[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

I would take away the tax deduction for charitable contributions. Charities spend a lot of money just trying to raise donations. They have administrative bodies that rival governments, many with very hefty salaries. They work at cross purposed and duplicate effort. Totally inefficient.

The government should be doing this work. Take all the money donated to charities as tax revenue and let the government put in proper programs without duplication of effort. They already have the administrative systems in place, and don't need to spend money to raise money. Of course then people wouldn't be able to pat themselves on the back and get their pics in the paper about how generous they are. They'd have to make do with the warm glow of knowing that their tax dollars are going to help people who need help and how it's actually saving society money because poverty, untreated addiction and mental health cost more than actually buckling down and dealing with them.

You would do a lot of things. None of which includes any realistic ideas or getting off your ass.

You offer no viable suggestions. Wild schemes, making massive policy changes, huge changes to taxation, all ideas that we all know will never come to fruition.

[JaredMilne]

andyt andyt:

I would take away the tax deduction for charitable contributions. Charities spend a lot of money just trying to raise donations. They have administrative bodies that rival governments, many with very hefty salaries. They work at cross purposed and duplicate effort. Totally inefficient.

The government should be doing this work. Take all the money donated to charities as tax revenue and let the government put in proper programs without duplication of effort. They already have the administrative systems in place, and don't need to spend money to raise money. Of course then people wouldn't be able to pat themselves on the back and get their pics in the paper about how generous they are. They'd have to make do with the warm glow of knowing that their tax dollars are going to help people who need help and how it's actually saving society money because poverty, untreated addiction and mental health cost more than actually buckling down and dealing with them.

So what about the inefficiencies that can come up with government bureaucracies, which sometimes end up working at cross purposes with each other, such as when federal and provincial programs end up running into each other? And what about the people who end up getting shut out because of issues with the way the programs are designed, such as with not everyone who might like to access EI being able to do so?

And how do we prevent government programs from becoming overly large and unwieldy because of the number of staff members they have to hire to deal with escalating demand, or with staff members becoming burned out due to that escalating demand? Should everything be placed on the government's shoulders?

I say all this as a public servant myself, and a guy who can support tax increases if the money is well-directed. But I don't expect government action to be a magic cure-all that can fix everything, particularly not when service delivery issues come up, as I noted in my first post to this thread. That's where guys like OnTheIce can come in, complementing the efforts of government workers and programs.

Everybody keeps talking about this issue as if we could only address these issues through government programs or through private actions and charities. That's a sucker's game in my view, particularly when we have already established charitable actions and government programs all at the same time, and I haven't seen much in the way of conflict between them. Again, they're complementing each other, rather than necessarily hindering one another.

[andyt]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

So what about the inefficiencies that can come up with government bureaucracies, which sometimes end up working at cross purposes with each other, such as when federal and provincial programs end up running into each other? And what about the people who end up getting shut out because of issues with the way the programs are designed, such as with not everyone who might like to access EI being able to do so?

And how do we prevent government programs from becoming overly large and unwieldy because of the number of staff members they have to hire to deal with escalating demand, or with staff members becoming burned out due to that escalating demand? Should everything be placed on the government's shoulders?

I say all this as a public servant myself, and a guy who can support tax increases if the money is well-directed. But I don't expect government action to be a magic cure-all that can fix everything, particularly not when service delivery issues come up, as I noted in my first post to this thread. That's where guys like OnTheIce can come in, complementing the efforts of government workers and programs.

Everybody keeps talking about this issue as if we could only address these issues through government programs or through private actions and charities. That's a sucker's game in my view, particularly when we have already established charitable actions and government programs all at the same time, and I haven't seen much in the way of conflict between them. Again, they're complementing each other, rather than necessarily hindering one another.

I've worked for Family Services of Greater Vancouver, among others. If you think they are a model of efficiency vs government bureaucracies, you're kidding yourself. And they spend a lot of time fundraising, which costs them money. Many programs are paid for by the government anyway. Usually applied in a stopgap, band-aid way. People revolving over and over thru the same program or a similar one offered by another agency, because nobody is willing to set up a proper program that is long term and in depth enough to make a difference. So you have the government bureaucracies overseeing giving money to the private agency that has its own bureaucracy.

