# Solving Low Income Housing Problems



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I was thinking about why low income housing is such a problem for the communities they are in. The problem of course is crime and drugs. 

My thinking is people who get picked to go into low income housing should either be reformed or not convicted of criminal acts. Also if you are convicted of criminal acts or vandalism of the property then you should be evicted and someone more responsible should take your place.

I understand people have issues or are down and out for whatever reason but that shouldn't stop people who are willing to be good citizens from getting the low income rental properties. The message should be that if you are trying to be a good Canadian then you should be the first in line and bad Canadians should pay the price.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I know a landlord who specializes in working with low income families. He’s not a slum landlord, his places are very nice, thick laminate floors, tile, full sized appliances, modern colours, in units that are in fairly good neighbourhoods. 

His eviction rate is much higher than the norm, and the repairs he needs to make between tenants are usually extensive. The low income people have no respect for the properties, they feel resentful towards the landlord and the government programs that support them. They seem to be the victims all the time, so they trash the things they are given. 

Personally, I don’t get this attitude. When I was dead broke, I appreciated every little thing I had, but then I wasn’t given any of them. I also was heavily motivated to change my lifestyle as I had nothing and was going into debt pretty fast. Live was very uncomfortable. 

Perhaps there is too much treating these people like they are victims and giving them too much instead of making them earn it themselves. I’m not saying I want them to go through what I did, but make life uncomfortable for them, show them that, if they do this, they can afford to do that, and make them change their lifestyle. 

Nothing being done now really breaks the pattern, then we wonder why nothing changes. 

I think it would be an interesting psychology experiment to discover why those who have nothing routinely destroy what they are given.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

You need to be more specific. You are generalizing to say that low income housing is 'such a problem'. We have 2 housing co-ops within 3 blocks of us that have existed for the 35+ years we have lived here. No sirens, no gangs, no shootings, no area B&E's, well kept. I will say that the residents are a diverse group, no predominance of a single culture or background. I have wondered if that makes a difference.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We have many coops that are well maintained. I think church groups are better landlords.

The bad landlords tend to be in the news all the time for cockroaches, bedbugs and other bylaw infractions.

On cleanliness etc...we have bought several homes over the years and were often dismayed at the state of repair they left their homes in, regardless of their personal wealth.

Some people......rich or poor........live like pigs.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion I am thinking of those who can't really work much and may have health problems. 

As Just a Guy said these people trash places and do the crime. Again I don't think they are all bad and the ones who are willing to look after the place and not doing crime should be the ones in these places. The people who don't respect there property and the community should not have access to these properties. Of course many bleeding hearts wouldn't agree so maybe they build the low income homes for the bad ones in in their neighbourhood.

Sags I think these bad landlords just don't care because their tenants don't care so why put the money in. 

Society really needs to press accountability and just being a responsible citizen as the way to get by for those who are in need.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

On a side note to this I saw a National Geographic special on a study following people from their childhood like two years old until up into their forties. The study found the most important factor that successful people had from the early years and up was self control. Those who had little self control turned out to be the down and out or losers. The study did say however that self control could be taught so all is not lost if they don't naturally show it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I remember my buddy saying that social services will rehouse the same people multiple times a year. Meaning they get evicted multiple times a year. Sometimes this is guest management, they have bad friends and the friends cause the problems. Instead of getting rid of these "friends", they are taught the government will bail them out no matter what. 

He has talked to case workers and they are usually very frustrated as well. They play lip service to "many are abused, have substance problems, etc." But that's not really an excuse to trash your own home. Maybe it's an excuse as to why they have bad friends, but there must also be some element of choice here. I chose not to be a victim when I was injured for example. 

Now, to be fair, my buddy also says he's had some very good tenants that are low income which he's housed for years.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The best way to solve "low income" problems is to raise the income.

A guaranteed minimum income should solve a lot of these problems.

In some cities "affordable" housing is well above the "low income" threshold and it is becoming a real problem.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I don't think raising income levels for the idiots Justaguy is talking about is going to help much.

There should be a black list for people who trash a place or doing crime in the community. If you are on the black list then the land lord can elect not to rent to you. It will be tough on these people but that is what you get when you disrespect someone's property. To come off the black list you would need to have a waiting period and do some kind of community service and prove that you are a changed individual.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Many of these people have their rent paid, their groceries paid, a child tax credit, some form of subsidy...

How exactly is it "unaffordable"? It's all paid. Of course, it doesn't stop them from buying drugs, alcohol and other "necessities"...oh, they also have access to free detox programs and support groups. Giving them more money doesn't change the fact that many misspend the money they have. These are behaviour issues, not money issues.

Personally, I don't see how my buddy does it, the government pays for the damages, but they don't pay for the hassle.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

When the government tries to fix a problem the unintended consequences just makes matters worse 

It was not that long ago the government in the US thought it was everyone right to own a home & made the banks loan out money weather a person could afford or not which resulted in the housing crash 07/08. Though the banks just bundled up mortgages & sold them off so they would not have skin in the game.

Government grants & loans for education has helped to increase the price of college & university as people have more money to throw @ education.

The poor will always be with us trying to change the fact so there will be no more poor will have unintended consequences. Cant really throw good money after bad as one rotten apple in a box of apples can make the other apples bad if the bad apple is not left alone.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

One of the problems I see with low income housing is that 90% of renters don't give a flying **** about their place, they trash it, get it infested with pest, they don't report it and pest gets spread all over the building... I work in the pest control industry and this kind of places are plagued with bed bugs, cockroaches, mice, rats, just to name a few and the costs to "fix" those problems are incredible high, and landlords won't pay for the actual price for a full treatment, instead they pay for a quick band aid, which is like a 1/3 of the actual cost of the treatment but 1/3 of the work also gets done. Would it make any difference if they paid the full price? no, why? because to eliminate bed bugs from this suites you'd need to treat the whole building to begin with, remove drywall to treat inside the walls, remove all belongings to a "bed bug sauna" to try and kill what's inside their belongings and the list goes on... 

Fixing the low income housing problem? good luck, only this problem will get most low income landlords bankrupt.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

tavogl said:


> Fixing the low income housing problem? good luck, only this problem will get most low income landlords bankrupt.


 Will bankrupt the taxpayer as well when subsidized. (the tax payer is probably already bankrupt)


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Here are ways to treat bedbugs successfully without heat treatment and tearing the place apart. I've done it, but it's expensive and takes a long time. Meanwhile any tenant can bring in a new batch at a moments notice. 

I know one landlord who discovered his tenants breeding cockroaches in their place to eat. They had a large bowl one them by the TV set on a table and a terrarium full of them. Needless to say, he had a hell of a time evicting them because of tenant friendly rules while, at the same time, was getting letters from the health board for having an infested property.

