Author
|
Topic: Affordable Housing dropped from budget (as usual)
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 28 February 2005 01:32 AM
Once again the Liberals campaign on social issues and then f*ck the little people as soon as they are in office. People who 'strategically' vote just never seem to get it.Van Sun article "This week's budget shocked housing advocates nationally. The federal Liberals had campaigned on a promise of adding $1.5 billion in housing money over the next five years; two of the three opposition parties had supported that. But there was no mention of any new programs in the budget. Labour and Housing Minister Joe Fontana's explanation to housing groups has been that it was hard for him to get any extra money, because there is still $800 million left from the previous housing program initiated in 2001. Only B.C. and Quebec took advantage of that program, which required provinces to put up matching money in order to get federal housing dollars, and obtained the full share allotted to them from that program." The program he is referring to is the SCPI (Supporting Community partnerships Initiative), which absolutely and clearly excludes affordable housing as a fundable option focusing instead on shelters etc. The reason given for the exclusion is that Aff. Housing comes through another funding stream, that which has just been dropped, mealymouthed bullshit lying Cabinet Ministers notwithstanding. I do some work in the affordable housing/ housing demand field. There is no end of research identifying a clear need for affordable housing in most of our cities. Most of us were hoping the Liberals would come through on their promise, just this once, and start meeting the crushing demand. Just for the Conservatives in the bunch - No affordable housing=homelessness=addiction&crime. This is not a spurious connection. I am so furious I could scream. Fortunately, my MP is also furious. "NDP MP Libby Davies, who represents Vancouver East, said her party was stunned by the news. "I thought that they would make at least the minimum commitment of $1.5 billion. This was not about a lack of capacity to provide the dollars," she said. The NDP won't be supporting the budget, in part because of the housing issue. Davies said it looks to her as though the Liberals decided that housing was an expendable issue, one that wouldn't cost them too many political points." I am so glad I voted for the party that reflects my beliefs, instead of a party that would sell out my beliefs in the impossible hope of getting a vote in Calgary or something. Have I mentioned that I am pissed? The human suffering involved in that broken promise eclipses much of the other issues - and will create an extra burden on our health, education, justice and other systems as people fall through the cracks all over the place. Hiss, spit, hiss. [ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495
|
posted 28 February 2005 04:44 AM
The Liberals do need to to go. They never should have been elected the government in 93 and certainly by 97 they showed no inclination to keep promises and should have been removed by then if not put in in the first place. But not for that reason alone, if you make a bunch of promises that you don't keep, but when you get in you realize what you have to do, and follow through by doing the right thing for the people, then you deserve to be forgiven. The big problem with the Liberals is that their policies since they have been in government have been negative for the people, their policies have made life more tough, more difficult, more of a struggle.Their significant cuts to high priority spending areas, as Canadians have indicated through polling, like health care and education, their policy of extremely high taxes, their policy of maintaining the status quo on criminal justice issues for example. And many other poor decision making, decisions that hurt the people. As far as spending money on housing, I wonder if that is such a good idea. By having the federal government or other levels of government spend money on housing of any kind, do we not create more demand for "low income housing", how low do you go, who wouldn't like to have the government pay for their housing or subsidize it to any degree? Would you not be creating longer lines for this housing, would that not further tap the limited resources of government, and additionally, who will pay for that, where will the money come from? If you want to adress issues of homelessless, issues surrounding poverty, or even affordability of housing, is it not better to target the solutions at the root cause of the problem in the first place. For example, if people can't afford the cost of their housing, maybe it is time to lower taxes a little so they can. People should have enough money to pay for their food shelter and clothing and then it would really be nice if they had a little bit more to be able to experience a little more of life as well. But what we find we have now is a government, esp. the federal level, that has their hands much too deep in the pockets of even the lowest of income earners in our society. It's no wonder they struggle. Lowering the taxes of low income Canadians is just one of the many solutions needed to be implemented in order to seriously address the issue of people being able to afford the cost of their housing. But a very important one that needs to be at the center of policy changes by our government. [ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Leuca ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 28 February 2005 06:02 AM
I don't want to associate my own views with this TorStar article, but I thought, what the hell?.
quote:
From the hard copy of the Toronto Star, 18 April 2004. I found it interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly Allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of 2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Canadians, so we can all be fed up and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years.
I don't agree with much of the opinion in that piece that immigrants are to blame and benefits should be cutback. But I do think the Liberals have been buying votes with our tax dollars over the years. The average immigrants to Canada have a very difficult time of it and suffer discrimination, high unemployment levels as well as poor health as a result of moving here. We will be competing with the rest of the world for skilled immigrants over the next decade or more, and Canada needs to re-assess its economic and societal goals and start treating all Canadians more fairly. The article does say "refugees" which is another category of newly landed Canadian altogether. I know of Chilean refugees in Montreal who said they were offered $7000 dollars by our feds as a downpayment on a home. Mind you, I wasn't about to raise cain over the issue as these were genuine refugees and had lived through a hellish subsistence in their own country during the Pinochet years. [ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495
|
posted 28 February 2005 11:47 AM
quote: LOL! Man you can't be for real! That is just too much. Is it impossible for you to imagine that the people who live in poverty in Canada don't really pay taxes (other than consumption taxes)? Because, you know, they live in poverty? What use is a tax break for someone living off of $510 a month? None.
