How best to help the poor?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Here is what my wife did after the kids flew the coop:
For years we "adopted" a family that was featured in the Toronto Sun around Christmas time. Thru the paper we gave them gifts as we could afford.
Also we were heavily involved with Habitat for Humanity and other charitable organizations in Canada and America from 1993 till 2006.
Our health no longer permits HFH work any more. I am thinking of refurbishing my old van and be a Meals-on-Wheels driver.
For years we "adopted" a family that was featured in the Toronto Sun around Christmas time. Thru the paper we gave them gifts as we could afford.
Also we were heavily involved with Habitat for Humanity and other charitable organizations in Canada and America from 1993 till 2006.
Our health no longer permits HFH work any more. I am thinking of refurbishing my old van and be a Meals-on-Wheels driver.
"From each, according to his ability. To each according to his needs."
At the very least, in a country as wealthy of Canada, there should be a minimum wage available to all, to maintain a respectable life, with the expectation that each person has an obligation, whenever possible, to contribute to the common good.
At the very least, in a country as wealthy of Canada, there should be a minimum wage available to all, to maintain a respectable life, with the expectation that each person has an obligation, whenever possible, to contribute to the common good.
I like that. I've given much to UNICEF before, and used to volunteer at a local Intercultural centre (also partially funded by the United Way) that help new Canadians integrate into their local community. From my experience with the Intercultural Centre, to my knowledge at least, we never gave anyone money, We woud give free courses of various kinds, help people make new contacts and build new friend networks, etc., teach them how to write resumes, and interview skills, etc.
As for UNICEF, in Canada of course, it's mainly aobut collecting money for them. But to my understanding, again it's not about giving them money, but rather education, health care, food, clothing, etc. directly.
As for HFH, I know less about it, but have heard much about it none-the-less. Scouts likewise help kids develop but again, to the best of my knowledge, don't just give the money, but give development instead. They're all much more hands-on.
It seems though that while charitable organizations focus more on helping, government ones just throw money at them. That's why I think more of our taxes should be charity-deductible, since charities know more about how to really help than government does. I'm sure they could give a much bigger bang for the buck than government could. And that includes Habitat For Humanity, UNICEF, United Way, etc.
As for UNICEF, in Canada of course, it's mainly aobut collecting money for them. But to my understanding, again it's not about giving them money, but rather education, health care, food, clothing, etc. directly.
As for HFH, I know less about it, but have heard much about it none-the-less. Scouts likewise help kids develop but again, to the best of my knowledge, don't just give the money, but give development instead. They're all much more hands-on.
It seems though that while charitable organizations focus more on helping, government ones just throw money at them. That's why I think more of our taxes should be charity-deductible, since charities know more about how to really help than government does. I'm sure they could give a much bigger bang for the buck than government could. And that includes Habitat For Humanity, UNICEF, United Way, etc.
That's a tough one Machjo. Different people have different circumstances. Some are victims of their own doing, and some are victims of others. It would be nice if there was an easy solution to help the poor.
I like YukonJacks idea of helping out. I do volunteer work to help out as much as possible.
Some people need the basic skills to live within their means. Educating, funding, giving them jobs doesn't always take care of the situation. Some have addictions, be it alcohol, drugs or gambling, I think if a person wants to make changes, and the government or charities are willing to help them out to the point that they can function on their own, that would be great! It would boost their confidence and they may get out of the poor house.
I like YukonJacks idea of helping out. I do volunteer work to help out as much as possible.
Some people need the basic skills to live within their means. Educating, funding, giving them jobs doesn't always take care of the situation. Some have addictions, be it alcohol, drugs or gambling, I think if a person wants to make changes, and the government or charities are willing to help them out to the point that they can function on their own, that would be great! It would boost their confidence and they may get out of the poor house.
But if we provide room and board, education, clothing, etc., then they essentially don't need money anyway.
What I'm thinking is simply that we don't know if the money we give them is helping them or hurting them. To be sure, why not provide them with what they need directly?
That's the whole point, to educate them so that they can get back on their feet, get a job, earn a decent salary, etc.
If we did it that way, we'd likely be able to provide them with even more education and services than they have now.
I love those ideas and they are very reputable charities, Machjo. Another one that I like, and will do for all mankind, is the Salvation Army!
That's my point. If the person has some addiction, does giving him money really help? Why not give him direct rehab instead?
Now that I think about it, maybe I am being a little harsh an simplistic, and in some cases giving money might be appropriate. But right now with government bureaucracy, it can't be done so much on a case by case basis. Charitable institutions would not have such bureaucratic restraints and so could choose to give money on a case by case basis. But for others, it could give them services directly instead.
Another possibility would be to give the applicant a choice. We ask him if he would rather money or direct help. He might have an addiction he's embarrased about and mcan manage to hide from them. But if they offer him the choice, he might choose help over money. Right now, they don't even have that choice. So if a person has a hidden addiction, all the government can do is give him money.
True. And all of these charities have years of grassroot experience, unlike government social assistance that is usuallybogged down by bureaucracy, politics, unions, etc.
Definitely making our direct taxes 100% charity deductible, even if we need to increase overall taxes, would be a step towards much more efficient help for the poor.
I'd be more than willing to pay more taxes if I had more of a say in how that money were spent.
I'd be more than willing to pay more taxes if I had more of a say in how that money were spent.
And I was wondering what you thought about choice (i.e. the applicant could choose between money and direct assistance). Essentially, his worker would ask him what he wants. If he says 'money', and it's a reasonable amount, and all evidence suggests that that might in fact be the best solution, fine. Though of course his worker makes the final decision.