These are examples of Sag's victims who need more money thrown at them.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

When on vacation in San Clemente in the fall saw a huge house covered in a tarp that was made to the dimensions of the house so it fit like a glove. The Tarp was left on for about a week my guess they were getting ride of some type of bug


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

Just a Guy said:


> Here are ways to treat bedbugs successfully without heat treatment and tearing the place apart. I've done it, but it's expensive and takes a long time. Meanwhile any tenant can bring in a new batch at a moments notice.
> 
> I know one landlord who discovered his tenants breeding cockroaches in their place to eat. They had a large bowl one them by the TV set on a table and a terrarium full of them. Needless to say, he had a hell of a time evicting them because of tenant friendly rules while, at the same time, was getting letters from the health board for having an infested property.
> 
> These are examples of Sag's victims who need more money thrown at them.


Treating bed bugs without removing drywall is fine if the place beside you is not infested, of if your place is not highly infested, I've been to some units where you can see bed bug droppings all over the door, door frame, power outlets, etc, you can not treat that place without removing the drywall, you also have to treat every single unit around it, all sides, underneath and above.

A tip I can give you is do not use chemicals for treating bed bugs, you will push them inside the walls and make the problem worse.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

lonewolf :) said:


> Will bankrupt the taxpayer as well when subsidized. (the tax payer is probably already bankrupt)


Agreed, I work with low income property managers all the time and they get subsidized all the time to try to get a head of the problem. 500$ to treat a single unit, and in 1 or 2 months the unit needs to be treated again, hell, we even have buildings we inspect twice a month and each and every time we get about 10 rooms positive for bed bugs, a 500$ a pop, to the math, or they pay 1/3 for 1/3 of the job and well... you know the story.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Tenants breeding cockroaches to eat is certainly a cheap way to eat. I have to admit I have never heard of that one before.

Tavogl is there any way that one could regulate tenants so as not to bring in bedbugs. Not letting idiots in who are criminals and vandals would be easy, if the government ever did it, but the problem you bring up sounds much harder to deal with.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I doubt anyone is getting rich on these amounts of monthly benefits in Ontario.

​_Single Person (no spouse or children) ​$721
​Recipient and a spouse (no children) ​$1118
​Recipient, spouse and one child under the age of 18 ​$1172
​Recipient and two children under the age of 18 (no spouse) ​$1040_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There are some novel ways to solve the affordable housing problem. One way is to place tiny individual homes on city property and the people live in their own units.

It solves the bug problems and allows people to live alone, but within a village type of atmosphere.

https://charterforcompassion.org/pr...he-homeless-an-affordable-solution-catches-on


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some 5 star resorts and hotels have bug infestations.........so I don't think it is specifically a low income problem.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> I doubt anyone is getting rich on these amounts of monthly benefits in Ontario.
> 
> ​_Single Person (no spouse or children) ​$721
> ​Recipient and a spouse (no children) ​$1118
> ...


Those are only the base amounts, there are many ways you can top those off with other grants and things.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> There are some novel ways to solve the affordable housing problem. One way is to place tiny individual homes on city property and the people live in their own units.
> 
> It solves the bug problems and allows people to live alone, but within a village type of atmosphere.
> 
> https://charterforcompassion.org/pr...he-homeless-an-affordable-solution-catches-on


It does nothing to solve the bed bug problem. The health department would be all over the landlord for infested units just like anyhwhere else. Face it sags, you've got no idea about how the real world works in this case, your "dream world" where you keep throwing money at the problem until it goes away doesn't work in reality.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Another problem that comes up, especially with immigrants, is that they shop at specialized food stores that import directly from "home". Many of the packages that the food comes in are coated with eggs from things like cockroaches. since bugs are so common at "home", they don't even notice them when they bring them into their apartment, it's normal for them. I know of one place that spent a bunch of money on an education plan where the residents were told to remove the packaging from their food and store it in plastic containers as soon as they brought home food. They also had to dispose of the packaging right away. 

Not sure how that program ever turned out, I should find out now that I'm thinking about it.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

If I cross the border into the US or back into Canada they go nuts if you have an apple that you don't declare. Yet foreigners can import all sorts of complete crap, that many times stink like hell and border officials do nothing about it.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

new dog said:


> Tenants breeding cockroaches to eat is certainly a cheap way to eat. I have to admit I have never heard of that one before.
> 
> Tavogl is there any way that one could regulate tenants so as not to bring in bedbugs. Not letting idiots in who are criminals and vandals would be easy, if the government ever did it, but the problem you bring up sounds much harder to deal with.


You could bring a k9 sniffing unit to screen tenants at 250$ per hour, they usually charge a mininum of 2 hours per job, but I don't think it will help much, tenants can deny pest control services, many do, its incredibly difficult to evict them for it, I've been involved in a few cases where one particular unit was spreading bed bugs all over the building. If i recall correctly it took about 7 months to evict the tenant, she refused pest control services for the 7 months and bed bugs where all over the place, you could see them on her door frame crawling out of her room.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

sags said:


> Some 5 star resorts and hotels have bug infestations.........so I don't think it is specifically a low income problem.


The difference with the 5 star resorts is that once they find bed bugs in a room they will call a professional, get a k9 unit to the whole floor where the "infested" room is, and the ones below and above it. Will block all rooms accordingly and treat as necessary.

One important thing to keep into consideration is there is a difference where bed bugs got into a room hitch hiking a guest, and where they have been breeding for months, treatments are not the same for this two cases.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

sags said:


> There are some novel ways to solve the affordable housing problem. One way is to place tiny individual homes on city property and the people live in their own units.
> 
> It solves the bug problems and allows people to live alone, but within a village type of atmosphere.
> 
> https://charterforcompassion.org/pr...he-homeless-an-affordable-solution-catches-on


Sure subsidize more land where its already very difficult to buy RE for most young professionals.

Dont get me wrong, I sympathize with low income families, been there, done that, but there is no real solution. BC Housing has been building "bed bugs saunas" into their Single occupancy Unit Buildings, they cost about 700k to build (thats what they told me anyways). They are tired of throwing pillows, mattresess, bed frames, furniture in general, clothing etc... because of bed bugs, they throw all the infested stuff into the saunas so they dont have to buy them every week because of reinfestations.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

tavogl said:


> You could bring a k9 sniffing unit to screen tenants at 250$ per hour, they usually charge a mininum of 2 hours per job, but I don't think it will help much, tenants can deny pest control services, many do, its incredibly difficult to evict them for it, I've been involved in a few cases where one particular unit was spreading bed bugs all over the building. If i recall correctly it took about 7 months to evict the tenant, she refused pest control services for the 7 months and bed bugs where all over the place, you could see them on her door frame crawling out of her room.


