Discussions

for food only. At least they can''t complain about having no food to eat. If they spend anymore on anything else then essentials, that is their problem. They know they should save some cash for clothing, household items, laundry, etc., but if they want to be dirty, not be able to keep up on their household items, by spending elsewhere, at least they should be eating. Of course, coupons aren''t foolproof...someone will sell theirs to someone else for something un-needed.  
 
Edited by Brenda, 2016-06-24 12:25:48

A Weathered Heart said "Fair enough. But... "They know they should save some cash for clothing, household items, laundry, etc" - should this not also be true, if not more so for food to sustain themselves?     Maybe it would work...     I've been talking to an American friend, and he says they have EBT cards. They're like food stamps, but it's a card. You can only use it on essentials. If we could implement something like that? It even has your photo on it, so not likely to be sold like a coupon.     Edited by A Weathered Heart, 2016-06-24 12:46:41"

But, I also know that I should save some cash for something essential - but even I screw up and spend on something I should not. But, I know I have screwed up, so have to cut back somewhere else. We all know what we should be able to live on per month, barring any disasters and for most of us working, we budget and make it work. lets see their budget? How they have it all worked out?  
 
EBT cards sound interesting.

Johnbisonbear said "    Brenda said "    Garret said "Sounds like tough break for you being unable to afford a home. Landlord's charge enough to cover the mortgage on the property and maintain the damage terrible tenants can cause.     Don't like your landlord? Buy your own place " I do own a home and got in, in 2001, before prices went crazy.     Tell me how, a person making say $15 an hour and living in a $800 rental is going to save to buy their first home, here in Brandon. Not only do you need the percentage down, you need proof of house insurance paid for, lawyers bill, do you have a lawnmower? You know dam well, people just can't go out and buy their own places.     I also rented while working full time and always was respectful to my landlord and the rules and he/she was respectful towards me.     As for welfare, all should be tested for drugs and alcohol. Instead of money for food, they should be given coupons to make sure they buy food. " at he end of your post.     I have a friend who says 'I cannot afford to own a house, that's why I rent'     I find it difficult to accept how some people get so much financial assistance from the three levels of government to be able to own a house.     Houses are a never-ending source of expense. Why should taxpayers help people OWN homes? What's next, vehicles? "

What's next, vehicles? Norway has a huge fund from their oil royalties.Approximately 1.7 trillion dollars. (Canada has none)and yes the government will buy unemployed workers vehicles if deemed necessary to help a unemployed person to become gainfully employed. Of course there is criteria that must be met. They are some of the world's happiest people with a very high standard of living. As well they are the highest taxed nation on the planet.

You were asking for a free ride... That's what this was all about...don't try to change it now....get a job

Do you know me???  
 
Exactly - you don''''t. Now, the reason I posted this was to bring it forward as an issue - did you know about this, before I posted about it???  
 
I didn''''t think so - May May - you seem to think there is nothing we can post on here that is not relevant to our own needs - sometimes its just that something needs attention - and that is why I post most of my posts.  
 
So, what topics do you wish to bring forward, for Awareness sake?!  
 
Edited by whatthewhat, 2016-06-26 21:25:54

I don't understand what the OP is upset about. There are some specific questions that come to mind when I read the OP and the document posted by another poster:  
 
1. The current schema of utilities included and utilities excluded, according to the letter, only existed since December 2015. What was it before that? What changed in December 2015?  
 
2. Did the changes in December 2015 benefit anyone vs. what existed prior to that date (i.e. did it achieve the desired aim)? Is it possible the program is changing because it wasn't functioning as intended, or the overwhelming majority of applicants elected to receive their utility money themselves?  
 
3. If your utilities are excluded (meaning the recipient isn't getting the money for them - I'm assuming it pays directly to the utility), is there a cap on the amount that the program will pay out? For example, it will pay your electric bill, but only $100 of it, or does it pay the entire bill no matter what the amount is?  
 
4. If there is a cap on what the program will pay for the utilities excluded, do the utilities included people receive the same amount as the cap, or a different amount? Do the two groups in fact receive the same or different amount of benefits (note that not all the benefits will make it's way to the pockets of the recipient as some would be paid directly the utility instead)?  
 
5. Which utilities does the program cover? Many rentals include basics like heat and water, and electricity is paid by the tenant, an amount that is fairly minimal if it's just for lights. I would assume luxuries like phone, cable and internet are not included in the program. What is the average utility bill for the average recipient? Are we talking hundreds a month or $30 a month?  
 
6. What specifically is the disadvantage to the recipient to receive their entire benefit as cash, for them to allocate to their needs as they see fit? This is assuming there's no actual decrease in benefits. Is the OP suggesting that EIA recipients are not responsible enough to manage their own money? I would assume it would be advantageous for someone to get the utility allowance included in their payments, because utility cost is highly influenced by behaviour, something within the realm of control of the recipient. A person could feasibly then reallocate those cost savings into other areas of their budgets - food, housing, gas for car, etc.

