Hey were are all those liberals and PC's to give us the real story how they are fighting child poverty.

Cheers

Ouch. It seems that all of the recommendations mean higher taxes and costs for everyone. I'm taxed enough, thanks.

People need to take better responsibility when they bring children into this world. Too many do it without a second thought.

How can that be MrPG, doesn't Campbell brag repeatedly about BC having the lowest taxes in Canada? Is he lying then?

So, I take it that your opinion is that because the parents may be irresponsible, it is alright to let babies and young children grow up without enough food and clothing. Is that what you mean?

No, I fully expect the social safety net to catch all the irresponsible incompetent people out there. I feel bad for the children who have to suffer, I don't feel any sympathy for many of the parents of these children.

How much more taxes can you afford? How much more can you afford to pay for things?

Lets not be 'sheeple' folks. Here is a question or two to ask before putting forth the partisan rhetoric (" babies and young children grow up without enough food and clothing"). How about we get the definition of poverty used in this report? I suspect a lot of us are 'poor' and dont even know it. As far as welfare goes, do you folk even know how much a single mom makes on welfare, and child bonuses and child care subsidies? I have said it before and will say it again: As a landlord for 20 years i have seen my share of welfare families. Even the ones without 'unofficial' live in boyfriends have not lacked food and clothing and the essentials, unless the parent was very selfish (we are talking expensive vices here). Thats what welfare is. It is a safety net to feed and house those who can't do so for themselves. Lets be clear here, people on welfare are supposed to be poor. I will bet that the definition of poor used here is relative to a mean or average standard of living. That being said, SOMEONE has to be poor no? If not welfare folks then who? Doctors maybe?
This is a report from a poverty activism organization. As such it is as biased as it can be. Yet, people seem to think it is beyond critical assessment. We would rather just take their word for it I guess....Political purposes maybe?

OK so i looked up the definition: If you use more than 54 percent of your income on food clothing and shelter, you are poor.
So if you are on welfare, and they pay the 750 dollars for your rent, then you would have to make at least 1400 hundred a month right there to escape poverty. Add a few hundred for food and a few hundred for clothes and you are well on your way to needing 3,000 a year to escape 'poverty'. No wonder i found out a few years ago that my family had been poor off and on without even knowing it.
How about mortgages? I mean, you are paying 2000 per month for your big house....does that count? Or if you spend a lot on clothes and dining out? We could be talking 50000 dollar a year starving babies here!
The study is worthless without some more information about the definition of poverty. One thing is certain: If your kids are going without enough food and clothes then YOU ARE A BAD PARENT. No amount of money thrown at a bad parent is going to help the kids. If you dispute this, then you dont know much about the various social services available in this country/province. That or you are an activist.

Yes, instead of actually doing something to protect those babies and young children, lets all study the matter over and over and over again. That way we can put of doing something for asnother four years, and who cares about other people's kids anyway?

Once again, I will point out that a very large proportion of the provincial general revenues do NOT come from any personal taxation. They do NOT come from your pocket. They come from exploitation of BCs natural resources. Those poor people, including the babies and young children own those resources along with the rest of us. It is not YOUR tax money it is THEIR resource money.

What, precisely, is the problem with using THEIR money to ensure that THEY have a decent base for their development as they grow up?

Defining poverty is as easy as defining the word pornography and the word affordable. Me? I'm not poor. I'm just broke all the time. Money talks. Mine says, "Goodbye" Does enough to eat and a warm bed be considered poverty? Maybe a lack of those two in a Third World country would, but not here.

The government actually owes me money? What a sucker I've been, paying taxes.

Ammonra:
You must be joking. Provincial revenues are OUR money, to be spent wisely, not thrown at a 'problem' based on emotion. If you want to spend your share on 'poor' canadians, donate your own money, i prefer to be a bit more circumspect.
The points of my posts were not to suggest study of the problem they were that the problem as defined does not exist. The definition of poverty is so broad as to include people who have everything they need plus (including , it seems, people who bought more house that they could afford). Moreover, there is sufficient social assistance, in many forms, to ensure that children of responsible parents will not suffer from lack of food and clothing. From what i can tell the real cause of rising child poverty is a rediculous definition of poverty. However, if child poverty IS a real issue then the root of the problem is with parental behaviour.
It is the 'job' of advocacy groups to pump the public and government for money. They make their case, as often as not, by spinning the facts and misleading the public. I am under no obligation to be fool enough to buy what they are selling without considering the facts.

Nobody should live in poverty.

The gambling casinos (introduced by the NDP in B.C.) are primarily an additional tax on the lower income earning classes, as this class frequents the slot machines more than people who are already well off, hoping for the big win which would solve all their financial problems.

I talked to a native lady some years ago and she said that the coming of the slot machines to Prince George (on George Street) had a terrible effect on far too many native families. Of course the same can be said for other families as well.

The dollar figure for a poverty line definition is not the same across the country.

The poverty line number rises together with the average income figure in a given province.

It is much higher in a province with higher wages and salaries.

Many families are poor without having done anything to contribute to their poverty, but others have their spending priorities all backwards.

