| |
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 10:35:29 AM | Let's throw yet another twist into the EIA (Welfare) hot button topics.
A disabled individual be it physical or mental health; regardless of their family's income level or community status, receiving full EIA supports for the rest of their lives.
Example A: 23 y/o parapalegic who's family is extremely wealthy. Despite the family's wealth, the youth is eligible for EIA for the rest of their life.
Example B: 19 y/o with severe mental health instability where the family is barely scraping by. This individual is also eligible for the same EIA beneifts as the individual from the wealthy family and for the rest of their life.
Example C: a lifetime smoker, recently diagnosed with lung cancer directly related to the smoking and given a 6 -12 month prognosis. Now fully dependant on the EIA system for the duration.
Example D: a Cystic Fibrosis teen, terminal and waiting on a lung transplant. Relies on the EIA system for all financial support until a lung can be found or, until death.
All individuals are eligible for the same amount of full EIA financial support under a medical category, including funeral costs.
Who's judge and jury now?
PP | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 10:47:35 AM | | ^^^^^Their all getting treated equally, what’s the problem? | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 10:54:44 AM | ^^^ give it time ......... sheesh you're so impatient.
PP | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 11:02:55 AM | | the teen is a minor,therefore the parents responsibility? they must exhaust their health insurance first no? under all circumstances revealed here have no probs with any recieving benefits. unless the parapalegic is a result from auto related injury, then autopac should pay full freight. | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 11:03:52 AM | Sorry, I’ll quit making sense.
To start things off… why does example A get the same money when the family is wealthy? Who paid before they turned 18?
Example C, deserves nothing, it was self induced… that’s like quitting your job and expecting EI | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 11:20:20 AM | "The government's rationale is that because there are children in the home, the parents cannot be cut off, even when they (Parents) won't work, despite all efforts to help them find employment. If the system cut them off, the children, who are the innocent victims, would be deprived of their most basic needs being food and shelter. And we are not a society who could condon that".
I often wonder why some people bring these innocent victims, these precious babies/children into an unstable, unpredictable & sometimes unsafe environment!!!
These Parents continue to victimize thier children by refusing to help themselves!!
Why should we, as a Society condone those this behaviour by "rewarding" those who refuse to provide the best they can for thier children?
I guess my main point is:
If a person refuses to take care of themselves, DON'T GET PREGNANT!!
By the way PP, Thanks for all of your insight on this topic! I loves ya Hun!  | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 11:31:26 AM | ^^^ luvs ya too my girl! ..... and I agree the children, always the innocent and unfortunate victims.
PP | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 11:34:55 AM | Parapalegic IS as a result of an MVA. MPI paid the settlement. That settlement went into a Trust Fund for the individual and the individual is supported by EIA for the rest of their life.
To answer the other questions - as I stated - all examples will receive the SAME EIA Benefits under the medical category, regardless of their family's level of income or community status.
Reason - because - eligibility is based on "the applicant's" financial resources, not the parents or the family's.
The teen is not a minor - at 18 they are considered an adult and eligible for EIA just as any other adult would be.
Before the age of 18 - support was either provided by the family, by foster care or by CFS.
PP | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 2:10:07 PM | It would be nice if the wealthy family would support their child, but what if they do not? What are you going to do? You cannot say "I'm sorry you are a parapeligic and obviously cannot support yourself, but you are going to have to starve because you have wealthy parents?
As to the smoking self induced comment, are we going to apply the same logic to obese people who have heart attacks, to diabetics who continue to drink?
The simple fact is that for whatever reason these individuals are no longer in a position to support themseleves. As a society, we do not (and nor should we) let people go hungry.
The MPI issue is a little more difficult. In theory, the person should have at least a portion of their loss of income paid by MPI and therefore should not qualify for EI. Where it can become difficult is where a person with little means is severely injured. Part of their compensation would be for pain and suffering. Although I have limited understanding of the way these things work, as i understand it, if those moneys are not put into trust, they will have to be used up first to live on before a person would qualify for EI. Clearly, a parapalegic cannot work again. I, for one, have no problem with certain moneys representing pain and suffering compensation being put aside to provide a fund for the person to purchase extraoridinary items form time to time at the discretion fo the trustee while they continue to receive EI. I suspect others will disagree.
The bottom line is that all of these individuals are not experiencing something of which I would be jealous. They have all found themselves in a situation where they no longer can support themselves. Do we, as a society, have no compassion for their situation (whether or not they are the author of their misfortune)? Is anyone really thinking "oh lucky you, you are a parapeligic and must now rely upon the tax dollars of strangers to survive" or "oh you are dying of cancer and now receive EI, I wish I could change places with you".
In my opinion, and to be blunt, their lives pretty much suck and it ill behooves us as a society to resent the pittence we pay such individuals. | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 2:22:09 PM | ^^^^^
As a society we could just make a judgement call and shoot them all with a pellet gun and be done with it.