In the Downtown Eastside, we put in $1,000,000 a day. It's gotten worse, not better. Many organizations, competing with each other, working at cross purposes or duplication of effort. We had execs of an organization treat themselves with trips to Disneyland, among other scandals, with government money. Total lack of accountability. As they say, it's a Poverty Industry.

No, just handing it go government, the way government works now, isn't a cure all. OTOH, private organizations, on the whole, don't do any better either.

Charities force you and me to contribute to their cause, because the people donating get a tax deduction - so no different than just being forced to give via taxes.

What is needed is a government with a social conscience, but that puts a real bulldog in charge of keeping finances lean. Like Tommy Douglas was. What we get are right wing government with no social conscience who still spend money like it's not theirs.

Yes, there are some small organizations that do good work with little waste. Or even moderate sized ones like the Union Gospel Mission. But this is a big problem, that takes a big, coordinated solution. You want private orgs to be a part of it, fine, Personally I think it's just a waste of money, more than will inevitably be wasted by govt. But either way, it would take a govt that has its act together (since relying only on private donations would be an utter disaster). Unfortunately they are hard to come by. Coordination is the key here, and that's easier with one overseer, ie the govt.

Certainly not as easy as waving a magic wand, but what I suggested, IMO, is the direction to aim at.

[JaredMilne]

andyt andyt:

I've worked for Family Services of Greater Vancouver, among others. If you think they are a model of efficiency vs government bureaucracies, you're kidding yourself. And they spend a lot of time fundraising, which costs them money. Many programs are paid for by the government anyway. Usually applied in a stopgap, band-aid way. People revolving over and over thru the same program or a similar one offered by another agency, because nobody is willing to set up a proper program that is long term and in depth enough to make a difference. So you have the government bureaucracies overseeing giving money to the private agency that has its own bureaucracy.

In the Downtown Eastside, we put in $1,000,000 a day. It's gotten worse, not better. Many organizations, competing with each other, working at cross purposes or duplication of effort. We had execs of an organization treat themselves with trips to Disneyland, among other scandals, with government money. Total lack of accountability. As they say, it's a Poverty Industry.

No, just handing it go government, the way government works now, isn't a cure all. OTOH, private organizations, on the whole, don't do any better either.

I never said that private charities are a model of efficiency. I merely noted that government bureaucracies can have their problems too, and that they can have service delivery issues as well. Private charities can help address some of these issues.

andyt andyt:

Charities force you and me to contribute to their cause, because the people donating get a tax deduction - so no different than just being forced to give via taxes.

What is needed is a government with a social conscience, but that puts a real bulldog in charge of keeping finances lean. Like Tommy Douglas was. What we get are right wing government with no social conscience who still spend money like it's not theirs.

Yes, there are some small organizations that do good work with little waste. Or even moderate sized ones like the Union Gospel Mission. But this is a big problem, that takes a big, coordinated solution. You want private orgs to be a part of it, fine, Personally I think it's just a waste of money, more than will inevitably be wasted by govt. But either way, it would take a govt that has its act together (since relying only on private donations would be an utter disaster). Unfortunately they are hard to come by. Coordination is the key here, and that's easier with one overseer, ie the govt.

Certainly not as easy as waving a magic wand, but what I suggested, IMO, is the direction to aim at.

These comments suggest to me, in yet another example of how often this happens in Canada, you and he aren't as far apart as the thread might suggest so far. I think we can all agree about the need for the government to have its act together on finances, and the fact that some charities are inevitably going to be more bloated and wasteful than others. I don't know which organizations OnTheIce worked with, but his previous comments suggest that he was directly involved with on-the-ground services, which charities can, as you note, end up neglecting in their efforts to get and secure more funding as they get bigger.

But there's still the problem of different government organizations and programs who might end up at cross purposes, what with governments not being monolithic entities that always coordinate everything perfectly.

Not to mention that, since we're a federal country, it's also an issue when the federal and provincial governments end up running into each other. Who would coordinate something like this, Ottawa or each individual province? The biggest charities, unless I misunderstand, would be pan-Canadian entities, so logically the coordinating entity might be the feds...but a lot of these types of social matters are more generally provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution. How do we avoid a patchwork of different approaches and regulations, if the provinces all take different approaches to dealing with the issue?

