Should we be allowed to sue for government-imposed poverty?

[Machjo]

For example, let's suppose your lawyer managed to prove in court that a particular provincial, territorial, federal or local law or bylaw was contributing either directly or indirectly to your poverty, should you be allowed to sue the government, not necessarily for money, but rather to force it to remove that law?

This of course would not allow you to force the government to pass any law, but only to remove them.

Any thoughts on this?

I think such a law would be good since it would likely kill a lot of NIMBY laws, thus making it easier for the poor to take care of themselves on a smaller income once all the bureaucratic obstacles are removed, and thus reduce (maybe not eliminate, but at least reduce) the need for social programmes to help the poor.

 

[Nuggler]

if you have a lawyer that good, you ain't poor.

 

[Machjo]

if you have a lawyer that good, you ain't poor.

Hmmm... good point. But I suppose some lawyers might volunteer. Honestly though I can't think of such a law off the top of my head, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are in fact by-laws in some cities requiring minimum sizes for houses, or rooms, or other specification restricting the possibility for a construction company to build smaller microhouses for example, or zoning restrictions or maximum heights for buildings which effectively make it more difficult for a construction company to make housing more available near where the working poor work and who don't have the time or money to commute many hours each day.

Again, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but it seems to make sense. How else can we explain that we have so many working poor and yet we seldom if ever come across the construction of super-small houses or dorm-style buildings with common kitchens, etc. other than homeless shelters. Again, I haven't been seaching and maybe I'm just inorant and they already exist and I just didn't notice it. If that's the case though, then why aren't the working poor looking for those places, or are they just poorly advertized?

Again, I haven't been looking for them myself and could be wrong, but from what I read in the newspapers, it would seem most of such housing are not private sector but rather government subsidized social housing.

But then again, if we do have such NIMBY laws, then I guess we would need government social housing to compensate for it.

 

[tay]

Toronto doctor faces sanctions for helping poor



Dubbed the “Robin Hood Doctor” by many of his patients, Wong has declared in his own defense that his diagnoses and medical assistance to the poor were entirely consistent with his Hippocratic oath and the information provided to him by his patients. The case and Wong’s steadfast defense of his actions have highlighted the abysmal conditions of poverty inflicted on hundreds of thousands of Ontario residents and the provincial government’s ongoing austerity program directed against the working class.

Currently, a single person on social welfare in Ontario receives $591 per month. With low-rent districts charging an average of $400 per month for a room and monthly public transportation costs often amounting to $100, little money is left to buy nutritional food, let alone other basic essentials. About 900,000 people in Ontario today receive social welfare or disability benefits (disabled individuals can receive up to $930 per month). Not surprisingly, study after study shows that this social layer suffers the worst health-related outcomes in the province.

A little-advertised provision in social assistance regulations allows for doctors to authorize a “special dietary supplement,” which in some cases could amount to $250 per month, for recipients who exhibit a number of health conditions that include not only serious illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes but also allergies to certain foods, chronic constipation, osteoporosis, gum disease, bad teeth and other afflictions. In 2003, less than $6 million per year was dispensed by the Ontario government for the special dietary allowance.

When, in that same year, the Liberal government of former premier Dalton McGuinty succeeded the Conservatives (who had cut welfare rates by 22%), attacks on social assistance recipients continued. Increases in already substandard welfare payments were consistently pegged well below the annual inflation rate.

Alarmed by the fact that an increasing number of impoverished people were actually applying for and receiving the special dietary allowances, the Liberal government abruptly announced in 2010 that it would abolish the program. However, in the face of a significant backlash against this attack on the most vulnerable of citizens and an anti-discrimination ruling against the government at a Human Rights Tribunal, the Liberals in 2011 instead passed legislation revamping the program. These “reforms” considerably reduced the list of afflictions eligible for financial relief, forced all recipients to reapply for the program and threw previous recipients off the rolls.

