Poor-Bashing is Never the Answer

[Wilber]

I think we should penalize people who misuse the social services, by putting them into the military. The military is better than welfare.

Next you will be telling us you support our soldiers.

[Wilber]

They most certainly are.

Anyone receiving welfare will lose one dollar of benefit for each dollar earned in work. In effect, the tax rate is 100%. In fact, the effect is worse. To work, there are transport costs, clothing to buy, babysitting expenses etc. In addition, welfare recipients need not pay certain medical costs.

This of course makes the assumption that welfare is somehow earned.

[Saturn]

I'm more of a moderate libertarian in my views, however one question is how would you avoid a welfare trap? You can call for more funding all you want, but it won't solve anything. In some cases a large welfare state could be an incentive to be lazy. I prefer a system which truly helps the disadvantaged, and tell's lazy people to go get a job.

People prefer a lot of things but reality isn't that simple. The reality is that it costs money to enforce the rules and to ensure that the system cannot be abused. In addition, welfare costs a fraction of what OAS costs but you are after the single moms and their kids, not after wealthy snowbirds who spend far more of our tax dollars in Florida. The conservative fixation on the poor and peanuts and ignorance of the wealthier and the gold is quite fascinating.

[Catchme]

I think we should penalize people who misuse the social services, by putting them into the military. The military is better than welfare.

Uh, that would either amount to conscription, or slavery. And just what should we do with the white collar trough feeders who get billions in corporate welfare?

Poor bashing is NEVR the answer!

[Curiouscanuck]

Saying that the poor pay more tax than the rich when the poor recieve money from the governmant and the rich "earn" money is ridiculous. In order to make a positive contribution to society financially you have to pay in(tax) more than you use(social programs/other gov run stuff). This is cleary paid by the rich people.

The "welfare wall" which is what you are refering to as being taxed 1:1 on the dollar is the 100% (aprx. 80% in our current system) clawback when you do start to work. However, there is such a thing as a working income tax benefit, which will reduce the clawback which was stated in Flarety's Advantage Canada. He made it a policy commitment.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2006/pdf/plane.pdf pg 44-5

[Saturn]

Saying that the poor pay more tax than the rich when the poor recieve money from the governmant and the rich "earn" money is ridiculous. In order to make a positive contribution to society financially you have to pay in(tax) more than you use(social programs/other gov run stuff). This is cleary paid by the rich people.

The "welfare wall" which is what you are refering to as being taxed 1:1 on the dollar is the 100% (aprx. 80% in our current system) clawback when you do start to work. However, there is such a thing as a working income tax benefit, which will reduce the clawback which was stated in Flarety's Advantage Canada. He made it a policy commitment.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2006/pdf/plane.pdf pg 44-5

Ah, yes of course. $37.50 annually will put hundreds of thousands of people over the "welfare wall".

[Wilber]

I think we should penalize people who misuse the social services, by putting them into the military. The military is better than welfare.

Uh, that would either amount to conscription, or slavery. And just what should we do with the white collar trough feeders who get billions in corporate welfare?

Poor bashing is NEVR the answer!

I'm sure all our folks in the military will be comforted by the fact that some Canadians think of them as slaves who are being penalized.

[Curiouscanuck]

Ah, yes of course. $37.50 annually will put hundreds of thousands of people over the "welfare wall".

When did I say it would help hundreds of thousands?

And a link to that figure would be nice even though his plan is yet to be implemented.

[madmax]

I'm sure all our folks in the military will be comforted by the fact that some Canadians think of them as slaves who are being penalized.

I read the thread, and I don't believe anything said can be construed as what you are posting.

BBM posting of putting welfare abusers in the military reminds me of Press Gangs. But worse than the Press Gang concept, I as a soldier would not want someone in my platoon whom isn't with the program when my life is at stake. Why should an abuser by my problem at a time of combat? Why should it be the militaries problem? We are not social workers, and we don't need deadbeats. Even some of the most troubled people whom volunteer for the Canadian Forces, can't cut it.

It was just a stupid idea, that wasn't well thought out.

