How best to help the poor?

[YukonJack]

"Wait no longer Y.J. at Xmas time I sent $20 to the local food bank."

Well done, JLM. This exactly what I was looking for.

But then you dumped cold water on everything by saying:

"It will take more than that to make Y.J. happy- you didn't say giving away your first born.............:lol::lol::lol::lol:"

My point was that if someone is satisfied that she/he has done enough to help the poor just by paying taxes, then what is the point of having Sally Ann, Habitat for Humanity, and all the other charitable organizations?

After all, everybody pays taxes, and poverty is still with us.

I mentioned some of the things I did for the poor. If that sounded like bragging, it was not meant to be.

 

[Machjo]

It dosen't matter what tweaking we do, the wealthy will simply not relinguish any power to labour voluntarily. Rights like that have to be earned the hard way, every single advancement in human rights, health, education, housing and general standard of living has been won from the powerful and paid for with blood and broken bones, and every few decades the pricks claw it back from us again, someday soon we will get it right. If there are no limits placed on wealth there will soon be no limits to any act.

Look up Roberto Semler (Amazon.com: Ricardo Semler: Books) and his company Semco in Brazil.

I'd read maverick, one of his books, years ago, and I highly recommend it.

One year he was anounced as the best manager of the year by both the Communist Party of Brazil and a Brazilian busines magazine. yes, in the same year!

Essentially he'd inherited his father's company and then decided to train all of his workers to read financial charts, organize them into democratic work units, and essentially let them run themselves. Here's more:

Ricardo Semler - Bio

And no, he did not do this because the law forced him to. This is a decision he'd made for himself. So, the rich will not giv e up power willingly? Many won't, but to say none will is ridiculous.

 

[JLM]

Good question. It's relative too as for some reason in Africa it takes a couple of bucks a day to save a child yet here, it takes over $100,000 a year to lock a bum up?

That's cause they keep letting him escape and have go out and round him up again.

 

[Machjo]

Unforgivin



Never stopped the province of Alberta from giving a bus ticket to the people that helped build that province in the boom times in the 1980s.

When the people lost their jobs when the oil companies headed south Alberta decided to give bus tickets instead of welfare cheques to people that came to that province a couple of years back who paid taxes to that province.

If the province pays for the move for that family to get good jobs in another province then it is a worthwhile investment.

I always thought the Charter applied to all of Canada.

Show me in the Canadian Charter Of Rights that this can’t be done?

But were they forced to move or was it an option?

 

[JLM]

"Wait no longer Y.J. at Xmas time I sent $20 to the local food bank."

Well done, JLM. This exactly what I was looking for.

But then you dumped cold water on everything by saying:

"It will take more than that to make Y.J. happy- you didn't say giving away your first born.............:lol::lol::lol::lol:"

My point was that if someone is satisfied that she/he has done enough to help the poor just by paying taxes, then what is the point of having Sally Ann, Habitat for Humanity, and all the other charitable organizations?

After all, everybody pays taxes, and poverty is still with us.

I mentioned some of the things I did for the poor. If that sounded like bragging, it was not meant to be.

And the ones who do contribute get their taxes reduced so there's not a heck of a lot of difference. Some people just can't afford to give to charity, even though they pay big taxes. Living standard have got such a grip on some people that it's like a cross between an addiction and trying to keep up with the Jones, who earn 3 times as much as the first place.

 

[Goober]

And the ones who do contribute get their taxes reduced so there's not a heck of a lot of difference. Some people just can't afford to give to charity, even though they pay big taxes. Living standard have got such a grip on some people that it's like a cross between an addiction and trying to keep up with the Jones, who earn 3 times as much as the first place.

Even the SPCA has hit hard times-- Cats are so dramatic -

 

[JLM]

"Wait no longer Y.J. at Xmas time I sent $20 to the local food bank."

Well done, JLM. This exactly what I was looking for.

But then you dumped cold water on everything by saying:

"It will take more than that to make Y.J. happy- you didn't say giving away your first born.............:lol::lol::lol::lol:"

My point was that if someone is satisfied that she/he has done enough to help the poor just by paying taxes, then what is the point of having Sally Ann, Habitat for Humanity, and all the other charitable organizations?

After all, everybody pays taxes, and poverty is still with us.

I mentioned some of the things I did for the poor. If that sounded like bragging, it was not meant to be.

Y.J. if you noticed I used the symbols ":lol::lol::lol::lol:" which means I was joking or at least speaking "tongue in cheek", sometimes we do that on here and not say exactly what we mean, it's a form of entertainment or amusement. Joking is Okay as long as you are not denigrating another person or being mean. I never dreampt that the word crucifiction would bother anyone (how many different ways beside religion do we use "God" in a sentence?) Anyway all I can say if what I says offends you don't read my posts. My opinion (and yours) is as good as anyone else's.

 

[Unforgiven]

Strange eh. We are not simply locking the bum up I hope, I understood it was a rehabilitative retreat. Most bums would choose to remain free for ten or fifteen. We're getting ripped what?