At the same time, then right-wing Toronto city councilor Rob Ford (now mayor) filed a complaint against Wong with the College of Physicians. When Wong’s case was finally heard last winter, the College found that Wong had not maintained proper records of his examinations, had largely relied upon information provided by his patients and had not referred them for enough testing before issuing his diagnoses. The College found no evidence of lack of medical knowledge or skill. A police investigation found no evidence of fraud.


The sanctions to be applied against Wong by the College are expected to be announced next month.


more

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/09/toro-a09.html

 

[hunboldt]

Excellent point.
The extreme example ( I'm trying to write a book on this), was the antebellum American south, where a whole culture was based on keeping fourty per cent of the population in illiterate captivity.

Until the whole structure fell apart in civil war. Ot to be said for the old 'fourty acres and a mule ' agrarianism.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

For example, let's suppose your lawyer managed to prove in court that a particular provincial, territorial, federal or local law or bylaw was contributing either directly or indirectly to your poverty, should you be allowed to sue the government, not necessarily for money, but rather to force it to remove that law?

This of course would not allow you to force the government to pass any law, but only to remove them.

Any thoughts on this?

I think such a law would be good since it would likely kill a lot of NIMBY laws, thus making it easier for the poor to take care of themselves on a smaller income once all the bureaucratic obstacles are removed, and thus reduce (maybe not eliminate, but at least reduce) the need for social programmes to help the poor.

Wow, you've come up with a corporate lawyer's dream.

As some have already pointed out, who do you think would make more use of such a law, poor folks or corporations?

We have something in our Constitution called the "Takings Clause." It's in the Fifth Amendment, and says that the government cannot take your property without providing compensation. A number of people, none of them poor, challenge every government regulation on the basis that, by diminishing the value of their property, the government has taken value, and must compensate them.

Not saying it's not a good idea, just that it seems to me like a made-to-order lawyer's payday.

So, yeah, in my opinion you should definitely do it. And preferably write the law in the vaguest terms possible.

 

[Nuggler]

Excellent point.
The extreme example ( I'm trying to write a book on this), was the antebellum American south, where a whole culture was based on keeping fourty per cent of the population in illiterate captivity.

Until the whole structure fell apart in civil war. Ot to be said for the old 'fourty acres and a mule ' agrarianism.

That's changed ???8O....................;-) Carpetbaggers had a ball. May have set the stage for the future of American politics.

Antebellum American south has been the setting for many great books and novels. I'd like to read yours when it's finished. Seriously.

Keep it under $25.00 Cdn. Poor, pensioner, single income, used car, all that. 8O

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Excellent point.
The extreme example ( I'm trying to write a book on this), was the antebellum American south, where a whole culture was based on keeping fourty per cent of the population in illiterate captivity.

Until the whole structure fell apart in civil war. Ot to be said for the old 'fourty acres and a mule ' agrarianism.

Great idea. There aren't enough books on slavery in the American South.

Here's an idea. Why don't you write a book on slavery in the American North instead? Yep, it existed. Seriously. Google it.

 

[hunboldt]

Great idea. There aren't enough books on slavery in the American South.

Here's an idea. Why don't you write a book on slavery in the American North instead? Yep, it existed. Seriously. Google it.

Actually the setting was Blacks in Canada- but thanks, anyway.
Man you are titchy lately. Next you'll be blaming me because the Mingo First Nation ran your ancestors down the Ohio in the beaver Wars..

 

[Machjo]

Toronto doctor faces sanctions for helping poor



Dubbed the “Robin Hood Doctor” by many of his patients, Wong has declared in his own defense that his diagnoses and medical assistance to the poor were entirely consistent with his Hippocratic oath and the information provided to him by his patients. The case and Wong’s steadfast defense of his actions have highlighted the abysmal conditions of poverty inflicted on hundreds of thousands of Ontario residents and the provincial government’s ongoing austerity program directed against the working class.

