How much should the government help the poor

[Jo]

in terms of economic assistance?

[ColleenC]

I personally think the government should be doing more to help the poor help themselves. Kinda like the proverb "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

I will come back to this later when I can think better. Kids keep getting up. LOL

[Lori]

I think that everybody in a society as rich as ours should be guaranteed food and shelter. Even if somebody refuses to work, I think we have a moral obligation as a society to ensure that nobody dies of exposure or starvation.

Most people want to be able to support themselves, so I think that programs that will help people to be in a position to do so are great, but for those who are unable or unwilling, I think they need to be provided with the basic necessities for life.

[Danielle]

I think that everybody in a society as rich as ours should be guaranteed food and shelter. Even if somebody refuses to work, I think we have a moral obligation as a society to ensure that nobody dies of exposure or starvation.

Most people want to be able to support themselves, so I think that programs that will help people to be in a position to do so are great, but for those who are unable or unwilling, I think they need to be provided with the basic necessities for life.



I agree. In most cases where it looks like someone doesn't want to work, there are other factors preventing them from working ie; undiagnosed mental illness, health issues, addictions etc.. Sure, there are some lazy people out there but they really are the minority.

[Beka]

Although i believe strongly there should be a welfare system for those unable to work (physical or mental health, single mothers etc) It irritates me as the wife of a low-income manual worker than the welfare system in the UK also supports those who effectively chose not to work- there's a big difference to me in inability and unwillingness.

The UK does help low income working families as at one point the cost of living rose at such an alarming rate within the uk (and continues to do so with 1 in 4 families with children still living below the poverty line Britain sets by 3 measures... Rowntree is one i can't think of the other 3) the rising cost of living compared with the very poor increase in manual workers and retail workers wages meant it actually worked out better to be on unemployment than it did to work so they installed a system where by if you work and have children and are lower income then your earnings become supplimented by "tax credits" - for us it is a life saver and for the country as a whole it's lowered unemployment and it's meant an availability of staff for lower income employment areas which just wasn't happening before- no one was going to work for £150 a week if staying home on welfare worked out to £145 when you added up the cash benefit given, rent paid, tax paid etc that welfare equated to (not exact figures but you get what i mean- it was only the extremely prideful- like my husband who spent very many years raised by a very determined working single mother- who did take low income jobs rather than remain unemployed) tax credits has returned people to those jobs.

As part of this system though we qualify for many free training courses which in turn will allow us to better ourselves and eventually attain a better level of job- our biggest goal is for David to earn a wage where we no longer need tax credits and can be entirely self sufficient, for families like ours they're a great thing and they have enabled us to have the family size we wanted at an age we wanted (which britain does need greatly at the moment as we have fallen below the rate of replacement fertility wise and in 25 - 40 years time we as a nation look to be headed to a carers crisis as there will be insufficient population to support the increasing demographic of elderly) So the government introduced it for good reason- to encourage people to have families to raise the population where needed, to support those continuing to work in sectors where wages have not risen anywhere near the rate of inflation and rise in cost of living and to give people the opportunity to train to obtain a better standard of living and therefore pay more back into the tax system once again (as a low earner David still pays taxes- if he were on welfare we wouldn't so it's in the governments best interest to keep people in lower income jobs rather than welfare for that aspect too)

Unfortunately though we will always have "the deserving poor" and the "undeserving poor" as long as the nation has people who see benefits and welfare as a "right" and a means to live rather than a helping hand to a better life or as a support system when unable to work. I live in an extremely low income, high welfare neighbourhood and a good 50% of those on welfare in my street see it as money they are entitled to rather than support they should be grateful for and many have no intention (even in early 20s) of ever working.

[Danielle]

I honestly cannot see anyone here, in Canada, choosing to live on $548/month when rent is often more than that. This is why I have a hard time believing that laziness is the reason why some people remain on welfare. There HAS to be another underlying cause, even if it's only fear of the unfamiliar.

[Beka]

I honestly cannot see anyone here, in Canada, choosing to live on $548/month when rent is often more than that. This is why I have a hard time believing that laziness is the reason why some people remain on welfare. There HAS to be another underlying cause, even if it's only fear of the unfamiliar.

I think it does very much vary country to country, Britain is often mocked actually by it's extremely lenient welfare system- in Britain the unemployed get a set ammount of cash per couple, then a set ammount per child, free rent on their home, free council tax (tax of around $2000-$3000 per year that you pay to live in any town in the UK) free health care, free school meals for children, clothing vouchers for those school children, free milk & baby formula, free fruit & vegatables to the value of $5ish per child under 5 per week- and obviously if you don't work you don't pay income tax and national insurance (which pays for the healthcare system) which equates to around 30-40% of most working persons wages dependant on income (David earns near on £300 a week but only gets to bring home around £200 because of what he pays in tax and national insurance) you don't pay than on welfare money either so for Britains unemployment is not a bad paid thing at all, although it must be exceptionally frustrating to want to work and be unable to find employment or to be medically unable to work- i have sympathy with those who genuinely can't work but very often in our job centre you will hear people say "I'm not doing that for X an hour...." - now to me if you want back on the work ladder and are unemployed then any job is better than no job.

