Should Professional Students Use Welfare?

If you're new here, you may want to learn what this site is about or check out the most popular articles. If you like what you see, make sure to sign up for email updates or subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

My wife and I are fortunate enough to have our own health insurance. We’ve been paying about $250 a month for health and dental insurance for the both of us since we’ve been married. We’re thinking about adding a little Frugal Law Student to our family soon, so this past week we added maternity insurance for my wife and our health insurance went up another $100. So we’re now paying $350 a month on insurance. Boo. However, with my new job at Westlaw and the extra money I’ve been taking in with my blog projects, we’ll be able to afford it.

My wife and I have seriously looked into using state welfare in order to cover the cost of having a kid. It blows my mind what the cost of child bearing is. You can easily rack up a bill of over $10,000 for the birth of one child. Yikes! With our maternity insurance, it should cover most of the cost. However, we were reluctant to go the welfare route because of the emotional charge that goes along with being a married professional student on welfare. Here are some common things we hear about it.

Programs like WIC and Medical Assistance were not designed for graduate students who will be making a decent living in a few years. They are for the truly poor.

These programs are only for people who have hard times because of unforeseen circumstances. One should not plan on using them.

People have no business having children if they can’t afford to bear the cost of bearing and raising that child themselves.

As you can see, the decision to take government assistance is not only an economic one, but also a moral one for many people. But should it be a moral decision?

Take the first common thought about graduate students using welfare: Programs like WIC and Medical Assistance were not designed for graduate students who will be making a decent living in a few years. They are for the truly poor.

This thought carries the assumption that welfare programs were designed only for people who we feel deserve them. Many people feel soon-to-be-lawyers/doctors/MBA grads who will be making tons of money after they graduate don’t deserve welfare. The problem with this thought is that welfare programs are designed for people that qualify for them. If the government wanted to exclude people with certain circumstances, it could do so. It could exclude married people seeking advanced degrees, but it doesn’t. If you match the criteria, the program is designed for you. This thought also carries the assumption that all students seeking advanced degrees will be wealthy when done with school. As I’ve written before, that’s not necessarily the case.

I find it odd that many people who condemn married students using welfare to subsidize the cost of having children don’t have a problem with the government subsidizing their college education. We can make the same arguments about taking student loans that people make about taking on government assistance for child bearing. People have no business going to college unless they can pay the costs for it themselves.

Some may respond, “But an educated person is an asset to society.” So are children. Especially children who are highly likely to pay a lot of taxes over their lifetime, such as children of graduate and professional students.

But government investment in my education was just smart economics. So is government investment in the bearing of children and their subsequent health care and nutrition. More children mean more potential tax payers. Our current tax model in a large part depends on new tax payers being born each day.

In the end, I don’t have a problem with professional students taking on welfare in order to raise a family. To me, it’s an investment that we as a society make into individuals who are likely to contribute more much more to our economy in the long run. The reason Kate and I decided to pay for our own insurance is that we’re on the edge of missing the qualifying monthly income requirement. To be on the safe side, I’m planning on our income to continue increasing. I don’t want to be in a position where we don’t have any insurance at all.

What are your thoughts? Should professional students use welfare? Drop a line in the comment box.

Tags:

Why not subscribe? Here's what you're missing out on!

• The Best of Frugal Law Student 2007
• Young and Broke
• This Man Was Right…

19 Comments

1. Beth @ The Natural Mommy on 28.08.2007 at 12:39 (Reply)

   Amen. I recently “outed” our family’s use of medicaid and foodstamps on our blog and I was met with some pretty indignant responses.

   My husband is working towards his doctorate in engineering, and I stay at home to take care of our two children. It was so refreshing to hear a viewpoint that doesn’t want to sterilize poor people!

   One reason we have that you didn’t mention wad that if, by God’s grace, Josh does end up making the big bucks, he’ll be paying more taxes than he would have otherwise paid as someone without a PhD; thus paying the government back for the aid he got while in school.

2. Mike on 28.08.2007 at 13:59 (Reply)

   I agree with Beth, although I would make sure to check for which programs you actually are eligible. Some states have restrictions on full time students receiving welfare benefits. I think the idea is that those people qualify for subsidized loans and that they will indeed pay back those resources once the loans fall due.

   I have heard of people receiving benefits but later facing penalties for doing so. Make sure to check that the benefits you receive are not going to leave you in potential legal trouble later on. This would be especially true for law students who need a clean criminal record to take the bar.

