Role of Welfare

[Michael Hardner]

Blueblood,

...why should I have to pay for their mistakes?

The short answer is:

"Because it works."

Welfare is the most basic type of social insurance that there is. It keeps many people going, and gives those who want it a chance to get back into the system. A society with starving and desperate people can't ever be stable.

So, why do people end up on welfare ? Many reasons. Some of them are social, as has been pointed out, but it is the last safety net there is for those who have no other options.

The fallacy that some have is that welfare costs us a lot of money. In fact, cutting a cheque for these people is a cheap way to provide the barest type of assistance. I would much rather see a more in-depth counselling approach that would get people back into the workforce. This approach would build upon the approach that the arch-Conservatives advanced in the 1990s, called 'workfare'. Eventually, that approach would reduce the number of people who are on assistance due to social reasons.

It would, however, be more expensive in the short term. I don't have numbers to back this up, but my feeling is that it would pay for itself eventually.

[margrace]

Right..farmer, yes?

What if all the crops failed for 2 or 3 seasons and the insurance dried up? Would qualify for assistance?

Remember the Dirty thirties, it could come again.

[DrGreenthumb]

Insurance, my 10+ dollar an acre crop insurance to the gov't of Manitoba that I use maybe once every ten years? Gov't bailouts? That 3-5000 dollars that I get from the feds when times are bad? In case you haven't noticed that farmers have to pay out of pocket to partly fund those programs. Then there is taxes. 2 yard sites, 2000 acres of land for property taxes. CHING!!! Sales tax on farm inputs CHING CHING CHING!!! Then there is income tax, lets not even go there. Gov't crop insurance costs a fortune, if you don't pay into it, you get ZILCH! Buying land results in having to pay property tax. Buying machinery results in having to pay sales tax and capital gains tax when you sell it. My REDNECK ASS we get more in government bailouts and gov't insurance than we pay out in tax, that has got to be the stupidest comment you have ever come up with. By the way, making those large purchases increases liquidity in banks and credit unions, and is money directly spent in the local economy, which helps everyone. If we hurt, the whole town hurts. You should really take an economics course and learn about fixed and variable costs vs. revenue. Those farmers take a huge risk by starting/continuing their business and by deciding to grow a crop every year and they get compensated for it. If you hate farmers like you do, keep your hypocrite ass out of the grocery store and grow your own food. That might mean a few dope plants might not be planted. Farmers have one of the most important jobs in the country, and are the reason that you get to enjoy cheap food at the grocery store. Going to a grocery store and running down farmers, that's hypocrisy at its finest.

It shouldn't surprise you that most farmers are conservatives, we hate being punished for succeeding, something the NDP wants to do to everyone.

Thanks to that post, I now know what being high is like, because I am stupider for having read that.

I don't hate farmers, I just get tired of hearing them bitch about how hard they have it when they have more than most ppl do. Most of them are handed the farm from their parents so they never have to experience being a wage earner and have no idea how hard regular people have to work to get ahead. So cry me a river all you want about your taxes, I'm not going to feel sorry for you. You expect sympathy from others yet show none for anyone else falling on hard times. I'm sure your life is so much harder than a single mother ekeing out an existance on the pittance that is welfare. Get over yourself. Go buy a new combine for a quarter mil, I'm sure that will lift your spirits. If you can afford to buy land and machinery in a good year, maybe you should just sell some assets off in a bad year instead of coming to the taxpayer with your hand out. Welfare is welfare, and farmers get it too, they just call it something else.

[M.Dancer]

Most of them are handed the farm from their parents so they never have to experience being a wage earner and have no idea how hard regular people have to work to get ahead.

Spoken like someone who has never worked a day on a farm....

[DrGreenthumb]

Spoken like someone who has never worked a day on a farm....

Sorry cityboy, I was raised in a farming community, and have spent many years working on farms. I've done everything from shovelling pig shit, to rogueing, to driving around all night in machines harvesting. I'm not suggesting that farmers don't work hard, just that they seem to think they are the only ones who do. Farming is a lot of work especially when you are in Dairy, or other animal related farming. At least as a farmer you have the opportunity to make a lot of money from your work, something that is not true for your average wage-slave. I am fully aware of how much work there is in farming, but there are also a lot of rewards. If these crybaby farmers had to try and survive for a year on what the average wage earner, or welfare recipient gets they might change their tune. Drive a 15 year old shitbox to go flip burgers 8 hours a day for less than 10 dollars an hour(which Conservatives think is too much for minimum wage) for a year or so and survive souly on what you make there to feed your family, then tell me again how rough your farmer's life is.

