Gwyneth Paltrow’s SNAP Food Stamp Farce


Actress Gwyneth Paltrow recently claimed on Twitter that “families on SNAP (i.e. food stamps) have” only $29 “to live on for a week.” She said she’d live on that amount for a week to draw attention to the struggles of America’s poor.

One glaring problem with Paltrow’s cause is that her figures are a complete fabrication (as I pointed out on Twitter). According to the USDA, which runs SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps), the “maximum monthly allotment” for a family of four is $649—more than five times what Paltrow claims. The maximum amount a single person can get in a month is $194.

Paltrow makes two factual errors. Apparently she picked up the $29 figure from the Food Bank for New York City, which Paltrow mentions on Twitter. But that figure pertains to an individual, not a family.

Paltrow also confuses the average SNAP contribution with what a person or a family “has to live on.” A key term in SNAP is “supplemental.” The program is intended to supplement an individual’s or family’s food budget, not to provide every last morsel. If a recipient of SNAP handouts receives less than the maximum, that’s because the program deems the recipient able to spend some of his own money on food. Thus, the average SNAP benefit is not relevant in calculating how much the recipient spends on food. In any event, the USDA reports that in 2014 the “average monthly benefit per household” was $256.98 and the “average monthly benefit per person” was $125.35 (which squares with the $29 per week figure).

The deeper problem with Paltrow’s cause is that it presumes that taking wealth from some people by force and handing it to others is moral. It is not. Individuals have a moral right to use their wealth as they see fit. If a person wishes to give money or food to other individuals or to a food bank, that is his right. If he wishes to spend his money on something else, or save it, that is also his right. In no case may government morally seize people’s wealth by force and turn it over to others.

Related:

,

Return to Top

Comments submitted to TOS are moderated and checked periodically. Commenters must use their real names, and comments may not exceed 400 words. For a comment to be approved, it must be civil, substantive, and on topic. Ad hominem attacks, arguments from intimidation, misrepresentations, unsubstantiated accusations, baseless assertions, and comments that ignore relevant points made in the article are not permitted. Comments that violate these rules will not be approved. Thank you for helping us to keep the discussion intellectually profitable.

3 Responses to Gwyneth Paltrow’s SNAP Food Stamp Farce

  1. jvade@live.com'
    Jim April 16, 2015 at 10:01 am #

    Ari: You are absolutely right. No government, our’s or any other, has the moral authority to steal property from those who have legally earned it and give it to those who have not. But we now live in a post-liberty society where the needs and wants of some trump the property rights of others. If I had my way, and it is unlikely I ever will, I would end SNAP and all the other 80+ Federal level welfare programs and let the States decide how to accommodate the incompetent.

  2. dsam7@btinternet.com'
    ConceptualCommonDenominator April 20, 2015 at 4:01 am #

    If Gwyneth Paltrow is so concerned about poverty, nobody is stopping her from quietly handing over the bulk of her wealth to the “poor” … But of course she doesn’t want to do that, she just wants to pose as an altruist, establishing her own celebrity status by comparison.

Leave a Reply