Good idea. But where will it go with the Party in power still seemingly determined to make moves that'll only extend poverty, while its Opposition counterpart still has more interest in representing it than eliminating it?

Poverty Reduction Plan? To me that would be turfing out all three levels of tax sucking governments. Starting with yours, Danno. See if that helps us residents of PG.

Poverty reduction?

Simple. The spread between the haves and have nots has increased over the last two or so decades.

Whatever was done by the government to have that effect ..... reverse it.

Start looking first at transferring taxes from global application such as income tax to so called user pay taxes.

Example, the people living in a $150,000 house/shack pay the same for garbage, water, sewer, etc. as the person who lives in a $450,000 house.

A couple of decades or so ago the taxes that were paid were paid as a percentage of the value of the property.

That might seem unfair to some who have the more expensive properties. Too bad. Wanna get rid of poverty? Ya gotta pay to do that, one way or the other.

If you want to encourage poverty, keep on putting more user pay taxes on .... HST is the latest one of that ilk.

It ain't rocket science!!!!!!

Robin Hood had it figured out some 800 years ago .... reverse the tide .... rob from the rich and give to the poor .... or, as put in another way, pay the poor for the underpaid services they provide to the cause of keeping the upper class to the lifestyle to which they feel they are entitled.

simple greed and criminal actions from govt,long and slow coruption eating holes in our wallets,chrietian,mulroney with cash, quebec etc etc now the bc railway!! the under the table deals ,gordy getting caught trying to raise his and alls pay!! idiots in the senate doing nothing right mike duffy !?planes, trains and automibiles (movie?)olymipcs have just started to suface did we say that all along?illegal immigration for what? 3 ignorant little cildren parties sitting in ottawa daycare screaming at eachother while the parents (taxpayers) go to work!!!i think ill go throw up now....

Here we have the mayor and councilors preaching to the government to develop a poverty reduction plan when they themselves are offloading an a continuous basis new taxes and fees on a lot of people who can ill afford those and are borderline poor.

They need reality therapy.

Ah, yes, I was sure it would surface at some point in this thread. The old socialist argument that the "poor are poor because the rich are rich". And the obvious solution ~ re-distribution.

The government will act like Robin Hood and take from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor'. Seems so simple.

But what does it take? Well, 'money', obviously. Everyone knows that. Would be pretty hard to actually 're-distribute' anything else the 'rich' might have, wouldn't it? How would you divvy up a $ 450,000 house, or other possessions the real 'rich' amongst us might own?

Now ask yourself this, those who support this 're-distributive' theory. How many of the 'rich', or even those moderately well off to the point where they might, one day, be able to actually own outright that house that they live in now that the Assessor currently values at $ 450,000, actually hold their 'riches' in the form of money?

Actual 'money' ~ cash on hand or in their account at the bank. Money that can be removed from them at any time through a levy of taxation?

Does Bill Gates, reputedly richest man in the world, have his $ 80 Billion, or whatever, in a Money-Bin, ala Disney's Scrooge McDuck? Does Jimmy Pattison?

Or do Bill Gates, and our Jimmy, like the legal owner of that $ 450,000 house ONLY have ASSETS that are VALUED IN MONEY to those amounts? And the ONLY way those ASSETS can ever become actual 'money' is if they either SELL them, or BORROW against their supposed value?

If they SELL them, or even some of them, to pay those 're-distributive' taxes, just where does the buyer get the 'money' from? And if they BORROW to get that 'money' to pay them?

Who really benefits? The 'poor'? Not hardly! In each instance the taxation, collectable in 'money', was BORROWED from those institutions that are charged with 'creating' that 'money'. And they want it back. With interest. How do they get it back?

If it was issued as the 'cost' of the ASSET acquired, which it was, it can only come back through 'price'. Who, in the final analysis, is going to be charged with paying that 'price'?

Now it's highly unlikely that if the richest people in the world DON'T all actually have their own personal Money-Bins, that any of us less rich, but still moderately well off do either. Modern taxation is legalised robbery, and their is only ONE beneficiary ~ those who actually 'make' our money.