If he says direct help, then the worker could aks him what he wants (room and board, education, what kind of education, rehab, etc.). If after investigation, the request seems reasonable, and does seem to aim in the direction of getting the person back on his feet, then why not give him direct help? Maybe he doesn't know how to find an apartment if he's new to town, maybe he has a secret addiction and doesn't want to tell the case co-ordinator, but doesn't trust himself with the money, etc.
What would you think of the idea of giving him a choice between money and direct help?
If he says direct help, then the worker could aks him what he wants (room and board, education, what kind of education, rehab, etc.). If after investigation, the request seems reasonable, and does seem to aim in the direction of getting the person back on his feet, then why not give him direct help? Maybe he doesn't know how to find an apartment if he's new to town, maybe he has a secret addiction and doesn't want to tell the case co-ordinator, but doesn't trust himself with the money, etc.
What would you think of the idea of giving him a choice between money and direct help?
The biggest thing anyone can do is stop being the gauge you measure them by. Do you know why someone is in his/her particular circumstance? Judgements cast by the unknowing are the biggest of hurdles. Sometimes, just the feeling that someone cares is the greatest of incentives to stand up again.
I realise that not all are addicts, etc. Some are just unlucky. Some might even have had good jobs and then owing to a death in the family, divorce, etc. fall off their rocker. They just need a hand up, I realise that, and I realise that I could fall in the same circumstances under the right conditions. It's all about luck.
However, though I admit that I might have been a little harsh in suggesting not to give them money, I could see giving them the option, which to the best of my knowledge is not currently available. if a person applies for social assistance, he gets a set amount of money, he cannot refuse that money and ask for other non-monetary assistance instead. For people with hidden addictions (not necessarily drugs, but sex, gambling, etc.), such an option could possibly be useful to them too.
That option is not available right now to the best of my knowledge, so if he's a secret gambler, we give him the money and he gambles it away and still doesn't advance. If he could choose, if he doesn't trust himself with the money, or if gambling is what got him there in the first place, but he's too embarrassed to admit it, then being able to choose direct help over money without having to admit to his addiction could be a way around it whereby if he doesn't trust himself with the money, he could ask for direct help instead without having to say he's a gambler. So he could get the help he needs and still keep his secret and dignity.
This would not be judging him. Rather, it would be giving him more control over his destiny by recognizing his strengths and weeknesses, and thus judge for himself whether he coould handl the money. If he thinks he can, then fine. If he thinks he can't, and chooses direct help instead, why not offer it to him. If he wants to keep his secret, fine, but at least he can have more control over his destiny to get the help he really needs rather than us forcing him to take the money when he might not be ready for it. Alcoholism could fall into that category too.
Some are caught in the trap by disability, or when the economy fails and the pogey's run out, or when a program is terminated and you fall into the abyss. Every one on social assistance will be tarred by the same brush and judged by a heartless bureaucracy. Do you want to know what it's like to be working for the province in a contract position when the accident happens? Let me tell you who knows best how to cover their arses?
That's why I'm suggesting possibly ginving them a choice between money and dirct services. For those who simply have a disability, or just lost their jobs as a result of recession, etc., they might choose money directly.
Those who do have other problems might find direct help more useful. By giving them choice, we're avoiding tarring them with the same brush. Why could they not have choice? Clearly there's be no point in forcing a person to take money if, let's say, he's a secret gambler, or has a drug addiction that he's somehow managed to hide from his worker but would still rather not reveal, but would stil not want the money.
Most might take the money, but we never know. Some could benefit form direct help; why not offer the option to them? Would it be wise to force them to take the money if they really can't handle it?They know themselves better than we know them in that sence.
And if an applicant is unsure, then we could even give him a day. He stays in a room in a clean and decent dorm room for a day and gets to eat at the cafeteria for a day to try it out. If he prefers that to the money, then he can choose that. If he prefers the money, then fine. It's just that right now they dont' have that option.
The poor don't need stinking permanent charity to sooth the consciences of the timid and they don't need a ****ing handup they need to get the filthy rich off thier backs once and forever. As long as there is a privilaged class there will be needy and there will be poverty and there will be ignorance these are the life support systems of the monstrous wealthy who have and will perpetuate misery as long as the type remains common in the species.
The first step is to describe poor. Canada doesn't really have a poverty problem if you compare it to some other countries. We have a high cost of living problem. Lots of people making 10-15,000 could get by in many small towns where the cost of living is lower. At the very least, somebody living on a disability pension in Vancouver could dramatically increase their standard of living by moving to Maple Creek Saskatchewan. Perhaps we should look at giving the poor the opportunity and financial assistance to move.
Certainly the rich must carry their share of the burden. But it doesn't matter how much money a rich man gives, not all the needy need money. Some do, some don't. Those who need money should get money. But those for whom money could be harmful (if a person cannot control his impulses or addictions, then the more money we give him, the more detrimental it becomes) should have the option of direct non-monetary assistance, in the form of room, board, any necessary education, rehab, and other necessities. And of course the option shoud be his.
We could be under an NDP majority government in all levels of government right now, with the rich paying taxes through the roof, and still some poor might need special help beyond just money, or for whom money could even be detrimental. Let's take an example:
A person goes to the government for help. He asks for room and board, and help to teach him a trade or profession that could help him earn money for himself.
The worker doesn't take the hint and offers him a checque instead. Now let's say the guy reacts and asks if it would be possible to just get decent room and board somewhere and that he'd even be willing to volunteer to clean the place, work in the kitchen, etc.
The worker just says that that's not an option and that he just has to take the cheque.
For all we know, the guy might not trust himself with money. It's got nothing to do with how much the rich might or might not be paying in taxes. That would be an issue for a totally separate thread. The issue being dealt with here has nothing to do with the money per se, but rather in how that money goes towards helping the person. Nothig to do with the quantity of money (again, a debate for another thread), but rather with how it is handled, and what options are available the needy.