I grant you it is not an easy concept to grasp. It does require a little bit more thinking than average people are inclined to bother with. However if more people would be willing to look at, learn about and finally realize how various policy decision and social ills are connected to one another, we'd all be better off. Issues of homelessness, poverty and affordability of housing are complicated and can't be solved with one change in policy alone. Having made that observation, if I could spend a little time making some remarks on how I think the issue of high taxes and homelessness, poverty and affordable housing are related, it would be a priviledge. Because I am disgusted by the situation of poverty in Canada. As an aside, I went to the city of Vancouver in 1996 for one week, while I was there, I spent time walking around many areas of the city at all times of the day and night, including the poorest parts. I was dumbfounded and disgusted by the horrible situation of life for the poorest of the poor in that city. Having heard such wonderful things about Vancouver and how beautiful it is, and then to be witness to the abhorent conditions of life in certain neighborhoods of that city, let me just say, if I lived there, I would be utterly embarrassed and ashamed of the serious problems of poverty that exists there. What a disgrace indeed! Clearly someone earning as little as 500 or 600 dollars a month are not paying much in the way of taxes. No argument there. I would venture to say that 9 out of 10 people making that kind of money on an ongoing basis are getting a welfare cheque, and if you are not aware welfare income of any amount is not subjected to income taxes whether it is lower than the basic personal exemption or not. Although most puchases of restaurant food is taxed the gst, as you noted, which would be paid by them and homeless people living on the street. And of course here in Ontario there's an 8% tax for orders of more than $4.00 at restaurants, not hard to do. However I wasn't only talking about housing for people making that small amount or less. Issues of affordable housing affect the working poor, they affect low income families also. Poverty exists at more than one level of income. A family of 4 earning 15,000 for the year would be struggling for sure, whereas a single man bringing in that much would be quite well equipped to take care of all of his basic needs, even with having to pay all the taxes that someone earning that much would pay, and for the amount they are earning the taxes they would pay is too much in my opinion and I am not just referring to the income tax alone. People pay many more taxes than that and when it is all added up it's too much, for that level of income. High levels of taxes have a negative impact on the number of jobs available in the economy. High taxes kill jobs. I've heard it said many times that small business is the engine of the economy, that 80% of the new jobs being created come from small business, as opposed to large corporations, or government jobs. Small businesses are very much hurt by high taxes, it impedes their ability to be able to hire more employees even if they want to or have a need to hire more. High taxes, for eg. even the high taxes a single man earning 15,000 for the year would pay (again, not just the income tax, but all taxes he would pay) prevents him from using that money to make purchases for himself, which would help local businesses in his community. That would have an additional negative impact on jobs. Now if people aren't working, they are a drain on the resources of government. People not working require, unemployment, welfare, other benefits. Of course this would require the people who are working to pay more taxes, or for governments to run deficits, which is a tax on the future income earners, not to mention the negative impact of interest that would be incurred on that deficit spending. When taxes are up people have less money to save, they may use credit more, esp. high interest credit cards, esp the worst of the credit cards like department store credit cards. When there is less savings available because people are saving less, or because the government is eating up available savings in order to run deficits, there is less money available for businesses to borrow in order to grow and expand, which would have a further negative impact on jobs. That is at least a partial look into the impact of high taxes on the availability of jobs, and of course the social problems that result from people not being able to work and support themselves and their families.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 28 February 2005 12:06 PM
To go back to arborman's background: quote: Labour and Housing Minister Joe Fontana's explanation to housing groups has been that it was hard for him to get any extra money, because there is still $800 million left from the previous housing program initiated in 2001. Only B.C. and Quebec took advantage of that program, which required provinces to put up matching money in order to get federal housing dollars, and obtained the full share allotted to them from that program."The program he is referring to is the SCPI (Supporting Community partnerships Initiative), which absolutely and clearly excludes affordable housing as a fundable option focusing instead on shelters etc. The reason given for the exclusion is that Aff. Housing comes through another funding stream, that which has just been dropped, mealymouthed bullshit lying Cabinet Ministers notwithstanding. I do some work in the affordable housing/ housing demand field. There is no end of research identifying a clear need for affordable housing in most of our cities. Most of us were hoping the Liberals would come through on their promise, just this once, and start meeting the crushing demand.