Of course the top rich don't have a money room in the basement where the gleefully count their billions like Uncle Dagobert in the Bugs Bunny show!

However, how many shares does Bill Gates own in Microsoft? It would be very easy to distribute all those personal shares to the poorest Americans: They get a share certificate in the mail! Then they can either keep it or sell it for dollars. Then they can take the dollars and go shopping for food, clothing or whatever.

Bingo! Maybe I will find some in my mailbox too!

Warren Buffet can do the same with his shares in corporations, so can the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bushes, the Cheneys and all those Wall Street leeches who were given untold bailout billions.

It is so very uncomplicated and easy!

Confucius (551-479 B.C.):

"IN A COUNTRY WELL GOVERNED, POVERTY IS SOMETHING TO BE ASHAMED OF. IN A COUNTRY BADLY GOVERNED, WEALTH IS SOMETHING TO BE ASHAMED OF."

B.C.= Highest child poverty rate in Canada for the past 6 years. 1 in five children live in poverty.

Bad governments have been obvious for over 2500 years. Why have we re-elected this man over and over? Shame on us.

Education is free from Grade 1 to 12, so why do we have so many who can't make a living on there own and waiting for another Handout, or like is called for here "Redistribution", what some of you advocating is called Theft, Socialism is one Form of it! Bill Gates made his Billions by you buying his buggy Operating System every few Years again and again, so don't blame him, for you are the stupid one, who made him wealthy.

"Does Bill Gates, reputedly richest man in the world, have his $ 80 Billion, or whatever, in a Money-Bin, ala Disney's Scrooge McDuck? Does Jimmy Pattison?"

LOL .... you know as well as I do that Bill Gates or his corporation, and others like him are among the biggest philanthropists in the world!!!!

AND ... you also know that if done right, much of the "quoted" money is actually "laundered" through the tax system so that only a portion is actually provided by the philanthropic organization while the rest is provided by the government through tax reductions, etc.

One cannot on the one had say we have to do something about poverty, and on the other hand say I can't help.

People have to realize they are part of the system, that some people can be taught how to fish and will actually catch some fish rather than just handing them fish, but others simply cannot.

We as a society have to take care of those people just as much as you have to take care of a mother or grandmother who has given you the ability to take care of yourself when you were not able to.

If you do not understand that simple principle, then all the church going, all the rhetoric means squat.

Your actions speak for who you are, I don't care what you call the boogyman you raise in your debate. You either have it in your heart, or you don't.

"Education is free from Grade 1 to 12, so why do we have so many who can't make a living on there own and waiting for another Handout"

Education means squat when there is an oversupply of people or the supply does not meet the demand.

We are employing at least 30% of our people providing menial services for those who can afford those services or think that they can afford those services. Those 30% are the ones who are in and out of the poverty zone.

Obviously their service is not really valued very much by those who buy the service. They are content to knowingly pay for a service that they themselves would never work at, until their service/skill is no longer required and they are forced to work for less or decide that they can get more money from EI or UI or whatever the current politically correct term is.

AND worse yet, those same people also keep on buying foreign made goods because they are cheaper, and take their vacation in foreign countries because the dollar goes further, and retire there for the same reason but come back here so that their medical services are provided relatively free.

Bunch of hypocrites. Throw in the word "socialism" and they think they have made an argument. Far from it! You have avoided dealing with the real cause of the problem - GREED to the detriment of you fellow citizen!!!!!!

"IN A COUNTRY WELL GOVERNED, POVERTY IS SOMETHING TO BE ASHAMED OF. IN A COUNTRY BADLY GOVERNED, WEALTH IS SOMETHING TO BE ASHAMED OF."

Interesting proverb.

I do not think wealth is something to be ashamed of. It is what one does with that wealth that could/should bring on the feeling of shame.

The USA used to be, and still is, a very wealthy country with many very wealthy people. The end of that era might be closer than we think, however.

The wealthy in the USA used to share and still do to a higher level than probably any other country in the world. However, that too is likely changing.