To be able to live in one of these places the k9 or any other measure should be mandatory. Again in this country we seem to have no appetite for holding people accountable which seems to be one of the main reasons we have so many problems with low income housing.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

As for more money as Sags mentions, that should only come with people showing they are accountable and showing they are decent citizens.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mini homes on trailers rolled onto public property in park like fashion would cost almost nothing to upkeep. Pests wouldn't be able to spread from unit to unit.

It looks like an ideal solution to me. Guaranteed income plans are being tested in Hamilton and Lindsay, Ontario.

The cost of repayment and upkeep could be automatically deducted from the guaranteed income.

Instead of receiving $1800........people get $1300 and a home with utilities included.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

lonewolf :) said:


> When on vacation in San Clemente in the fall saw a huge house covered in a tarp that was made to the dimensions of the house so it fit like a glove. The Tarp was left on for about a week my guess they were getting ride of some type of bug


Termites. Been to the movie. Got the T (termite) shirt.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

That idea sags looks good for the suburbs with plenty of room or in rural areas. In the cities they would still have to cram them in more I would think.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Electrical, natural gas, water and sanitary hookups? Usually 'public land' is owned for a reason, green space, development reserve, etc. I don't know that much is owned for trailer parks.

On the other hand (this may be of particular interest to you new dog?), I've just read about 80 dogs being rescued from South Korea and flown to Canada to save them from the dinner table, now looking for people to adopt them. 
People are stupid enough (oops, better call them 'misguided') to fly in 80 dogs from South Korea and raise a ruckus about their cultural norms - but I'd be surprised if the same passion and interest exists for helping local people in need. 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canadian-olympic-star-duhamel-lends-voice-to-calls-for-end-to-dog-meat-trade


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> Mini homes on trailers rolled onto public property in park like fashion would cost almost nothing to upkeep. Pests wouldn't be able to spread from unit to unit.
> 
> It looks like an ideal solution to me. Guaranteed income plans are being tested in Hamilton and Lindsay, Ontario.
> 
> ...


So, who pays the maintenance? Who pays when they stuff diapers down the toilet? Or when they take a chainsaw to cut a hole in their wall (there's a story about a reserve where the government spent millions building new homes only to have one of them cut a hole in the bathroom wall so he could water his horses with the bathtub. 

Public health won't be content that the bugs are contained, they'd want any unit to be pest free, who pays for it?

Who pays for the infrastructure putting in the pipes, sewers, electric, and other utilities costs a lot of money. You've obviously no idea what goes into property development, you're low cost solution will cost a small fortune. 

Most public land is also reserved for very important reasons. Some have underground utility ways for example, you can't build on them. 

For your information, most low income people are not housed in ground floor units as part of government programs for rehousing. This is because of guest management issues. Having hundreds of ground floor units all together is just asking for problems.

Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, buy a rental unit and get some first hand experience. Alternatively, you could volunteer at some of the charities and such who deal with low income people like I do instead of sitting in your comfortable house pretending that you know all the solutions without actually experiencing any reality.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A housing deduction can be taken from their guaranteed income benefit to pay for maintenance and utilities. Perhaps some of the tenants could work on maintenance tasks.

Instilling a sense of community and pride is of utmost importance. Providing mental health and community supports is important, but as the Salvation Army has always known..........

First feed the body and then feed the soul. Providing a clean home is a good foundation from which to build.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is easy to complain about problems and say there are no solutions, but the solution is often the most obvious answer.

People are low income or poor ? What they need is money.........not best wishes and prayers.

If affordable housing is needed.........provide affordable housing. It really is that simple if you don't complicate it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Right, you have no idea of the complexity of the situation. My bet is you've probably never interacted long term with any of the "poor". Throwing money at them isn't the solution, this is from people with real world experience, not Kum by yah feelings while they sit around thinking paying their taxes is all that is needed...especially others actually foot the tax bill. 

If you really think the solution is to provide affordable housing (something which I actually know people who are doing that), I suggest you take your own advice and provide some affordable housing. Since you are obviously not "poor" or close to being homeless, I suggest you donate more of *your* money to the poor and change a few lives. 

Easy to preach, not all that hard to do...of course, your idea of doing something stops at paying taxes.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Here we go:

_An affordable housing project aimed at helping women living in Vancouver's most notorious neighbourhood is renting apartments for rates between $375 and $1,561.
52 studio apartments are reserved for single women on income assistance, and will be rented at the maximum shelter rate of $375 a month.
68 bachelor apartments available to single renters or couples earning between $30,000 and $48,000 a year – an income tier based on B.C.'s housing income limits - rented between $750 and $1,000 a month, though some will be set aside for elderly women who may have a lower income but are eligible for the Shelter Aid for Ederly Renters supplement offered through BC Housing.

The remaining 40 per cent will rent for more than $1,200 a month, to single tenants and couples bringing home up to $85,000 a year. tenants can apply for bachelor apartments available for $1,242, while a one-bedroom will pay $1,561. The priciest pads will be available for those whose household income is between $48,000 and $85,000 annually._

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/apartments-for-1-561-month-part-of-new-dtes-affordable-housing-complex-1.3846885

Single guys? You get the park benches.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

sags said:


> Mini homes on trailers rolled onto public property in park like fashion would cost almost nothing to upkeep. Pests wouldn't be able to spread from unit to unit....
> View attachment 18257


What in the world makes you think that would stop bugs from spreading. People visit other people. People take their clothes off in other folks houses. Bedbugs can easily move in clothing. People borrow things from other people etc.

It may be easier to treat and contain but not by much.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Every city has affordable housing. Those that are for single wome, tend to have a lot of male visitors, so they aren't confined to park benches. 

If you want to know where the housing is located, contact the local police and ask for the crime stats...funny thing is, certain buildings tend to have more calls than others...I'll let you guess what they have in common.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

We are talking about two very different things here, "normal" families making little money BUT that actually can work and who need to get jump started to get ahead, and then we have the mentally ill, addicts people who live on the streets OR SRO's (Single Resident Occupancy), we should not mix them because they are very different indeed. 

Families who have jobs, but make little money will most likely take good care of a rental, and affordable housing will (I think) help them so they can eventually get ahead, get better jobs, pay more taxes and contribute with society.

On the other hand we have the mentally ill and addicts, who do not need cheap housing, but treatment, and yes that includes giving them a home somewhere, food and clothing. We have to remember this people are using hard core drugs, some have been using for 20+ years, their brains are fried, there is no going back, there is not getting better, but also there is no real place for them in this society (sadly). SRO's are no dream, here in Vancouver women get raped in those places often, drug dealers live in there and they supply the whole building with drugs, prostitution and more, it's devastating how in a 1st World country this still happens... the issue here is Government and their stupidity, they should not be treating the "symptoms" but the actual sickness, they are not a preventative government but a reactive one, the only preventative program in the whole freaking area is Harm Reduction, anyways, im getting off topic here.