I'm glad to hear of your work, arborman, and very glad to hear of Davies' and the party's reaction. Federal games with housing (in other words, the Finance Dep't's general hostility to funding affordable housing) are interesting to me -- I'm not an expert, but I have read a bit of the history of this issue and I'd love to learn where we are now. You might recall that housing was one of the areas offered up by the Charlottetown Accord for transferral from the feds to the provinces -- and it was my understanding that the feds just went ahead and did that subsequently anyway, in spite of Charlottetown's failure. (Note: the provinces have traditionally been an instant graveyard for any responsible housing policy. Municipalities have been good.) So, my first question: I'm moderately pleased to see that we at least have again a minister who is responsible for housing -- when did that happen? I can see, though, that he's still ducking the major issue, which is affordable housing, not shelters. I would really like to see the NDP come out with a good and deep major paper on this issue. And I'm interested in doing as much learning here as I can, so I would encourage you and others to write out what you know about the recent history of policy games and pressures in Ottawa.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 28 February 2005 12:38 PM
Indeed. I belong to a tenants' association, and we are having a terrible time getting any funding for any form of social housing - we have several co-op projects on the drawing board, as well as SHBLs (non-profit housing - often targeting specific groups) and public housing. I agree that co-ops are the best solution for MOST people who can't afford to buy a dwelling and build strong, diverse communities and a sense of responsibility for the same (and no, that is not necessarily a right-wing value). But some people are more deconstructed and need more help - for example, in our neighbourhood we have supported the creation of a SHBL project for people with a history of psychiatric problems - they have their own flats and live independently, but there is a social worker or nurse on hand and they get help (on a volunteer basis) with managing housekeeping and basic finances. A lot of such people get screwed out of their disability or welfare cheques - a major cause of homelessness. I remember a while back arborman tore into me for saying "Goddamn condos". No, as I replied, I sure don't want to force people to live in communes or overaged student dorms - I'd die sooner - I'm just furious at seeing all the subsidies and tax holidary for condos sprouting up all around as we are up against the wall, with the terror of not being able to find a stable place to live. I'm glad arborman started such a positive thread. By the way, a single working person living on 15k in a major Canadian city is struggling indeed. [ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495
|
posted 28 February 2005 12:40 PM
quote: For you see, it isn't the amount of current taxation that causes the problem, but the fact that the majority of its burden has been (and continues to be) shifted to the middle class.
I think the levels of income I referred to in my post are low incomes, and the fact that they pay the kind of taxes they do is just wrong. I stand by that. I agree that middle income earners carry a heavy burden as well. That needs to be addressed. I would point out that many small business owerners qualify as part of the middle class, and I spoke about the important role they play in job creation and how their efforts on that front are impeded when their tax burden is too heavy. What I believe is that solving the issue of more affordable housing by throwing money at it, won't work in the long term because it does not address the root causes of the problem. In the short term some assistance in that direction will be needed, but anyone serious about really helping people to be better able to afford to pay for their housing must be prepared to get to the root causes. People who are taxed too heavily (not just by income taxes) and people who don't have jobs can't afford to pay the cost of housing, so if high taxes are lowering peoples disposable income too much and if high taxes are hurting peoples prospects of securing employment then action must be taken in order to actually solve the problem.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 28 February 2005 01:09 PM
OK - not sure which of Leuca's arguments/assumptions to respond to.1. Affordable housing need is stronger in the cities, mostly as a result of the depopulation of rural areas over the past decades. 2. CMHC defines a household as in 'core housing need' if they spend more than 50% of their monthly income on housing. That works out to about 5% of the households in most cities (households consisting of 1 or more related people). People are considered 'at risk' of homelessness if they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on housing - meaning they are about 1 or 2 cheques away from disaster. These numbers are broken out into homeowners and renters - of primary concern are the renters, because often the owners have opted for the high mortgage as an investment. That doesn't mean they are not at risk, but it does indicate less risk (often higher income, more education etc.) In BC, every single person collecting welfare is on this list. Not hard to do when the average rent is ~650/month and welfare pays a maximum of $525/month for a single adult. Leaving those folks aside, the vast majority of people in need of affordable housing are the working poor. THey are often working 2 or more jobs to make ends meet. The jobs don't pay much, and are often part-time, non-secure etc. 3. In homes that are spending such a high proportion of their income on housing, there is litle left over. They pay their rent, then any bills they might have, because these are fixed costs. After that, they buy food, clothing, medicine (that which is not covered by Pharmacare), transportation, school supplies etc. In some families I've worked with, that amount is about $30/month. 4. Of those families, many are single parents. The majority of single parents are mothers. They cannot afford childcare, and are further limited in their ability to work. No tax break can help those who cannot work, or work part-time. 5. Leuca's discussion of restaurant consumption taxes demonstrates a certain wilful blindness - a person in this situation does not, ever, eat in a restaurant. Food Bank is essential, if they have the mobility and time to get there. If not, they go hungry, and their kids go hungry. 