3. Bryce on 28.08.2007 at 14:31 (Reply)

   Beth, you say that you will be paying more taxes than you would have otherwise paid wihtout a PhD? Wouldn’t you be paying the same amount of taxes regardless of how much he siphoned from the government? Your taxable income remains the same regardless of how much you have ever taken in welfare and you aren’t “paying the government back,” you are merely paying the percentage of taxes that you owe. Unless, of course, you plan on giving them additional funds beyond what you owe. Why wouldn’t you take out student loans (either federal or private) instead of welfare?

4. Ashley on 28.08.2007 at 14:51 (Reply)

   The higher income you have, the more percentage of taxes you pay. So, a person with a phD would probably earn more than a person in the same field without one, and therefore would pay more in taxes. Taking out loans is a bad idea - then you are paying so much interest to companies only looking for a profit. I think it would be far better to take advantage of welfare than padding the wallets of corporate executives. I think people who suggest loans as the easy out have never really had a lot of loans. My husband and I feel very burdened by our school loans - we both earn a good living and are working to pay them off, but we find it affects every area of our lives and our decisions for the future. (To buy a house? To start a family? To get a car? To go on vacation? To quit work to pursue further schooling or write a book, etc?) I’m not advocating welfare in replacement of wise saving and planning, but sometimes things happen beyond your control (i.e. sometimes kids don’t ask before coming!).

5. Lise on 28.08.2007 at 19:29 (Reply)

   On the topic of welfare and professional students: no, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with taking public assistance while going to school. Assumably you will only be on it until you can make ends meet yourself. I don’t have a problem with one taking public assistance to aid oneself in functioning from day to day.

   That said, it seems very selfish to me to have kids if you know someone else will be footing the bill. As you point out, somebody footed the bill for a large portion of your (and my) education, but you are (and I am) paying that back with interest. Are you planning to repay any WIC, welfare payments, etc, etc you accept on behalf of Baby Frugal Law Student? Somehow I doubt that. The difference between student loan money and welfare is that one is an investment with tangible returns (i.e. the same amount back, with interest) and one is only questionably an investment (in basic functionality of citizens) with somewhat intangible payback.

   I’m just not clear on how is wanting a kid you can’t afford is any more noble than wanting a 52″ TV you can’t afford. I mean, screw frugality, overpopulation, environmental impact–somehow biological imperative manages to overwrite all of these.

6. Bryce on 29.08.2007 at 09:29 (Reply)

   As somebody with plenty of loans (I graduated from law school last May), I am fully aware and capable of understanding the daily effect that student loans may have on a couple. I have a doctorate degree and made it without ever having to take on any sort of public assistance and I am paying more in taxes than I would have if I simply had an undergraduate degree, yet I am not “repaying” the government for their handouts. I am merely paying the amount required of somebody with my salary. It doesn’t make sense to say that they are “paying back” the government by being in a higher tax bracket, they would be paying that much regardless of ever having received any public assistance.

7. Glen on 29.08.2007 at 10:27 (Reply)

   This is in response to Bryce.
   I’ll make an educated guess that you don’t have children. Having children changes a person. Well, I hope it changes parents becuase if parents didn’t change in order to care for their children there would be an awful lot more neglected kids in the world.

   I took out loans for one year of undgrad. After that year I did some basic math and realized how much I would end up borrowing if something didn’t change. I went to work full-time through the rest of my undergradute years and was able to pay for school and housing without assistance. But you know what? I was single and had no children. It’s easy to provide for only yourself. Each person added to your responsibility increases the cost of living.

   Your comments sound like the argument that one should only have kids if they can afford them. While I agree that a person who cannot afford a houseful of kids should take steps to prevent themselves from getting a houseful of kids (ie whatever form of birth control works best for them), it is wrong to say people should be denied the joy of having children.

   I am thankful for the assistance that my state provides my family. My case worker told me that we were the people the system was designed for; people who needed help for a couple of years, and then would not need help after that. A system that helps people better themselves is a system that will not create a permanent class of welfare citizens. Unfortunately, most welfare programs are doing just that. They encourage the poor to stay poor.

   Graduate students using public assistance to obtain greater earning potential is perfectly legitimate in every way. In fact, that is the stated purpse of government assistance programs; to enable people to earn enough money so they will no longer need assistance.

8. Beth @ The Natural Mommy on 29.08.2007 at 12:47 (Reply)

   Glen - Well stated.

   Ashley - Thank you for backing me up.

   I have nothing more to add because between the welfare post on my blog and what I’ve read here it has all been said.

   The point of my comment was not to spark an argument but rather to tell the author of the post how encouraging it was to hear his point of view.