Currently, a single person on social welfare in Ontario receives $591 per month. With low-rent districts charging an average of $400 per month for a room and monthly public transportation costs often amounting to $100, little money is left to buy nutritional food, let alone other basic essentials. About 900,000 people in Ontario today receive social welfare or disability benefits (disabled individuals can receive up to $930 per month). Not surprisingly, study after study shows that this social layer suffers the worst health-related outcomes in the province.

A little-advertised provision in social assistance regulations allows for doctors to authorize a “special dietary supplement,” which in some cases could amount to $250 per month, for recipients who exhibit a number of health conditions that include not only serious illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes but also allergies to certain foods, chronic constipation, osteoporosis, gum disease, bad teeth and other afflictions. In 2003, less than $6 million per year was dispensed by the Ontario government for the special dietary allowance.

When, in that same year, the Liberal government of former premier Dalton McGuinty succeeded the Conservatives (who had cut welfare rates by 22%), attacks on social assistance recipients continued. Increases in already substandard welfare payments were consistently pegged well below the annual inflation rate.

Alarmed by the fact that an increasing number of impoverished people were actually applying for and receiving the special dietary allowances, the Liberal government abruptly announced in 2010 that it would abolish the program. However, in the face of a significant backlash against this attack on the most vulnerable of citizens and an anti-discrimination ruling against the government at a Human Rights Tribunal, the Liberals in 2011 instead passed legislation revamping the program. These “reforms” considerably reduced the list of afflictions eligible for financial relief, forced all recipients to reapply for the program and threw previous recipients off the rolls.

At the same time, then right-wing Toronto city councilor Rob Ford (now mayor) filed a complaint against Wong with the College of Physicians. When Wong’s case was finally heard last winter, the College found that Wong had not maintained proper records of his examinations, had largely relied upon information provided by his patients and had not referred them for enough testing before issuing his diagnoses. The College found no evidence of lack of medical knowledge or skill. A police investigation found no evidence of fraud.


The sanctions to be applied against Wong by the College are expected to be announced next month.


more

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/09/toro-a09.html

While you have good points here, I was thinking more in terms of how the private sector, where no tax money is involved as such, is being held back. For instance, supposing I'm an entrepreneur and I decide to build safe but really small microhomes or something of the sort which I could then sell on the market, seeing that I'd be building the homes with my own money, and you'd be buying it with your own money, why would the government want to pass bylaws preventing this? Minimum wage laws come to mind here too, along with other laws such as being allowed to volunteer to gain experience, etc.

Wow, you've come up with a corporate lawyer's dream.

As some have already pointed out, who do you think would make more use of such a law, poor folks or corporations?

We have something in our Constitution called the "Takings Clause." It's in the Fifth Amendment, and says that the government cannot take your property without providing compensation. A number of people, none of them poor, challenge every government regulation on the basis that, by diminishing the value of their property, the government has taken value, and must compensate them.

Not saying it's not a good idea, just that it seems to me like a made-to-order lawyer's payday.

So, yeah, in my opinion you should definitely do it. And preferably write the law in the vaguest terms possible.

But if it were a law specifying laws that hurt the poor, then one would have to prove how such a law negatively affects the poor specifically.

 

[taxslave]

Hmmm... good point. But I suppose some lawyers might volunteer.
ROFLMFAO

 

[Machjo]

Hmmm... good point. But I suppose some lawyers might volunteer.
ROFLMFAO

Hey, even if one volunteers on occasion, and this law gets used on occasion, that's a start. Or some rich person decides to donate to a fund to hire a lawyer to challenge a particular law o nbehalf of the poor.

Are you saying that no rich person cares? The majority might not, but I'm sure there are a few sinciere rich people and lawyers. I'm still somewhat optimistic.

 

[taxslave]

Hey, even if one volunteers on occasion, and this law gets used on occasion, that's a start. Or some rich person decides to donate to a fund to hire a lawyer to challenge a particular law o nbehalf of the poor.

