So Disappointed

[Arielmac]

What is the point in commenting when words are added that i never even mentioned??? where did i say everyone (or the majority) abuse it?? where?? Before quoting someone, please read everything and not in between the lines. If my comments needed clarification, i'd be more than happy to answer them but please dont write things or conclude what you think is what i said or meant.

I am not for paying for drugs, smokes, beer etc.... never did i mentioned i wouldnt be willing for some types of programs to help them get off these habits/disease or whatever you want to call it. I do give to charities and animal shelters..anybody that read my posts over the years knows that i take huge proud in helping people when i can and give what i can. But nobody will ever convince me to be a happy bunny paying for drugs, smokes and beer and while some might find smokes to be some kind of comfort, for me, i get some comfort in complaining about how wrong this is!

I didn't mean to attack you personally, I am sorry if it was interpreted that way. So many people have talked about the majority of people on Social Assistance are abusing that I lost it. The majority is not abusing, many yes, but not the majority.

There has been comments made about addiction that the phrase you use, his demons, boogyman... offended me a bit because other people's problems, pasts may play a big factor in addiction but calling it boogyman is, for me at least, making a farce out of a real issue. Someone even implied that if they could get over some addictions relatively easy, other people could do the same.

Yes, social assistance is not well structured. However when someone with an serious addiction is given the tools to enable his/her addiction, I can see why he/she would use it. When people have an opportunity they usually take it. We just saw it with the Cadbury SDM promotion. Some abused it (I'm guilty) to get points because it was available with no restriction (till yesterday). Some even over-abused it by trying to make a profit out of it and put them for sale on Kijiji/Craiglist because it's there, free to use.

You give money to an addict, he/she'll spend it to get his/her fix. For them it's normal use since they feel they need it.

Changes need to b made to Social Assistance. bring back Food stamps, implements systems that the person bring the bills (bare necessities) and Social Assistance pay it, same for rent/housing...

[TIMMYS]

Bronwen, it is certainly different in other areas, even within the province

TIMMYS may be able to confirm these details better since they work at OW but according to the studies, a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 kids) in Ontario would get a payment for basic needs ($448 - food and clothing etc) and shelter ($688) on top of that there is help for education costs, smoke detectors or minor repairs in the home etc on a case by case basis plus any child benefits you are entitled to.

Is it enough that you could live comfortably? probably not. Getting a decent place in the GTA for $688 isnt happening, but they may qualify for geared to income housing etc

Your figures are correct, for a family of 4 that is the amount you would receive plus you would get your CTC, GST etc. Extra benefits for school, participation in work programs etc is all verified before being issued.

[sharkie]

You beat me to it!!! I was about to write that shelters allow street people to use their address to collect welfare. Even though they have no bills and don't have to buy food or clothes. Even residents of the shelters can collect welfare, its called PNA ( personal needs allowance ) although, I seem to feel that in a shelter where everything is provided ( toiletries, medications, food, clothing, lodging and even bus tokens ) are given to them, they don't really need a "personal allowance".

you are correct Jenny..it is called personal needs allowance...this gets me that they get this money and they have no bills...

[thriftygranny]

Actually I have to correct you on this one...My father was director of a oraganization in hamilton that is a shelter..he worked there up until he passed away....the clients from this organization did in fact receive welfare while there were staying there....it was called a street allowance and it really make me angry they get this....their food and shelter are paid for and yet they get $200 a month on top of that...how is that encouraging them to do better? I do think about the children who are less fortunate and that is why I donate...But I also think of the parents who are not thinking of their children....for instance if you are already struggling on assistance why then go out and have more children?..to me that is abusing the system....I have no problem my tax dollars goiung to help a single mom and her kids...I have a problem though paying for all the other stuff that is not a neccessity...there are many people on there who are living with someone and collecting assistance..to me that is my tax dollars not being well spent...there are many good people on assistance but there are also many abusers of the system and that is what i have a problem with....

I am not sure what you are correcting me on?The fact that you disagree with me or the fact a shelter 2500 miles away from me has a different program than the one I am affiliated with. I think it is great that the Hamilton shelter gives them that money, I am sure it is meant for bus fare to go to job interviews or perhaps some shoes or deodorant, perhaps medications or a stamp to mail a letter to family.I think this is reasonable, enough to provide necessities but hardly enough to support a drug habit. Obviously your Dad thought it was a worthwhile cause to support for so many years you must be extremely proud of him. The world needs more people like him. Have a great day.

[sharkie]

I didn't mean to attack you personally, I am sorry if it was interpreted that way. So many people have talked about the majority of people on Social Assistance are abusing that I lost it. The majority is not abusing, many yes, but not the majority.

There has been comments made about addiction that the phrase you use, his demons, boogyman... offended me a bit because other people's problems, pasts may play a big factor in addiction but calling it boogyman is, for me at least, making a farce out of a real issue. Someone even implied that if they could get over some addictions relatively easy, other people could do the same.

Yes, social assistance is not well structured. However when someone with an serious addiction is given the tools to enable his/her addiction, I can see why he/she would use it. When people have an opportunity they usually take it. We just saw it with the Cadbury SDM promotion. Some abused it (I'm guilty) to get points because it was available with no restriction (till yesterday). Some even over-abused it by trying to make a profit out of it and put them for sale on Kijiji/Craiglist because it's there, free to use.