More ironic I think. We remove institutions that can house those who need semi-constant care to keep them on their meds and make sure that when they start feeling well they don't stop taking their medicine. Then they can't cope on their own with no supervision at all, and offer a tax incentive for families to take on the job that they aren't able to handle in caring for them. So they get into a violent situation because they are off their meds, get tossed in jail, evaluated, put on meds until they get stable and then get released to start the whole cycle over again.

Yet we're not the crazy one's even though we expect doing the same thing over and over again is going to have a different result.

This among other important issues gets kicked around like a political football while we wage old arguments based on extreme polar opposites that have little or nothing to do with what is actually the matter.

Any healthy person can use the system to break the cycle of poverty and establish a comfortable life for themselves in Canada. Those who have issues beyond the typical need a more personalized approach to deal with those issues helping them over come them.

Still others will never be able to really support themselves and those people need to be cared for. With dignity and a view to avoid stigmatizing them in any way.

That some people may get over on the system is simply part of doing business. A fraud and abuse department should be able to limit that to a reasonable level.

Beyond that we have to accept that there will always be poor people.

 

[Unforgiven]

No one should be expected to do more. Those that can do more should be congratulated and thanked for going above an beyond.

After all, everybody pays taxes, and poverty is still with us.

God apparently walked the Earth for some 30 years or so and yet poverty is still with us. If God couldn't fix it, what do you want from the rest of us?

I mentioned some of the things I did for the poor. If that sounded like bragging, it was not meant to be.

I don't think it sounded like bragging. But I do take offense to you suggesting that unless I post some laundry list of my generosity beyond doing my expected share is cowardly and a pathetic lack of compassion for the poor.

More often than not, most people do what they can to help others. Because some choose not to wear it on their sleeve shouldn't make you think that you're a better person morally than anyone.

 

[mit]

I think that first you have to define what is poor - A family of 5 making $50,000/yr living in Toronto or Vancouver will have a hard time surviving but they are unlikely to starve. A family of 5 making $50,000 yr in some small rural community can actually live quite well. There are some individuals that only survive off the compassion of others be it begging or seeking out the services of the Sally Ann etc. They may be quite happy and certainly not consider themselves poor but the vast majority of us would not choose such a life.
Does poor mean that you do not have money for food - shelter or clothing? Our Canadian weather is not kind to those of minimal means but there are with the exception of shelter means to feed ones self and clothe ones self. Shelter is a different thing altogether - We have vast lands both within our cities and in the rural areas. What prevents us from ensuring everyone has adequate shelter is government regulations and NIMBY's - In the city of Toronto there are Dog Parks - empty parking lots and buildings that could be converted to areas of reasonable shelter - Many containers that are shipped from offshore can be converted to safe and secure housing units. A little imagination, minimum materials and some elbow grease on the part of the inhabitants could house all the homeless that choose to help themselves. Problem is that things like property standards, poverty groups and the neighbours prevent even contemplating an experimental site.
Poverty groups believe that providing no-cost or low-cost housing that is the equivelant or better than most working people enjoy is the answer - It is about dignity they say. I do not know of any public housing project or co-operative housing that does not have some pretty severe social issues and breeds the next generation in to believing that the government is there to help.
Our social safety net in Ontario was becoming a Hammock prior to Mike Harris cutting the strings from the trees. His actions were applauded by the middle class until these now fallen folks started showing up in people's backyards. Those without the resolve to change looked at the new rules and downgraded their status in the community to meet the new rules or took to other methods be it drugs or crime or both. Only a few actually made it out but those were ones that were afraid to go out on their own and lose the government benefits. Once the benefits were gone they had a choice to go lower or rise up.
We live in a cookie cutter world - People are defined by the car they drive - the house they live in - the GHz of their computer and the technology they can stick in their ear or carry in their pocket. It is defined in the financial terms as the Haves and the Have Nots - Renters are missing out on building equity in their homes (Have Not) - owning your own home (Haves) is a sign of prosperity and yet especially in today's economic world a renter who has nothing is likely to have more than the negative equity in many people homes.

A crack addict that is looking for a way to buy his her next jolt of pleasure is no worse than an executive looking for the next trick to send the stock price of their company in to a buying frenzy. That Crack Addict may steal someones possessions but the exercutive may squash the hopes and dreams of 3,000 or more employees and yet the executive by virtue of his position and possessions is not seen in as poor of a light as the crack addict although neither are adding to the value of society.
Before I get jumped on comparing a crack addict to a successful executive let me explain that it is about choice. Neither of these individuals may have a choice to their actions. Addiction to a drug be it crack or smokes is a powerful force. A persons body will do strange things when it does not have what it feels it needs. That is why the nicotine replacement and methadone industry is so profitable.
The exceutive also has a fudiciary duty that if he fails to toe the line with shareholders can find himself outside looking in. Public companies are bound by these rules and have given up on the quest for profit and seek higher share prices.
Being poor is to be without opportunity. Being poor is to be without choice. Being poor is to be without hope. Sadly there are more poor today in North America today than in the 30's or the early 80's and the vast majority do not even know it.