How is that for tying threads together.
ps. They all probably wear white sox with sandals anyway. | |
|
| |
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/4/2008 10:14:44 PM | oh you guys are too funny | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/5/2008 9:36:55 AM | some interesting reading if anyone cares to look these books up....perhaps some of the more closed-minded posts here will gain not only an understanding...but maybe even some empathy.....
"Criminalizing Race, Criminalizing Poverty: Welfare Fraud Enforcement in Canada"
by Kiran Mirchandani and Wendy Chan
"In Their Own Voices: Building Urban Aboriginal Communities"
by Jim Silver | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/5/2008 10:49:55 AM | "We will always have the poor with us"...who said that ?? Written a couple of thousand years ago and still holds true.
For people who have always had pretty much everything go their way its very difficult for them NOT to have the opinion "Let them eat cake".....a comment which caused a "princess" to have her head removed from her body.
But balance that with the FACT that if you baby feed and coddle even adults...not give them respect for themselves...take away everything that they stand for and value....take away any responsibilites or sense of pride and accomplishment.....you will get more and more of the same......
I am tired of feeling sorry for the "poor aboriginals" .."the poor blacks" .."the poor minority groups"....Feeling sorry doesn't do a dam thing. Handouts perpetuate and "enable" a bad system. Everyone except white caucasian males are victimized and abused. Give me a break!!
Things happen. Quit blaming. Everyone should feel free to ask for a "helping hand" in times of distress and problems WITHOUT FEELING SHAMED and everyone should feel the RESPONSIBILTY of taking care of themselves and their families.
Many of the posts on this thread do not really address the problem.
For example, one of the problems is NOT aboriginal poverty...its aboriginals who had their "value system" ripped from them and a new one imposed upon them. They have had no equal opportunity for generations, so much so that many given advantaged opportunity now don't know how to handle it. Mix that in within throwing money at a problem along with the prevalence to corruption and greed existing among aboriginals as much as non-aboriginals and we still (after many many years) have a disproportionate number of aboriginals living in poverty than non-aboriginals.
Frankly my support is behind those who are willing to deal with the roots of the problems. Those who try to bring a sense of community, pride and spirituality to people..not politicians who THROW money at a problem and walk away like they did everything could. | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/6/2008 1:04:19 AM | Wow this thread got so far off topic. I don't know how the question of social responsability being easier through public funding or employer wound up in a welfare debate and talk about aboriginal affairs.
How i see it is first society had (past tense) a duty to help the less fortunate. Thus the welfare. The so-called less fortunate abused the priveledge and society in general has become so individually self centered that maybe we no longer owe a duty to these under priveledged. We as individuals want no interference in our lives and even the freedom to not be responsible for our actions. Yet we insist on community support when we have not got our own means.
The minimum wage is basically for governing jobs that no-one is actually expected to make a living off. These are jobs for students or disabled or others who's income is supplemented.
Now if we raise the level of welfare it is shared by all through taxes. Including the businesses. If we simply raise minimum wage wich the ndp is inclined to do we have a whole new dilema. When the minimum wage goes up union wages go up or at least most union wages. Prices will need to go up to cover the increase in wages and increases in product and services the company purchases as these expenses went up to cover the same situation in those supply businesses. Now all the prices went up enough to cover all these wages and supply increases so the purchasing power of that 50 cent raise is voided as the prices may have gone up enough to more than include the raise. Plus the poor man working just above minimum wage just got pushed into a higher tax bracket so his taxes went up as well.
So yes i would say it is easier to give a small increase to everyones taxes rather than increasing minimum wage but this too may raise prices.
What is certain is Doer and his cohorts have nothing but their own interests at heart. His job description when he took office is union leader and most of his caucus is some part of a union. If minimum wage goes up so does his as union dues are dependant on income levels. And remember you and i are funding this. Union dues are a tax writeoff so it is the non-union worker who is funding the unions. So it costs them nothing to raise the minimum wage but costs us plenty and especially the lower income worker. Remember him he's the one we were supposed to be helping we just helped him into a worse position.
I'm rambling I appologize. And Karma i'm just checking my memory is the answer Jesus who said we will always have the poor with us? | |
|
| |
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/6/2008 10:45:26 PM | yup i'm new.
I won't hold my breath waiting for any politician to start serving any portion of the electorate. That hasn't happened since confederation.
How can people at the bottom fall lower than the bottom?
I will agree with your last statement. I am very grateful to the wealth and the work the do to help the rest of society. And i do feel some distain for the lower income worker who is trying to raise a family not for pushing up the cost of living rather because they are fools. Only a fool would hold his family to poverty. | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/6/2008 11:37:33 PM |
and the wealthiest people in society, who over the years have been getting a bigger portion of the pie, are trying to keep things affordable for the rest of us. Keep in mind, the wealthiest members of society are also members of The Chamber of Commerce.
Increase welfare = less money for the middle class, and added income for the wealthy. <-- Chamber of Commerce wants this.
Increase minimum wage = less money for the wealthy, and added income for the middle class. <-- Chamber of Commerce does NOT want this.