6. This is a big one - There was very little homelessness in Canada until about 20 years ago. At that point, the Conservative government started cutting funding for affordable housing. The Liberals under Martin dropped it altogether. Combined with the cuts to welfare rates, the increased consumption taxes (GST etc.) and lower real wages for people at the bottom end of the scale, and homelessness has become a national crisis. The root of this crisis is housing. The results of this crisis are, in no particular order: a. Dramatically increased crime & violence b. Dramatically increased property insurance rates c. Increased addiction rates d. Increased incarceration rates - when homeless, jail can be appealing. In cost terms, affordable housing is the cheapest way to address homelessness. Jail is the most expensive, followed by emergency shelters etc. I'm not at work or I'd put specific numbers to those costs. 7. Income Tax rates are simply not the issue here. We pay less tax than most developed countries, and tax cuts have a nonexistent impact on people who don't make any money. What we do here is tax the lower and middle classes as much as possible, and let the rich off the hook. This is a mistake. However, I'll meet you in the middle. Raise the basic personal exemption to 30,000, cut the GST as much as possible, and raise marginal tax rates on higher incomes. It could be revenue neutral easily enough. 8. Leaving all that aside, Martin has the money available. He is choosing to spend it on yet another microscopic tax cut for most of us, and no doubt some more hiden gifts for his corporate friends, rather than addressing a problem that has been clearly identified for years. As a result, we have more crime, more children living in poverty, and homelessness will continue to grow. 9. The conservatives would amplify Martin's assault on the poor. They are not the answer, because they still don't understand the question.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 28 February 2005 06:48 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn: I'm not sure if there's a shortage of affordable housing units available.You aren't sure, I am. I work in the field. The waiting list for a subsidized housing unit in Greater Vancouver is about 5 years for families. Singles it is more. That is a shortage - a large group of people in core housing need who are forgoing food and other necessities. There are 10,000 households on the waiting list for affordable housing in BC. Many others have given up or just aren't on the list. I don't know about the other provinces. So yes, there is a shortage. And if there is, isn't it up to the banks to provide financing? No, it isn't. It's up to the banks to make a profit. Affordable housing is not profitable, so they aren't interested. Fair enough - that's why we have government, to step up when the private system doesn't do anything. I've done alot of walking in Winnipeg and Ottawa. I'm always amazed at all the vacant industrial, commercial and residential properties that aren't even being used (Winnipeg especially). Good for you. Would you like to be the first person to move into a vacant factory? People deserve adequate housing, not dormitories. And again, that property is privately owned. The government's role is to provide housing where the market won't - at the low end of the scale. Nobody else will, because it will never be profitable. The NDP should categorize and inventory how many units are on the market...and the general condition of those units. A few hundred NDP members with digicams and a Net connection could go a long way determining what needs to be done. In Winnipeg alone I'm sure there's enough empty/abandoned units to house all of Canada's homeless. Take a few thousands pictures and put them on the Net for people to view.... Why would the NDP repeat research that has been done, repeatedly and ad nauseum. Just because nobody put it in your mailbox doesn't mean it hasn't been done. If I was at work I'd start listing them. CMHC has done mountains of research on this topic, as have many others. Again, that would mean seizure of private property, which nobody will do. Nor should they - it would be much cheaper and more effective to provide affordable housing in a variety of ways: 1. Rent supplements 2. Co-operative housing 3. Continual development of affordable housing units. 4. (At the municipal level) - Density bonusing for development. Of course, none of these solutions are going to happen, because Martin couldn't care less about the poor, except when it's election time. Then he (and every other Liberal leader) starts channelling Tommy Douglas.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142
|
posted 01 March 2005 01:37 AM
Both the BC Liberals and the federal Liberals have to be held accountable (at least in BC).According to Burnaby-New Westminster MP Peter Julian, homelessness has trippled in Vancouver over the past four years. The BC Liberals have forced people out into the streets with mean-spirited cuts, and during this whole process the federals Liberals have sat by and done nothing. Shame on both of them. [edited to correct typo] [ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Tim Kennelly ]
From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068
|
posted 02 March 2005 01:46 PM