You give money to an addict, he/she'll spend it to get his/her fix. For them it's normal use since they feel they need it.

Changes need to b made to Social Assistance. bring back Food stamps, implements systems that the person bring the bills (bare necessities) and Social Assistance pay it, same for rent/housing...

you raised a very good point....changes do need to be made.....

[JennyFromTheRock]

Your figures are correct, for a family of 4 that is the amount you would receive plus you would get your CTC, GST etc. Extra benefits for school, participation in work programs etc is all verified before being issued.

I'm not sure that people on welfare receive GST though. I think you have to actually "pay" tax to receive a GST "rebate". Also, in addition to the welfare itself, child tax is a big income for a lot of people and I also happen to know people who have had children ( and plenty of them ) solely to collect the child tax benefit. Which can be up to $500 per child in some provinces.

[JennyFromTheRock]

I am not sure what you are correcting me on?The fact that you disagree with me or the fact a shelter 2500 miles away from me has a different program than the one I am affiliated with. I think it is great that the Hamilton shelter gives them that money, I am sure it is meant for bus fare to go to job interviews or perhaps some shoes or deodorant, perhaps medications or a stamp to mail a letter to family.I think this is reasonable, enough to provide necessities but hardly enough to support a drug habit. Obviously your Dad thought it was a worthwhile cause to support for so many years you must be extremely proud of him. The world needs more people like him. Have a great day.

All those items are available for free at shelters.

[sharkie]

I am not sure what you are correcting me on?The fact that you disagree with me or the fact a shelter 2500 miles away from me has a different program than the one I am affiliated with. I think it is great that the Hamilton shelter gives them that money, I am sure it is meant for bus fare to go to job interviews or perhaps some shoes or deodorant, perhaps medications or a stamp to mail a letter to family.I think this is reasonable, enough to provide necessities but hardly enough to support a drug habit. Obviously your Dad thought it was a worthwhile cause to support for so many years you must be extremely proud of him. The world needs more people like him. Have a great day.

actually the money is supposed to get bus passes and toiletries but most of them get the shampoo and stuff free at the shelters...so as far as I am concerned we are enabling them...my father was a great man with a big loving heart and it even upset him at times...

[lessthannat]

Personally, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of required drug testing. I'm uncomfortable with it for regular work places too, not just assistance recipients. I'm uncomfortable with it because to me it feels like a sweeping presumption of guilt with a requirement to prove innocence. I would like to think that we live in a society and a country where there is a presumption of innocence and a requirement to prove guilt.

The idea of having a person who is receiving assistance be required to have all of their expenses tracked electronically through a debit card also does not sit well with me. Where is the line drawn? What is an acceptable thing to spend money on? Who decides that? Some thought expressed in this thread have indicated that some people think someone on assistance shouldn't be allowed to have pets as they are a luxury. I think of my friend who did recieve OW for a period as she was genuinely in need. If she had been required to give up her 2 cats to receive assistance, it would have been one more blow to her at a time that she was suffering so much already. Her cats were a source of comfort to her and members of her family. They were fed really cheap cat food and she wasn't able to get them vet care. But they were so important for her and to her eventual recovery. But some people would see them as unnecessary.

I just think it's a really slippery slope...

If you have no problem taking my hard earned money then you should have no problem telling me how you spend it, and showing me that you aren't giving it to criminals

(not you, but person receiving assistance)

just my two cents.

[sharkie]

Jenny people on welfare in Ontario recieve GST....

[thriftygranny]

You beat me to it!!! I was about to write that shelters allow street people to use their address to collect welfare. Even though they have no bills and don't have to buy food or clothes. Even residents of the shelters can collect welfare, its called PNA ( personal needs allowance ) although, I seem to feel that in a shelter where everything is provided ( toiletries, medications, food, clothing, lodging and even bus tokens ) are given to them, they don't really need a "personal allowance".

The shelters I am referring to are in church basements with mats. So many people are allowed in at night until capacity is reached. The food and drinks are supplied by the women of the church.In the morning they are turned away to wander or whatever it is they do.This is the program I am familiar with so I really don't have much knowledge on the program you speak of.I think the main priority of the
shelter I was speaking of is to prevent them from freezing to death in the winter and to lend an ear.

[sharkie]

If you have no problem taking my hard earned money then you should have no problem telling me how you spend it, and showing me that you aren't giving it to criminals

(not you, but person receiving assistance)

just my two cents.

I applause your comment...well said...

[lessthannat]

I applause your comment...well said...

thank you

[sharkie]

The shelters I am referring to are in church basements with mats. So many people are allowed in at night until capacity is reached. The food and drinks are supplied by the women of the church.In the morning they are turned away to wander or whatever it is they do.This is the program I am familiar with so I really don't have much knowledge on the program you speak of.I think the main priority of the
shelter I was speaking of is to prevent them from freezing to death in the winter and to lend an ear.

I do agree with those programs..I know though that the churches do not give them money to enable their manipulating of the system....many churches do so much good in our communties

[sharkie]

thank you

you are welcome...have a great day...