Jump to content

Canada's poor are getting poorer!


Recommended Posts

Most states will recognize and allow the "domestication" of Canadian judgments. Judgment enforcement devices, whether in Canada and in most American states, tend to be rather toothless.

Trust me on that.

It is definitely frustrating when someone is subsidized through school or loaned money and then have that person take a powder to another jurisdiction while reneging on their responsibilities.

If there is one thing Harper could do it is to ensure the enforcement of payment of loans by students is carried out wherever they are. One way to do that is to track where these students go by making them file tax returns if they retain Canadian citizenship just like the U.S. does for its own citizens.

The problem is as follows. Typically, judgments are enforced two ways. A judgment is typically a lien on real property in the county in which the judgment is recorded. This sounds stringent, but typically someone who expects a judgment to be rendered (as a defaulting emigrating student would) won't buy real property in their own name. The second way is for the sheriff in the county where the judgment is recorded to levy upon a debt owed to a judgment debtor, typically a bank account. People who expect a judgment to be entered against them do their "banking" through a companion, relative or friend, in order to avoid losing property to the judgment debtor.

I have spent thousands on detectives, on behalf of my clients, to untangle these arrangements. That's what I me by trust me on that..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem is as follows. Typically, judgments are enforced two ways. A judgment is typically a lien on real property in the county in which the judgment is recorded. This sounds stringent, but typically someone who expects a judgment to be rendered (as a defaulting emigrating student would) won't buy real property in their own name. The second way is for the sheriff in the county where the judgment is recorded to levy upon a debt owed to a judgment debtor, typically a bank account. People who expect a judgment to be entered against them do their "banking" through a companion, relative or friend, in order to avoid losing property to the judgment debtor.

I have spent thousands on detectives, on behalf of my clients, to untangle these arrangements. That's what I me by trust me on that..

You can see why some people get pissed at some medical students in Canada who intend to do just as you say happens as soon as they graduate.

I don't know if that is the case of the doctor your children have but I'm sure this doctor knows people who have done this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is as follows. Typically, judgments are enforced two ways. A judgment is typically a lien on real property in the county in which the judgment is recorded. This sounds stringent, but typically someone who expects a judgment to be rendered (as a defaulting emigrating student would) won't buy real property in their own name. The second way is for the sheriff in the county where the judgment is recorded to levy upon a debt owed to a judgment debtor, typically a bank account. People who expect a judgment to be entered against them do their "banking" through a companion, relative or friend, in order to avoid losing property to the judgment debtor.

I have spent thousands on detectives, on behalf of my clients, to untangle these arrangements. That's what I me by trust me on that..

You can see why some people get pissed at some medical students in Canada who intend to do just as you say happens as soon as they graduate.

I don't know if that is the case of the doctor your children have but I'm sure this doctor knows people who have done this.

Not only should we pursue them outside the country, we should put out a warrant for their arrest upon re-entry to the country -- a federal warrant that is executable in every jurisdiction in the county upon re-entry. At that point they would have to secure payment on the loan, or be charged with defrauding the governments both federal and provincial since the guarantees for the loans come from them.

Again, if we give a hand up and they want to leave -- fine. But they must serve time here first. If they choose to usurp that authority and leave we should consider any monies granted to them to train them stolen and seek to recover.

I have no problem supporting these investments in our country and citizenry as a taxpayer. And it really pisses me off, when they thumb their noses at those who paid taxes so they could get the hand-up. We should go after these people with a vengence, with no mercy. Such a crime is one against every Canadian citizen. We support these programs because they better our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Where did you get that idea that 'most' people on welfare are lazy? Seems you should get your fact straight before you make baseless, unfounded statements! Have you ever been unemployed, homeless or had tolive on the streets?

The fault with the high rate of welfare caseloads lie with the fact that the "system" is NOT geared to getting the indigent, and low income on the road to financial independene. Its main function is to get them off the system by ANY MEANS and thats it!!

Yeah, Alberta is 'crying' for workers but word of advice don't go out there unless you either have a place to stay or can afford to pay the high rents, believe me its not cheap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add that the education = high wages idea is severely outdated.

No Sh!t.

I'm thousands in debt from school, and the local factory pays $4.00 per hour more starting wage. Plus profit sharing, and a health plan. I need $7000 to scrape up the equipment I need, just to use this so-far worthless education.

I buy a $75 pair of work boots and I can bring home $750/wk as a construction labourer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thousands in debt from school, and the local factory pays $4.00 per hour more starting wage. Plus profit sharing, and a health plan. I need $7000 to scrape up the equipment I need, just to use this so-far worthless education.