Has anyone who's posting here ever been homeless? Most people in homeless shelters are there because they want to be. Somebody on welfare or making minimum wage can afford a relatively decent place to live in Canada. And why should the government give money to poor (and sometimes just plain lazy people) to live in Four Seasons or Hilton-esque surroundings? Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with affordable housing...it's just that "beggars shouldn't be choosers".Arborman--- If we drastically reduced the number of people working in the field...I'm sure greater amounts of funds could be used for concrete measures (literally) rather then endless debate and paper-pushing (no offense). What's the living conditions of the wait-list people?..are they living under highways and in bus shelters? People in thier neighbourhoods who aren't on waiting lists are probably living in similar dwellings yet making the most of it. Why didn't the BC government buy Kitsault? For $7 million hundreds of houses and apartment units could have purchased for "homeless" people. Is it that wait-list people are picky and want mansion like homes is exclusive neighbourhoods? And how many people from rural areas have left the country for the city? Lot's of units availible...just perhaps not up to the decadent lifestyle homeless people feel they're entitled. As far as banks, affordable housing and government interest....it would probably be cheaper to give families vacant units rather then charge the government(taxpayers) $50/person/night to sleep 10 to a room and eat expired food at Salvation Army. I'd love to be one of the first people to move into a vacant factory. Think of them as trendy-loft units. Having people pay for hydro/cable/phone/net hookups plus small affordable mortgage payments would be a better strategy then overcharging taxpayers for SallyAnn type lodging. And if people deserve adequate housing rather then dormitories...perhaps students in the future will demand that they too don't deserve to live in dorms. I don't doubt that endless research has already been done. I also think endless research will continue to be done. If everyone had affordable housing...how would housing advocates make a living? The problem with the research is that it hardly benefits those who need affordable housing. Archive and record pictures showing what's available. Have an upfront price for units that doesn't allow banks, gov's and real estate agents to try to recoup money lost on the unit from previous dwellers. And gov's should seize private property. If the owner of the property is going to sit on the investment and allow the property degradation to effect not just the unit but the neighbourhood...something should be done. Winnipeg is actually thinking of doing just that. Absentee landowners should be held to account. Privateer---
Housing and rental unit prices are artificially influenced. If a glut of dwellings are built over the next few years, the "reverse mortgage" companies will have to write down huge costs. "Restricted development" helps baby-boomers and retirees that own thier homes. It's in thier interest (and the banks) to have a housing market that's unduly tight and controled.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 03 March 2005 02:49 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn: Has anyone who's posting here ever been homeless? You clearly have not. Most people in homeless shelters are there because they want to be. Somebody on welfare or making minimum wage can afford a relatively decent place to live in Canada. This is not true. Though I realize you are speaking from a vast sea of ignorance, and therefore feel like you know a lot, you really don't. Homeless shelters are not pleasant places to be, and nobody wants to be homeless. Welfare in BC provides $325/month for accommodation, which does not pay for anything decent in any city. Minimum wage amounts to ~1350/month. Low-end rent for a bachelor apartment is about $650 in Vancouver - throw in a couple kids and it isn't going to work. And why should the government give money to poor (and sometimes just plain lazy people) to live in Four Seasons or Hilton-esque surroundings? You have no idea what you are talking about. You really, amazingly, have no clue. What a pleasant fantasy world you inhabit. Too bad it has so little to do with reality. You really just have no understanding of poverty. I'm not going to be the one to teach you- I suggest you read a book or something. Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with affordable housing...it's just that "beggars shouldn't be choosers". There is not enough affordable housing, period. These people are not beggars - the majority of them are working 1 or more jobs, trying to feed their families. The problem is that it isn't enough - their kids and themselves are going hungry. Arborman--- If we drastically reduced the number of people working in the field...I'm sure greater amounts of funds could be used for concrete measures (literally) rather then endless debate and paper-pushing (no offense). Offense taken. How many people do you fantasize are working in the field? Millions? Thousands? Did you pull that little right wing canard out of the blue sky? There is no work in this field. I work as a researcher - I do some affordable housing advocacy and research 'off the side of my desk' (meaning for free). That is the case with most of us 'in the field'. There is no money for housing. Also - the money spent on research allows us to know where the need is, who needs it, and what is the best way to go about it. I know in your fantasy world these answers come out of the sky, but where millions or billions of dollars are (or should be) spent, it's a good idea to think about it first. Go figure. hat's the living conditions of the wait-list people?..are they living under highways and in bus shelters? Some of them. Others are living in substandard, unsafe, unhealthy housing, aren't able to feed their kids enough, and living lives of hard work and suffering. I know this is an alien concept to you - you reek of privelege. Why din't the BC government buy Kitsault? For $7 million hundreds of houses and apartment units could have purchased for "homeless" people. Did you really ask a question this stupid? What is the primary economic activity in Kitsault? What would these people do for a living? Are you suggesting a camp for poor people? Kitsault is a ghost town! is it that wait-list people are picky and want mansion like homes is exclusive neighbourhoods? And how many people from rural areas have left the country for the city? Lot's of units availible...just perhaps not up to the decadent lifestyle homeless people feel they're entitled. I am absolutely stunned. As far as banks, affordable housing and government interest....it would probably be cheaper to give families vacant units rather then charge the government(taxpayers) $50/person/night to sleep 10 to a room and eat expired food at Salvation Army. Yes it would. It's astonishingly cheaper to build and maintain affordable housing than it is to run shelters or all of the other things you need if you don't build enough affordable housing.
