Cdn Gap Wdens Between Rich & Poor

[maplesyrup]

Welfare incomes far below poverty line across Canada

Welfare incomes have so deteriorated through cuts, freezes and inflation that they are well below the poverty line across the country a report said Wednesday.

"Rates across Canada are so low they can only be described as punitive and cruel," the National Council of Welfare said in a statement accompanying its report on Canadian welfare incomes.

"The poorest of the poor fell further behind and the gap between the haves and have nots widened in a country often regarded as the best place to live in the world," the council said.

Direct result of right wing policies. What a sad society we are developing in Canada since Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have come into existence.

These right wingers probably want to emulate the state of Florida, where more money is spent on prisons than on universities. :angry:

[August1991]

You've heard of the military-industrial complex, MS? Well, this article is based on a news release from the social-therapeutic complex.

I am not at all surprised to read that the National Council of Welfare says there is poverty in Canada.

[Purple]

As a former welfare worker in Alberta I must concur with maplesyrup. The source may be suspect to some but the information is not suspect to me. The welfare rates in Alberta are criminal.

Paying low welfare rates makes some bean counters somewhere think they are encouraging people to work. However, keeping people poor increases costs to the health care system, the mental health system, the justice system and others. And the minimum wage is part of this formula too.

[maplesyrup]

August1991....if you want information about your health I presume you go to the experts - a health practioner.

If you want information on poverty I would presume you go to the poverty experts.

You are inferring there is no poverty in Canada - it sounds like:

"THE BIG FRASER INSTITUTE LIE"

to me.

[Big Blue Machine]

So what if the Cons do that?

[Bro]

.

Direct result of right wing policies. What a sad society we are developing in Canada since Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have come into existence.

Sorry maple,but you are misguided,yet again.The problem is with the liberals,who cannot prioritize spending,and therefore have none to spend on the necessities like healthcare,or any other aspect of a healthy social net.

It is my opinion,which I said in another thread,the liberals,and your party as well,continue to make more social inequities than they do to improve the overall welfare of Canadians.Coast to coast bilingualism is one area where the money could be better spent on other things like healthcare.If a person can't work because ofa health concern,that is treatable,but can't access it in a timely fashion,what is their option?Go on welfare,and instead of being a contributor,they are a liability.How does this improve the chances of higher support for those who actually need it on a full time basis.Stop getting sucked in to believing fiction.

[playfullfellow]

What I really don't get is peoples idea that welfare should be as much as what they could make as a wage. It seems very obvious that if the welfare was higher, there would be even less incentive to go out and find work. What is wrong with capable people having a job? EI and welfare are supposed to be temporary solutions to a persons lack of a job.

When Alberta changed their welfare rates, it didn't take the welfare abusers long to head for BC, whose welfare programs were still in tact. It just seems strange that they will head out on a bus to another welfare province but they will not do so to find a job.

We do need some forms of EI or welfare to help people out in times of need. We do not need these systems so people can sit around on their butts, drinking beer in front of the tv all day.

The minimum wage levels could be a bit better but it should not be so high as to kill jobs. That would be rather counter productive in my mind. A lot of people feel that the sky is the limit when it comes to the amount of wages an employer is able to pay. Most employers would probably think "I wish" to that sentiment. I think most people would like to be able to pay their staff a bit more but also have to be careful not to put themselves out of business.

[Montgomery Burns]

This is a direct result of leftwing politics. To leftists, "compassion" means giving less productive people the fruits of the efforts of more productive people. But real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves. That way, the poor have not only more material things but also more self-respect, as well as more respect from others, and the society as a whole has a higher standard of living and less internal strife.

[caesar]

The people on welfare are not all bums and neer do wells. Many have incapacitating illnesses that does not allow them to work. Others have mental diseases that renders them unemployable. When these people do not get enough assistance to take care of themselves they end up on the streets begging and harassing people. It sure does nothing to make Canada look more attractive to tourists. It can damage a respectable business by taking over the neighbourhood with these homeless people begging on the streets.

We need to take care of these people with mental problems or addiction; not only for compassion but to avoid driving them to the streets to harass citizens and tourists.

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. We never used to have street people harassing you whereever you go.

[maplesyrup]

We do not need these systems so people can sit around on their butts, drinking beer in front of the tv all day.

Have you been listening to Ralph Klein perhaps? You obviously do not have any idea what life is like for someone on welfare. How much money do you think someone on welfare receives? I believe it is around $500. After paying their rent, telephone and food expenses, I doubt there is anything left for things such as beer, etc.

In BC we have a mandatory system now that provides some kind of minimal training and job acquiring assistance for those who are capable of working, which is a good idea.

Instead of beating on someone weaker than yourselves, which basically is a form of bullying, why not pick on the rich who have all these tax loopholes with which they screw the poor and the middle class? The cost for welfare is quite insignificant compared to the tax loopholes for the rich. Please try and put things in perspective.

[August1991]

Instead of beating on someone weaker than yourselves, which basically is a form of bullying, why not pick on the rich who have all these tax loopholes with which they screw the poor and the middle class?