In my opinion, low income families should get "some" help for a very defined length of time so they dont get lazy, call it low income housing, tax breaks, hand outs, etc.. the other bunch... needs good luck and a different government.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Electrical, natural gas, water and sanitary hookups? Usually 'public land' is owned for a reason, green space, development reserve, etc. I don't know that much is owned for trailer parks.
> 
> On the other hand (this may be of particular interest to you new dog?), I've just read about 80 dogs being rescued from South Korea and flown to Canada to save them from the dinner table, now looking for people to adopt them.
> People are stupid enough (oops, better call them 'misguided') to fly in 80 dogs from South Korea and raise a ruckus about their cultural norms - but I'd be surprised if the same passion and interest exists for helping local people in need.
> ...


While it is good to have saved the dogs, I am not really sure how I feel about eating dogs. On farms you may have pigs or pet pigs or whatever and then eventually you may eat them. In North America we don't eat dogs of course but in some parts of the world they do. My biggest concern is that it is done humanely and no animal suffers. We had such an outage case recently in Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4047050/molly-pig-bc-spca-owner-killed-eaten/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This thread contains every stereotype known to man and few new ones for good measure......LOL


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Ever wonder where stereotypes come from? Some people seem to think it's just some form of made up hatred I suppose...from my experience, stereotypes come from well established patterns. Sure there are always exceptions to the the rule, but the pattern is still there. You can try to be politically correct and pretend that is isn't, but that doesn't change reality.

As I said sags, try getting your feet dirty and actually get out into the world a bit. Easy to be an armchair quarterback, but there's a reason why few actually play the game.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Saw this today and, while I know it's just a photoshopped image, I could see it happening...he really cares you know.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

tavogl said:


> We are talking about two very different things here, "normal" families making little money BUT that actually can work and who need to get jump started to get ahead, and then we have the mentally ill, addicts people who live on the streets OR SRO's (Single Resident Occupancy), we should not mix them because they are very different indeed.
> 
> Families who have jobs, but make little money will most likely take good care of a rental, and affordable housing will (I think) help them so they can eventually get ahead, get better jobs, pay more taxes and contribute with society.
> 
> ...


This is a good post and exactly what I am thinking about. Help those who are willing to take care of the place and are trying to help themselves. Also helping this who really can't work but are good people all the same and do keep care of the place.

The drug users and such can be housed in containers with built in water proof furniture so the place can be hosed out if need be. Let us house the grade A people first and those with destructive behaviour second.

Tavogl and JustaGuy are the types of people the government should be consulting with when they come up with ideas in this area.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

new dog said:


> Tavogl and JustaGuy are the types of people the government should be consulting with when they come up with ideas in this area.


 Those that are successful @ real estate & make money by owning multiple real estate I thought the government paid to run subsidized housing already


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Anyone that needs housing supplied for them in exchanged should be fixed so they could not have any children. Should do it for welfare also.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

lonewolf :) said:


> Those that are successful @ real estate & make money by owning multiple real estate I thought the government paid to run subsidized housing already


I wouldn't suggest they give fully subsidized housing. When I was dead broke, what inspired me to change was how uncomfortable life was being dead broke. If life is comfortable, albeit unpleasant, it may be good enough, not worth the effort to change. I'd also spend more on treating the mental illness and getting people off the drugs. Mainly however, I'd educate people on other ways to make money. There are ways to make money other than minimum wage, prostitution, government programs, drug dealing and theft which are, for some, the only means they know.

I'd also be stricter on what happens if they break the rules...there are so many poor out there waiting to get help, why waste your resources on those who haven't been inspired to change their behaviour yet.

Maybe provide jobs (make work programs), start out with some very crappy work and explain that, if they do well, they can move up to less crappy, higher pay. Keep the program up until they can get placed into real work (even if you subsidize their pay at first to the company taking the risk). Teach them that, if they follow society's rules, things can, and will, get better.

Of course your fighting against the quick and easy money of prostitution and drug dealing...hard to beat when you're talking minimum wage and long hours.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

twa2w said:


> sags said:
> 
> 
> > Mini homes on trailers rolled onto public property in park like fashion would cost almost nothing to upkeep. Pests wouldn't be able to spread from unit to unit....
> ...


This is correct. Bed bugs are hitch hikers and move with people, thats why we get so many calls from movie theatres, banks, government offices, hospital/clinics, churchs, etc.... ah yes, and rideshare car companies. People get infested by visiting other people, all you need is to seat in their coach or chair.

While having them living on trailers instead of condos/suites will SLOW them bed bugs spreading, it wont do it by much, not to to the point where its worth it in my opinion.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Lonewolf I don't think the government really consults the JustaGuy types but instead lets them run these projects. Which means the drug users and other idiots can still live in these places. I think helping the good 800 out of a 1000 and finding solutions for them first and then working on the bad 200.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I think there is a lot of capacity in Vancouver and Toronto that could be explored for lower rentals in helping people who have land and house space but could use some income. Of course the people would have to be checked and the idiots would have to be removed form the list. Also the person owning the property should be able to evict people who do drugs or crime immediately and have to give proper notice to the others.

One such program opening up in Vancouver is called Empty Nest which brings young people in contact with older people who's kids have grown and they have space. In exchange for lower rent these younger people will do certain amount of chores around the house which is a big help to the older people.

https://www.cityhive.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/06-Empty-Nests-Slides.pdf


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Small homes on trailers that can be moved are a much better investment than paying rent to a slum landlord for sub-standard accommodations.

After an initial cost of $10,000 the monthly costs would be minimum and would be automatically deducted from the future guaranteed income benefit.

There is lots of empty space for villages that range from a couple of units to dozens or more.

Church groups, service groups, charity organizations and individuals could sponsor units if they wish.

I haven't read anything on this thread that changes my mind. It is all the same old BS stereotyping that has never made a positive difference.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hamilton, Ontario is already operating a successful program. They have a waiting list for 800 more homes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/tiny-houses-1.4320161

Hamilton is also home to the Ontario guaranteed income pilot project.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sags, if you're serious about making a positive difference, I've got a low cost solution for you which you could even, gasp, participate in (I know those words some fear into your heart). 

I suggest you rent a room of your place to a low income single person. Maybe a young woman, it won't be hard. See how it goes. You can make a couple of bucks, and do some good for a change. in stead of telling people how the world works, you'll be experiencing it. It won't cost the government anything like 10k, and you'll be able to reform them to your hearts content...there are waiting lists in every city.

Not every one comes with problems, and I'm sure you won't have any fears exposing your valuables and family to them.

