BC Budget is a slap in the face for the poor

[LonelyGhost]

here's a simple question for the simpletons who are bashing the poor:

"would you hire any one of the people you see on the DTES to
work for or with you in your job?"

Yes or No.

If no, then who should hire them?


The Government? Costs more in wages and benefits
that the shit they pay on welfare.

I agree that taxes are ridiculous in this country, but by the same
token, NO ONE here has complained about the BILLIONS we give
to corporations! We 'gave' $275 million dollars to the areospace
industry and still haven't seen anything for it.

We actually GAVE money to GM! what for?

Quit whining about a few people on welfare and tell the government
to stop corporate welfare.

asshats.

 

[jjinvan]

Pretty clear? nah, I'd say your posts make it precisely clear:



Actually you condescending xxx, this thread has gone well beyond the opening welfare reference to include the working poor, minimum wage, etc.; suggest you open that closed mind of yours and attempt to keep up.

OTBn edit to cleanup the condescending reference

Notice how you left out the parts of my posts where I said that SOME of the people on welfare are like that, but not all, and that I was specifically referring to the ones that WERE like that.

Again, try reading the entire post, not just the parts that agree with your ideas.

Secondly, I haven't said anything about the working poor, so why are you trying to imply that my posts have anything to do with them?

I think the issue of a $50 increase in welfare and the whole question of minimum wage (ie: salaries of the working poor vs unemployment levels) are completely different issues and shouldn't be somehow lumped together.

Minimum wages, and increasing minimum wages is a trade off because while you do make the 'working poor' better off, you also increase unemployment and create more 'not working poor' who can't get jobs. Basically you have to find the point of intersection between the two curves of labour supply and demand and then set the minimum wage there or you hurt more people than you help. Basic first year economics.

 

[jjinvan]

The threshold would have to be lower than 25-30 K.

According to the 2004 census, the average household income in Canada:

For unattached individuals was 26 K
For married couples was 62.7 K (or averaged out, 31.3 K)

That threshold (for no-income-tax) effectively drops half the population off the tax bill.

data source:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil21a.htm

The threshold would have to be set at the provincial level, not the federal level. A 'semi decent wage' in PEI would be dire poverty in Vancouver.

 

[jjinvan]

1) It's a social responsibility to look after "poor" people who are physically or mentally disabled whether they're institutionalized or just getting financial assistance and it's that general feeling of responsibility and compassion that makes Canada a great place to live.

2) If you are poor and a drug addict, you should be institutionalized if you refuse to get clean, locked up if you commit even the pettiest of crimes as the trend will not stop while you're an addict, and given the necessary support but limited window of opportunity to get clean or you're locked up. Your presence on the streets or in society will not be tolerated for both your and the publics sake.

3) If you are poor and are physically or psychologically able to work, you get assistance while trying to find work but those attempts will be monitored closely. Part of the monitoring program would mean that you will be sent to jobs/interviews that you realistically have a chance to get and the employer will be required to fill in an online form as to your dress, demeanor, and sincerity in wanting to get the job. Part of earning your assistance will be providing community volunteer work. If you tank interviews and clearly do not want to work, you better move somewhere else because you're off the dole and your presence on the street or committing crimes will not be tolerated.

4) If you feel it's your right not to work or you just don't want to work, see the tail end of point number 3. I cannot choose whether to pay taxes, you shouldn't have the choice to be a burden to the system.

5) If you have the money and want to sponsor or contribute directly to individuals listed in 1 & 2 by way of a monitored program to substantiate your commitment, you receive that amount in tax relief.

6) A flat tax rate makes sense. If it's 25%, someone earning $40k pays $10k while someone making $120k pays $30K. The person making more already contributes more but why rape them? Also keep in mind that the people making more, spend more, which stimulates the economy and represents an even greater amount into the tax base.

Most of this is exactly what I have been saying. I think that in point #5 you should get 'partial tax relief' not the entire amount, otherwise you get the problem of 'popular' programs getting all the money and unpopular but worthy ones not getting any funding (same problem goes on with cancer, if you get cancer, you better hope it is breast cancer and not prostate cancer).

And, on point #6, I think we need to go back to the OLD system when it comes to tax exemptions etc. The government sits down and figures out what the BARE MINIMUM someone needs to live off in each province (which should be what welfare is set to, by the way) and then that amount of earnings is TAX FREE for everyone.

So, if that amount comes out to $600 per month (for example) then welfare should be $600 per month (for those who qualify, see above) and the first $7200 per year of earnings should be tax free for EVERYONE.

Apart from that change, yes, there should be a flat tax rate on the rest of income, which by definition is 'the income above what you need to live'.

Here's one for you to answer OTBn, let's see if you can actually explain the contradiction and not just ignore it and call me names like you always do when I'm right and you are clearly wrong:

Isn't it funny how those who say that a 10% tax cut for everyone isn't 'the same for everyone' because someone making $100,000 per year pays $10,000 less tax but someone making $50,000 per year pays $5,000 less tax, but then in the same breath they say that a flat tax rate is unfair because 'the rich should pay more than the middle class' and a flat tax means the rich pay the same as the middle class. Uh.. hello?? Are you people so mathematically challenged that you can't see that your two arguments are in complete contradiction with each other??? I'd love to see your answer to that one, OTBn.

 

[Avery]

Actually, even under a flat tax proposal, those with higher incomes would still pay a higher net percentage than low income earners, because of the threshold taxable income level.

