Poverty Reduction

We are now about to witness a discussion that will take place in our province focused on poverty reduction. What does that mean? How does one reduce poverty? Is it the right thing to do? There is no question that some people require social assistance. How does a society decide who should receive money from those who have money? 

There are some that will have us believe that a "guaranteed wage" will be good for everyone. There are some that will have us believe that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not a healthy attitude and that this type of thinking will eventually lower the natural incentive that humans have to produce.

Please be EXTRA respectful when posting in this thread. I mean that. I want to hear your honest views on the topic. Here is an opportunity to be thoughtful and creative. Our provincial government is about to embark on a social experiment that could change the way we humans do business here.

I don't think it will work.  Those that apply for or receive the "guaranteed income" will also be required to forego other schemes that give discounts to those in need.  For example, if you have the guaranteed income, you will not get reduced bus pass rates, lowered medical premiums (if we still have them) etc., subsidized daycare or entry to social housing opportunities.   

In any event, it's only going to be tested and the results of the test will not really be available for 10 years or more.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 31 October 2017 - 05:58 AM.

The B.C. government plans to introduce legislation in the spring to create a poverty reduction strategy. 

"It was a strong commitment in our platform that we would move forward with a poverty reduction strategy in British Columbia," said Shane Simpson, B.C.'s minister of social development and poverty reduction.

Advocates have long called for a plan to help the nearly 700,000 people who currently live in poverty in B.C. — including more than 120,000 children.

The legislation will include targets and timelines that will be drawn up with the help of a group of more than two dozen advisers from a variety of backgrounds.

Engagement meetings will also be held in 20 B.C. communities and there will be an online consultation for the plan.

A pilot project to experiment with a basic income may also be part of the poverty reduction strategy, Simpson said.

The poverty reduction legislation is not expected before the next budget.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ategy-1.4378476

I don't think it will work.  Those that apply for or receive the "guaranteed income" will also be required to forego other schemes that give discounts to those in need.  For example, if you have the guaranteed income, you will not get reduced bus pass rates, lowered medical premiums (if we still have them) etc., subsidized daycare or entry to social housing opportunities.   

 

In any event, it's only going to be tested and the results of the test will not really be available for 10 years or more.

Well let's give it a chance. You would be a good candidate to get involved in the engagement meetings.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 31 October 2017 - 06:23 AM.

That does not seem like an incentive to work.

Exactly, the unintended consequences will be at play big time. First off whatever jurisdiction starts this will be flooded with the welfare groupies, like the enabling seen happening in downtown Victoria and Vancouver. Social services will be overwhelmed and the liquor stores and drug dealers will cash in big time. When they burn through their money then pressure will be exerted on local social service agencies to feed, house and clothe them....can you see a pattern here?

Meanwhile the entry level jobs will go wanting for employees, how many kids 16 and up that arent going on to college will want to work and 'grow up' when they can simply sign up for 'benefits' and let somebody else pay for their lifestyle. You see it in the UK all over the place. multi generational welfare families are commonplace.

The only way this will have any remote possibility of working is if its policed and locked down and monitored. Any community that doesnt consider unintended consequences is in for a shock.

This truly is the wet dream of any Socialist, the government providing cradle to grave money creates a captive audience and support that they can then social engineer and manage and be assured of support for generations, its moving beyond bribing people with their own money to bribing people with somebody elses money

Edited by rjag, 31 October 2017 - 06:56 AM.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 31 October 2017 - 07:00 AM.

Well if it is like other "Government studies", we will still be talking about this 5 years from now.

Yes, the only way for it to work is for the community that gets it to close all the social service agencies. This is the idea after all. Money that now goes to social service agencies is cut so that that same money can go directly to individuals that will spend on the services they require. But it’s hard to see how a test on 4,000 people in Hamilton and Thunder Bay is going to achieve any measurable results.

Like that is going to happen. Remember the $60K a head a year we are saving by housing the 500 or so folks that we have housed in the past year?

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 31 October 2017 - 07:03 AM.

http://www.dailymail...ntitlement.html

 

 

How our welfare system has created an age of entitlement
 

Yes, the only way for it to work is for the community that gets it to close all the social service agencies. This is the idea after all. Money that now goes to social service agencies is cut so that that same money can go directly to individuals that will spend on the services they require. But it’s hard to see how a test on 4,000 people in Hamilton and Thunder Bay is going to achieve any measurable results.

Yes, I think this will essentially result in people who get the money, and do not get the services they really need. People in poverty are often there due to poor choices they have made. Why does it make any sense to give straight up cash to people who have a history of making poor choices, financial and otherwise? It seems that services for these people would have better value and is less likely to waste money overall.

The Ontario test has not yet begun. And once it does it runs for three years of a trial. The 4,000 people on it are required to participate in polling etc.

Add another year for results tabulating.

Then probably a dubious conclusion. Four or five years from now.

The problem with these trials is that they only involve a small subset of the overall population. I have no doubt that if you give an extra $1,000 a month to 100 people that they will be able to find better housing and purchase better quality food. They will also be better off emotionally without the worry about paying their bills. What happens though when you give $1,000 a month to everyone who wants or needs it? With thousands of people with extra cash now competing for housing does accommodation now magically appear at the Government controlled rental rates? Do businesses that now have lineups of people with extra cash and demand just keep prices flat? Do the tier of people that just missed qualifying for the basic income now become eligible since prices and rents have increased and they are now also 'poor'?

Where does the money come from? All the laid off social workers?

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 31 October 2017 - 11:30 AM.

i have concerns, i am concerned it will cause people to be lazy and not want to work (lets be honest there is a fair chunk of the working population doesn't get a thrill out of going to work, they do because they need money to live), why bother going to work at a minimum(or slightly above minimum) wage job when you can just get a somewhat livable income handed to you for doing nothing..

the old saying "welfare breeds welfare" that this could turn into a multi generational support system where people don't have interest in getting off the support

where is the money going to come from?

is it a good idea to hand people a large sum of money in one chunk who may not know how to balance a budget or have basic budgeting skills (i really do think they should teach budgeting and meal planning in school and not just a glossed over 1hr class of it)

should people just be handed free money without some sort of follow up checks and balances so to speak.. to make sure they are on the right path

then there's also a small section of those who are addicts (not everyone who would use this program would spend it on drugs or alcohol ofcourse, but we do have to consider it), look at what happens the week after welfare checks come out, the spike of overdoses, how do we prevent that?

i'm all for trying to raise children out of poverty, it makes me sad when i see kids at my daughter's school unprepared for the weather because their parents can't afford the proper needs, no child should go hungry, it's why they came out with the child tax all those years ago isn't it? (and rates raised by the federal government a a year or two ago)  and yes more needs to be done

my big concern is money going to the proper places, will we still have poverty because those who receive the benefit are ill equipped with how to spend it and we will still have people going hungry, unable to pay hydro and rent..

As respectful, reasonable citizens, let's throw some research into this!

The Basic Income Canada Network has a great list of introductory resources and a list of in-depth research. Because they are pro-basic income, the list is obviously biased in favour of basic income. Feel free to throw some counter-arguments into the mix.

^^ Well the answer is that it is going to be you and paying for it. We will also be paying for the upcoming generation of retirees who saved no money during their working careers and now expect to be cared for as well. 

Like you, I have no issues digging deep into my pocket to help out those who truly need it. 

Edited by spanky123, 31 October 2017 - 01:58 PM.