These are the questions we would need to think about in taking that route.

[BeaverFever]

Thanos Thanos:

You guys know how much agreeing with Andy on anything bothers me but on some levels he's not wrong. If the best thing that happened to this homeless guy is some toddler giving him a burger and a prayer then there's something deeply wrong with the social system he's living in. This kind of incident turns out to be nothing more than stunt-booking for religious folks, the same kind of people who are overwhelmingly hardcore conservative voters who put politicians in power who are openly proud of things like austerity budgeting, elimination of as many programs they can erase that help the poor, and of implementing fiscal policies that favour no one at all except for the wealthy. The 'Jesus loves you' bit shouldn't be used to cover up things like this man lives in a place (Alabama) that's been run by hearts-on-their-sleeves Christians since the place was founded. Yet, in seeming defiance of everything Jesus allegedly said was important, this man ends up dependent on a child to give him some food? If this is the case then there's some serious fucking disconnection between what the Jesus of the Bible wanted people everywhere to do for each other and the Jesus that the people who run Alabama believe in.

Just my rant on this sort of thing. The main thing that pisses me off about religion isn't the message. It's the people who say they follow a messiah or prophet then behave in ways that are the exact opposite of the manner in which the central figure of their religion allegedly commands them to behave. If this incident is about Christianity then the only real Christian in the mix is that little kid. The adults around them who incessantly vote for a pack of cruel and vicious fuck-the-poor politicians, like the kind of politicians that have run a place like Alabama for it's entire history, are about as cognitively disassociated from everything Jesus stood for as a person could possibly get.

Well said!!

Im ordering a burger for you! Sorry, I don't have any prayers though.

[andyt]

No, I think this is more on the provincial level. (I'd prefer federal, but we don't do things that way in Canada). What that feds can do is provide funds for the provinces to administer, as they already do. To end homelessness in Canada, according to one estimate, would take 44 billion over 10 years. 1 point GST raise brings in 7 billion a year, so it would be plenty to do that. But I think there's plenty of efficiencies to also be had with what I suggested, govt running the show.

Where OTI and I differ is that he doesn't want to spend any money, objects to any and all tax increases. Somehow the homeless are supposed to get off their butts and deal with their mental health and addiction issues, get a job and fly right. The poor are all supposed to get an education and take all the great jobs just waiting for them. To deal with this sort of thing takes money. But as I keep preaching, you actually get the money back at the other end if you have people using the medical and justice system less, causing less havoc in society, and some of them actually becoming productive citizens.

We've talked a lot about ending child poverty in this country, but neither the federal nor provincial governments have applied themselves to actually do it. The savings there, of children not growing up in deprivation, would be huge - but down the road.

We're the only G8 country without a housing strategy. Rabid socialist regimes like Singapore and Hong Kong have massive social housing. Chez Soi/At home has proven that the money invested in programs such as this is more than recovered in medical and justice system costs, but we don't bring it on full bore.

WE can do this. It would take money up front, but might in the end actually save us money. For sure it would make for a more cohesive, productive society. Just be willing to chip in a bit up front. You think the govt should take the money and raises and give it to charities, the way it does now, fine. But governments are at least accountable, charities aren't.

[andyt]

$1:

Ending homelessness in Canada is not only possible, but also affordable. According to a 2014 paper from the Canadian Homelessness Research Network, homelessness comes with an annual bill of $7 billion in emergency shelters, social services, health care, and law enforcement and judicial costs.

The authors suggest ending homelessness through a comprehensive housing strategy would cost taxpayers far less: $3.75 billion in 2015-16 and $44 billion over a decade.

“It’s going to cost money up front,” said Stephen Gaetz, director of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness and one of the authors of the report. But the savings over the long term will more than make up for the expense.

“If we want to end homelessness there are interventions we need to put in place that will work, like Housing First,” he said.

It can be done, but it requires a comprehensive approach between all three levels of government, and tailoring programs depending on local circumstances. The federal government’s current commitment of $600 million over five years, announced in 2013, is a good start but needs to go much further.

http://o.canada.com/news/national/endin ... ada-581832


Much better than just talking to them, or even giving them a hamburger, "with bacon."