As for the success stories the newspapers print, there are some good things that come out of the various programs, for those who do successfully rehouse, and my buddy has a few long term tenants who were in the programs, the saving to the system are massive. However, there are a lot of failures as well, which can be covered up by multiple rehousings (yes, they are technically housed, even though they are currently in the process of being evicted again). Go down and talk to actual case workers, ask why there is such a high turnover in the caseworker position, even though many are initially very sympathetic and socially minded...they don't last long before finding a new job. 

As for Ontario, their tenant laws are a nightmare for landlords...once a tenant is in, it's nearly impossible to get them out. I wouldn't house a low income person in Ontario with the current laws even if the government gave me the building and paid all the rent. The liability of what they could do, and I'd be nearly powerless to prevent, scares me.

BTW new dog, I don't generally house these people. I have a friend who specializes in them for his rentals though. Personally I don't want to rebuild my units every few months for let's say 50% of my tenants. I've educated myself quite well from a landlord perspective, and I do a lot of volunteer work with the poor, having been there myself.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I know you are probably exaggerating just a guy but that sounds like a very high number. Even if it was 25% every 4 months that would still be far too high.

Canadians should be totally against people who destroy rental properties and demand these people be thrown out and blacklisted. The last thing Canadians need is governments wasting money on losers who just don't care and do things like this. The money saved on these losers can go to help more people who deserve it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Continuing with the same old failed policies as JAGS recommends is a continuation of dismal results.

The idea of villages has shown the possibility of much healthier outcomes.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So, when do you rent your room sags, new idea, new policy, low cost, integration with productive society members...why aren't you behind it? All of it sounds like it's geared for a healthier outcome...

Oh yeah, you pay taxes so you don't have to do anything else. Talk about old failed policies and attitudes. But do keep telling everyone else what they should do.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

People have got to want to change, no amount of money, support, medical help, or whatever can do it for them. I've got a native buddy down in the states who lives on a reserve. At 16, everyone gets a 5 figure cash payout from the band. At 18, they get nearly a six figure payout and finally at 25 they get a large 6 figure payout. The band runs a casino and is quite well off financially. 

Guess how many band members have any money left by the age of 30? The percentage is very low. Lots of wrecked trucks, and substance abuse on that reserve despite it having very good employment possibilities at the casino. Some of the band have done very well, but it's not the majority even with all that money. Oh and houses, nice houses, can be had for $15k. A McMansion is under 200k. My buddy is very frustrated by what he sees there, probably why he only goes back to visit family.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

There has to be some skin in the game. Each rabbit, each fox, each wolf etc provides for its own existence or is granted none @ all. I do not think there has ever been a time in history where rights were so confused with freedom. There is a right to go to school, right to be housed, right to 3 meals a day, right for free hand outs if live on a reserve there are all these rights as long as someone else pays for it. 

Who promised everyone all these rights ? Imagine a world where everyone took responsibility for themselves it would be like heaven on earth.

The government just makes matters worse by doing the political correct thing to not let people to take responsibility for themselves  The government is not efficient it would be best if they got rid of all their social programs instead let the people figure it out & take responsibility. Those that are handicapped would be helped out by the people around them in a more practical way. There is no perfect system though having social programs where the responsible have to take responsibility for the none responsible if carried far enough will bring everything down.

I do help people out to with reason to a path of independence though if someone is capable of being independent I try to never be on a power trip to take the wonderful feeling of esteem away from them that they are both capable & worthy of living. Letting people be responsible for themselves I think is a better path to that which is good then being on a power trip & not letting people be responsible.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Small homes on trailers that can be moved are a much better investment than paying rent to a slum landlord for sub-standard accommodations.
> 
> After an initial cost of $10,000 the monthly costs would be minimum and would be automatically deducted from the future guaranteed income benefit.
> 
> ...


Thing is trailer parks typically aren't designed for year round accommodation, they're actually unsafe at the densities they're typically packed. The problem with the slum landlords is that it is too darn risky to offer rental housing. You get a tenant, you can't have deposits or hold them liable for any damage (from a practical standpoint). You can't hike rent, and you can't kick them out if they're a problem. 
That doesn't even consider utilities, or a grow op. They're even suggesting that smoking pot might be legal in units, smoking damage is incredibly expensive to clean up. It's just nuts.

I know people that rent successfully, but it's way above my risk tolerance.


The answer I see for affordable housing is pretty straightforward.
1. Fix tenant laws so that it isn't insanely risky to be a landlord.
2. Admit that not everyone can have a downtown Toronto apartment for a fraction of the market value.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> The answer I see for affordable housing is pretty straightforward.
> 1. Fix tenant laws so that it isn't insanely risky to be a landlord.
> 2. Admit that not everyone can have a downtown Toronto apartment for a fraction of the market value.


 The government made housing more expensive when they wanted to increase prices by bringing in the 30 yr mortgage during the depression. lol now they want to make ihousing cheaper.

It wasnt that long ago there was wage & price controls which resulted in companies offering benefits to attract workers now companies having trouble paying pension plans & it has gone the other way with government wanting workers to be paid more with higher min wage.

Helping people buy homes & or afford education past secondary school just makes it more expensive.

The government destroys the money world & should leave it alone


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

The easiest way to wash everything out, bring on affordability and start over of course is aggressively raise interest rates. Both government and private sector would all come crashing down and debt destroyed, to the point you would have to reset everything. 

That is the easy but most painful way, at least in the short term to fix and rebalance the entire system.

Government will never do that so they need to find solutions to these problems to let the air out more slowly. It would seem accountability is the number one thing to bring forward and people will just have to stop feeling sorry for people who are not accountable for the destructive actions. 

On drugs if people are caught stealing or damaging things I have always thought they should be shipped up north and go through the entire brutal withdrawal and re-educated. When they return they will know that this is where you will go when you step over the line again or you may choose to do away with yourself. Bottom line is society will help you but it is going to be very painful if you wish to continue the path of destruction.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Let's not complicate it. Build mini homes on public lands..........and fix the problem.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Once again though sags the question is are these people going to be held accountable if they occupy these mini homes? As Just a Guy points out many of these low income guys just destroy everything they touch and should be exclude from anything like this.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A regular maintenance system will be implemented.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

sags said:


> Let's not complicate it. Build mini homes on public lands..........and fix the problem.





sags said:


> A regular maintenance system will be implemented.


I know you are trying to help but by the way yo explain your "solutions" its obvios you have no clue how to do so. I guess you'd just wing it and give it a go!