I have a hard time agreeing with your statement. | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/7/2008 5:03:29 PM | Well you might have just have just stumbled on to the answer of how to get money out of the rich......INCREASE MIN. WAGE to $20 per hour.....and DECREASE WELFARE to nil......Let then eat cake!!!
I like this idea....it would give more people incentive to go to work even for DOMO or BURGER KING!!.....The poor would eventually starve and the rich would have to shut down their business since they couldn't afford the high wages....and then we would have every in the middle class who are making lots of money enough to live comfortably!!..
Oh...no rich! no businesses! no jobs !! mmmm????
Oh yes the government !!!!!
They will take care of us!!
They will make us work and pay for everything !! Thats the answer !!
Oh wait !! Isn't that Communism?? I think that was already tried !!! | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/7/2008 5:17:58 PM | The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce can fight minimum wage increases all they want (although at this point, to be honest I'd support them in their efforts) but they have no real say in the matter so meh...oh well for them.
Welfare is another matter. It's absolutely true that welfare rates haven't changed (to my knowledge at least) for a very long time. Certainly not enough to keep up with inflation anyway.
I've always advocated for welfare rates that allow people to live. On the other hand, that's assuming that those on welfare genuinely need the money and have no other alternative. The government has gone a long way in clamping down on welfare frauds and have probably managed to excise the majority of the pariah element over the last decade or so. Right now the welfare rates are so low that even the lowest paying jobs (thanks to a healthy minimum wage) will net you double (at least) what welfare provides. For that reason , there's certainly no incentive to go to the trouble of trying to collect welfare. It's a hell of a lot easier to simply get a job than to go on the dole anyway.
Again however, for those that genuinely need welfare it has got to be increased. Even the slums of this city charge more for rent on a crappy bachelor suite than welfare will provide for. The only way to survive is to find a roommate or have kids. I'm not sure how anybody who just lost their job is supposed to make ends meet though. | |
|
| |
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/7/2008 6:43:54 PM | | At first I assumed you meant that sarcastically, but in the same post, and your original post, you said that the actions of the Chamber of Commerce seem “odd” or “murky”… In fact, their actions make perfect sense and are completely self serving, they only serve to prove that your sarcastic remark is totally true.... No emoticons necessary. | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/7/2008 7:30:06 PM | | Why do so many not want the wealthy to be wealthy? Is it jealousy or a more sinister thinking. Sounds like a lot of union talk. Take from the wealthy they're to blame for everything that has gone wrong since time began. The wealthy are greedy they should give me what they have i'm not greedy i just want half but i don't want to work for it. If it wasn't for rats i'd hate unions. | |
|
| Living wage.
Posted: 4/8/2008 8:08:59 AM | ^Unions should be outlawed in this day and age but that's another thread.
Sometimes people don't look at the bigger picture.
If you increase the minimum wage , you put pressure on every business that has narrow profit margins in the first place. The easiest way for them to remedy the situation is to simply have fewer people doing more work. Obviously that means that people lose jobs. People who don't have jobs don't pay into the system, they draw from it instead. So minimum wage isn't just about "keeping the rich rich" but also about keeping the poor employed. That's why governments aren't really all that interested in increasing minimum wages every time somebody figures they need a raise. It costs the government and , by extension, the public more money to increase the minimum wage without considering the impact it'll have on business than to leave it alone most of the time.
Right now Manitoba has one of the highest MWs in the country. Considering that it costs less than the Canadian average to live here , the Winnipeg C of C is actually doing us a favour by fighting any new increases. That they're doing it out of self-interest is beside the point right now. For that matter, one need only look at Alberta to understand that a true market driven economy doesn't need a minimum wage. Their MW is absurdly low yet nobody is complaining there about barely being able to get by. The reason is because virtually nobody works for MW there anyway. The economy dictates that even fry cooks at Burger King start at fourteen bucks an hour in Calgary. Yet here, with our high minimum wage, people are willing to accept that they'll make the lowest possible amount because it seems reasonably high. Burger King would probably be paying more here if we dropped our MW to something stupid like four bucks an hour. Why ? Because then they would be forced to compete for their workers and the only incentive they'd be able to offer would be a higher starting salary.
Anyway, I'm not saying we need to abolish the minimum wage and this thread isn't supposed to be about it anyway. It does tie in to the argument though and as a function of socialistic planning principles it hurts us more to tinker with certain aspects of capitalism than to just let them work themselves out. Welfare is an example of everything that is wrong with the system. It's supposed to provide you with a financial safety net in times of need. What happened instead was that anybody and their dog could go on the dole. Eventually their abuse of the system came to hurt everybody because now nobody who gets welfare could possibly live off the scraps it leaves for them. People have confused the issue of welfare abuse with what welfare was intended for in the first place. In that respect, of course we need to bump up the rates. Pursue the fraudsters of course but let's not punish those who actually need it by keeping their benefits so low that they couldn't afford to even feed themselves for a month based on what they receive. | |
|
Home
login 