You make a fundamental error in logic, MS. You assume that by taxing the rich more, you'll be able to benefit the poor. I doubt very, very much if that's true.

A better question to ask is: how to make the poor better off? The correct answer to that question does not involve taking from the rich.

But this is only the game of inequality, not the game of poverty.

There is no doubt that over the past 50 years, the incomes of the poorest 20% have risen. Poor people today would have been considered middle class in the past.

[Michael Hardner]

You make a fundamental error in logic, MS. You assume that by taxing the rich more, you'll be able to benefit the poor. I doubt very, very much if that's true.

But it's not false either. It all depends on how the money is spent.

A better question to ask is: how to make the poor better off? The correct answer to that question does not involve taking from the rich.

What if they're investing their money ? Is that taking ?

What this discussion needs, firstly, is some facts - welfare payouts as a % of disbursements, abuse rates, etc.

We should talk about some solutions that haven't been tried. I'm curious to see what would happen if a truly comprehensive workfare program was attempted. By this I mean, counselling, interviews, job placement - the whole package.

Welfare dependency is a complex social problem, and to truly get people off welfare would take more money in the short term, I'm sure. It's easier to cut a cheque for these people and to pat ourselves on the back for having social programmes.

Sometimes getting cut off welfare is a good thing for people, sometimes it's a disaster.

[caesar]

what life is like for someone on welfare. How much money do you think someone on welfare receives? I believe it is around $500.

Well here in Vancouver; you would be lucky to find somewhere to live. For food you would probably have to go to the food bank. You certainly cannot afford a phone (necessary for job search). Bus fare for job hunt would mean no food. Laundry detergent or the laundromat to keep your appearance acceptable for job interviews; too expensive if you want to pay your rent

[August1991]

This is the best I could do in a few minutes. It's from a source within the social-therapy complex.

Income Breakdown 1980-1996

First, I assume that this is after-tax income.

Second, the table is attempting to show that families with the lowest income (lowest quintile) saw their percentage of the income pie fall from 6.3% in 1980 to 6.1% in 1996.

Third, the table does not give dollar values in constant dollar terms. (What we really want to know is whether the poor in 1980 are better off than the poor in 1996.)

Fourth, the table assumes that the poorest in 1980 were the same people as the poorest in 1996. IOW, don't forget that life has its ups and downs. Young people starting out in life and immigrants just off the boat are often poor.

Fifth, this table examines income alone. It does not take into account wealth. Some low income people happen to own their home.

Sixth, this is reported income. Poor people (like rich people) have a tendency not to tell the truth about their income.

[Michael Hardner]

Good job !

Check the link at the bottom of the page for some other interesting stats, such as this:

Canadian Welfare Incomes as a Percentage of the Poverty Line by Family Type and Province, 2001

[Michael Hardner]

Another page:

Links to many articles including advocates and the Fraser Institute.

Canadian Social Research Net

[maplesyrup]

Thanks guys.

Example: In 2001, a single welfare recipient in Newfoundland who was deemed to be employable would have received $3,276 in welfare benefits for the year. The poverty line was $16,167. This means that a single employable welfare recipient's income was only one-fifth (20%) of the poverty line.

So please let's stop bashing people on welfare, eh.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Paying low welfare rates makes some bean counters somewhere think they are encouraging people to work. However, keeping people poor increases costs to the health care system, the mental health system, the justice system and others. And the minimum wage is part of this formula too.

The funny thing is, there is probably a reasonably straightforward way of measuring the equilibrium point for efficient state support of an unemployed person, ie, the point were if we spend X on him or her, we avoid cost or capture gains equal to Y.

I bet it would be a lot higher than many might think.

[August1991]

Example: In 2001, a single welfare recipient in Newfoundland who was deemed to be employable would have received $3,276 in welfare benefits for the year. The poverty line was $16,167. This means that a single employable welfare recipient's income was only one-fifth (20%) of the poverty line.

These numbers mean absolutely nothing. MS, do you know anything about Newfoundland? Life in an outport is unlike anything in downtown Vancouver.

The simple fact of the matter is that, by historical standards, the poor in Canada have never had it so good. Access to health care, good schools, subsidized housing. The tax structure benefits them too, in particular those with children.

Ranting about the poor in Canada in 2004 shows a complete lack of original thought. "Poverty" today is in no way comparable to poverty in the dirty thirties or even poverty of the 1960s. It can't be compared to poverty abroad in some countries.

I posted this before. Welcome to Canadian "poverty" in the 21st century. A social-therapeutic complex of "outreach workers" brandishing questionnaires and forms to complete and chasing after supposedly poor people who want nothing to do with them.

A city outreach worker visited the bridge daily, starting May 5, to try to persuade nearly 25 squatters to accept an offer by the city to help them find somewhere to live. While all have since left the bridge at Bathurst and Lake Shore Blvd., only 10 accepted the city's offer.

