dbd33

Surely it's the people who are flawed, not the system. The system is based on the idea of familial responsibility, if one person suffers due to being a member of an unsupportive family, then that's unfortunate for that person but for that person only.

Almost Canadian

I have no doubt that civil servants are able to come up with a system that doesn't provide the assistance it should, but I can't be blamed for that.

From my clients' experience I can give the following example of how the system should work:

Dad (A) and mother (B) separate. B takes A to Court and gets a Court Order requiring A to pay $500 a month in child support to their child (C). A pays B nothing as a result of which A applies for welfare (doesn't matter what the benefit is called).

The government then learns of A's obligation to C via the Court Order and then compels B to bring an Application against A for payment of the child support. B doesn't wish to do so as she is receiving the funds from the government and she doesn't care whether she continues to do or whether they are paid by A.

I am happy that the government compels B to make the Application so that A can pay to raise C rather then the taxpayer. From experience, B's government cheques will be reduced by the amount she receives from A.

From your example, you appear to be suggesting that I am wrong to assist my brother as it will reduce the funding he may receive from the government. But, if I am able to assist him, why should the government (i.e., my neighbours) need to fund his lifestyle? In other words, what is he "need" if I am already meeting it? The government should be the funder of last resort.

BristolUK

I find it strange that your brother coming to stay with you becomes something about who funds his lifestyle as if its something extravagant.

But you're still sidestepping the issue about you having to reveal all your personal and financial details for someone else and their application. Not to mention this could be your brother's mate for whom you've been asked a favour of.

A likely outcome of this policy is that the individual goes where it won't happen and then gets full funding anyway.

Almost Canadian

No side stepping at all. Don't forget, in your example you are indicating that I am able to support him in his hour of need, that he still wants the government to chip in and that that is unfair.

If it was somebody that was simply couch surfing, I would suggest that, if they wished to proceed with their application, they leave and then apply using whatever address they then had.

For the avoidance of any doubt, if such a situation ever arose, I would be happy to supply the information/documentation, as most of it is known by the government anyway so I would not be telling them anything they don't really already know.

BristolUK

Actually it's more about having to support him.
Which just moves the problem onto that household, assuming he can persuade someone else instead to provide their details and perhaps fund him.
Except you'd be providing the information to your brother's friend not just the government.

But if you're still up for it, you and your household are now clients of the department of social development who will also require that you allow them to periodically check your bank account, you have to report changes in your income, possibly cash in your life insurance.

If you still say this is all reasonable then I don't know what to say.

scrubbedexpat091

Seems to be the way US and Canadian society works.

Families have no legal obligation to help one another as adults so its really not right for govt to expect family to do so.

Sometimes parents will even help one of their kids and let the other one go homeless or live in poverty.

Society is also flawed in many ways and ideally family would help but seems many have no ability to or dont want to.

Same with medical care.

The system expects family to take on the care once released from hospital but how is a family member able to be caregiver and work to provide income?

Anna Maria

Thank you

dbd33

They're not and, in any case, sooner or later the providing family member is going to die leaving the person in need of care without any. That's way I say Canada is not a good country in which to be disabled. Those who have other options should consider them and no one with a disability should move from Europe to Canada (not that the Canadians would welcome such an immigrant anyway).

scrubbedexpat091

True and good points.

MillieF

Yes, this seems to be the slide rule they apply for other benefits too. If you apply for Legal Aid for a criminal or family matter they ask the same thing. I find it a little difficult to comprehend how two 'flat sharers' which are 'room mates' here should be counted as financially responsible for one another. You apply to share a house with someone and are then your financial details get taken into account when the other person's situation changes seems a little mind boggling frankly.

BristolUK

Perhaps now you've said it, a certain someone won't think it's just me being lefty and unreasonable again.

Almost Canadian

I haven't called anyone names and my opinion remains as stated previously.

BristolUK

I know. That 'name' was one I gave myself.