You can continue your "war" of words with whomever, but nobody in the Canadian Military is going to think of themselves as Slaves, without conscription or other forced service.

[geoffrey]

Look up 'negative income tax' for the solution that I support to solve the problem.

So stealing one person's earnings to give to someone disinterested in getting off their butt?

Really, besides the very few in Canada that are actually disabled (I can think of many jobs for most disabilities)... nearly everyone should be working. Anyone not working should be put to work. Our highways could use some fixing up, their is garbage in the streets, passports not yet processed.

People on welfare should work for their money. Why do people feel like they have a right to someone else's earnings?

What's wrong with my workhouse proposal? It doesn't even infringe upon anyone's freedoms. If you don't want to work, then you simply opt out of the program... and not get anything.

[Canadian Blue]

People prefer a lot of things but reality isn't that simple. The reality is that it costs money to enforce the rules and to ensure that the system cannot be abused. In addition, welfare costs a fraction of what OAS costs but you are after the single moms and their kids, not after wealthy snowbirds who spend far more of our tax dollars in Florida. The conservative fixation on the poor and peanuts and ignorance of the wealthier and the gold is quite fascinating.

That still doesn't answer the question relating to the welfare trap. If a person finds it easier to stay on welfare instead of finding a job, why should we be using tax dollars to fund someone who is not even making an attempt to be productive in society. As for going after the poor, hardly, it's about going after those who can work, but refuse to due to the fact they don't want to get a job. Besides, people who really need help can count on charity as well. Your using a simplistic argument, one side of the debate says government welfare is better, the other side prefers using charity instead.

It's not really poor bashing.

[Wilber]

You can continue your "war" of words with whomever, but nobody in the Canadian Military is going to think of themselves as Slaves, without conscription or other forced service.

I'm sure they won't but I wonder what they think when comments are made that say people should be "penalized" by being put in the military or that to do so would amount to among other things "slavery".

[myata]

Sad as it seems I don't see any magic bullet solution to the welfare problem.

For every substantial increase in unearned welfare benefits there will be positive migration of workers to the welfare. Less workers, lower tax revenue, higher welfare expense - the trend is not sustainable.

Schemes like "negative" income tax, tax holiday on clawback etc have their problems too - essentially the problem is that it allows certain group of people to earn more while working less, which is unsustainable.

For example: a couple on welfare would be making around 1K monthly (12 K annual), tax free. Suppose one member works half time at minimum wage ($8/hr = $160/week) = 8.3 K annual. With 50% clawback holiday, they'll be making 12+4.2 = 16.2 K annually tax free.

Now a family with one full time income earner at near minimum wage (shop assistant, clerk, mover, you name it) will be making ($10/hr = $370/wk) = 19.2 K, taxable.

With tax accounted for, the two families will have very much the same income with one (welfare) working half as much as the other.

In practice it again would mean positive migration from low paid work to welfare (and not the other way around).

So, sad as it is, there doesn't appear to be a solution for the man's eternal problem (why work if I don't have to), other when the welfare gap.

[margrace]

[quote name='geoffrey' earnings?

What's wrong with my workhouse proposal? It doesn't even infringe upon anyone's freedoms. If you don't want to work, then you simply opt out of the program... and not get anything.

So we go back to Dickens, remember scrooge, isn't that exactly what he said????

[Wilber]

[quote name='geoffrey' earnings?

What's wrong with my workhouse proposal? It doesn't even infringe upon anyone's freedoms. If you don't want to work, then you simply opt out of the program... and not get anything.

So we go back to Dickens, remember scrooge, isn't that exactly what he said????

A work house? I don't think so but Geoffrey has a point. I do wonder why people have a problem with the idea of "workfare". I realize that not everyone would be able to do it but those that are could at least be proud of the fact they earned what they receive.

[Wilber]

Quote thingy ain't working.

[myata]

The problem with workfare is that someone has to "run" it. Private sector cannot assure employment and public one is too expensive to run such program full time. Giving out just enough for reasonable subsitence but no more apprears to be the only realistic option at the moment.