Toronto Star on Homeless Case

[Cartman]

Setting aside the question of what kind of benefits impoverished people should receive in Canada today (which inevitably becomes the question), we should also ask what is the cost of poverty to the entire society? Are impoverished children more likely to engage in crime when they are adults? Are they likely to contribute to social program funding as adults or are they more likely to be a drain on the system? Will they perform as well in school as others or bring down other students scholastically?

Eradicating poverty is not the same as making everyone economically equal. MS has just noted the widening gap which suggests structural, rather than personal, changes taking place in our society.

[Cartman]

We seem to assume that people are poor because they do not want to work. But many "poor" people do work but are not compensated adequately. Why do women earn so much less than do men? Are women lazy?

August is right that poverty today is not what it was decades ago or what it is in many other poorer countries today, but it still has consequences for society. I wonder if poverty is PART of the context in which terrorism is born.

[Slavik44]

Well I am not so sure this is a left/right thing, as it is a prioirity thing. fixing the situation of poverty must become essential for every political party, for something to be achieved. however the question then becomes how do you fix the problem? It has been said that you cannot fix money problems with money and if this is true, then perhaps welfare is not the real answer to fixing the problem so much as it is a saftey net. Perhaps the key is not in welfare, and not in reaching a unatainable utopian society where their is more jobs then workers, but in trying to lower the cost of living for those who cannot afford to. A big chunk of our money is spent on housing a big chunk of our money is spent on food, in reality that is a huge burden that in situations the poor cannot handle. so perhpas instead of giving people money are best bet is to reduce the need for money by subsidizing housing

and food for the poor, perhpas it is a better policy to have a progressive subsidization system that decreases as income increases, as well as providing an adequate universal Job placement system.

[maplesyrup]

Shameful treatment of Canada's poorest

The following is an excerpt from Welfare Incomes 2003, a report issued this week by the National Council of Welfare, a citizens' advisory body to the federal government on matters of concern to low-income Canadians.

Welfare Incomes 2003 is a report about dollars and cents, but it's also a report about governments turning their backs on the poorest of poor Canadians.

Governments are supposed to look after the best interests of all Canadians, but they always seem to find ways of excluding those Canadians who are forced to rely on welfare when all other means of support fail.

Everyone else in Canada, for example, is protected from increases in the cost of living because the tax brackets in the income-tax system and federal government benefits from the GST/HST Credit to the Old Age Security pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement increase every year in line with the Consumer Price Index. Provincial and territorial welfare benefits are typically frozen year after year and are even reduced from time to time.

Single employable people are frequently vilified by governments and are invariably forced to subsist on incomes far below Canada's unofficial poverty lines. For several years in the late 1990s, single employables in Newfoundland and Labrador had welfare incomes that were a mere 9 percent of the poverty line. In 2002, British Columbia made it impossible for employable singles and families on welfare to supplement their meagre incomes with earnings by eliminating earnings exemptions completely and British Columbia was also the first in Canada to impose time limits on welfare.

People with disabilities on welfare have not fared much better. In 17th-century England, they were labelled the "deserving poor" and were supposed to be treated better than the "undeserving poor" under the country's Poor Laws.

Until Canadians fully understand that redistribution of wealth is essential to help the less priviledged in society, we will continue to have major problems of theft, violence, etc.

One thing the disadvantaged don't need is charity. It is degrading for them and often is just a power trip or ego booster for the donor. Charity needs to be abolished in Canada as it is our government's job to nuture and protect its citizens. Government for the people, eh!

Quite the national disgrace, and areal black eye on Canada's reputation.

[August1991]

Until Canadians fully understand that redistribution of wealth is essential to help the less priviledged in society, we will continue to have major problems of theft, violence, etc.

Redistribution of wealth did wonders for the Soviet Union, MS.

Canada suffers less from theft and violence than the US which in turn suffers less than the UK.

One thing the disadvantaged don't need is charity. It is degrading for them and often is just a power trip or ego booster for the donor. Charity needs to be abolished in Canada as it is our government's job to nuture and protect its citizens.

Is the government composed of Martians? The government should reflect us. We should nurture and protect our citizens. There are many ways to do this.

[maplesyrup]

Until Canadians fully understand that redistribution of wealth is essential to help the less priviledged in society, we will continue to have major problems of theft, violence, etc.

Redistribution of wealth did wonders for the Soviet Union, MS.

Canada suffers less from theft and violence than the US which in turn suffers less than the UK.

One thing the disadvantaged don't need is charity. It is degrading for them and often is just a power trip or ego booster for the donor. Charity needs to be abolished in Canada as it is our government's job to nuture and protect its citizens.

Is the government composed of Martians? The government should reflect us. We should nurture and protect our citizens. There are many ways to do this.

It is always easy to compare ourselves with the worst (a good Fraser Institute tactic).

I prefere to compare ourselves with the best.

One thing the disadvantaged don't need is charity. It is degrading for them and often is just a power trip or ego booster for the donor. Charity needs to be abolished in Canada as it is our government's job to nuture and protect its citizens. Government for the people, eh!

The greed factor is alive and well in Canada - who knows, maybe Ken Dryden will address this issue.

(180)