I buy a $75 pair of work boots and I can bring home $750/wk as a construction labourer.

It begs the question, why did you decide to get an education then? And what education did you get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thousands in debt from school, and the local factory pays $4.00 per hour more starting wage. Plus profit sharing, and a health plan. I need $7000 to scrape up the equipment I need, just to use this so-far worthless education.

I buy a $75 pair of work boots and I can bring home $750/wk as a construction labourer.

It begs the question, why did you decide to get an education then? And what education did you get?

I got the education because my wifes uncle bull****ed me about a job. "Work right at home" he says. "I'm so busy I don't have time to train anyone," he says. "I can give you tons of work if you learn how to do it."

Lies, lies, lies. By the time I found out he was full of it, and there was never going to be a job, I was already halfway through the program. Right at the start of the next semester was when I found out the salary, they tell you in the course guide, that you will be making to start, was about 10,000 more in the book than it was in reality. Reality was $12/hr to start, if I commute, because of a flooded market. I couldn't justify my expenses to get my diploma, and most places require certification.

I was going through as a CAD operator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I would suggest that all education be private and paid entirely by the student. Since that will never happen.....

I'd like to add that the education = high wages idea is severely outdated.
Are you suggesting that as a country we should no longer subsidize education because it no longer creates the desired outcome?
I would suggest that students be required to pay more of the freight. Thus, there would be less incentives for career students to waste tax-payers' money.

Our post-secondary education in Canada is a form of pre-welfare. A university degree in Canada is worthless because there are soooo many of them floating around.

Anybody remember when high school diplomas were meaningful? Today, saying you graduated from high school is like saying you got toilet trained -- from a public daycare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you get that idea that 'most' people on welfare are lazy? Seems you should get your fact straight before you make baseless, unfounded statements! Have you ever been unemployed, homeless or had tolive on the streets?

Then why are they making babies if they're too poor to afford them?

The liberal programs in the United States, i.e. the ?War on Poverty? succeeded only in decreasing the incentives of poor people to remain married and working. Out-of-wedlock births soared during and after this period. During 1982, I worked as a legal assistant ina legal services program for the poor. This shows that I put action behind my words bout helping poor people. I was not being paid. During this time, the painter for one of the contractors engaged to rehabilitate slum housing in Westchester County, New York took a liking to a 13 year old girl in one of the apartments he was painting. Can anyone tell us why the 13 year old girl wasn?t in school, and wound up pregnant by the painter? Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money?

The even-more-liberal attorney I was working under had, let us say, a very serious difference of opinion with me about this matter. I asked her what the 13 year old girl?s mother did for a living. She said ?she?s a mother?. If she was being a full time mother, then, how did her daughter wind up pregnant at the age of 13 by a painter? When liberals became uncomfortable with these questions I began to move to the right somewhat politically. Does anyone thing this is the only time a government program for the poor people has gone seriously awry.

For example the legal service program sponsored organizational meetings for apartments that were seriously run-down. The goal was to obtain an administrator to replace the slumlord who was draining the buildings. My suggestion that the money that was due for rent be pooled so that the administrator, when appointed, would have some money to actually repair the buildings was hooted down derisively. The suggestion also cost me my volunteer position. Not really a loss though. That day, I learned I was passed the Bar, and began practicing law privately as a bankruptcy legal assistant (while awaiting formal admission) in January 1983, and was admitted to practice during early 1983. And what net gain did those legal services I helped provide give to the poor people? Probably none.

My point in all of this is that poor people do things that doom them and, worse, their offspring to continuing and grinding poverty, such as ensuring the dwellings they inhabit are, by and by, ruined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rénégade:

Are you suggesting that as a country we should no longer subsidize education because it no longer creates the desired outcome?

Not at all. Maybe a deep discussion of what education is supposed to achieve would be a good idea, though. For example, your post seems to say the desired outcome is higher wages - is that indeed true ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rénégade:
Are you suggesting that as a country we should no longer subsidize education because it no longer creates the desired outcome?

Not at all. Maybe a deep discussion of what education is supposed to achieve would be a good idea, though. For example, your post seems to say the desired outcome is higher wages - is that indeed true ?

I think we take the aims of education for granted. It is certainly worth deeper thought. Certainly one of the aims is higher wages, but it may not be the only aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly one of the aims is higher wages, but it may not be the only aim.

Renegade - I agree. But there's some kind of contradiction there. If the government is concerned with higher wages, aren't they also concerned with productivity - ie. production per hours of labour ?

