Food Banks

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

What a weird view, when we all know that in reality, if we have more people starving to death, the solution to that will be to increase the yearly intakes of FNSs to make up for the losses

you have an extremely callous and bizarre sense of humour.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A lot of people have no idea what being poor is like. That's why you get trite suggestions like, "Just shop around."

They assume the poor, like themselves, have plenty of time. But if you know anybody who is actually poor, they are usually trying to get by on more than one job. Guess they should shop around in the time they are transiting from one job to the next.

Indeed. I spent a few years in the poorhouse, and the only thing I had less of than spare time was spare money. I was going from one job to the next, often without sleep for days at a time, and living in a shitty town of 5K that had no public transit (other than milk run city buses to the much larger town 45 minutes due south, but there were only 3 such buses, each way, everyday). Trust me, I shopped around but there was little in the way of choice (such fond memories of my 30 minute walk from the bus stop, with bulging bags of generic brand groceries, with much of this walk taking place along a busy highway that lacked a sidewalk). I reckon the majority of poor people are working poor with precarious employment, or single moms, and not people lying on the couch all day, drinking beer while collecting welfare.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A lot of people have no idea what being poor is like. That's why you get trite suggestions like, "Just shop around."

Counterpoint: A lot of people are broke because they are terrible with money. This isn't limited to those making minimum or low wages either.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Counterpoint: A lot of people are broke because they are terrible with money. This isn't limited to those making minimum or low wages either.

There have always been people "terrible with money". But they didn't necessarily need food banks like now, I feel. The buffer between "we're a bit sloppy with money but overall OK" and "oh crap, this hurts" is getting narrower, it seems.
Poor, single income family raising multiple kids might have "scraped by" before. Now it's dual-income families with one (or no) kids.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Like most of the food panic it just takes some shopping around. I am paying $15 a month for cell phone. But yeah I don't watch videos on the train and need to wait for wifi.

Uh, do you even take the train? Or leave your house long enough to rely on anything but WiFi?

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This is the attitude that makes you broke. Two stores a week. Flyer match and stock up. And buy the sales instead of insisting on the apples or brands you like. Lentils and rice have as much protein as Chicken breasts. Yes all of this takes some knowledge, literacy and cooking skills. I don't blame the people filling their cart at Loblaws with Hamburger helper and the $8 400g packs wondering why the dollar doesn't stretch but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to spend less without driving all around town or grinding your own meat.



1 GB a month but that's becaues I am with them for 2 years so free bonus and then drop down to the 0 data plan.

No, lentils and rice don’t have as much protein as chicken. It’s less than half.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A lot of people have no idea what being poor is like. That's why you get trite suggestions like, "Just shop around."

They assume the poor, like themselves, have plenty of time. But if you know anybody who is actually poor, they are usually trying to get by on more than one job. Guess they should shop around in the time they are transiting from one job to the next.

Reminds me of the one time I got Uber eats delivered by someone taking the West Coast express. Food arrived a day late and I only got notified after he took the return trip home, but I still tipped 25%.

[Bcasey25raptor]

If this country had a proper welfare state, there wouldn't be a need for food banks.

But no, we're too influenced by the selfish American "F you, I got mine" mindset

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You present all of the problems with none of the solutions. What's the alternative? Allow people to starve?

Maybe our grocery companies should be mandated to send 10% of profits to food banks across the country.

Raise welfare and disability rates, raise the minimum wage, invest in social and supportive housing, a food stamp program

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Look at the excessive taxes on cigarettes and alcohol that disproportionately hurt low income Canadians. Greed greed greed. It’s everywhere.

Smoking and drinking are a choice and our tax dollars pay for healthcare of which those who smoke and drink will need to use more of. It's only fair that we tax vices.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Smoking and drinking are a choice and our tax dollars pay for healthcare of which those who smoke and drink will need to use more of. It's only fair that we tax vices.

These people already pay for their healthcare in regular taxation. Just like everybody else… should accident victims pay more?