[andyt]

$1:

Imagine going to bed hungry, not receiving presents on holidays, being an outcast in gym class because you don’t have runners, or trudging through snow without boots because you don’t own any.
It’s tough.
But for the 967,000 children who were living in poverty in Canada last year it was a daily reality.
That’s one in seven, or 13.3 per cent, of our children. It’s worse in Toronto, where a study released in August found that 29 per cent of children — almost 149,000 — live in poverty, while 15 of Toronto’s 140 neighbourhoods have child poverty rates of 40 per cent or more.
That’s also the shocking rate of child poverty among our aboriginal population.
And it’s getting worse. Campaign 2000, which tracks the number of children living in poverty in Canada and advocates on their behalf, is set to release its 2014 report on Monday.
The news is grim, the agency says: numbers are up.
This despite the fact that Parliament unanimously voted 25 years ago, on Nov. 24, 1989, to end child poverty by the year 2000. At the time the number of kids living in poverty was actually lower, at 912,000, than it is today.
This has got to stop. And it can.
By any standard, Canada is a rich country.
It is a member of the wealthy nations clubs — the G8 and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development — and ranks 11th out of 186 countries on the UN Human Development Index, which measures standards of living.
So the question is: why is Canada ranked 24th among 35 developed countries by the OECD on child poverty? Or why is it graded at just a C by UNICEF, while smaller economies like Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are consistently ranked with As?
The problem isn’t a lack of money.
It’s a lack of political will on the part of the federal government that could adopt policies the experts say would pull more families out of poverty.
For example, the OECD says increasing child-care spaces eases child poverty by enabling mothers to get a job (38.2 per cent of Ontario children cared for by single mothers are raised in a low-income environment). But in 2006, the Harper government killed a national child-care program that would have provided 635,000 subsidized daycare spaces and replaced it with a taxable $100-per-month child tax credit — which actually benefits the well-off more than the poor.
Cancelling that benefit (since increased to $160), along with two other tax credits beyond the reach of the poor, and redirecting that money to low-income families would have put almost $2,000 a year more into the pockets of the poor in recent years.
Instead, the Harper government has just implemented a vote-buying scheme that promises $26.7 billion over five years in tax breaks and support programs that will disproportionately benefit those who are already doing well. It includes an income-splitting measure that experts say will benefit only about 15 per cent of families, leaving 85 per cent (including the neediest) out in the cold.
A better policy? If the Harper government had even doubled the national child benefit, child poverty could be reduced by 26 per cent, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Or it could focus on what study after study has recommended along with a national child-care program: investing in job training and creating a national affordable housing plan.
Instead, we’re living with a situation documented by Food Banks Canada’s annual HungerCount, which this year found that 37 per cent of the 841,000 people helped by food banks last year were children.
In the absence of national strategies, which international organizations say are fundamental to ending child poverty, provinces and municipalities have been struggling to fill the gap.
Ontario, for example, lifted 47,000 children out of poverty and prevented another 61,000 from falling into it by increasing the Ontario Child Benefit to $1,310 a year from $250 a year in 2007.
But they can’t do it alone.
Twenty-five years after Parliament voted to end child poverty, an entire generation of children has grown up in need. Canada’s federal government cannot continue to turn a blind eye to them. It must commit to ending child poverty now — as other countries have.
They have the know-how and the means. There’s no excuse — just a lack of will.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... orial.html

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Where OTI and I differ is that he doesn't want to spend any money, objects to any and all tax increases. Somehow the homeless are supposed to get off their butts and deal with their mental health and addiction issues, get a job and fly right. The poor are all supposed to get an education and take all the great jobs just waiting for them. To deal with this sort of thing takes money. But as I keep preaching, you actually get the money back at the other end if you have people using the medical and justice system less, causing less havoc in society, and some of them actually becoming productive citizens.

Wrong.

I've never once said I don't want to spend any money nor have I objected to any and all tax increases. You've made these assumptions because I have a "C" next to my username, it makes me a cold-hearted bastard that wants homeless people to rot.

I give about 40% of my income to taxes, 1/3 of that likely wasted by government inefficiencies. Add all the user-fees I pay for various community services and health care no longer covered by OHIP, I spent a large chunk of the money I earn. I don't ask to pay less.

