duane1969
12-06-2011, 08:21 AM
Typical conservative republican behavior. smh

I 3rd the "What??" that everyone else is expressing.

duane1969
12-06-2011, 08:24 AM
I would be interested to know when they bought the home. If they bought the home 20 years ago for $200,000 when they had good jobs but the home has appreciated in value and they can no longer work then I don't see the problem.

My home is currently valued at around $300k. If my wife and I lose our jobs or have to go on disability then we do not lose the right to our home.

habsheaven
12-06-2011, 08:36 AM
I would be interested to know when they bought the home. If they bought the home 20 years ago for $200,000 when they had good jobs but the home has appreciated in value and they can no longer work then I don't see the problem.

My home is currently valued at around $300k. If my wife and I lose our jobs or have to go on disability then we do not lose the right to our home.

This response really surprises me Duane. I would have thought you would take a position similar to: If you need to recieve money from the government for a prolonged time (disability pymts are usually long-term) you should be required to downsize the home you reside in.

duane1969
12-06-2011, 08:45 AM
This response really surprises me Duane. I would have thought you would take a position similar to: If you need to recieve money from the government for a prolonged time (disability pymts are usually long-term) you should be required to downsize the home you reside in.

Surprise! Surprise!

I just don't see what the value of their home has to do with anything. If they are eligible for assistance then they are eligible for assistance.

However, I do question their "need" if they can afford overseas trips tho.

angel0430
12-06-2011, 08:53 AM
I am with Duane on this one. If they bought the house before they needed the assistance, then that is good. But if they can afford to go overseas and donate money to charities, then the governement needs to stop helping them. If they need money they can sell the house and move to something more "affordable"

habsheaven
12-06-2011, 09:07 AM
Surprise! Surprise!

I just don't see what the value of their home has to do with anything. If they are eligible for assistance then they are eligible for assistance.

However, I do question their "need" if they can afford overseas trips tho.

I would think that the larger the house, the higher the cost of utilities, property taxes, insurance, etc. Not to mention the equity they may have in the home that could assist them.

Hilfiger1975
12-06-2011, 09:09 AM
I think there might have been some "corruption" with Welfare with this case...what people call some "back-scratching" going on...

duane1969
12-06-2011, 10:49 AM
I would think that the larger the house, the higher the cost of utilities, property taxes, insurance, etc. Not to mention the equity they may have in the home that could assist them.

No doubt. The thing is that they receive assistance based on income, not their expenses. So regardless of if their electric bill is $75 or $250 they will not get more assistance because of it.

I am with Hilfiger. I suspect there is something shady going on.

pwaldo
12-06-2011, 08:38 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070787/Wealthy-couple-live-1-2m-home-drive-Jag-claiming-benefits-years.html


Prosecutors are demanding they pay back more than $135,000 in federal housing assistance since 2003 and are seeking tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

It is thought the couple have spent some of the money they claimed over the last eight years flying to Moscow, Paris, Israel, Turkey, Mexico and the Dominican Republic.

All the while, federal authorities say, the couple was collecting more than $100,000 in welfare.

Shimonova also received benefits under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, as well as Social Security cash reserved for people who can't work due to age or disability and whose assets fall below a certain threshold - $3,000 for a married couple or $2,000 for a single person, the complaint said.

'Defendants have separately and, it appears, in conjunction with one another made false representations to various state and federal agencies in order to obtain federally funded benefits,' assistant U.S. attorneys Harold Malkin and Kayla Stahman wrote.

In addition to failing to disclose the marriage or living situation, Shimonova also failed to disclose bank accounts in her name containing tens of thousands of dollars, prosecutors said.

The government says that in gaining Section 8 housing assistance, Shimonova represented that she lived alone with her two children and that her household assets were less than $5,000.

On his website, Silverstein states: 'I am happily married with two children, whose careers are in medicine and Middle Eastern studies.

'As a family, we all enjoy snow shoeing, mountain climbing and ocean sports.'

duane1969
12-06-2011, 10:32 PM
So they were getting Sec8 housing assistance when they already own their home. There is the scam.