For instance, the US government does not fund the arts to the degree that the arts are funded in other countries in the world.

Philanthropists step up to the plate and endow the arts with $70 million here, and $10 million there as if it were water. They have a National Endowment for the Arts. Canada does not.

Their Universities virtually all have facilities that would be the envy of most universities in Canada. They understand that it is money well spent from many points of view. The rich give with their wallets. Canadians do not even come close to that level of giving.

Ever watch PBS? People actually donate to that station. And, near the longest defended border between two countries in the world, people from Canada actually donate a significant amount of money to foreign TV stations broadcasting under the banner of PBS.

So much could be solved, if we just stop buying Arms and participate in foreign Wars, read Afghanistan, Billions in a big Hole for nothing and don't say we are defending our Country, from what I like to know. This would be the First Step in Poverty Reductions.

If you win a million bucks in a lottery, you are a hero and a nice guy. If you EARN a million bucks you are a running dog capitalist lackey exploiting the masses. Humans are fickle and live for their agendas. Every one has an agenda. Think about it.

Well Gus there are days that I would like to turn off your gramaphone. However to day is not that day. I had to read all of your stuff and its made my day.
Cheers

One cannot win them all Retired. :-)

To Bill Gates 70 million dollars are pocket change. Less than one tenth of one percent of his wealth.

Who said anything about $70 million in relation to Gates?

His contribution is in the $5+ billion range plus all the other money a person like him can attract.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/360770.stm

Poverty reduction starts with YOU, NOT the government, especially if you are "poor." Start your own poverty reduction campaign - it begins with a shower, followed by a change of clothes, then a resume and is topped off by showing up to work on time and working hard. Sounds tough, right? Well that's life, get used to it!

Shower? Change of clothes? Resume? Hey! I'm a victim! I can't do that stuff.

"Who said anything about $70 million in relation to Gates?"

I did. I hope you don't mind. You stated philanthropists step up to the plate and give 10 million or 70 million.

Gates is a philanthropist and I stated that if he would give 70 million it would be just pocket change for him.

Good for him that your intensive research shows he gave more than that. I would be disappointed if he didn't because just like all other mortals on this planet he won't be able to take it with him when he shuffles off this mortal coil.

Prince George:- "However, how many shares does Bill Gates own in Microsoft? It would be very easy to distribute all those personal shares to the poorest Americans: They get a share certificate in the mail! Then they can either keep it or sell it for dollars. Then they can take the dollars and go shopping for food, clothing or whatever. ....It is so very uncomplicated and easy!"
------------------------------------------
Not quite. Microsoft, to my knowledge, has never paid a dividend. So keeping your new shares that've been removed from Gates and 're-distributed'to you , if you're one of the poorest Americans, doesn't really do you much good if you're going to retain them.

"On paper" your net worth has increased by whatever the current market value of that stock is. Likely now some small fraction of what those shares were supposedly worth when Bill Gates had them. He wasn't likely to throw his shares on the market all at once. The 'poorest Americans'?

Now you've stripped poor old Bill of his shares, is he likely to have the same kind of interest in making Microsoft a success he had when he owned most of it? Are the 'poorest Americans'? Or are they just about as anxious to turn them into cash immediately as many here were when they received their 5 free BCRIC shares way back when?

gamblor:-"Poverty reduction starts with YOU, NOT the government, especially if you are "poor." Start your own poverty reduction campaign - it begins with a shower, followed by a change of clothes, then a resume and is topped off by showing up to work on time and working hard. Sounds tough, right? Well that's life, get used to it!"
------------------------------------------

You make it sound like there's a "job" just waiting to be claimed out there for every one, Gamblor. Is there?

Maybe you might remember back when Bill Vander Zalm was Human Resources Minister in Bill Bennett's government, and made a speech sounding an awful lot like what you've just said?

"Pick up your shovel and get to work", he said, in a speech aimed at all those lazy, unwashed, able-bodied, dead-beat bums he knew were out there, just sucking off the public purse.

Nobody owes you a living, there's lots of "jobs" out there, go get one.