A thought occurs to me - are you confusing affordable housing with shelters? If so, I strongly suggest you do some reading, go out, buy a clue, then come back and let's talk. love to be one of the first people to move into a vacant factory. Think of them as trendy-loft units. Having people pay for hydro/cable/phone/net hookups plus small affordable mortgage payments would be a better strategy then overcharging taxpayers for SallyAnn type lodging. You think the poor can afford cable? I find your statements increasingly astonishing. and if people deserve adequate housing rather then dormitories...perhaps students in the future will demand that they too don't deserve to live in dorms. Students are not families. [q]I don't doubt that endless research has already been done. I also think endless research will continue to be done. If everyone had affordable housing...how would housing advocates make a living?[/qb] We'd find a way, I'm sure. By endless, I mean enough to know what's needed - enough to know that not doing it is more expensive. The problem with the research is that it hardly benefits those who need affordable housing. And you base this on what knowledge, exactly? Again with the certainties pulled from the sky and presented as if You have a clue. Archive and record pictures showing what's available. Have an upfront price for units that doesn't allow banks, gov's and real estate agents to try to recoup money lost on the unit from previous dwellers. People who have $100/month for food and bills do not have money for upfront prices. Again, your privelege is showing. Imagine if(this may be hard for you) someone came from a different background than you? Maybe grew up in a (gasp) poor house! Imagine if you had a mental illness, or a disability that prevented you from working? How about a workplace injury? I know, impossible - your privelege is showing. And gov's should seize private property. If the owner of the property is going to sit on the investment and allow the property degradation to effect not just the unit but the neighbourhood...something should be done. Winnipeg is actually thinking of doing just that. Absentee landowners should be held to account. We might have a bit of common ground. However, costwise, I imagine 'siezing' private property, with all the court costs, upheaval and outright violence that would involve might actually be a lot more expensive that just building some appropriate, adequate housing.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068
|
posted 04 March 2005 07:00 PM
I have been homeless for a few months and on welfare for a couple of months. The people I've met in shelters and "poor" housing areas tend to have on thing in common...a self-pity attitude. It's not enough for most of them to know that they're living better then 90% of the earths population. Alot of them are addicted to various bad habits. Even though most of them could spend their ample time reading books are surfing the Net in free library facilities...they'd rather get money (beg) for smokes, drugs or kingcans of beer. It's difficult to help people who don't want to be helped. The small amount of money welfare pays can certainly provide a for healthy meals. Tuna, sardines, seeds, beans, nuts, oatmeal, fruits, vegtables...some of the best food is the cheapest food. To overhaul welfare I'd provide debit cards to recipients tied directly to weston/walmart and other general retailers. No more drugs. No more booze. No more smokes. Public money shouldn't be subsidizing peoples bad habits. Where I work I've seen parents with very young children out buying beer and smokes at 2:00 in the morning. They use the welfare money for their bad habits and then go to the food bank for kids food. To strike the root of a number of social problems one simple solution could be developed. A persons worth, merit and promise should be deemed not through pieces of paper from fancy institutions....prospective employers should decide potential employees. The current system of hiring pretends there's no such thing as libraries, news/doc/discovery channels, internet learning, non fiction mags/books and radio stations. As it is now, the only way to prove ones worth is to spend big bucks outlaying funds to get a peice of paper. It's as if employers think people can't possibly learn things on their own. I think the heart of the problem is that there just won't be enough jobs to go around in the future. Because of automation/roboproduction, and outsourcing/offshoring western nations will have great difficulty finding meaningful work for lots of people. We should be headed towards a leisure class of society where most essential things are provided freely.
And don't get me wrong people...I'm not trying to knock people who want to help other people attain to a better life. It's just that after seeing and going through the system I wonder just what other measures they want the Fed's to provide for. Why is it that only BC and Quebec have utilized federal money for social housing?
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495
|
posted 08 March 2005 06:38 PM
quote:
Coyote said: Leuca: Do I understandstand from your argument that you would support a raise in high-income and corporate tax rates in order to lessen the burden on low and middle income earners?
I am not enough of an expert on issues surrounding corporate taxes to answer that question in detail. But I would like to make some points, some that are definately linked to your question. I personally would start my tax cuts for the very lowest income earners. I think it is a question of right and wrong. How can anyone justify taxing people who make less than what it costs just to pay for the most basic of human needs: food, shelter and clothing, which is the case for too many people in Canada. I believe it is unjustifiable. Not to mention that high taxes in general kill jobs, the very jobs the poorest people in Canada need to lift them out of poverty. Middle income and Lower Middle income earners would be my next target for tax cuts. I would also ask that leaders in our country and our communities stand up and talk more about work ethic, earning a living and getting ahead, picking yourself up, supporting yourself and your family to the best of your ability. As opposed to how can I get in on the gravy train. Which is a road to nowhere. As far as Corporations go, Corporations that do not make a profit do not pay income taxes. They do pay many other taxes, however whether they make a profit or not. For example, the towns and cities charge a certain amount in property taxes whether the corporation or business makes a profit or not. I have heard people quote statistics that show only a 'very small percentage' of corporations pay taxes. What they are really saying is only a 'very small percentage', whatever that percentage may be', pay income taxes, (when people talk about the taxes they and others pay there seems to be way of thinking that income taxes are the only taxes people pay, nothing could be further from the truth). I would only ask, of those corporations that do not pay income taxes, how many lost money?, how much did they lose?, and how much money did they pay in taxes with respect to the many other taxes that exist that corporations pay to actually conduct their business? Another point with respect to corporate taxes. Our corporate and business taxes here in Canada, whatever level they are, or whatever level they should be, must make us competitive (in order to keep and possibly attract more businesses) in terms of what other Countries charge in taxes, especially wrt what American Business taxes are since by geography they are certainly our biggest competitor. Finally, I believe that taxes are really too high in every area in Canada. Low Income, Middle Income, High Income and Business and Corporate Income. Although the Business Taxes may not need to be lowered by as much as what taxes on lower and middle income Canadians need to be. That's my impression. Maybe there are people who know more about the burden of Taxation of Corporations who would beg to differ.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495
|
posted 08 March 2005 09:18 PM
quote: 2. CMHC defines a household as in 'core housing need' if they spend more than 50% of their monthly income on housing. That works out to about 5% of the households in most cities (households consisting of 1 or more related people). People are considered 'at risk' of homelessness if they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on housing - meaning they are about 1 or 2 cheques away from disaster.