Certainly, there's a balance at play. Wouldn't it be nice if we understood what that balance was, and how our government tries to achieve it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there's some kind of contradiction there. If the government is concerned with higher wages, aren't they also concerned with productivity - ie. production per hours of labour ?

MH, I don't really see a contradiction. Production is generally expressed in a monetary amount. As a practical matter there is a limit to the number of hours a person can work, so there is a strong correlation between the amount of wages and productivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me, but it seems like both of you are getting side-tracked. You guys went from:

I'd like to add that the education = high wages idea is severely outdated.
Are you suggesting that as a country we should no longer subsidize education because it no longer creates the desired outcome?
to assuming the government is trying to direct labor production.

Education is subsidized because enough people want it that way. Period.

The government is not out on a mission to increase labor force productivity or reduce poverty through education subsidies either. Thinking that the government could even do those things is foolhardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are they making babies if they're too poor to afford them?

I'm not sure I can add anything here to make you look any worse than you have already done for yourself. :P

You and Argus need to bring in reinforcements. You're getting clobbered here.

Why don't you respond to the substance of my point, rather than making ad hominem attacks when you have no response? My point is that is simple. If poor people, starting at a young age, did the following:

  1. Stayed in school until 18, or at least 17;
  2. Delayed having babies until married;
  3. Delayed marriage until after age 20; and
  4. Delayed having children until a reasonable time after being married

much of poverty as we know it would vanish, or at least become much more manageable. It is politically feasible to assist families or four or five people with support, educational assistance, etc. It is not feasible to remake totally broken, dysfunctional families where many have four or five children before they're 22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you respond to the substance of my point, rather than making ad hominem attacks when you have no response? My point is that is simple. If poor people, starting at a young age, did the following:
  1. Stayed in school until 18, or at least 17;
  2. Delayed having babies until married;
  3. Delayed marriage until after age 20; and
  4. Delayed having children until a reasonable time after being married

much of poverty as we know it would vanish, or at least become much more manageable. It is politically feasible to assist families or four or five people with support, educational assistance, etc. It is not feasible to remake totally broken, dysfunctional families where many have four or five children before they're 22.

The book Freakonomics has suggested that crime figures go down where abortion is freely available. I wonder if that is true for poverty as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you respond to the substance of my point, rather than making ad hominem attacks when you have no response? My point is that is simple. If poor people, starting at a young age, did the following:

  1. Stayed in school until 18, or at least 17;
  2. Delayed having babies until married;
  3. Delayed marriage until after age 20; and
  4. Delayed having children until a reasonable time after being married

much of poverty as we know it would vanish, or at least become much more manageable. It is politically feasible to assist families or four or five people with support, educational assistance, etc. It is not feasible to remake totally broken, dysfunctional families where many have four or five children before they're 22.

The book Freakonomics has suggested that crime figures go down where abortion is freely available. I wonder if that is true for poverty as well.

I'm sure crime and poverty would go down if we were legally allowed to execute bums too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are they making babies if they're too poor to afford them?
My point in all of this is that poor people do things that doom them and, worse, their offspring to continuing and grinding poverty, such as ensuring the dwellings they inhabit are, by and by, ruined.

While early studies suggested that there was a very weak correlation between the income of the parents and the income of offspring, more recent studies show otherwise:

Recent evidence points to a much higher level of intergenerational transmission of

economic position than was previously thought to be the case. America may still

be the land of opportunity by some measures, but parental income and wealth are

strong predictors of the likely economic status of the next generation.

The Inheritance of Inequality

In order to address the issue of poverty, it woudl seem that we spend a lot of effort and money on programs which try and eliminate the correlation between the incomes of the parents and the offspring. It may be simpler and more effective simply to instute programs which encourage the poor to have few or no kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure crime and poverty would go down if we were legally allowed to execute bums too.

Abortion is legal, execution of bums is not.

Same concept, except that a feteus might contibute to a society, most bums won't.

That being said, I don't actually support executing bums... or aborting feteus... for economical reasons. Why not just kill off all the undesirables, start with the poor, move to the disabled, ect. ect.. Are you that ready to move down the path to full eugenics to advocate that poor people should have easy access to abortions as not to have kids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I do business I always ask for the cash price.....always.

retailers pay the credit card companies to use their card....If I pay cash I expect at least a 2% savings....as well, if it's a service, I expect a further 10 to 20% discount.

I have the time to walk away from a store if the retailer won't comply.

A friend of mine was having his chimnet repaired....the bill came to $1800 ...he was writing a cheque....I said to the fellow, how much for straight cash? The tradesmen answers not missing a beat, ..."$1500."

Off my buddy goes to the bank......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...