The unwashed decided to prove him wrong, and shortly afterwards organised, and marched en masse down to one of his Art Knapp Nurseries branches, shovels in hand, to apply for all these "jobs" he said were "out there".

Well, as luck would have it, somebody tipped the Zalm on what was happening. And in the most brilliant stroke of his considerable media manipulating genius he quickly made a call to his Nursery manager and told him to hire everyone who applied.

Instead of being turned away, as they'd fully expected would happen, the horde were given employment applications and told they all could start work immediately. With all the media present and tv cameras recording the whole event.

They'd been magnificently upstaged, and Vander Zalm's stock with the general public soared as their shovels were tossed aside, and most stormed away. Most, but not all.

A few did fill out the application form, and were hired. They were told to shovel a large pile of sawdust and manure into wheelbarrows and trundle it from one place over to another. By this time most of the media had disappeared, too. Thinking the story was over.

But one reporter from the Vancouver Sun hung around. Thought there might be some news interest there yet. And he was right, there was. The most important part of the whole story, actually. Only most didn't realise it when it appeared in the back pages of that paper a few days later. And most still don't, even today.

At the end of the workday the reporter went over to interview one of the new hires. To find out what he thought of his new job, and how he liked working for a living for a change.

The young fellow told him he'd been out of work for quite awhile, and had just about given up hope of finding a job again.

He said he didn't mind to work at the type of labour he and the others also hired had been doing. That he liked to earn his keep. He wasn't lazy, and didn't want to be thought of as a bum. He just hadn't been able to find anything else, even though he'd tried and tried. No one was hiring.

Then he added something that should've been front page news in the Sun, and on every TV newscast. Only it wasn't.

He said, "You know, I'm glad of this job, but what we've been doing here all day is really stupid. All of us ~ all that were hired this morning ~ we've worked steady since then, and it's taken ALL of us ALL day to move that shit pile from here to there by hand, with shovels and wheelbarrows. While sitting over there is a front end loader with the keys in it that any ONE of us could have climbed on, started up, and done the same job IN LESS THAN TEN MINUTES. If we'd been allowed to. But then there'd be no "jobs"."

There's the REAL story, Gamblor. WE DON'T NEED EVERYONE'S "PRODUCTION" ANYMORE. We're long past the point where there was absolute justification in the old dictum, "Let no man eat who has not first worked." Where we NEEDED every "shoulder at the wheel", or real destitution ~ actual starvation even ~ was the alternative.

110 years ago it took 50% of the population fully engaged in agriculture to feed themselves and the other 50% that weren't. Today, that's less than 3%, and still falling. And we've more grub, to feed more people (because there ARE more people), than we've ever had in history.

And the same is true in virtually every other area of human endeavour. Look at a modern logging operation, where four men on machines can now put more trees on the truck daily than forty on the ground could've only a few decades ago. We are displacing labour. Continually, and at an ever increasing pace. And we can view that as a curse, which some seem determined to; or as a release, which is how it should be viewed. And would be, if not penalised by loss of income.

We are long past the point where the problem of poverty is a 'production' problem. One that can be cured by "more production". By "full employment".

Today, it's a 'distribution' problem. And the agency of 'distribution' is MONEY.

If that MONEY can only be had by producing still "more" of the actual things we need and desire, when there's already a glut of all those things on the markets of the world, we're destined to perpetuate a 'financial'poverty in the midst of a 'physical' plenty. Unless, stupidly, we destroy the 'plenty' and the modern technological means to it, solely for the purpose of making more "work".

Individual initiative and enterprise is always commendable. But it is NOT the cure for modern poverty.

Socredible, I find it astounding that so many people simply do not understand how much the increase in efficiency in our industry has affected the number of people who have access to work, especially meaningful work, even if they want work.

In my opinion there are too many settings in which we work today in which we simply do the equivalent of shoveling, with human sweat, a pile of dirt from here to there. Whether that is studying stuff to death, having meeting after meeting to make sure everyone has their say, travelling instead of phoning, auditing to attempt to keep everyone honest, retraining because its a "feel good" thing to do, etc. etc.