I think what you have done here is effectively outlined the problem. But what about the solution? How does the solution you propose solve the problem for the long term? Paying for all or a portion of an individual's or family's housing may be necessary in the short term (and would be a lot easier to do if governments had more resources, but sadly as we know they are saddled with a massive debt as a result of short sighted decision making by former politicians over the previous decades) but does nothing to address core, root causes of the problem in order to get to the longterm solutions that will ultimately benefit the people you are trying to help. Offering to pay for someone's housing will create a demand for that very housing as more people seek out assistance in paying for their housing. That money will have to come from somewhere and people are already under a heavy burden of taxes as it is. But if taxes do go up to pay for more affordable housing, then who will pay and what damage will be done to the overall economy and its ability to create jobs. High taxes and higher taxes clearly have a negative impact on jobs, especially when taxes are 'too high' in the first place. The jobs lost or the jobs not created are the cost of taking money from certain taxpayers in order to use it to pay for the housing of the many people who do indeed have difficulty paying for housing as it is. Lowering taxes will go a long way to allow more people to have the resources needed to pay for their own housing. quote: In BC, every single person collecting welfare is on this list. Not hard to do when the average rent is ~650/month and welfare pays a maximum of $525/month for a single adult.
Anyone only getting $525 a month should not be looking to pay $650 for an apartment unit, they should be looking for something within their budget. Maybe a room in a house. I know it's not ideal, but it's a start and it's more within their current budget.
quote: Leaving those folks aside, the vast majority of people in need of affordable housing are the working poor. THey are often working 2 or more jobs to make ends meet. The jobs don't pay much, and are often part-time, non-secure etc.
People who are struggling to get by with two jobs should be commended and honoured. They are doing the best they can, they are trying, they are suporting their basic needs. They should be pointed to as heros in our society and are setting a positive example to others, who may have given up or may be on the verge of giving up. Those people could definately use a tax cut. I would remove the unemployment contribution that part time employees are forced to pay, a policy brought in by the federal Liberals. I would like to see the Basic Personal Exemption immediately raised to $10,000, $12,000, or $15,000, whatever the government could afford. Let low income earners keep more of the money they earn, and give them incentive to work and earn. Let the deductions for children be more generous, because it is expensive to raise a family. Now workers have more money to spend in their community having a further positive impact on jobs. I also believe that some of the so called 'free trade' agreements we and the US have entered into have had a very negative impact on jobs. I would be looking to renegotiate those agreements in a way that does not destroy good paying jobs here and in the US.
quote: 4. Of those families, many are single parents. The majority of single parents are mothers. They cannot afford childcare, and are further limited in their ability to work. No tax break can help those who cannot work, or work part-time.
My view on single parents with pre-school children is that they need a great deal of support. Clearly working is not a choice available to many single parents because of the high cost of child care. Once the children are attending school the parent has at least some time to work and should be encouraged to do so. One problem though is single women who keep having more kids in order to get a bigger cheque. I don't know how to solve that problem. How do you create disincentives to make choices like that without hurting the child or children she already has. I don't know. Maybe the solution lies in stonger societal morals and values.
quote: 5. Leuca's discussion of restaurant consumption taxes demonstrates a certain wilful blindness - a person in this situation does not, ever, eat in a restaurant. Food Bank is essential, if they have the mobility and time to get there. If not, they go hungry, and their kids go hungry.
I spoke about homeless people. I was thinking of a homeless guy in a city grabbing a pizza slice or whatever. I don't see homeless people being able to take advantage of a food bank. I didn't mean to give the impression that low income and homeless people were dining in restaurants. I would point out as well that many grocery stores sell convenience foods that are taxed be it GST or PST. If society is going to have consumption taxes, I don't know how to go about not having homeless people pay the tax. It's not the most serious problem they face. Personally, I would rather see an income tax, with healthy Basic Personal Exemptions rather than a GST. It would be history if I had my way.
quote: 6. This is a big one - There was very little homelessness in Canada until about 20 years ago. At that point, the Conservative government started cutting funding for affordable housing. The Liberals under Martin dropped it altogether. Combined with the cuts to welfare rates, the increased consumption taxes (GST etc.) and lower real wages for people at the bottom end of the scale, and homelessness has become a national crisis.