Are you saying that no rich person cares? The majority might not, but I'm sure there are a few sinciere rich people and lawyers. I'm still somewhat optimistic.

Only if there was something in it for them.
I think you are looking at this from the wrong end. More freebees won't help escape poverty. Free education will. Mandatory drug testing will. Not clean? no taxpayer money. We have to do drug tests just to have a job so freeloaders should be no different.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

But if it were a law specifying laws that hurt the poor, then one would have to prove how such a law negatively affects the poor specifically.

Piece of piss. Like our agriculture subsidies. First, you pass a law providing "assistance" to "poor family farmers." Then you either revise it or get it administered so the "assistance" goes to all farmers. Then, 90% of the "assistance" goes to agribusiness.

If there's a law to help "the poor" where 90% of the "help" doesn't go to the rich, I never heard of it.

 

[Machjo]

Only if there was something in it for them.
I think you are looking at this from the wrong end. More freebees won't help escape poverty. Free education will. Mandatory drug testing will. Not clean? no taxpayer money. We have to do drug tests just to have a job so freeloaders should be no different.

You mention universal compulsory education and social security. No, I'm not in any way denying that we need to help the less fortunate and give them an education and give them a hand up. Don't get me wrong. I'm more than happy to pay taxes to help them. What I'm saying though is that is only one side of the equation.

On the flip side of the coin, if you have minimum wage laws but then don't provide adequate funding for skills training for the unemployed, then you're forcing unskilled workers into a catch-22: needing more training to earn mininum wage or above, and needing a job to get that training. At that stage, you're legislating the poor out fo work.

Likewise, bylaws requiring minimum sizes and such for the purpose of gentrification essentially prevents the construciton market from engaging in construciton projects to build micro-houses for the poor.

So yes, sometimes the government needs to engage directly to give the poor a hand up, no denying that. But on the flip side, in other areas the government needs to step aside to allow the poor to fend for themselves in teh truly free market, not a rigged one for the middle to upper classes through NIMBY laws. I'm by no means a rabid capitalist or free-marketeer, but there are cases where a freer market can help the poor.

Piece of piss. Like our agriculture subsidies. First, you pass a law providing "assistance" to "poor family farmers." Then you either revise it or get it administered so the "assistance" goes to all farmers. Then, 90% of the "assistance" goes to agribusiness.

If there's a law to help "the poor" where 90% of the "help" doesn't go to the rich, I never heard of it.

That would be the kinnd of law the poor could sue against, according to the proposal in the OP. Again, not for financial compensation, but rather to simply have the court revoke the law to protect the poorest from teh whealthier majority.

 

[captain morgan]

On the flip side of the coin, if you have minimum wage laws but then don't provide adequate funding for skills training for the unemployed, then you're forcing unskilled workers into a catch-22: needing more training to earn mininum wage or above, and needing a job to get that training. At that stage, you're legislating the poor out fo work.

You're doubling-up on the education/training element.

If the education system is failing so many people such that they can't find meaningful employment, perhaps it's time to revisit the edu system and how that's set up

Likewise, bylaws requiring minimum sizes and such for the purpose of gentrification essentially prevents the construciton market from engaging in construciton projects to build micro-houses for the poor.

The construction industry will work to realize the greatest profit they can for the work done. Micro housing will only work if there are dollars in the equation for the builder/developer... On that note, you are also assuming that 'the poor' can afford this micro housing in the first place.

 

[Machjo]

You're doubling-up on the education/training element.

If the education system is failing so many people such that they can't find meaningful employment, perhaps it's time to revisit the edu system and how that's set up.

So you agree then that minimum wage laws hurts those whom the education system has failed? If so, then we're on the same page here.

he construction industry will work to realize the greatest profit they can for the work done. Micro housing will only work if there are dollars in the equation for the builder/developer... On that note, you are also assuming that 'the poor' can afford this micro housing in the first place.