How about a luxury tax… you don’t need a Mercedes.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Raise welfare and disability rates, raise the minimum wage, invest in social and supportive housing, a food stamp program

Yeah we're are moving in the opposite direction. We spend almost $10 Billion on Ontario Works and Disability. There are claims it needs to double to get people out of poverty. Fixing housing needs an almost endless amount of money. Food stamps? Another $10 Billion? Also the more ou raise rate the more people start to use the programs. While as someone else said there aren't a lot of lazy people sitting on the couch but make not working sustainable and you get more people doing it. Look at how hard it was to get people to work when CERB was in full swing.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hecate

These people already pay for their healthcare in regular taxation. Just like everybody else… should accident victims pay more?

How about a luxury tax… you don’t need a Mercedes.

The main point of the tax isn't just to raise revenue. It's a way to discourage people from doing personally and socially destructive things while still giving more personal freedom than you'd have if banning it. If you made them illegal like with some other drugs, no one could make the choice for themselves and if they broke the rules, the penalty would likely be more destructive to them than paying extra tax. People can have their whole life ruined by being convicted on drug possession charges for instance.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The main point of the tax isn't just to raise revenue. It's a way to discourage people from doing personally and socially destructive things while still giving more personal freedom than you'd have if banning it. If you made them illegal like with some other drugs, no one could make the choice for themselves and if they broke the rules, the penalty would likely be more destructive to them than paying extra tax. People can have their whole life ruined by being convicted on drug possession charges for instance.

That approach to taxation is terrible. We don't need the puritans running government.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yeah we're are moving in the opposite direction. We spend almost $10 Billion on Ontario Works and Disability. There are claims it needs to double to get people out of poverty. Fixing housing needs an almost endless amount of money. Food stamps? Another $10 Billion? Also the more ou raise rate the more people start to use the programs. While as someone else said there aren't a lot of lazy people sitting on the couch but make not working sustainable and you get more people doing it. Look at how hard it was to get people to work when CERB was in full swing.

When CERB was in full swing, there was a pandemic ongoing and many critical services that made working possible were still shut down.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

That approach to taxation is terrible. We don't need the puritans running government.

You could go pre-puritan and simply have drinks meted out by alewives and that would be the only way of getting alcohol.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Smoking and drinking are a choice and our tax dollars pay for healthcare of which those who smoke and drink will need to use more of. It's only fair that we tax vices.

Except of course if they're junkies. Then we'll just give them free drugs.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except of course if they're junkies. Then we'll just give them free drugs.

Hey now, just because some fringe activists lobby the libs doesn't mean we all agree with it. I support Ebys stance where public drug use is illegal.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

That approach to taxation is terrible. We don't need the puritans running government.

So then you're for complete legalization of all currently banned or restricted substances? Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. a total free for all? For me, if there are some things that are so harmful that they should be banned to protect individuals and societies (such as what are sometimes referred to as "hard drugs") then it makes perfect sense that for others stuff that's also dangerous but with less severe danger we'd discourage them but not outright ban then. I don't personally see the issue.

This has nothing to do with puritanism where authorities like the clergy or theocratic governments forbid things on "moral" grounds. Like it being illegal to be gay or expose your head in public. We're talking about something that has well documented, scientifically verified and quite serious risks. Moral purity has nothing to do with it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hecate

These people already pay for their healthcare in regular taxation. Just like everybody else… should accident victims pay more?

How about a luxury tax… you don’t need a Mercedes.

Do you understand what the word "accident" means? Nobody wakes up in the morning intending to get into an accident. But smokers do wake up in the morning with the intention to smoke. And given the costs incurred to society they should pay for it.

There are people who say, "what about the obese?". To them I say, we should tax sugar too. We should be trying to avoid paying for more diabetes and heart disease too. The fact that double-double is this country's coffee of choice (basically a liquid cake) is gross. And that's not some war on the working class. Go to Europe. You won't see much of the working class drowning their coffee in sugar.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Do you understand what the word "accident" means? Nobody wakes up in the morning intending to get into an accident. But smokers do wake up in the morning with the intention to smoke. And given the costs incurred to society they should pay for it.

There are people who say, "what about the obese?". To them I say, we should tax sugar too. We should be trying to avoid paying for more diabetes and heart disease too. The fact that double-double is this country's coffee of choice (basically a liquid cake) is gross. And that's not some war on the working class. Go to Europe. You won't see much of the working class drowning their coffee in sugar.

You knew the risks when getting into the car, or walking across the street. Why should I pay for that?