Asset limits removal for benefits

Full Title:
ASSET Act

Summary#

This bill (the ASSET Act) would remove asset or resource limits used to decide who can get several federally funded means-tested benefits. It changes rules for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, aka food stamps), and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). It also raises and indexes the resource limit for Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

  • Main change: States would not be allowed to exclude people from TANF, SNAP, or LIHEAP solely because of their savings or other assets.
  • SSI change: The SSI resource limits would rise to $20,000 for individuals and $10,000 for couples in 2026, then be increased each year for inflation using the CPI for elderly consumers.
  • Timing: Most changes apply to benefit months starting 30 days after the law is enacted. The SSI increase is treated as effective January 1, 2026.
  • State transition: States that need new state laws to comply get extra time before they are required to change rules.

What it means for you#

  • Low-income families and individuals who receive benefits

    • If you get TANF, SNAP, or LIHEAP, having savings or other assets would no longer by itself make you ineligible for those programs. This could let you keep small emergency savings, a bank account, or other resources without losing benefits.
    • For SSI recipients, the allowed resource amount (what you can own and still qualify) would be much higher. Individuals could have up to $20,000 and couples up to $10,000 in counted resources starting in 2026.

  • States and state agencies

    • State benefit rules for TANF, SNAP (state-administered under federal law), and LIHEAP would need to be changed to remove asset tests. Some states may need to pass state laws. States that require legislation get a delayed compliance deadline.
    • State benefit offices may need to update forms, computer systems, and training to stop counting assets for eligibility.

  • People planning savings

    • The bill would likely make it easier for low-income households to build and keep modest savings without fear of losing benefits.

  • Taxpayers

    • The bill could change overall program costs (see Expenses). The bill itself notes some state experiences where removing asset tests reduced administrative costs.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on a federal cost estimate or fiscal note is included with the bill text.

  • The bill’s findings state that evidence from some states shows administrative cost savings when asset limits are removed, and that those savings can outweigh increases in benefit payments. This is a statement in the bill, not a government cost estimate.
  • Possible fiscal effects that could occur (not estimated in the bill text): higher benefit payments if more people qualify or keep benefits longer; administrative savings from simpler eligibility checks; costs to update state and federal IT and eligibility systems; and transitional costs for states that must change laws or procedures.

Proponents' View#

The bill’s text and findings make clear why it was written. Possible arguments in favor include:

  • The bill appears intended to let low-income families save for emergencies and avoid being forced to spend down savings to keep benefits.
  • It could reduce barriers to mainstream banking and asset-building for people on public assistance.
  • Removing asset limits may simplify eligibility rules and reduce administrative work for agencies.
  • Raising and indexing the SSI resource limit would modernize a longstanding limit that has not kept pace with inflation.

Opponents' View#

The bill text does not present organized opposition. Based on the changes, some reasonable concerns or trade-offs include:

  • One concern is potential increased program costs if more people become eligible or if current recipients retain benefits while holding larger assets.
  • It is unclear how large those cost increases would be because the bill includes no federal fiscal estimate.
  • States might face short-term costs to change laws, update computer systems, and train staff.
  • Removing asset tests could raise questions about whether some people with substantial assets would enroll; the bill’s findings say that risk is low, but the bill does not set additional safeguards.
  • The SSI indexing formula uses the CPI for elderly consumers; it is not clear how that choice will compare over time with other inflation measures for purchasing power.