9. Shannon Bolt on 29.08.2007 at 13:03 (Reply)

   This might be a bit lengthy….so bear with me. As you know, I had Andrew on Medicaid. If we didn’t have that I don’t know what Ryan and I would have done. There was no way we could have afforded a c-section delivery which is very close to $10,000. We tried at the beginning of my pregnancy to make monthly payments, but that was even not doable. I felt that there were “other people” out there that needed medicaid more than us. But after talking to some friends (whose husbands were in law school/dental/medical school) and found out that they had all their children on medicaid and also talking to our cousin I felt better about applying for it. Our cousin Shelly told me that when she applied for it when she was pregnant with Ethan she had some of the same feelings as me, but her case worker told her that it was people like her and her husband that they love to help out because they were going to school and were trying to make their life better so that they could give back to society later. As far as adding maternity to your insurance now…You & Kate have BCBS right? When Ryan and I were inusred by them when Ryan was self-employed, they told us that we had to pay the maternity premium for a full year before we would be able to use it. So in other words, I couldn’t even get pregnant until we had been paying that for a year. I don’t know if that policy has changed nor do I know if you are planning to get pregnant soon. But you might want to keep that in mind and check on that. Because that would totally suck if you got pregnant and still had to pay the full cost. Good luck!!

10. Bryce on 29.08.2007 at 14:25 (Reply)

    Glen, you are correct in your assumption that I did not have any children when I put myself through law school; however, the only reason I pursued such a thing is because it was my decision to live the way that I lived. You are absolutely correct that when children are born and there are more mouths to feed, there are increased costs associated with them. The problem is a refusal to begin to view things in an unselfish manner and realize that a job is much more important than finishing school for at the time. You are not forced to attend graduate school and attain a level of higher education to support and feed your family. If you cannot feed your family while attending school, then you should not be attending school; if a job comes along, take it, and finish school when you can afford it. I’m not saying wait to have kids until you can afford them, I am saying wait to finish school until you can afford it. I would hope that you would agree that supporting your family is more important than education. Millions of people support their families without an advanced degree, and when you are responsible for more mouths to feed, then you need to accept that responsibility and feed them.

    The stated purpose of welfare is NOT to put graduate students through school. The problem with your point is an inherent refusal to accept the fact that you can support yourself without a degree. It is borderline obscene to truly believe that graduate students are the “stated purpose” of welfare. The problem is that you don’t “need” a couple of years, you WANT a couple of years so that you can take additional classes. It is demeaning to those who truly have no other option than to continue receiving public assistance when you have had (I am assuming) a college degree. The people who truly need this assitance are people whose only option is McDonald’s, not somebody in pursuit of an easy lifestyle who rationalize their way into believing that they will somehow “pay the government back” by being in a higher tax bracket.

11. Glen on 29.08.2007 at 14:53 (Reply)

    Bryce,
    Did you take out stafford loans to go to law school? If you did, then by your reasoning you shouldn’t have done that. That’s government assistance. You should have waited until you could afford it, and then attended law school. Either that or taken out entirely private loans.

    You stated previously that paying more taxes is not analogous to re-paying student loans because they would be earning more regardless of the government assistance.

    If I used your reasoning, then I would never have the increased earning power because I would be waiting to go to law school until I could afford it.

    However, receiving government assistance is analogous to re-paying student loans. With student loans, we receive the money now while we attend school, and in the future re-pay more than we received. Like student loans, we recieve the government assistance now, and in the future pay more taxes than we otherwise would have. It’s not the same, but it is analogous.

    Your argument that I should wait until I could afford law school smacks of elitism. I don’t think I’m not being overly sensitive about it either. Many people with the ability to succeed in law school are financially unable to attend without government assistance, and probably never will be financially able to attend law school without it. Are we to tell them, “Too bad, so sad!”

    If I wanted to, I could be attending law school without government assistance. go go private loans! just what I need! I should saddle myself with more debt!

12. Glen on 29.08.2007 at 15:04 (Reply)

    I’ve got some issues with the way you characterized my previous comment.

    “The problem with your point is an inherent refusal to accept the fact that you can support yourself without a degree.”

    You’re assuming now. If you’re going to make an assumption, please state the assumption for what it is instead of asserting it as fact. I supported myself and my family quite nicely for a number of years. We owned a nice house in a nice neighborhood in the Dallas / Ft Worth area, and I earned our support all by myself.

    “It is borderline obscene to truly believe that graduate students are the “stated purpose” of welfare.”

    I never said that graduate students were the stated purpose of welfare. you assumed again. the stated purpose of welfare is to help people so they will no longer need welfare in the future.

    “It is demeaning to those who truly have no other option than to continue receiving public assistance when you have had (I am assuming) a college degree.”

    How so?