If we were to streamline processes to the same extent as we have mechanized processes, we would loose at least another 30% of our jobs almost overnight. Many of those jobs would hit the more skilled people with much higher incomes. I expect there would be a revolution shortly afterwards if nothing were done to redistribute wealth.

Will those who have the ability to make some changes ever recognize that and act to make changes? It really does not look like that to me at the moment. A few people stand out every now and then but they continue to get beaten down by the system.

Gus:-"I expect there would be a revolution shortly afterwards if nothing were done to redistribute wealth."
----------------------------------------
I agree with you entirely on all that Gus, except for one word in your sentence above. That word is "re-distribute". This portends that we're going to have to "rob Peter to pay Paul". Which we don't, though I do admit the idea is bound to be politically popular with Paul, even though it doesn't really SOLVE the problem. Only possibly defer it.

For what we're trying to 're-distribute' is not really "wealth" at all, but some 'tickets' to it. Those 'tickets' are what there is a deficiency of, relative to the actual "wealth" they're supposed to ACCURATELY financially represent. They are collectively insufficient in the hands of the public as a whole, to fully liquidate the financial costs inherent in the "price values" of goods and services already available in abundance 'physically', or additional ones that could be readily provided.

You can never make an "insufficiency" into a "sufficiency" long-term by re-distributing it. That's like slicing the pie at a picnic ever smaller when more guests than expected show up. Everyone gets a slice of pie, alright, but they all go away from the table still hungry, too.

You have to make more of what you're short of to ever cure that. And in this case that shortage is of 'money' itself in the way it relates to "prices".

Already we recognise there is a problem, only the solution we're continually bent on following only defers it, at best, and ultimately makes it worse.

That solution is, of course, to put it in its simplest form, to "print money". Whether we do it just that way, or in a more subtle way which we now generally do, i.e. deficit financing for 'stimulus spending' by government. This provides the necessary funds to more fully liquidate "costs" through prices, NOW, but at the future expense of still greater "costs" to be recovered through prices or taxation to come. It is inflationary. What is really needed is some changes that are 'deflationary' TO THE CONSUMER ~ that give all oF us greater access to the goods and services we need and desire, and are more than physically capable of already providing ~ only WITHOUT the present drawbacks of deflation to every business, i.e., the inability to fully recover their costs plus profit in final price. This really is not hard to do.

You keep on saying in this and past posts that it is really not hard to do. Yet the notion of printing money by itself does not, in you writing, go to that next step of distributing that money. Who has access? Any sort of means test that excludes those who already have enough (whoever would determine that) would be the same as taking from one to give to the other. Whether one take or gives a priviledge or takes or gives money really does not matter from what I can see.

When jobs are hard to find, some countries introduce laws which make it illegal to work at more than one job; reduce the number of hours in a work week; increase paid vacations to 4, 5, 6+ weeks mandatory and relative to years worked or age rather than starting fresh with each new employer.

Those are all some of the tools used to increase the number of hours available for individual workers without redistributing money. It redistributes access to working hours.

Let's face it, in this country there are tons of people who work more than 35 or 40 hours per week and they typically make additional unit pay if they are hourly wage earners - 1.5 times base; 2 times base; even 3 times base on special days.

Are they ambitious? Sure! Are they taking work from others? Sure! Do they care? Nope! What is their argument? It's a free world!!!

Socredible.

This country and the one to the south of us, as well as many of the developing countries are set up to live from growth. That works for provincial economies as well as City economies.

When this City does not grow, we are in deep shit. Look at the last twenty years and the probelms we have are all due to no growth in population and the development that comes from that. The same happens to BC as a province and Canada as a country.

There are several European countries that have managed to adjust to no growth and still remain economically strong. China is strong because it is putting all its efforts into quality growth. It has more or less curbed its population growth for now.

We talk about sustainability, yet we are not achieving it. We really are not giving it any serious thought. We continue to try to take the easy way out; pay for today's living quality/quantity on future tax income from investments in epxanded/new buisnesses, housing, workers, etc.