This is a well known fact. If the parents only have a small income and spend 300 bucks a month on cigarettes and another 300 bucks on booze plus a 100 bucks on lottery tickets it's possible that the kids go to school without a breakfast...

However, children must not be forced to suffer as our society can easily afford to make sure that they do not suffer. The first priority should be to bring the minimum wage up to a decent level and make social assistance payments according to a more reasonable level which takes into consideration that the cost of living keeps increasing as do wages and salaries.

If we can afford to spend tens of billions of dollars chasing ghosts in a country called Afghanistan then there should be no problem solving our problems at home first. Obviously, there seems to be plenty of money for some things that are not even necessary.

"The gambling casinos (introduced by the NDP in B.C.) are primarily an additional tax on the lower income earning classes, as this class frequents the slot machines more than people who are already well off, hoping for the big win which would solve all their financial problems."

OMG, that's like saying ciggarettes and beer are a tax on the poor. Nice try. If you can't handle your vices don't blame other people. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

So we give people who cant handle their money a lot more money. Yup. That will solve the problem. Sorry for the sarcasm but dont you think that giving addicted people more money will just feed the addiction? They are already sacrificing their kids well being for their craving, I dont think giving them more money will make them good parents.
People who prefer to smoke and drink and gamble away their money, to the extent that their kids go without enough food and clothes and such ought to lose their kids. I don't know how many more ways i can say this but here goes: Social services pays enough that kids need not go hungry, unclothed or homeless.
To suggest that we have to deal with child poverty here at home before dealing with anything abroad is a joke. We can poor all the money we have into social problems and they will continue to exist. While we are huddled down, paying people to smoke, drink and play bingo, people who need our help around the world can starve to death (you know, that thing that happens when people are ACTUALLY POOR) and our friends and allies can learn that our friendship is worth nothing at all.

C'mon people! Everyone knows that corporate welfare & the olympics come before real people. 6 years running as the worst in canada - and those were in the good years before the recession. Ammonra; all you can do is pray for the mindless pundits and posers on this blog! God Bless you!

"So we give people who cant handle their money a lot more money. Yup. That will solve the problem. "

That is what CREDIT is for. Banks, government, you, me, Joe down the street...

Credit creates poverty.

Defining those who live in poverty as cigarette smoking, drunken drug addicts may make you feel superior, but it does not reflect the real world. There may be some such people, and usually their children are taken away from them by the child welfare agency. In any case, such people are a minority and most people needing assistance are as responsible as anybody else. Many spend everything they can trying to benefit their children, and before anyone asks, yes, I do know that for a fact having known many of them,m and seeing them spend what little they do have on their children and going without themselves.

Regardless of the definition of "child poverty", it is an undisputed fact that BC has more of it than any other province, even though we are among the richest.

And, I did not say anybody was owed money. I just pointed out to those who constantly carp about having to pay taxes, the lowest in Canada according to Campbell in contrast to the child poverty rate being the highest, that BCs General Revenue comes from exploitation of our natural resources, which are owned, as Caranmacil so eloquently points out, by all of us. That is my point, and I'm glad he got it, that those living in poverty also own those resources and are entitled to benefit from them just like him.

Easy fix...

Want your welfare cheque?

Monthly testing for drugs, booze, and yes smoking is mandatory.

As an individual on welfare, that comes with an automatic ban from all casinos, chances, bingo halls, etc. These places will not be allowed to admit or serve you.

All housing costs are directly paid by the Welfare Administrator.

The majority of the money is given out as gift cards to major stores and are not redeemable for cash, tobacco products, or lotto.

This program might be costly to set up, but the long term savings of these measures would be easy to see. I know because I did all these things in my life, quit smoking, drinking, and attending my monthly poker game with friends. After reviewing our budget, my wife and I decided all these things are not in the cards, pun intended. Only four months into it, and the extra money is quite apparent. And our kids are better off with non-smoking parents!

Thanks, Papermaker! Great post!

"Ammonra; all you can do is pray for the mindless pundits and posers on this blog! God Bless you!"

Will that make both of you feel really superior?