    “The people who truly need this assitance are people whose only option is McDonald’s, not somebody in pursuit of an easy lifestyle who rationalize their way into believing that they will somehow “pay the government back” by being in a higher tax bracket.”

    You’re assuming again. That’s not why I went to law school. An “easy lifestyle” is not what motivated me to go to law school. I had an easy lifestyle, and it was unfulfilling.

13. Strange Bird on 29.08.2007 at 23:54 (Reply)

    I don’t think that it’s morally right for married professional students to raise their families on welfare money, even if it’s technically allowable. Professional school is a choice, not hard times that one did not expect to run into, and I think people should consider the consequences of their actions (being poor while in law school) instead of trying to live the life they would have otherwise at someone else’s expense. I don’t agree that it is appropriate to begin planning a family when one cannot afford to do so without government assistance–I think that’s irresponsible. When “accidents” happen, I understand that people might not have many choices that are acceptable to them, but I would question why someone would deliberately choose to start a family when they are not able to support the family financially.

    On the other hand, I understand that everyone has different circumstances and some people might have some really compelling reasons to accept welfare while in graduate school with children. I have yet to be convinced by any of them.

    Okay, that’s all the judgment I wish to pass in one day. In any event, whatever you decide, good luck. I will still be happy for you if there is a BabyFLS in the near future, even if you couldn’t afford to do it on your own ;).

14. Mike on 30.08.2007 at 22:06 (Reply)

    “As you point out, somebody footed the bill for a large portion of your (and my) education, but you are (and I am) paying that back with interest.”
    Well, if you went to a public university you are only paying back a portion of it since the education you received (and payed only part of through tuition) is heavily subsidized. If you always went to private schools then that doesn’t really apply.

15. Emily on 31.08.2007 at 10:37 (Reply)

    This is one that we struggled with, too–I finished my undergraduate degree two weeks after having my son. My husband still has two years of his undergraduate degree.

    We were lucky enough to have student health insurance (which at my university has great maternity coverage) and were both working. We also had PELL grants (being undergrads) and were happy to use that money to finance our education. Because educating yourself is expensive!

    As it stands, my husband works full time and has always worked a good 30 hours a week while being a full-time student, and we still can’t afford health insurance, rent, and all of our school expenses without help. Now that I’ve graduated and have a kid, I’m not working because I’m investing my time and education in what I consider to be the future of the United States.

    We live in on-campus, married student housing, and many, many of us have used WIC and Medicaid. Sometimes it’s because the babies come of their own accord, and therefore it’s in the best interest of the government to provide medical care. Not to mention the fact that, had I not had insurance, I would’ve owed at least $8,000 (and I used a midwife and had no epidural or complications!). Other times, it’s because an undergrad degree is not particularly useful without graduate work, as is the case in certain fields of study. Even my ecclesiastical leaders encourage us to use these programs, because it’s a government service that our parents are paying for and that we will pay for in the future.

    I even know somebody who uses food stamps, but I was frustrated at her attitudes that, since she wasn’t paying her grocery bill, she no longer had to be frugal or clip coupons or pay attention to prices. Suddenly, her food budget was twice what it had been so she bought whatever she wanted.

16. Emily on 02.09.2007 at 18:52 (Reply)

    I’m interested to know who these people are that the system is designed for - these people who supposedly can’t improve their situation. What person, when given government assistance in regards to food, shelter, education and childcare can’t find a way to at least complete an undergraduate or technical degree in order to better their situation? I don’t see professional education as any different - the system is designed for people who need short-term assistance in order for them to establish long-lasting resources, such as a career. I didn’t think it was up to the government to decide what careers are eligible, be it doctor or lawyer or painter or plumber. Isn’t that what communism does?

17. Strange Bird on 03.09.2007 at 00:03 (Reply)

    Okay, Emily makes some good points. I wasn’t thinking of health insurance when I got on my soap box.

18. Personal finance at KMull.com on 10.09.2007 at 06:20

    […] The Frugal Law Student - Should Professional Students Use Welfare? […]

19. c. mason on 11.02.2008 at 15:46 (Reply)

    Some people think that if you qualify for and receive welfare you do not work or want to work. There is such a thing as the working poor and that can apply to students as well, who work and attend school. Since everyone will not be a successful entreprenuer and working does not mean that you will someday be financially independent, transfer payments can facilitate a person into becoming an even more fainacially productive worker. Higher education almost always increases income or at the very least the potential for higher income. If receiving transfer payments , in addition to taking on additional debt facilitates higher education and injects more money into the economy by raising the money making potential of individuals, then accept those transfer payments and maximize the benefits so that you are able to contribute more back into the economy than those payments amounted to and more than if you never increased your level of education.

Leave a comment