Suppose the tax rate is 20%, and those who earn less than $20,000 pay no tax. A $50,000 income earner would pay 20% of ($50,000 - $20,000), i.e. $6,000, or 12% of their total income. A $100,000 earner would pay 20% of ($100,000 - $20,000), i.e. $16,000, or 16% of their total income.

A flat tax would also be based on income from all sources, not just employment. It would be very fair, and would provide an incentive for everyone to increase their income, because they would know that they'd be able to keep 80% of every extra dollar they earned.

 

[jjinvan]

here's a simple question for the simpletons who are bashing the poor:

"would you hire any one of the people you see on the DTES to
work for or with you in your job?"

Yes or No.

If no, then who should hire them?


The Government? Costs more in wages and benefits
that the shit they pay on welfare.

I agree that taxes are ridiculous in this country, but by the same
token, NO ONE here has complained about the BILLIONS we give
to corporations! We 'gave' $275 million dollars to the areospace
industry and still haven't seen anything for it.

We actually GAVE money to GM! what for?

Quit whining about a few people on welfare and tell the government
to stop corporate welfare.

asshats.

1) Sure I would hire them if they got off drugs and were part of some government job training and rehab program. I have actually done so in the past, and had secretaries who were in rehab. One of them worked out, many of them just didn't show up one day and went back to the street and drugs. I've also had a LOT of people working for me with physical disabilities who were part of special programs to get them back into the workforce. I've also helped to place a HUGE NUMBER of physically disabled people in appropriate jobs and created several devices to enable an injured person to do stuff they used to do before their injury. (surprised?)

2) As far as the government hiring them, yep, sounds like a plan to me. After all, yes it would cost more, BUT they would actually get something out of it. Workfare costs more than welfare, but you get something for your money other than just paying off someone to not mug people in the streets. I have a strong objection to paying even $1 in taxes to support an able bodied person who just doesn't feel like contributing to society. I have no problem with paying $2 to have that same person plant trees in stanley park to replace the ones that were destroyed, or helping to clean up in towns where there was severe flooding or otherwise making a positive contribution in areas where the government should be spending tax dollars.

3) I have complained several times about some of the corporate handouts that the liberals dished out over the years. ESPECIALLY the ones that had a percentage come back to them in cash in little brown envelopes (hey, read the Gomery report). I am in favour of job creation LOANS for companies, but those LOANS should be given with strict conditions and immediately taken back by the government if the companies don't keep up their end of the deal (in terms of new jobs or whatever).

For example, suppose a town has their sawmill close down because the workers there go on strike and demand more pay than the workers are getting at a sawmill in a town down the street. If the workers then want to form a co-op and reopen the sawmill with their salaries being directly based on the profits, it might be a good idea for the government to give them a loan to get things going rather than put the entire town on welfare. BUT, the collective agreement with the workers would have to be part of the business plan and it would have to all make sense. Of course the downside to this is that you wind up with the problems they are having in Isreal with their unions forming a sort of mafia, but that can be avoided if the government is picky about how they put the program in place.

 

[Damaged]

Actually yes that does include the rent ($375) up from $325 a month for single employables. Depending on the person, it can either be sent direct, mailed, out or done direct deposit. Take a look at the ministries site:

http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/channel.do?action=ministry&channelID=-8388&navId=NAV_ID_province

Why do I get the feeling that you may be collecting or have collected welfare while working as a SP?

Also how does it work that you can be banned under one handle then come back under another handle?

 

[Fudd]

One thing I agree with is that a post secondary education is really important to get out of the cycle of poverty. Unfortunately, I don't see anything in the budget that offers educational opportunities to the poor.

 

[CJ Tylers]

The thing is, in Canada, it has been shown over and over that when Universities are allowed to raise tuition fees, their enrollment increases. I was referring to what happens in Canada (should have said so).

I had an interesting talk about this with some militant student group leaders, and they always got 'stuck' when I pointed out that when UBC was allowed to increase tuition, the number of students they enrolled went up by a large amount, so in fact, increasing tuition increased overall access to the university for the population at large.

Hmmm... might I ask.... whom exactly were the ones enrolling? There are a good many "local" students who are not able to pay out the exorbitant fees required by any of the local universtities. Others place themselves hugely into debt to do so, thus assuring themselves of years of poverty line living, unless they happen to win the lottery (job wise).

Let's be quite honest here... multinational students are preferred by universities because they bring in more cash than locals. Logically, if you make it so the locals can't afford to come, you have more room for multinationals. I'm not slinging mud at international students... I am however, taking aim at certain greedy administrators.

Even other post secondary institutions are pricing themselves beyond the average salary of a working man (let alone one that has to support others). I consider myself lucky to have the education that I do. It's something I worked hard for, and continue to do so.

That said, if you place post secondary education out of reach of your local population (the ones that stay here, pay taxes, and improve the local economy)... then what can be said for your future?

International students are great... but they take what they've learned and leave once their stay is up. Canada needs to have educated people STAY in Canada. Canada has to stop piling up serious debt onto the young, expecting them to pay it off and then support us in our old age. It won't happen.

Now... if we look to the east, there's alot of very good universities with reasonable rates. Well known ones... perhaps more respected than our relatively new establishments. So, why is it our universities in BC have to charge so much more?

There's a question that needs answering.