So Blueblood your an animal farmer or straight grain? I hear farmers bitch all the time about overpaid teachers getting 2 months off in the summer but they seem to have an awful lot of free time themselves in the winter. Oh wait the winter every waking hour is spent repairing your machines right? I've heard it all before, farmers never stop whining about how hard done by they are, and how every one else is just a lazy bum who is getting a free ride. If its so bad farming sell off your shit, and get a job at McDonalds. Thing is I guess if you sell off your shit, you will probably be able to retire and never have to work again.

[M.Dancer]

If these crybaby farmers had to try and survive for a year on what the average wage earner, or welfare recipient gets they might change their tune.

Average family income in Canada is $67,600.

I think farmers would be okay with that.

The largest segment of farms in Canada (38,6%) had a family income of $73,049....no idea what that would work out to by the hour...

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-aff...4184〈=e

[Michael Hardner]

The second highest was 169,233.

Meaning fully 2/3 of farm families earn more than most Canadians...

[Oleg Bach]

About 16 bucks an hour - and thats will a lot of over time and no help from your friends. Up at 4am and back to the house at 10pm..and all we do is make life harder for these men and woman - we import from the south using slave labour to grow food and a ton of fuel to get it here - Canadian finacial institutions are the cheapest bastards in the world - you would think they would support the men of the land - but no - they destroy hard working farmers and hand over tons of money to their friends that destroy heavy industry in Canada - it's a real shame.

[M.Dancer]

The second highest was 169,233.

Meaning fully 2/3 of farm families earn more than most Canadians...

And if you want to quibble, you have to look at how much of that is earned off the farm. Which in the case of the $169,233 income group, was $124,643 leaving only $44,590 earned through farming.

Keep in mind this is household income.

[DrGreenthumb]

Average family income in Canada is $67,600.

I think farmers would be okay with that.

The largest segment of farms in Canada (38,6%) had a family income of $73,049....no idea what that would work out to by the hour...

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-aff...4184〈=e

Farms "declared" income was maybe 73,049, actual income is probably a LOT higher. Also I question how these averages were calculated because I doubt the average working class family makes 67,000 dollars a year. If you earn 10 bucks per hour that is 1600 per month before deductions, or 19,200 per year. That is a hell of a lot less than even the 73,049 you claim is all the farmers are making. I suggest that farmer's true earnings are a lot higher than that. You can make more than that off one section of land. If a crop after input costs nets 50,000 dollars in profit, then i spend 40,000 on another field, is my income 50,000, or 10,000?

For a wage earner, if they make 50,000 and spend 20,000 on a car, their income is still considered 50,000. There is no hiding that income like farmers can.

[M.Dancer]

If you earn 10 bucks per hour that is 1600 per month before deductions, or 19,200 per year. That is a hell of a lot less than even the 73,049 you claim is all the farmers are making.

First off, that's household income after tax

Secondly most people earn far more that $10 an hour.

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil21a-eng.htm

I trust Statscan more than I trust your questions...or your probablies

Farms "declared" income was maybe 73,049, actual income is probably a LOT higher.

[Michael Hardner]

And if you want to quibble, you have to look at how much of that is earned off the farm. Which in the case of the $169,233 income group, was $124,643 leaving only $44,590 earned through farming.

Keep in mind this is household income.

Understood. We're comparing against the other statistic quoted, which was also household income.

The thread is drifting though. I'm satisfied that farmers are doing well enough.

[Renegade]

From the way I have always looked at it, this should be its primary use. It seems that's what it is, but I think it should be harder for able bodied people to get when there are jobs available.

If this is it's primary use then perhaps the way we measure if it is successful should change. For example should we instead measure the number of people who are malnourished, unclothed, or die due to lack of shelter. If this is the criteria, I would say that welfare payment levels are higher than they need to be.

[Oleg Bach]

Crank the tiller to the right and straighten her out.....and let down the jib. We don't need it...there is a storm brewing Harrr!