[Danielle]

Yeah, that definitely makes a difference Beka.

[Beka]

Yeah, that definitely makes a difference Beka.

It definately does! When David was unemployed for a short time last year he went to apply and we actually would have worked out fonly slight inancially better off his working when we looked at the $'s they'd give us and the money we'd save on bills they would pick up for us- if it weren't for the tax credits system for those working in jobs where wages don't reflect the cost of living (these must be fulltime jobs to qualify so it's not like you can chose to work just a 10 hour week to earn low enough to qualify!) we'd be better off unemployed but thankfully that system is in place which helps keep David in the work place and hopefully ladder climbing to a better job.

[Beka]

Actually one thing i should add that i do find very very worrying is the government offers help to those on low income/no income but still allows companies to opperate within our country offering credit and loans to those people- i know people who have been given CC's with $3000+ limits whilst living exclusive on welfare, now to me the government is irresponsible to allow such companies to opperate luring people in very poor situations into debts they can not easily repay, in that respect the government could help the poor even further without britain by making it more difficult to obtain credit and acrew debt.

[Danielle]

Actually one thing i should add that i do find very very worrying is the government offers help to those on low income/no income but still allows companies to opperate within our country offering credit and loans to those people- i know people who have been given CC's with $3000+ limits whilst living exclusive on welfare, now to me the government is irresponsible to allow such companies to opperate luring people in very poor situations into debts they can not easily repay, in that respect the government could help the poor even further without britain by making it more difficult to obtain credit and acrew debt.


That happens here too and it is very frustrating! The other thing that we have here is "payday loans" and they'll give them to people on assistance in anticipation of their monthly cheque. D'uh... if they are on assistance, what are the chances of them being able to pay back the loans at month's end when rent is due.

[Val]

America has so many people that are just plain stupid rich (ie, My Super Sweet 16 on MTV) that it's just crazy to have people in this country that are starving.
It's hard to say a blanket statement because wellfare in the US has many different faces. There are some that are truly stuck and can't get the help to move up, but there's another side where some people are given everything they could need and don't seem to appreciate it- and there's a whole range in between. It's also important to notice that the homeless population really grew after Regan closed down mental health facilites, and now the largest growing group is families. It would be easy for me to say "oh, they need to get off welfare" or something similar, but I think that would ignore those who aren't getting any help and live a car or a shelter.
The bottom line is that, yes there does need to be help provided. Just imagine what state the US would be in if there wasn't any help for anyone.

[Marzipan]

America has so many people that are just plain stupid rich (ie, My Super Sweet 16 on MTV) that it's just crazy to have people in this country that are starving.


I'm not sure I see the connection here. In many countries around the world (right now I'm thinking Sub-Saharan Africa in particular) the disparity between rich and poor is astronomical.You have a fabulously wealthy oligarchy who live in a style befitting the Sultan of Brunei while vast, teeming masses have no food, no water, no shelter, no anything. Frequently, the reason this system exists is because the oligarchy doesn't properly distribute the resources it has, and because corruption is the norm. Resources from charitable organizations and other governments do not get allocated as intended. You have the rich literally taking money from the poor.

This is not how things are run in countries like the US. If some rich girl on My Super Sweet 16 gets a new Porsche for her birthday, it isn't being paid for with money that was supposed to go to a homeless shelter. It is money her parents rightfully have and deserve to spend on whatever luxury they desire. I'm sure many people would be shaking their heads over the things I spend money on, and yet I'm amazed by the birthday parties being thrown by my preschooler's classmates. Dude, I can't afford to rent a flock of ponies!

The point is, how much money one person has doesn't correlate to how much someone else doesn't have. No one is starving to death because Paris Hilton spends money like it's going out of style.

[Lori]

The point is, how much money one person has doesn't correlate to how much someone else doesn't have. No one is starving to death because Paris Hilton spends money like it's going out of style.

I do agree with that, but at the same time, and I think this is what Val was saying, since we have the resources to provide everyone with at least food and shelter, it seems wrong not to. That people are starving anywhere in the world when there are more than enough resources to feed everyone who is hungry is bad enough, but it would seem especially negligent to allow people in our own country to starve or live without decent shelter when many very poor neighborhoods are just a few blocks away from places where people have more than enough.

I don't think the government should be providing people will all sorts of leisure items, but I do think that having the government provide assistance for food and housing is the easiest way for society to fulfill its basic obligations to each other. Before government assistance, people were starving to death in this country, and thankfully that doesn't happen much any more. We may still have huge disparities between the rich and the poor, but at least the services are out there to take care of the basic needs of the poor.