[Catchme]

I'm sure all our folks in the military will be comforted by the fact that some Canadians think of them as slaves who are being penalized.

I read the thread, and I don't believe anything said can be construed as what you are posting.

You can continue your "war" of words with whomever, but nobody in the Canadian Military is going to think of themselves as Slaves, without conscription or other forced service.

Your're quite correct madmax I never said a word about Canada's military being slaves who are penalized, I have no idea how wilbur got to such a point, other than perhaps willful misconstruing in order to support the fallacious notion that forcing people into the miilitary is not slavery, press gangs were and this type of action would be the same thing.

Yes, let's blame the poor because they are poor! Not a well thought out attack.

[Wilber]

Catchme wrote:

Uh, that would either amount to conscription, or slavery.

If those who are conscripted are slaves, does that make those who volunteered stupid for volunteering to be slaves? Bad choice of words, no?

Big Blue Machine wrote:

I think we should penalize people who misuse the social services, by putting them into the military. The military is better than welfare.

It would seem that some Canadians believe that forced membership in the military should be some kind of penalty for those who rip off the system and that those who volunteered should be penalized by having to put their lives in the hands of those people.

It seems to me that both of you have a rather low opinion of the military.

[Catchme]

Catchme wrote:

Uh, that would either amount to conscription, or slavery.

If those who are conscripted are slaves, does that make those who volunteered stupid for volunteering to be slaves? Bad choice of words, no?

Big Blue Machine wrote:

I think we should penalize people who misuse the social services, by putting them into the military. The military is better than welfare.

It would seem that some Canadians believe that forced membership in the military should be some kind of penalty for those who rip off the system and that those who volunteered should be penalized by having to put their lives in the hands of those people.

It seems to me that both of you have a rather low opinion of the military.

No it does not wilbur, forcing anyone into any form of work is slavery. Volunterring to become military is a personal choice, as it is not imposed, nor can it be considered stupid if it one's choice. How you could even spin my words that way I do not know.

And wilbur neither comment that you quoted shows a bad opinion of the military. That position is entirely of your own making.

Now back to the topic.

Blaming people for being poor is never righteous nor correct.

[Saturn]

What's wrong with my workhouse proposal? It doesn't even infringe upon anyone's freedoms. If you don't want to work, then you simply opt out of the program... and not get anything.

What's wrong with it is that it has been tried many times and never produced satisfactory results. It was a central piece of Mike Harris' election platform. It produced 5,000 participants for several months and a complete zip after that - turned out it was cheaper to just give them the welfare than to run the program.

[madmax]

People on welfare should work for their money. Why do people feel like they have a right to someone else's earnings?

I just want to clarify what you are saying. Are you suggesting that these people work in a place of employment for Welfare? Or are you suggesting that they do community service for Welfare?

I would also suggest that people I know whom have worked in Law firms like McCarthy Tetrault have had to be on Welfare prior to their employment there, but after a period in which they worked at places like Mc Donalds, Farming, and Direct Sales. I wouldn't totally suggest that there are people whom claim welfare whom haven't contributed to the system either.

I don't know why people feel they have the right to someone else earnings.

Why do drug companies, industrial companies, gas companies, and use my money for their own development.

Do you have a serious welfare problem in Alberta?

[Wilber]

Catchme wrote:

Uh, that would either amount to conscription, or slavery.

If those who are conscripted are slaves, does that make those who volunteered stupid for volunteering to be slaves? Bad choice of words, no?

Big Blue Machine wrote:

I think we should penalize people who misuse the social services, by putting them into the military. The military is better than welfare.

It would seem that some Canadians believe that forced membership in the military should be some kind of penalty for those who rip off the system and that those who volunteered should be penalized by having to put their lives in the hands of those people.

It seems to me that both of you have a rather low opinion of the military.

No it does not wilbur, forcing anyone into any form of work is slavery. Volunterring to become military is a personal choice, as it is not imposed, nor can it be considered stupid if it one's choice. How you could even spin my words that way I do not know.

And wilbur neither comment that you quoted shows a bad opinion of the military. That position is entirely of your own making.