In the real world we deal with extremes everyday. I just had a customer who owns several SRO places pay an outstanding 40.000 debt he had for about 6 months, now he wants pest control services again, we are refusing to service him, no other company wants to take his business, lawyers and the city are involved now, if he doesnt fix the pest issues his sites will get shut down. (one already did a bit ago). SROs and low income housing are all over vancouver east side, taking valuable land and making the housing market worse, maybe your idea works where theres abudant and cheap land to spare? But that would also mean moving all of the services they get close to that land (food banks, injection sites, welfare offices, hospitals etc.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

sags said:


> Let's not complicate it. Build mini homes on public lands..........and fix the problem.


 I really do not think the government can fix the problem. Some how using shipping containers would work better then building homes I stayed @ a hotel last summer that was built out of shipping containers did not know until someone told me. Though not sure if would have each container with its own plumping. This would be cheaper then building houses. Though there are still going to be problems I just think less then if homes were built.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Regular inspections would eliminate many of the maintenance issues. 

Our landlord performs an inside inspection every 6 months when they change the furnace filters and batteries in the mono/fire alarms.

I suspect the landlords with the problems are absentee landlords who don't conduct regular inspections.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

My buddy had a tenant who he had to evict before a week had gone by. They'd already trashed the place. 6 month inspections, insurance requires a landlord or representative to go by the property at least once a month...another example to show you have no clue about the reality of this situation. Get your head out of the ideal clouds and go out into the real world...

Why is your landlord replacing the batteries and filters? Most leases say the tenant is responsible for routine maintenance.

BTW, who pays for all this maintenance? Let me guess..."the rich", which means anyone but sags.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Why is your landlord replacing the batteries and filters? Most leases say the tenant is responsible for routine maintenance._

Leaving tenants responsible for maintenance is a bad idea. It is your property not theirs and if you don't care enough to bother.........why should they ?


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

sags said:


> _Why is your landlord replacing the batteries and filters? Most leases say the tenant is responsible for routine maintenance._
> 
> Leaving tenants responsible for maintenance is a bad idea. It is your property not theirs and if you don't care enough to bother.........why should they ?


I think I've read that landlords do have change fire alarm batteries, they've always done it for me, not that i would mind doing it myself but they usually do it so they can take a quick look at the place to make sure its not trashed, the only exception is where I rent right now because it's not a rental building but a suite in a large house where the landlords live upstairs.

As my career advances and my income grows I see how much tax they take from my paycheques, I start questioning more about where is my tax money going to, I am at a point where I now pay more taxes than my old salary.

No idea what is Sags situation, but his overly optimistic and simplistic ideas are very basic and without any sense of reality. Life is not simple, its not just black or white, in this specific case there are lots of gray areas that need to be taken into consideration.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Your tax dollars are already paying to have homeless people filling up hospital emergency rooms, tying up police, ambulances and other costs to society.

We should redirect the money to a concept that can actually change people's lives. 

Give them a quiet roof over their head, bring in necessary services and see what we can do to improve the situation.

Saying we can't do anything.........isn't accurate or productive.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Why do you use the word "we" sags when it's clear you don't want to do anything other than pay your taxes?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tonight at 7 pm. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will be live streaming on Facebook and other media a town hall meeting on the topic of wealth inequality.

Inequality is a major cause of social problems, including those discussed here. The situation in the US is multiples times worse than in Canada but we can learn from the discussion.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

We need those people to be responsible for their actions and clean ups their addiction problems which society can help with before offering them more help in other ways.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Addictions don't cause poverty. Poverty causes addictions.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yeah, there are definitely no rich drug addicts, especially none who’ve blown their entire fortune.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Self control starting in childhood is the number one factor for success or lack of it leading to drug abuse.

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110124/self-control-in-childhood-brings-adults-success#1

However I am sure having money makes it easier but doesn't stop one from drug abuse. Of course many of those successful people probably had self control in their childhood which they can pass down to their children.

Many people having no money probably lacked self control early in life and bring up kids into that environment which can keep the cycle going.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

sags said:


> Tonight at 7 pm. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will be live streaming on Facebook and other media a town hall meeting on the topic of wealth inequality.
> 
> Inequality is a major cause of social problems, including those discussed here. The situation in the US is multiples times worse than in Canada but we can learn from the discussion.


Oo I see... you are a socialist, everything makes sense now.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When 40 million Americans working under the capitalist system have to go to socialist food banks to get enough food..............is capitalism working ?


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

sags said:


> When 40 million Americans working under the capitalist system have to go to socialist food banks to get enough food..............is capitalism working ?


Venezuela is socialist, move there to check it out. Socialism on paper is a great thing, sounds freaking awesone, but once you include the human part it falls apart because we are greedy by nature. We want more and always will. Socialism wants to make everybody the same but guess what, we are not all the same, there are idiots, average and smart people and we will do differently based on that.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It’s easy to be a socialist when you don’t produce or contribute.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadians love their socialist programs. Taking them away is like trying to wrestle a steak from a bengal tiger.............good luck.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes, that's why their children's, children will be still paying for it. Make sure they are socialists before they are even born. They'll make cause people like sags take.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Conservatives have been saying that for as long as I can remember. 

The world should have collapsed by now. Why didn't it ?


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

I can't imagine someone succesfull supporting socialism, it's usually the lazy, corrupt or broke ones who support it, just like work unions, I assume you LOVE those too sags?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> Conservatives have been saying that for as long as I can remember.
> 
> The world should have collapsed by now. Why didn't it ?


Are you talking conservatives like Ralph Klien who paid off the provincial debt in Alberta? Only to have the NDP run it up again? Or maybe Harper who tried to balance the budget only to have the liberals force debt? Maybe wynne is your hero. She made sure you can't afford electricity and that the debt is at astronomical levels...

Wonder what happens when the interest rates go up on all his "free" money debt.

Let's put things into perspective...Mr. dressup last budget was 18B more than he collected, there are 35M people in Canada (including children and seniors). That's $514.29 each Canadian is responsible for just federally. A recent poll showed most Canadians couldn't handle a $2000 emergency as they don't have the resources to pay it. Justin spent more than a quarter of that money if you count the kids too.

Now add on the provincial deficit...wynne or maybe notley? And you'll more than double this number. 

I know socialists don't like this question, but where does the money come from?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You are only looking at one side of the ledger. The other side shows the economy is growing and Canada acquires valuable assets with the spending.

When comparing debt to GDP or debt to asset value...........Canada is doing very well.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is no shortage of money for programs. There is a distribution problem. All of the money is going to the wealthy.

A new method of wealth distribution is needed, be it guaranteed income, higher taxes or some other solution.

Economists and politicians around the world are aware of this problem and are working on solutions. The last Economic Summit in Davos was about this topic.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> Canadians love their socialist programs. Taking them away is like trying to wrestle a steak from a bengal tiger.............good luck.


Some Canadians love some of the programs. Many don't understand they can't have all of them and more without somone paying for it = higher taxes for all. 



sags said:


> Conservatives have been saying that for as long as I can remember.
> 
> The world should have collapsed by now. Why didn't it ?