The Progressive Conservatives certainly did bring in cuts. And they were shredded for it. And they subsequently took the easy way out of minimal cuts, large tax increases and balooning deficits, that we are still paying the price of. Because of increasing deficits of those years, and the higher interest burden that goes along with it, social program spending was starting to be squeezed out. It's what was happening to many governments because they didn't have the backbone to do the right thing. I would point out that the cuts made during the Mulroney years were nothing compared to the drastic, massive slashing and burning of the Chretien Liberals. They made Mulroney blush, they were so deep. quote: 7. Income Tax rates are simply not the issue here. We pay less tax than most developed countries, and tax cuts have a nonexistent impact on people who don't make any money. What we do here is tax the lower and middle classes as much as possible, and let the rich off the hook. This is a mistake. However, I'll meet you in the middle. Raise the basic personal exemption to 30,000, cut the GST as much as possible, and raise marginal tax rates on higher incomes. It could be revenue neutral easily enough.
Income taxes are but only one of the many taxes Canadians pay to all levels of government. And when you add it all up it's an enormous burden that is hurting people. Too often people talk about the income tax as if it were the only tax in existence. Clearly it is by far not the only tax. People who don't make money don't pay much in the way of taxes to any level of government, that is clear. But if the burden they face is too high if they were ever able to get a job they may not even bother working only to have the govenrment take much of it away. Especially when there is eg. after eg. of wasted taxpayer dollars. And especially since there are ways to get by without having to work much if at all in Canada. But lower taxes would have a positive impact on the economy's ability to create jobs. And Clearly people who do not currently have a job, or would perhaps like a better more well paying job could benefit from that. Was that $30,000 for an individual? I don't think it needs to be that high for an individual. Maybe for a family of 4. $10,000 for the man, $10,000 for the woman, and $5,000 or even $7,000 for each of the two kids. Raising the marginal tax rate on higher incomes is not the solution. Why would someone who could potentially earn a higher income by working, saving and investing more, bother to work save and invest more if the government is going to get the benefit of him or her busting their ass that little bit extra in order to make the extra money. You can put the top marginal rate however high you want, but you can't force people at that level to work the little or lot more. So you put that rate high enough and you get nothing or less. If a top marginal rate of 40% generates more money for the government than a 50% rate, then you go with the rate that gets the larger return. The choice of which tax rate to choose at all levels of income should be based on which one generates the most revenue. It should not be based on what rate will most effectively destroy the business community in the country. quote: [QUOTE]The root of this crisis is housing. The results of this crisis are, in no particular order: a. Dramatically increased crime & violence b. Dramatically increased property insurance rates c. Increased addiction rates d. Increased incarceration rates - when homeless, jail can be appealing.
I attribute these problems to the breakdown of the family unit, the deteriorating moral fibre of our society. Back in the Great Depression there were homeless people except back then they were called Hobos, but the people didn't bother to even lock their doors, there was no need back then. The way the issue of drugs in this country has been handled is a disgrace. They are illegal, but you can get them anywhere. I would crush the drug trade in this country, I wouldn't care how many people I'd have to throw in jail to get it done. I wouldn't care how many lawyers, doctors, politicians, business leaders who are in on the drug trade I'd have to throw in jail, I wouldn't care how many gangs I'd have to destroy to get the message out loud and clear drugs are illegal, they hurt people and if you traffic in drugs you'll pay an extremely high price. I would target the supply not the user, and I would use the full power of the government, whatever it took.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495
|
posted 08 March 2005 09:33 PM
quote: Courtney G Quinn said: I'm not sure if there's a shortage of affordable housing units available. And if there is, isn't it up to the banks to provide financing? I've done alot of walking in Winnipeg and Ottawa. I'm always amazed at all the vacant industrial, commercial and residential properties that aren't even being used (Winnipeg especially). The NDP should categorize and inventory how many units are on the market...and the general condition of those units.
quote: Aborman responding to Courtney said:Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn: I'm not sure if there's a shortage of affordable housing units available. You aren't sure, I am. I work in the field. The waiting list for a subsidized housing unit in Greater Vancouver is about 5 years for families. Singles it is more. That is a shortage - a large group of people in core housing need who are forgoing food and other necessities. There are 10,000 households on the waiting list for affordable housing in BC. Many others have given up or just aren't on the list. I don't know about the other provinces. So yes, there is a shortage.
My impression is that Courtney is pointing out how much available vacant and unused space there is available that could be redeveloped into the affordable housing you think is needed. It seems to me you misunderstood the point she was making. Courtney has offered a lot of good insights in her posts to learn from if you are willing to properly read and better understand what she is saying.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|