SO, we can open the doors to the country some more and continue to grow population wise. In fact, we have the resources to do that while many other countries do not. So maybe that is what we should be doing.

In reality, it should be a little of each of several approaches.

We have more than 34 million people now. Is that what we should have 20 years from now? 50 years from now? 100 years?

The capacity of this country is easily over 100 million and even more. If we can agree on increasing the population, then we only have to agree on how quickly we might want to get there.

Gus:-"You keep on saying in this and past posts that it is really not hard to do. Yet the notion of printing money by itself does not, in you writing, go to that next step of distributing that money."
------------------------------------------

Well, fundamentally there's two ways to distribute enough money to correct the 'insufficiency' I wrote about, Gus.

One way is continuing periodic outright grants to every citizen in the nature of a "National dividend" representing his or her share in the country's "communal Capital" as it increases.

Which it generally does, barring natural disasters, or war, or some other type of calamity that actually decreases our total ability to produce.

Normally, this nation has continually increased its ability to actually produce and provide goods and services more efficiently yeare by year, i.e. produced with less and less actual 'labour' (and labour 'incomes')input. As mechanisation and technology continually advance and increasingly lead to the displacement of workers.

'Machines' don't buy that production. Only 'people' can do that. And if we've displaced the job, and the income that once went with it is no longer distributed as wages or salaries, yet the Capital Costs of the machines and their overheads are included in prices, how can 'people' ever FULLY pay those prices, taken altogether, in total, from total earnings that are now only a PART of them? They CAN'T.

To say to the displaced, "Go get another job", just doesn't cut it. That new job has it's own "costs" attached to it that have to be liquidated from "incomes", too, while the other ones, those Capital and overhead charges, remain untouched. Save for us doing what we've already done, where we're now
$ 1.40 in DEBT for every dollar of income we bring in! How long can THAT continue?


The other way, and probably a better one in some respects, is to augment earned incomes by what may be thought of as a "rebate" on all consumer (retail) prices. This is completely counter-inflationary. Since prices, to YOU, as a consumer, are FALLING.

The amount of the rebate and/or dividend is calculated by applying a factor to retail prices as they are now computed.

That factor being the amount by which total national production is calculated to exceed total national consumption over any given previous fiscal period. There is no taxation involved in paying such a rebate, or a National dividend.

The 'money' comes from the Bank of Canada, which has, as does the central Bank of any nation, an unlimited overdraft facility with itself.

So far as the Bank of Canada is concerned, what it is doing is in the nature of a 'macro-economic' accounting correction. One that allows presently unrepayable debt to be repaid, or, put another way, all "costs" to be liquidated through "prices" in each cycle of production that they've been incurred in.

Yes, we are addicted to 'growth'. Some is good, some is not. If it's needed for reasons to do with actually making our lives better, I'm all for it. But if we're doing it, as we all too often are now, simply to try to make a failing financial system seem as if it can still work, we're creating a nightmare that'll come back to haunt us over and over again.

There is a big difference between genuine 'prosperity' and 'inflation'. The latter always comes first under the guise of that former. Our governments, no matter who forms them, no longer seem to realise that. Or maybe they do, and just don't care.

They invariably induce 'inflation' when they induce growth, and they do it purposefully, to "raise prices". They cannot see any other way to improve the rate of business profit that is so necessary to allow the full repayment of business indebtedness to the Banks. So necessary to keep the credit tap turned on. Long term, it can never work.

So long as collective Incomes are falling, (through labour displacement), in ratio to the collective Costs of Production being impressed into Prices at the point of final retail, overall Sales will fall in ratio to the overall Costs of Production being EXPENSED against them, and the rate of business profit in the economy as a whole will decline.

This decline 'pinches off' continued production for which there is still a real consumer demand, only one which can no longer currently be made effective 'financially' from EARNED incomes alone. And "raising prices" is NO SOLUTION AT ALL. Nor is growth just for an excuse to continue to distribute incomes in the present that will only make future incomes even more deficient in what they CAN BUY than they currently are.