Easy. Because capitalists invest & pay taxes, employ people that pay taxes. 



sags said:


> You are only looking at one side of the ledger. The other side shows the economy is growing and Canada acquires valuable assets with the spending.
> 
> When comparing debt to GDP or debt to asset value...........Canada is doing very well.


You're only looking at one side of the ledger. What valuable assets = all the spending?



sags said:


> There is no shortage of money for programs. There is a distribution problem. All of the money is going to the wealthy.
> 
> A new method of wealth distribution is needed, be it guaranteed income, higher taxes or some other solution.
> 
> Economists and politicians around the world are aware of this problem and are working on solutions. The last Economic Summit in Davos was about this topic.


There is a shortage of money for programs. Our Trudeau govt and numerous provincial governments are already spending much more than they take in. The rest is financed forever. Some socialist advocates like you clamour for a lot more. Who will pay for this? You must be kidding that ALL of the money is going to the wealthy. What planet are you living on? Do parents with children at low and middle income not get benefit? Do low income seniors not get GIS? Do unemployed not receive assistance? Do low and middle income seniors not get OAS? Do the homeless receive no assistance whatsoever? Do only the wealthy receive medicare? And on it could go. Are all of these people considered wealthy? 

Please provide a source for your "wealthy" statement, define who these people are, and tell us what this distribution problem is.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

sags said:


> There is no shortage of money for programs. There is a distribution problem. All of the money is going to the wealthy.
> 
> A new method of wealth distribution is needed, be it guaranteed income, higher taxes or some other solution.


My paternal grandfather was a bricklayer and stonemason. He literally added a room to the house every second time (or so) a baby came along. He passed mid 80s and left an estate under $100,000.

My maternal grandmother was widowed around 40 and had to raise two girls as a single mother. Size of her estate unknown, but almost certainly under $100,000 as she did not own a house for most of her lifetime.

My first job was delivering morning newspapers for about $2/hour. My lifetime inheritance money so far is $10,000. Paid for my own university as did my wife.

I am now a member of the despised wealthy class. Why do you despise me so much sags? All I ever did is what anyone with an IQ over about 90 could do, including you I suspect: get a job, when bootstrapped to enough wealth at age 25, get an education, get a better job; control expenses on housing by having roommates, don't drive a car until my 30s, annual booze and cigarette budget a few hundred dollars, no exotic vacations twice a year etc.; invest in equities.

I resent people like you having a call on my wealth when the majority reason I am wealthy is I chose to be as could have most other Canadians by making the same or similar choices I did. The reality is that via taxes I transfer my wealth to plenty of people that choose a higher standard of living than I do. How is that fair?

The truth is that being poor in a first world country is mostly a self inflicted state.

hboy54


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

If it’s doing so well, why is everyone teetering on financial ruin and the governments are all running deficits?

Doing well means there is money to cover expenses, maybe even a little extra. Name the last year where we had a little extra?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good question JAGS.......if capitalism is doing so well, why aren't people doing better ? The 1% are doing quite well.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Capitalism has nothing to do with 50%+ taxes, or government mismanagement, or socialists who are spending tomorrow's money 20 years ago.

Capitalism allowed people like me to go from being broke and in debt to being a 1%. Capitalism has paid for people like you who stand with your hand out instead of trying to make something of yourself. Nothing I did required government handouts, exploiting people, a silver spoon, a special education...

When the majority of people want handouts instead of working, capitalism fails, you got me there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

JAGS is that you up there ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Capitalism has nothing to do with 50%+ taxes, or government mismanagement, or socialists who are spending tomorrow's money 20 years ago.
> 
> Capitalism allowed people like me to go from being broke and in debt to being a 1%. Capitalism has paid for people like you who stand with your hand out instead of trying to make something of yourself. Nothing I did required government handouts, exploiting people, a silver spoon, a special education...
> 
> When the majority of people want handouts instead of working, capitalism fails, you got me there.


You had a publicly funded education, publicly funded healthcare, and used publicly funded infrastructure. You benefited from socialist programs.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm also one of the few who actually pays for more than I use...funny how that works. You benefit from all those programs, yet don't pay your share. As a renter, you don't even pay property tax (which is a big chunk of educational funding), as a landlord with a large portfolio, I pay a ton. 

Your cartoon, once again, shows you have no clue about reality. In Canada it doesn't take much to be in the 1%.

If I was a freeloader in your house, sitting around all day while you worked, then complained that you didn't feed me steak when I wanted steak and, when you protested called you greedy, I'm sure you'd be happy to go out and bring me steak right? It's only fair, you can afford to support me after all, I shouldn't have to work when you have so much more.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Probably best if no pay taxes no vote


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sorry JAGS, but you aren't even close to the top level of wealthy Canadians. 

It is called the 3 comma club.........as in billions of dollars.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...e-canadian-members-of-forbes-three-comma-club


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Marijuana taxes are going to generate huge revenues for the government. It will be more than enough to pay for affordable housing programs.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The three comma club is a small subset of the 1%. You act as if there are thousands instead of a handful. 

I’m surprised you’d be in support of another sin tax. They are so unfair since low income have been proven to pay more in sin taxes, relative to their incomes, than the wealthy.

I, personally, pay next to no sin taxes.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

So after reading all the posts I have to wonder how some have decided that low income means welfare, many families earning fifty or sixty thousand a year struggle with affordable housing. When we look at our own situations and try and use this as a measuring stick to bash those less fortunate in an increasingly difficult housing market fueled by profit.
Luck & chance have left some of us in fairly good shape just because I've done OK does not mean there are not many valid reasons why others have not. Some people due to mental health issues will never be able to work at the level others can and there are many other variables that determine financial success. 
Housing affordability is not restricted to those on welfare, its a major problem in BC where I live.
Co op housing would seem to be a good solution where everyone has a vested interest in maintaining the property. 

I and my family have also contributed far more in taxes than we use over the years supporting government handouts and it was irritating to me.
At the end of the day we will pay one way or the other, build housing or hire more people in the justice system to try and keep a lid on.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

Daniel A. said:


> So after reading all the posts I have to wonder how some have decided that low income means welfare, many families earning fifty or sixty thousand a year struggle with affordable housing. When we look at our own situations and try and use this as a measuring stick to bash those less fortunate in an increasingly difficult housing market fueled by profit.
> Luck & chance have left some of us in fairly good shape just because I've done OK does not mean there are not many valid reasons why others have not. Some people due to mental health issues will never be able to work at the level others can and there are many other variables that determine financial success.
> Housing affordability is not restricted to those on welfare, its a major problem in BC where I live.
> Co op housing would seem to be a good solution where everyone has a vested interest in maintaining the property.
> ...