Ok lets be clear: Ammonra bought up the smoking, drinking and gambling cariacature, not me. I responded by suggesting that people who are indulgers of these vices are not going to spend any extra they receive from the government on their kids. Ammonra, dont project your own argument (and prejudice)onto me.
As for the idea that 'it doesnt matter waht the definition of child poverty is, it is an undisputed fact that we have more of it than any other province', well that could be the most nonsensical thing i have ever read (and that is saying something). To anyone thinking clearly on this issue, the definition of poverty is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. If I defined poverty as having less than 4 cars in the family, and BC had the highest level of child poverty would you advocate buying more cars for single moms? If you cant see this, or see no reason to question the statements of advocacy groups then you are either A: a born mark for special interest groups or B: an activist/advocate yourself.
I think you need to publish some numbers here ammonra, or shall I? Read my post above. As i understand it (correct me if i am wrong) but under the definition of poverty used in the article in question, i might be poor if i lived in a 300,000 house with a big mortgage. Or if i decided to rent out an apartment i cant afford, or if I actually can afford it because I have an undeclared live-in who helps pay the rent. If you dont want to question the definition it is pointless to continue to argue the point because you dont care what the facts are.
I dont believe for one second that all poor people are drinking , smoking gamblers. However, it is 'an indesputable fact' that all three of these vices are most prevalent in the poor. Whether you think they are an effect of poverty or a cause of it, the fact remains that if you can afford to drink beer, and smoke cigarettes, and gamble, you had better be providing your kids with everthing they need. Also, you dont need to cry to me about 'doing without' those things.
Credit doent cause poverty, if borrowing money puts you into the poor house, it is because you are dumb, not a vistim of evil banks. No one forced you to borrow.
The resources of the province do belong to everyone in this province, especially the poor. Thats the point. Where do you think all the social programs monies come from? The poor have a lot longer straws than i do when it comes to drinking from the well of government largess. Stii, i will be the last to object sensible spending on issues of poverty. I just dont believe in throwing money at everyone who cries out for it.
A lot of people in this country need to wake up. They are locked into a delusional dream, propagated by advocacy groups and maintained by a general lack of critical thought. Belief replaces logic or even discussion. In this dream we are all just victims, to be helped and pitied by the government and our fellow man. We have no responsibility for our own actions, none of our bad choices should have consequences. Success is due to luck and priviledge and thus is not really deserving of a higher standard of living. It's all a lie. Take responsibility for your own lives and let others do the same. If you can't make it in this country, you are doing something seriously wrong. And before you cry in your beer, remember that there are literally BILLIONS of folks who would trade places with you, if only for the opportunity that hard work might bring themselves and their children.

Papermaker,
As it stands, housing payments can be made directly to the landlord. It often is done when a person fails to pay their rent and comes in for more money. Here's the fun part: If your landlord gives you an eviction notice, welfare will give you ANOTHER RENT PAYMENT. Thats why tenants who know the system will actually ASK FOR A NOTICE! Also, if the tenant is 2 months behind, welfare will tell the tenant to stiff the landlord, then issue a new damage deposite so they can rent from someone else.
I like the idea of issuing rent checks straight to the landlord. I can see no reason to do otherwise.

Credit does create poverty caranmacil. You don't own your house until you have paid the bank with interest. You pay interest using the wages that are received from GDP. If you look at the Canadian debt, we OWE more than our GDP can compensate for. This unequal distribution perpetuates the issue of poverty. We are all victims of the global market and the banking system. How many people do you know that can pay cash for their homes?
Those in their senior years may have their homes paid for, but their income does not stretch far enough for them to maintain a standard of living they became accustomed to because of the global state of the economy.
Child poverty is on the rise because of direct ties to unemployment and the costs of the standard basket of goods. When most families are on a fixed income and costs rise, there is little left over for anything. Two incomes are required for families to stay afloat. The BC economy is in major trouble with the hits on our forest industry and the trickle effect.
To point fingers and say the individuals are dumb, or irresponsible is ignorance on your part. The majority living in poverty are caught in the circumstances of the economy NOT in attempts to sit on their laurels.
If you want to start regulating certain groups based on economic factors you best be prepared to forget about EI and the social safety net.

Will there be a time limit set after our Olympics are over with which to stop whining about them? It took only a little while for us to stop whining about the fast ferries Glen Clark built. We are still commenting about the Lieberal gun registry.

Commoner you are spouting nonsense. How can anyone say that buying a home with credit is a bad thing? Perhaps you would like to live with your parents until you can put down the whole purchase price...People DO pay off their houses, people DO enjoy a standard of living these days that our parents could not dream of. People DO retire to a lifestyle beyond the reach of most of the worlds population. A retirement, I might add that is decades longer than that expected just a generation ago. (By the way, do you really think it a tragedy that retirees should have to live a more modest lifestyle than when they were working?) We do all this stuff, with the help of responsible use of credit.
Credit doesnt create greed, or stupidity, or a lust for high living. It might wreak havoc with people prone to those failures, but it doesnt cause them.
Your suggestion that credit causes poverty was not ignorant, just dumb. The causes of poverty you list (lost forestry jobs, the 'trickle down effect') make sense in that they actually cause people to lose money or wealth. Credit, however is a tool. Blaming it for people being poor is like blaming the hammer for hitting your thumb. Hammers dont squash fingers, people misusing them do. Do you support the idea that people who hit their thumbs are victims because they make the hammer heads too hard? Or maybe because they require you have to use them with your eyes open?
Lets stick to your points and stop trying to tell me what i said. I didnt say that the majority of poor people are dumb or irresponsible. I DID say was that if credit made you poor then it was due to your poor (dumb) use of it. No one ever went poor because they took out a mortgage. They might though, by taking out one they could not afford (dumb) or by spending their money on other things and thus not being to make a payment (dumb). They might even get into trouble because of rising interest rates, but that is still kind of dumb, since one could expect interest rate fluctuations and budget for them. Of course they could also lose the house if they lost their job...Are you going to say that their use of credit was to blame?
I would be interested to hear if you think ANYONE other then me, obviously is dumb? Is ANYONE to blame for their own financial circumstances?