dboy

According to these figures, it's worse in the UK (3.8 million kids). I do remember it being particularly bad in manchester:

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/uk...ertyfacts.html

dboy

That's the problem with what is essentially an honour system. Given they are strapped for money as it is, it's just not realistic to expect enforcement. Makes you mad though. Some people have no shame.

Alan2005

True, but I suspect the people with the brass neck to do this are probably in the minority. It could be the well dressed women had just lost her job or even just been to an interview; you just can't tell by appearances.

JonboyE

This is done deliberately. The food bank sets out to give assistance while respecting the dignity of the recipients. They would rather give food to people who don't need it than discourage those that do need help from seeking it.

sparkling_gal

That happened to me a few years ago. I was an assault victim and v poorly for many months. Like you say - if you were renting - you'd get your rent paid. But a lot of us bought houses cos the government encouraged folk to do so.

It really bugs me when folk assume everyone that is unable to work is a sponger. I wonder how they would feel if they became a victim of accident or crime and suddenly couldn't work?

dboy

True - or it was here friend's car. But I think that the food bank here is more prominent in every day culture and thus is more likely to be used by those that are not 'poor' in the true sense of the word.

dboy

Good point. No need in making people feel scrutinized when its a bad enough blow to one's pride asking for a handout

wheatsheaf

you inspire limited sympathy yourself.

you ignore the fact that these people have worked many many years, and kept to the 'social contract' of contributing at least by not milking the system at the same time supporting it. That they have bought homes as they have a right to in any developed country, should not make them eligible to be treated as millionaires especially when the real millionaire are getting subsidised by the nation's tax revenues.

Alan2005

So? my tax dollars shouldn't be helping them get a free or subsidized asset. I also don't want my tax going towards people who bought things they can't really afford - yeah it sucks for them, but the prudent should not be bailing out the feckless. Yes, they have a right to buy a house, but they also have the responsibility to pay for it or face foreclosure.

wheatsheaf

so they shouldnt be buying things they cant afford? what world do you live in? That is precisely the formula in all free economies, and if it were not, there would be revolutions everywhere. Moreover, most people buy homes in the sincere belief that by working hard they will be able to own those homes. That they find themselves in penury through no fault of their own should not also mean living in the street.

Alan2005

Where to start with this nonsense.

The economy does not run on people buying things they can't afford (have you been asleep for the last two years or something?). When people borrow money to pay for something, they are drawing down their future income. There is a default risk that they might not be able to pay for this which is built into the interest rate (the reason for the credit crunch is that the price of debt was far too low for the risk). However there is no assumption of not being able to afford it.

John buys a house at 10x salary, but is so stretched that he can't afford to pay for proper payment protection insurance.
Jane buys a house at 5x salary, and therefore can afford to be properly insured.

John and Jane both 'work hard' at the same place but have been laid off. Jane gets to keep her house cos she didn't take a stupid risk. John is in the shit and will have his house taken away from him.

Explain to me why John isn't an idiot who has bought something he cannot afford. Explain to me why John should get to keep his house and in your explanation, try and explain to me why Jane should have bothered with insurance at all.

And while you are doing this, try not to refer to 'working hard' and 'social contract' as those are meaningless phrases designed to prompt a positive emotional response. Typically they are used by politicians when they want to obfuscate an argument; I mean why not go the whole hog and say 'hard working canadian families'.

Jingsamichty

Excellent post, Alan. Amended only slightly.

iaink

Google the Edscha plant closing in Niagara Falls for just one example. This one was followed by a CBC documentary.


German parent company closed a salvageable plant (Edscha were profitable in Canada at the time by the way), which is bad enough, but then it transferred all its its assets to a non canadian subsidiary, and then claimed poverty (having stripped the assets itself) and being unable to pay the contractually due severance and pension commitments in favour of the workers getting the legal minimum entitlement, which the tax payers of ontario will pick up the tab for. Its totally immoral, it happens far too often, and the government does nothing to freeze the assets of these corporations to stop it.

wheatsheaf

where have u been the last decade, let alone the last 2 years?. You are the victim of obfuscation, and the sheep mentality. See post 73. In your world there are only 2 socioeconomic strata: man eating man, and man eating nothing. That is NOT the Canadian way, or so I was led to believe. If yours IS the Canadian way, I want no part of it. Too many generations have sacrificed too much for too long to have life lowered to your level of existence.

Alan2005

That would be a no you can't explain then.