I don't know. I'm all for bylaws or laws ensuring safe construction. But I do wonder if there may be other laws, not related to safety but more relating to gentrification, preventing the private sector from building micro-houses. You might be right, and there is just no demand for such housing in the market. If that's the case, then we have the assume the there are no moderately poor people, buty only either dirt poor or middle class, with that middle group nonexistent. I doubt that to be the case, so suspect there are bylaws or laws in place actually preventing the construction industry to build such houses. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that the lack of microhousing has less to do with market demand and more to do with government regulation. But correct me if I'm wrong.

And yes, we should improve the educaiton system, but in the mean time, how about we remove the minimum wage. Is it fair for the education system to fail a person and then the government legislating him out of the labour market and then we wonder why he's poor and unemployed?

 

[Sal]

it's not just the education system...there are some kids who simply can not learn in that environment for whatever reason, not all kids come from a happy, warm nurturing environment...currently the education system caters to, and is middle class

the other factor here, not all people have the capability to learn at normal level, they still need to be able to acquire gainful employment and support themselves and their family at a decent standard of living

 

[captain morgan]

So you agree then that minimum wage laws hurts those whom the education system has failed? If so, then we're on the same page here.

In some cases yes and in others, no.

Getting back to the education element (and I don't know if that's the problem here), it is far more effective to go after the root cause of a problem as opposed to after-the-fact band-aids.

There is also one last, very important variable in this equation... The individual (read: student or employee) has to have the motivation and impetus to work towards their own benefit.

All kids in Canada are offered an education, but as the old expression goes - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... This is also about assuming personal responsibility for ones actions

But I do wonder if there may be other laws, not related to safety but more relating to gentrification, preventing the private sector from building micro-houses. You might be right, and there is just no demand for such housing in the market. If that's the case, then we have the assume the there are no moderately poor people, buty only either dirt poor or middle class, with that middle group nonexistent. I doubt that to be the case, so suspect there are bylaws or laws in place actually preventing the construction industry to build such houses. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that the lack of microhousing has less to do with market demand and more to do with government regulation. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Cities/municipalities will (and are) pushing for densification in many urban areas - it has little to do with affordable housing as much as it has to do with increasing the muni tax revenues that they can collect

Is it fair for the education system to fail a person and then the government legislating him out of the labour market and then we wonder why he's poor and unemployed?

Did the edu system fail someone or is it possible that the individual failed themselves as well?

Personal responsibility has to factor into the equation here at some point

 

[Machjo]

In some cases yes and in others, no.

Getting back to the education element (and I don't know if that's the problem here), it is far more effective to go after the root cause of a problem as opposed to after-the-fact band-aids.

There is also one last, very important variable in this equation... The individual (read: student or employee) has to have the motivation and impetus to work towards their own benefit.

All kids in Canada are offered an education, but as the old expression goes - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... This is also about assuming personal responsibility for ones actions



Cities/municipalities will (and are) pushing for densification in many urban areas - it has little to do with affordable housing as much as it has to do with increasing the muni tax revenues that they can collect



Did the edu system fail someone or is it possible that the individual failed themselves as well?

Personal responsibility has to factor into the equation here at some point

Yes, a person can fail himself, no doubt. However, is it then up to us to fail him even further by imposing a minimum wage he cannot reach owing to his being unskilled? While we can blame him for not having studied hard enough at school (assuming of course that there was no psychological or other abuse or neglect at home distracting him from his studies), can we really blame him if he'd hypothetically be willing to work for below minimum wage but the law prevents him from doing soo, thus essentially forcing him onto social security at half of what he coudl have earned at slightly below minimum wage?

Then there'd be no denying that minimum wage laws would be failing him even further, no?

Or what if he has skills, but just not for the current economy in a downturn, and he'd be willing to work at slightly below minimum wage? Is it then fair of us to legislate him out of work and onto social security at half of what he could have earned at slightly below minimum wage?