[Marzipan]

I do agree with that, but at the same time, and I think this is what Val was saying, since we have the resources to provide everyone with at least food and shelter, it seems wrong not to. That people are starving anywhere in the world when there are more than enough resources to feed everyone who is hungry is bad enough, but it would seem especially negligent to allow people in our own country to starve or live without decent shelter when many very poor neighborhoods are just a few blocks away from places where people have more than enough.

I guess my disconnect comes in when you start making comparisons between the poor people and their neighbors and talking about "allowing" people to "starve or live without decent shelter." Who is allowing it? And what is decent shelter? I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a safety net for people, but issues arise when the government mandates a certain level of, for example, housing. I'm not trying to be flip, but what is fair housing? Should it be a house big enough for each kid to have their own room? Do they get to live in any neighborhood they want? What about central air? I really do wonder what standard we set as acceptable, and how we then go about getting everyone to live it. It's like raising the minimum wage and being surprised when the cost of living increase exceeds the wage increase. Suddenly a free studio apartment is the new homeless. There are so many issues at stake here.

[Danielle]

I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a safety net for people, but issues arise when the government mandates a certain level of, for example, housing. I'm not trying to be flip, but what is fair housing? Should it be a house big enough for each kid to have their own room? Do they get to live in any neighborhood they want? What about central air? I really do wonder what standard we set as acceptable, and how we then go about getting everyone to live it.


The problem is that what the government now sees as "acceptable" is well below the standards that most people would be willing to accept for themselves. For example, a single mother with one child on social assistance gets just over $500/month for rent here. However, it's impossible to find a 2 bedroom apartment for under $1000 in the city of Toronto. I guarantee that whatever apartment you would get for $500/ month would be well below anyone's standard for acceptable housing.

[Lori]

I guess my disconnect comes in when you start making comparisons between the poor people and their neighbors and talking about "allowing" people to "starve or live without decent shelter." Who is allowing it? And what is decent shelter?

Right now, I don't think that's happening. I think it would be if we didn't have the government safety net. There is certainly a lot more that could be done for the poor in terms of providing opportunities and education/training, but I think our current welfare system does a pretty good job of making sure that most people have a place to live, and we don't have people starving. There are obviously homeless people, but most of the homeless people who I've encountered have serious problems like mental illness or addictions or both that are keeping them from taking advantage of the help that's available. More could be done for them, but there are going to be people who, for whatever reason (and usually really sad ones), just won't take advantage of the help available to them. If they're adults, then I think all that can be done is giving them whatever help they're willing to take.

But in general I actually think we do a fairly good job, in the U.S., of making sure that the basic needs of people in poverty are met. I think we do a pretty crappy job of helping them get out of poverty, and I think part of the problem is that the two are seen as mutually exclusive. I don't think we're doing a bad job getting people out of poverty because we're providing for their basic needs, but because we aren't doing much to train them for better jobs or to make sure those better jobs are actually there and paying well should they have the training. And some of it does have to do with people making changes the government can't make for them. Living in a city with a huge population of people living below the poverty line, I do think there is more that need to be done to help people in poverty than just providing for their basic needs, or providing for material needs, period. But, I don't think less than that needs to be done, either.

I also think we do a really bad job of providing any sort of safety net for the working poor, and that's a really big problem. We spent a year trying to survive on a salary of about $18K, and it was horrible. We made too much to qualify for basically any of the programs available in Michigan, and yet we didn't make enough to pay our bills. In cases like that, I don't think the answer is just handing out money to people, but doing a better job of ensuring that communities have affordable housing and providing some assistance for families who need it with things like heating their homes and paying for car insurance. Luckily we only had to deal with that for a year, but I really feel for people who live on that line between qualifying for assistance and actually making enough to make ends meet, and I do think more needs to be done there.

[Val]

Lori is right about what I meant.
As far as allowing things- we as a collective society allow it. The government that lives above the means of the majority of the country allow it. The images projected in media allow it. When I stand by instead of helping a person who is cold or hungry, I am allowing it.
I'm not saying we should all be communist and have everything even, but my soul hurts to see kids with no food. My very being is shaken when I hear about young girls with no place to live and no food who are raped on the streets or turn to prostitution to try to support themselves. That may be the way the world works- the Sultan of Cambodia (insert correct ruler and country there please) may have no problem living in excess while his subjects live in poverty. I was not raised that way. 'Share and share alike' 'Treat others like you would want to be treated' etc.

Another issue here is: What kind of country do the rich want? Do they want what they have, or do they want to live in a place with rampant crime and jails that are so full we can't arrest anyone else? Do they want to live like Ward and June Cleaver, in the perfect neighborhood with nice grass lawns and the only worry being Eddy Haskal next door? Or do they want the concerns that people who live in the type of country you mentioned? Do they want to worry about their kids being kidnapped on the way to school? Do they want to buy a car that shoots fire out the sides incase they're attacked?