That's why I said in one of my posts that there is a difference between people on the streets or SROS who struggle with addictions and mental health problems AND families who simply do not make much money but are working and are fully functional.

I also live in BC and yes I agree that 40, 50, 60k a year for a family is not enough. I'd say a family needs 100k minimum to get ahead, but others will differ and say they are fine with 60k income household, it all depends on your lifestyle. I used to live with 40k, only my wife worked back then, we survived with a very simple lifestyle and no kids.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

While we were talking about the lowest income I agree the level above that is also a big problem in Vancouver and Toronto.

I have heard it is even hard for established trades people and other professionals to live in these cities. I am really glad I am not graduating from grade 12 today because I have no idea how these people will afford a single family home.

As I said above I like the idea of matching big house rich seniors with young people who can be a help to them.

I have also heard of older farmers who match up with young farmers who can't obviously afford their own farm. These older farmers also happily pass down their knowledge to these younger farmers working the land.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Not sure why people feel they deserve to live in GTA or Vancouver. I’m may want to live on beach front property in Hawaii, but that’s not the same as being able to live on beach front property in Hawaii. 

I live, where I live, because I can afford to live there. If I couldn’t afford to live there, I’d move. By moving, I don’t mean down the street either, if I had to leave the province, I’d leave the province. I may not want to do this, but life isn’t always about what one wants.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

sags said:


> Marijuana taxes are going to generate huge revenues for the government. It will be more than enough to pay for affordable housing programs.


 I do not think the government will make much on marijuana. The more they try to make the less they will make. People will grow it for own use & sell it to those that want to avoid paying taxes. Anyone with a status card will probably be able to buy it with out paying taxes & sell it below the cost + tax


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Not sure why people feel they deserve to live in GTA or Vancouver. I’m may want to live on beach front property in Hawaii, but that’s not the same as being able to live on beach front property in Hawaii.
> 
> I live, where I live, because I can afford to live there. If I couldn’t afford to live there, I’d move. By moving, I don’t mean down the street either, if I had to leave the province, I’d leave the province. I may not want to do this, but life isn’t always about what one wants.


Access to health care, public transportation, other services, many other area's in BC are beyond affordable Kelowna, Victoria, Surrey. The lions share of public spending is in the high population area's. Then the issue of employment in small locations work is hard to come by.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Try Saskatchewan and Manitoba then. They have health care, public transportation, other services, even jobs...may not pay as much, but the cost of living is a lot less. Manitoba even has rent control.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

No reason to think they would be any better off making the move, no idea of what one could save in terms of cost of living.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

And that option comes from extensive research or just not wanting to change?


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Interesting article from 2016 on how to solve homelessness and provide housing.

The article in point 4 says we should be focusing on homes first before dealing with mental illness and drugs. This still leaves the problem of idiots trashing places. There is something about people trashing places that really bother me, I feel there should be zero tolerance for these people.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/12/10/Eight-Solutions-Canada-Housing-Crisis/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A well written comment from the article you posted.

_I notice there is no mention of raising wages. The minimum wage was enacted nearly a hundred years ago to allow everyone access to a decent standard of living, including housing of course, and it succeeded for three quarters of a century. Up until twenty years ago, or so, anybody working full-time on minimum could easily afford their own accommodation. But then the usual bump-ups to keep pace with inflation was suspended, and a new culture of defamation and denigration of low income workers came into being, to justify the winner-take-all mindset of the current age. If the minimum was set where it should be in relation to the cost of living, as it was from roughly 1950-1990, it should now be around $20 an hour (not fifteen, why does everybody waste their time with fifteen?). And since the minimum is the 'floor' for everybody else's wages, they would all go up as well. So then this crisis of affordability would deflate a good deal. And with increased economic power would come social and political power to stop or slow down the privileged jerks who are causing the problem in the first place._


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

sags said:


> A well written comment from the article you posted.
> 
> _I notice there is no mention of raising wages. The minimum wage was enacted nearly a hundred years ago to allow everyone access to a decent standard of living, including housing of course, and it succeeded for three quarters of a century. Up until twenty years ago, or so, anybody working full-time on minimum could easily afford their own accommodation. But then the usual bump-ups to keep pace with inflation was suspended, and a new culture of defamation and denigration of low income workers came into being, to justify the winner-take-all mindset of the current age. If the minimum was set where it should be in relation to the cost of living, as it was from roughly 1950-1990, it should now be around $20 an hour (not fifteen, why does everybody waste their time with fifteen?). And since the minimum is the 'floor' for everybody else's wages, they would all go up as well. So then this crisis of affordability would deflate a good deal. And with increased economic power would come social and political power to stop or slow down the privileged jerks who are causing the problem in the first place._


It does not matter how much money somebody makes they can still be broke & not be able to afford housing. Do not really see a winner take all attitude out there @ the moment the trend is the opposite with participation rewards for kids in sports & for different types of comps. Years ago to be a winner you had to work @ being the best now days no work everyone wins. Tax the productive is the mantra now next year in BC if your wealthy enough to have 2 houses & you do not play the rules you will pay $1000 a month for every 600,000 your house is worth though why stop there if a family has more then 1 car may as well tax it.

If someone is not worth min wage the government wont let them work. The market is smarter then the government in determining the cost people are willing to pay. Min wage for the employee but not the employer or someone running a business is discrimination against the employers & business men. Plus the government wants the employer to pay for stat holidays, vacations plus plus

No matter how you slice with the current money system when a dollar has to be borrowed to come into circulation someone has to be in debt. Those that understand compound interest will make it those that do not understand it will pay it. Trudeau makes matters worse when he gives dollars to other countries for those dollars that are outside the country there has to be debt with in the country to create them. This is big problem for the US. In some countries you get a discount if you pay with US dollars because the locals want the more stable money instead of their own currency.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Employers want to let supply and demand dictate the wages..........right up until labor becomes tight and the outlook is wages will be going up.

Then employers want the government to increase the labor supply with temporary foreign workers.

As noted in the comment I posted.......if the minimum wage was indexed to inflation it would be $20 right now.

Across Canada.........I would venture a guess that most people don't earn $20 an hour. Almost everyone has fallen behind.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

sags said:


> Employers want to let supply and demand dictate the wages..........right up until labor becomes tight and the outlook is wages will be going up.
> 
> Then employers want the government to increase the labor supply with temporary foreign workers.
> 
> ...


 The ski resorts love hiring temporary foreign workers when they do not have to pay the benefits like EI


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

lonewolf :) said:


> The ski resorts love hiring temporary foreign workers when they do not have to pay the benefits like EI


:confusion:


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

The ski resorts do not really pay the workers as the workers just give the money back when they go to the bar


----------