Now back to the topic.

Blaming people for being poor is never righteous nor correct.

Slavery is the social or de-facto status of specific persons, known as slaves who are under the control of another person. Historically, slavery has generally occurred as a means of securing the labour of the slave, without the right of the slave to refuse, leave or receive anything in return for their labour other than food, accommodation and clothing. As such slavery is one form of unfree labour. Chattel slavery is the absolute legal ownership of a person or persons, including the legal right to buy and sell them.

Would this describe a conscript in the armed forces? It wouldn't even describe a person in our prison system.

I find it interesting that there are Canadians who would use the word penalty or slavery in any context when it comes to serving in the armed forces whether voluntarily or not.

[Catchme]

Wilbur, your fixating on the military here. It is the action, not the organization where enforced work would be slavery. It could be Tim Hortons and not the military for an example, only your not apt to be forced into a situation where your life could be forfeit because your poor if forced to work at TH's..

Just because the people forced to work would be receiving a wage does not mean that it is not slavery.

Main Entry: slav·ery

Pronunciation: 'slA-v(&-)rE

Function: noun

1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL

2 : submission to a dominating influence

3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

[JMH]

Article

A large food bank recently surveyed its users receiving welfare and asked them why they were on assistance instead of working. Some of the answers are worth noting. If you need a prescription drug and the only jobs you can find are at, or close to, minimum wage, with no benefits - how can you quit welfare if this is the only way you can keep drug coverage? If you have small children to raise and there's no affordable, safe child care, how can you work without abandoning your children?

Many welfare recipients reported being disabled. They should be on disability benefits, but about half of all people who apply are denied. In many cases, people who are eligible to collect disability benefits simply give up in despair. Being poor, they don't have the resources to fight a powerful government bureaucracy.

If governments are serious about giving people on assistance the "hand up," we need: a national prescription drug program to provide coverage for workers who do not have employer drug coverage; a national affordable child care program; social housing; improved access to disability benefits so people with disabilities can keep more earnings from work and not lose benefits they need; and provisions for attending school to upgrade job market skills while receiving unemployment or welfare benefits.

We should not penalize, and certainly not convict as criminals, people who want to improve their chances of working.

If we are serious about ending child poverty, no provincial government would claw back the national child benefit supplement from Canada's poorest families because they are receiving assistance. In short, unenlightened poor- bashing should give way to policies resulting in greater participation in the labour force, more cohesive families, and stronger, healthier communities.

It is truly remarkable that organizations like the Fraser Institute have any credibility at all in our society. And they wouldn't except for Canada's right wing media.

The rich always come up thith these bullshit schemes to deal with the poor. The only problem with their schemes is that the poor become poorer and the rich become richer. It is time to put the rich out to pasture, and start listening to the poor about what is best for the poor, eh?

I havn't a clue as to the nature of your problem with the above noted quote. It seems balanced, thoughtful, proactive and blatant. It is what it is. What exactly, do you expect our society to do in the short term? Benevolence, historicaly dealt with helping peoples of lower social class trying to get ahead based upon an un-equal standard despite equal qualifications. This is no longer the case. Many people in this country choose to drop out of high school for example, and the percentage is rising. Why should society flip the bill for folks that suddenly discover (eureka!) that minimum wage/un-skilled employment is no longer allowing them to keep-up with the "jones'" next door despite substantial government subsidies. Meanwhile the "jones' " next door, after 20 years of shitty but honest middle-class wages and regular work, are JUST starting to get ahead!? Forget it! Upgrading is free in Canada, but does require a pulse and initiative from potential candidates.

Don't even get me started about the absurd amount of tax dollars that go out to "single mothers" in this country, that will NEVER WALK AWAY FROM THE CASH COW CALLED " WELFARE". They love it! I know these people and their numbers are beyond your imagination! It's disgracefull.

Anyway, I know the "rich" don't give a shit but it's because they don't pay for anything; the middle class does (me) and I've lived with your version of "poor" and they don't pay for anything either (I do), so if you think I'm sympathetic your wrong.