[Renegade]

A stop gap for those whose luck ran out (#1)

If it is indeed a stop-gap measure, should we then enforce a time limit on how long someone can collect welfare?

and a safety net for those incapable of taking care of themselves and have no one who can take care of them. (#2)

A saftey net implys that it is some kind of "insurance", however your description of it being a a system "for those incapable of taking care of themselves and have no one who can take care of them" seems to rather state that instead of being insurance, it is more like a charity.

[Renegade]

Tis sad that we need a welfare system at all but alas not all people are successful all the time. I would rather "waste" a few tax dollars and know that if the shit hits the fan again in my life, there is a net (a thin one albeit) to catch me.

Drea, you as well seem to belive that welfare is insurance and support it as a safety net which you would use if the circumstance arose again. What about those who see no value in a safety net. Perhaps their circmstance is that their likelyhood of using such a system is very remote. Should they be allowed to "opt out" (ie not pay through their taxes for welfare, and not be eligible to collect)?

[Renegade]

A society with starving and desperate people can't ever be stable.

IMV, this is the primary purpose and benefit of welfare for the population at large. Most people will never qualify for, or collect welfare thus the only benefit they see is the stability of welfare.

Maybe the right way to measure the success of welfare is the stability of society. It also bring up the possibility of differentitated payment rates to differnt segments, but rather than being based upon need, it would be based upon propensity to cause instability. For example, a young teen who fits the profile of someone likely to join a gang is likely to have a higher risk of causing insurrection than say a wheelbound grandma, so perhaps their is greater incentive for society to give them higher payment.

[blueblood]

Farms "declared" income was maybe 73,049, actual income is probably a LOT higher. Also I question how these averages were calculated because I doubt the average working class family makes 67,000 dollars a year. If you earn 10 bucks per hour that is 1600 per month before deductions, or 19,200 per year. That is a hell of a lot less than even the 73,049 you claim is all the farmers are making. I suggest that farmer's true earnings are a lot higher than that. You can make more than that off one section of land. If a crop after input costs nets 50,000 dollars in profit, then i spend 40,000 on another field, is my income 50,000, or 10,000?

For a wage earner, if they make 50,000 and spend 20,000 on a car, their income is still considered 50,000. There is no hiding that income like farmers can.

Wrong!

gov't of saskatchewan

These are the costs and returns of producers in the black soil zone, which is what Manitoba falls under.

If you care to do some math, the avg. person growing a canola crop earns 55K on 2000 acres before taxes. And 80K on 2000 acres of wheat. This sheet is when prices were good and this is in prime growing area.

Note that is before labour costs are included, which is a variable too large to include in a gov't form. Penciling in Labour will bring these values down sharply. On top of that, there is income tax to pay yet. For operating a business, spending that large amount of money, those are razor thin return margins.

Also those values are dependant on variables such as weather, disease, competance, and market price.

When the gov't says it is releasing a bailout pkg. for farmers, it is according to these sheets a literal joke, as the amount of money split between admin and split between all the farmers results in a mere drop in the bucket. A better solution would be a tax cut and investment in policies that increase prices.

You also have to remember farming is a top 10 most dangerous job.

insurance.com

Then there's my cows, that are currently an expenditure instead of income. Currently run 100 cow calf to pay for property tax of non-grain land.

gov't of Saskatchewan

Yikes!

Don't let facts get in the way or anything.

Then you say if times are tough, to flat out blow up the whole operation. I would be hit so hard with income and capital gains tax it wouldn't be worth it. Plus any money I'd get from interest from the bank would be taxed. The idea of you running a business scares the hell out of me.

Then you want to bitch about hours farmers put in. They put in long hours at different times of the year. Sometimes it's sixteen hour days. If they don't put in those hours it affects their bottom line. There is no overtime pay at all. As for time off, we don't get paid vacation either. Only income is what we get in sales, or off farm income as wage earners.

For all the risk that farmer's have to take, and all the work they put into their operations, and the fact a lot have to work off farm to supplement their income. Don't be equating burger flippers to us. Wage earners don't take risk and aren't managers and are paid accordingly. And you wonder why farmers get mad at tax time and at poor people...

[Renegade]

C'mon guys. If you want to take this to a argument about farm incomes, please take it to another thread and stop this thread hijack.

[Oleg Bach]

C'mon guys. If you want to take this to a argument about farm incomes, please take it to another thread and stop this thread hijack.

