Or in Scarborough near rent-geared-to-income housing. In Summer those apartments are packed with Newfies, sleeping on the floor contrary to the lease. They come and earn enough for their stamp then go home and laze all winter. It's an entrenched culture of benefit exploitation such as the Mail regularly has conniptions about.

EI payments are about 55% of your average wage over the previous 6 months.

It also covers maternity leave and sickness for those who do not get sick pay from their employer.

'yis my son. 'Tis payback for Confederation.

In a similar vein, in that part of rural Newfoundland that depends upon the fishery, everything revolves about getting your 14 weeks work so you can get EI through the rest of the year. Whilst, I can see the argument for sustaining rural communities, the Daily Mail reader in me gets all hot under the collar about supporting people who could/should go find a year round job somewhere else.

To a maximum. (Previously quoted up thread.)

Thinking of those housing projects, and the many elsewhere in the GTA, and the sale of council houses in the UK, I wonder which country now has the more state owned* housing.

* State owned in all forms.

The problem with benefits in the uk, as far as I can see is they are poor for people that need help and rewarding for those who chose to exploit the system

Where is it not so?

I can't speak about anywhere else from experience, but I don't here of many countries putting people up in 1 million plus pads at tax payers expense.

Is that a regular occurence in the UK?

If they have the place already, and unemployment is likely to be a temporary state of affairs, I dont see who gains by them being forced out in the short term. Obviously abuse of the system is a problem with any welfare provision, regardless of location.

Not sure what would happen here were I unable to afford my mortgage payment through short term unemployment, there seems no welfare coverage for that.

Then again, in some parts of the SE a million quid doesnt get you too much. Should all the unemployed be removed from central london?

I accept that living on benefits is no picnic anywhere. I was merely suggesting that if the OP thinks that Canadian welfare is similar, say, to American, s/he is in for a big surprise.

for people to be helped by benefits after losing a job even help with housing cost I am all for, but for someone to be living in benefit culture to demand a move because he doesn't like the neighbourhood and then to be moved to a 1 million plus pad is plain wrong.As is a woman drawing £390 per week as a single mum with 2 teenage kids. How many working families have that much cash to spend after the mortgage ,council tax kids school dinners and so on have been paid for?

Lets face it, we all know the real cause of all these problems in the UK is uncontrolled immigration. Droves of immigrants have been abusing the hospitality of the British tax payer for a long time now. It's one of the reasons I emigrated.

You had me going for a minute....

Judging by comments in the press and on forums in this part of Canada there might be the equivalent.

Again, I have to say that is a myth.

Housing Benefit can still be claimed on a low income basis if the wage gain is not sufficient to take care of rent. The assessment process does leave a gain on benefit levels.

Housing Benefit can be extended for a month regardless of new wage levels. Back to work grants are available.

It's all there if people can be bothered to look and actually read the literature issued and on display in Job Centres.

It's not great, but it's better than benefits and it can lead to better.

There was a channel four documentary last year that you should watch if you can. It's interesting viewing, especially seeing how the companies contracted to "help" unemployed people turn out to be just cash grabs from the tax payer.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters

There are also couple of people shown where the marginal benefit of working meant was such that it just was not worth it for them. Would you put in a 40 hour week to be 10 quid better off?