I'm not willing to throw money at government that can't manage the money properly. I have no trust in our government to be efficient and spend the money appropriately and be efficient. In Ontario, we just had the largest ever tax increase set upon us for a health care "premium" and our finances are in ruin.

I spend my time at the Good Shepherd Ministries and The Scott Mission. Both are about an hour away from my home and about 30 minutes from work. Andy likes to tell me I do this to feel better about myself because I "talk" to homeless people.

In fact, I rarely talk to the homeless people unless I'm filling their plates with food. I often end up in the basement sorting food or in the kitchen preparing food. These types of places make a huge impact in people's lives. If you'd ever done anything like that, you'd know.

I do my fair share. I pay my fair share. Andy, I would suggest you start doing the same.

[OnTheIce]

$1:

For example, the OECD says increasing child-care spaces eases child poverty by enabling mothers to get a job (38.2 per cent of Ontario children cared for by single mothers are raised in a low-income environment). But in 2006, the Harper government killed a national child-care program that would have provided 635,000 subsidized daycare spaces and replaced it with a taxable $100-per-month child tax credit — which actually benefits the well-off more than the poor.
Cancelling that benefit (since increased to $160), along with two other tax credits beyond the reach of the poor, and redirecting that money to low-income families would have put almost $2,000 a year more into the pockets of the poor in recent years.

So much false information here.

As I have mentioned here, my wife has been in the daycare industry since 1996. Both private and public facilities.

In a place like Toronto with all these poor kids, there are no spaces available for subsidized kids. None. The waiting list is YEARS!

You can have programs to pay for daycares but without the actual facility and staff, there's no place for these kids to go. So while the program was great for the families that managed to get a spot, the others waiting got nothing and had to pay full price at a home daycare, other private schools or have a family member step in.

Even still, Municipalities and Provinces have subsidy daycare programs in place already.

[andyt]

You're not even addressing what the article says - that if the money sent to well off parents were redirected at the poor, there would be subsidized day care spaces available. A program that would have provided 635,000 spaces was cancelled. No wonder no spaces are available. Jesus.

The links I provided show that paying a little more now (per person) would actually pay off later in reducing costs. Every time a government tax is proposed here, GST increas, Carbon tax, you name it, you howl like a stuck pig. I'm willing to pay more up front if that's what it takes. Why aren't you?

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

You're not even addressing what the article says - that if the money sent to well off parents were redirected at the poor, there would be subsidized day care spaces available. A program that would have provided 635,000 spaces was cancelled. No wonder no spaces are available. Jesus.

No, there wouldn't be spaces available. That's what you don't get.

Spaces aren't created by sending money to a family. Spaces are physical, actual facilities for kids to stay. You can throw all the funding you want at it but if there's no daycare spaces actually open, it's a useless program.

andyt andyt:

The links I provided show that paying a little more now (per person) would actually pay off later in reducing costs. Every time a government tax is proposed here, GST increas, Carbon tax, you name it, you howl like a stuck pig. I'm willing to pay more up front if that's what it takes. Why aren't you?

You're making things up again.

I don't 'howl' at tax increases, I don't just don't go for your tax and spend schemes that you come up with. I also know that the majority of my taxes in Ontario get squandered away, just like the extra tax I've been forced to pay for the health care "premium". I have no faith in the Ontario government spending my money properly to help people.

I'm willing to pay. In fact, I already do pay with the charities I work with and support.

If you're actually willing to pay more, put your money where your mouth is and help a homeless facility.

[ShepherdsDog]

He's one of those who doesn't contribute to charitable causes. They figure the government is taking care of all the possible needs of the unfortunate, so there's no personal onus for him to do anything to help.

[andyt]

Exactly. Raise my taxes. Please. But just giving money to band aid agencies that never really get at the root of the problem is not the way to go. Just perpetuates the poverty industry.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Exactly. Raise my taxes. Please. But just giving money to band aid agencies that never really get at the root of the problem is not the way to go. Just perpetuates the poverty industry.

Poverty will never go away. Ever.

It's time you realise that. Mental/health issues aside, there's no cure for human error and bad decisions.

So, it's time to step up and put your money where your mouth is.