[/quote

Yah - just send me my wefare bonus for Christmas - to bad welfare is so damned secular....would be nice .....perhaps a piece of coal for me ?

[Oleg Bach]

Thanks Moderator. Done..

[Oleg Bach]

The role of welfare is to sustain those that do not fit in to the system until they do. It is and should always be a preservation of human resourse. Sometimes the poor woman or man on the street has the ability and gift to sustain a nation. No human being is a right off. All are contributors.

[Hydraboss]

Wrong. Many people are complete write-offs. Drug addicts, child molesters, convicted violent offenders, repeat criminal offenders (too stupid to learn from the first time), hard core socialists, people who think they have a "right" to my money, etc. Why society would spare a single cent on these useless wastes of skin is beyond reasoning.

Those are some of the write-offs. The list of those who contribute nothing is substantially longer. Teachers, for example.

Welfare should be strictly for those who cannot provide for themselves (and not by choice). Mentally handicapped people without other means of support, a parent who suddenly finds him or herself widowed with several small children. Uhmm...I'm sure there must be more but they haven't popped into my mind yet. And since they are qualified to collect, make the damn sum of money substantially higher to give them a fighting chance.

People without mental or physical impairment? As long as there is not a single job advertised that they haven't applied for (and I don't care if it's for $1.50 per hour - we pay the balance) they should be able to collect. Fail to have PROOF that they applied and were not offered the job, and instantaneously cut-off without warning. Convicted of a violent offence (or repeat offenders) should not be eligible any longer. Perior.

Lazy should not pay (outside of the Canadian Senate of course). Stupid should not pay. I should not pay.

[blueblood]

Wrong. Many people are complete write-offs. Drug addicts, child molesters, convicted violent offenders, repeat criminal offenders (too stupid to learn from the first time), hard core socialists, people who think they have a "right" to my money, etc. Why society would spare a single cent on these useless wastes of skin is beyond reasoning.

Those are some of the write-offs. The list of those who contribute nothing is substantially longer. Teachers, for example.

Welfare should be strictly for those who cannot provide for themselves (and not by choice). Mentally handicapped people without other means of support, a parent who suddenly finds him or herself widowed with several small children. Uhmm...I'm sure there must be more but they haven't popped into my mind yet. And since they are qualified to collect, make the damn sum of money substantially higher to give them a fighting chance.

People without mental or physical impairment? As long as there is not a single job advertised that they haven't applied for (and I don't care if it's for $1.50 per hour - we pay the balance) they should be able to collect. Fail to have PROOF that they applied and were not offered the job, and instantaneously cut-off without warning. Convicted of a violent offence (or repeat offenders) should not be eligible any longer. Perior.

Lazy should not pay (outside of the Canadian Senate of course). Stupid should not pay. I should not pay.

Exactly, punishing business owners so that skids get a free pass is beyond stupid.

[Michael Hardner]

Wrong. Many people are complete write-offs. Drug addicts, child molesters, convicted violent offenders, repeat criminal offenders (too stupid to learn from the first time), hard core socialists, people who think they have a "right" to my money, etc. Why society would spare a single cent on these useless wastes of skin is beyond reasoning.

Those are some of the write-offs. The list of those who contribute nothing is substantially longer. Teachers, for example.

Welfare should be strictly for those who cannot provide for themselves (and not by choice). Mentally handicapped people without other means of support, a parent who suddenly finds him or herself widowed with several small children. Uhmm...I'm sure there must be more but they haven't popped into my mind yet. And since they are qualified to collect, make the damn sum of money substantially higher to give them a fighting chance.

People without mental or physical impairment? As long as there is not a single job advertised that they haven't applied for (and I don't care if it's for $1.50 per hour - we pay the balance) they should be able to collect. Fail to have PROOF that they applied and were not offered the job, and instantaneously cut-off without warning. Convicted of a violent offence (or repeat offenders) should not be eligible any longer. Perior.

Lazy should not pay (outside of the Canadian Senate of course). Stupid should not pay. I should not pay.

Ok, well since you're clearly not the 'bleeding heart' type, I'll frame the problem for you in cold dollars.

Paying a very few people a very meagre amount of money is cheaper for you than supporting the type of police infrastructure that you would require to put down a revolution.