I fail to see how this should be the landlords problem!

Yeah.... I am one who agrees that landlords are being unfairly targeted here (as a renter, myself). However, consider my perspective on EIA.  
 
Assume EIA has $10,000 to work with. This is money which is entrusted to the from the Provincial Government (who in turn is given by taxes) has to be divided up by all who NEED it on an emergency or short term basis. Let's assume there are 40 applicants for assistance. Should all 40 qualify, that equates to $250 per person.  
 
However, only 25 meet the criteria.... $400 person.  
 
Average rent in my hypothetical situation is $600.  
 
Now.........  
4/25 have other sources of income the aren't reporting  
2/25 are second/third generation career EIA'ers  
3/25 are actually ready, willing and able to work but are missing the motive or incentive factor  
 
This would mean that 14 individuals could potentially share the $10,000 at $625 each!  
 
Where are the answers here? Raise taxes? Lobby government to budget $15,000 instead? Create stricter EIA applicant criteria? Screen existing recipients more stringently? Create more social programs to encourage or facilitate back-to-work or education programs?  
 
VERSUS!  
 
- Telling landlords to donate part of their mortgage and investments.  
- Accusing privately owned businesses of inhumane price gouging the lesser fortunate.  
 
If you are falling short each month.... up your game! 'Reality' really is a lot like Monopoly and some individuals need to work harder, think smarter or just make sacrifices to rise above the proverbial glass ceiling.

Soul said "Yeah.... I am one who agrees that landlords are being unfairly targeted here (as a renter, myself). However, consider my perspective on EIA.     Assume EIA has $10,000 to work with. This is money which is entrusted to the from the Provincial Government (who in turn is given by taxes) has to be divided up by all who NEED it on an emergency or short term basis. Let's assume there are 40 applicants for assistance. Should all 40 qualify, that equates to $250 per person.     However, only 25 meet the criteria.... $400 person.     Average rent in my hypothetical situation is $600.     Now.........   4/25 have other sources of income the aren't reporting   2/25 are second/third generation career EIA'ers   3/25 are actually ready, willing and able to work but are missing the motive or incentive factor     This would mean that 14 individuals could potentially share the $10,000 at $625 each!     Where are the answers here? Raise taxes? Lobby government to budget $15,000 instead? Create stricter EIA applicant criteria? Screen existing recipients more stringently? Create more social programs to encourage or facilitate back-to-work or education programs?     VERSUS!     - Telling landlords to donate part of their mortgage and investments.   - Accusing privately owned businesses of inhumane price gouging the lesser fortunate.     If you are falling short each month.... up your game! 'Reality' really is a lot like Monopoly and some individuals need to work harder, think smarter or just make sacrifices to rise above the proverbial glass ceiling. "

You hit the nail on the head here Soul! This is the logical way to look into the problem, rather than blaming a group of people that have nothing to do with the changes.  
 
To the OP: You keep saying that you were just trying to ''bring the issue forward''...but the reality is, most of your original post is directed toward landlords. Sorry but if you think calling out landlords to do something about this is ''bringing the issue forward'', then you''re not going to get very far toward any sort of solution here.  
 
How about this? Say I''m a landlord and the rental market goes a bit south and I lose a few tenants. Property taxes and maintenance costs are still the same, so I''m no longer able to cover my expenses. Should I come on here and ask all Renters of Brandon what ''humanitarian action'' they are going to take to help me out? Maybe my remaining tenants will help out of the goodness of their hearts by paying me more rent every month to make it up for me?  
 
Edited by thatsjustme, 2016-06-27 10:42:26

I have received positive feedback as well - there are actually home owners/churches reaching out to ask how they can help.  
 
Sad to say most of you sit on here and post negative bashing comments. So, what is your comment on a SOLUTION to this problem. Do you not appreciate learning about what is happening to a specific echelon/cohort group??  
 
Now, can you switch from your "attack mode" to a more positive problem solving brainstorming method [Humanities concept thinking???] I think it takes a specific type of person, who perhaps has different morals/values/attitudes/perceptions than most posters I have read thus far.  
 
But, keep on posting, I see it as alot of people venting in a negative frame of mind.  
 
Thanks for your contributions - and this thread is providing data on the thinking/perspectives/Humanity reflections of this community - and thus far, it is clear to see there is a "Stigmatized Attitude prevalent" -

TEN said "    curlysister said "TEN, EI is a federal program (Employment Insurance). EIA is a provincial welfare system (Employment and Income Assistance). " I see. Never heard of EIA before and OP did not make the distinction. "

how cruel of me to make you do some research, and think !!! Who wants to be spoon fed now???  
 
Interesting.