Welfare System

Welfare. The Canadian system is flawed. If you have previous work experience (work history) you are entitled to receive less then someone who's a drug addict. Here we have two options which are available, welfare and disability. If your on welfare, you can get up to $550 dollars a month. If you are on disability and you can't work, you are entitled to 1,000 dollars per month for a single person. If you have kids then you get more per child. Anyone applying gets a case worker (social worker) and if she/he is nice they can give you what they want; of course over the years many people have been abusing the system and been getting ridiculous amounts of money, so they have had to inforce new rules. The rules are: for every little bit more you are receiving you have to get a form signed, Volunteering gets you $100 dollars. A special diet etc. Allergies gets you up to, $200 dollars. Transportation gets gets you $100 dollars. (Although not everyone gets transportation) All in all any normal person should make about $550.

In the UK:
being single on welfare barely any help,no cheap government housing...well I was told 20+ years and if you come in illegal or on asylum reasons you get everything handed to u on a plate and can just pop out as many babies as you want. When there's people like me working as a live-in carer 22/7,no days off,evenings etc with no base as I can't afford private rent and have no dependants!

In USA:

Limits vary by state. For example, in Pennsylvania, the maximum that a woman with two kids can receive is $408 per month, plus food stamps of about $200 per month and Medicaid for the children. There is some subsidized housing available, but not a large percentage of people receiving TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) live there.

Also, there is a 60-month lifetime maximum for benefits (some states it's shorter), adults must look for work or be in training for same, minors with children must live with their parents, paternity of the children must be established in order to receive benefits.

Because of these regulations, people receiving TANF have dropped from 13 million in 1996 to about 3 million today.

Did I miss the question?

Yeah, Canada sucks. This is news?

I'm sorry I guess the question is do you think its fair system, all around the world; should it cater to women and children? Drug abusers, health issues...And does it help the economy?

Originally posted by rudester
I'm sorry I guess the question is do you think its fair system, all around the world; should it cater to women and children? Drug abusers, health issues...And does it help the economy?

It could help the presents brother in Africa get a new dirt floor.

There is a slight bias against single people, especially single men, but it seems almost blindingly obvious that people with dependents or mental health/substance abuse issues should be prioritized. I'd like to see more attention paid to former inmates, though, in many systems they are more excluded from government assistance than are regular citizens.

There should be a law that requires people to first get a license proving they are financially and emotionally capable of raising children before actually having any.

People that run away poppin out babies (men or women) without care for the effect on the society around them. Imagine a world where every had to test to qualify before having a child.

yeah and just imagine the size of the government that would supervise/approve and regulate birthing privileges. We'd be China of the West...I understand the need to govern those who don't/can't govern themselves but it's a slippery slope. The same is true of welfare, there is a need and moral obligation but the trick is determining who should receive help and for how long the help should be given.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
yeah and just imagine the size of the government that would supervise/approve and regulate birthing privileges. We'd be China of the West...I understand the need to govern those who don't/can't govern themselves but it's a slippery slope. The same is true of welfare, there is a need and moral obligation but the trick is determining who should receive help and for how long the help should be given.

I think we should learn some lessons from the west. I think if we are going to move into a positive future, that life should have more discipline so that people don't become dependent on a system that should only be used when needed.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is a slight bias against single people, especially single men, but it seems almost blindingly obvious that people with dependents or mental health/substance abuse issues should be prioritized. I'd like to see more attention paid to former inmates, though, in many systems they are more excluded from government assistance than are regular citizens.

Actually, well here in Canada to be clearer, if you have any type of substance abuse, mental health issues you do get more money then lets say someone who recently got fired. Men tend to get less then girls because there is a bias that men should be more capable of working then girls. It sounds off but we live in stereotypical society.

Why have kids if you can't feed them!! ESPECIALLY...when they have multiple kids and gather it.

Originally posted by rudester
Why have kids if you can't feed them!! ESPECIALLY...when they have multiple kids and gather it.

Originally posted by rudester
Actually, well here in Canada to be clearer, if you have any type of substance abuse, mental health issues you do get more money then lets say someone who recently got fired. Men tend to get less then girls because there is a bias that men should be more capable of working then girls. It sounds off but we live in stereotypical society.

that was my point

people with greater needs should be prioritized by the system, hence, people with substance abuse issues should be taken care of before able bodied males.

I also agreed with the bias against males, but I feel this is more a bias against single people, and tbh, there are far more egregious issues (child custody laws for instance) that I would point to as clear bias against men.