50% of BC children in single families live in poverty

[Atomoa]

It also has nothing to do with Christy herself, but that didn't stop you either.

Child poverty has not moved (actually got accelerated) in 10 years in BC and she made a very public pledge to make families better off. It was part of her Political Slogan™. She's the premier and directs the government's ability to address child poverty.

At least the payments side of the discussion is actually looking at real aspects of the issue and asking questions about how this is determined and if the stat is even remotely accurate overall.

Yet not a single post backing up your claims regarding delinquency rates of child support payments that directly correlate to this fact. How many single parents are fathers? How many are mothers that receive no support because both parents make very little money?

Social services have been eroded and housing costs have skyrocketed. I'm sure that's a deadbeat parents fault too. That or poverty doesn't exist.

[onestop67]

Support payments aren't taxable if the agreement states as such. If they are taxable they are also tax deductible for the payer. Since very few if any bother to do this the amounts paid do not show in any income areas and would not be factored into calculations, though they should be.

To further clarify Veovis's post...

"Child" support payments have been tax exempt since May 1997, unless the support agreement predates that. Since a child born in 1997 would now be at least 19 years old, that rule is effectively moot.

"Spousal" support payments are taxed on the recipients tax return and are a deduction on the payer's tax return.

BC Social Assistance used to deduct any "child" support payments from a recipients welfare cheque until September 1, 2015, when the BC Liberals changed the law to exempt "child" support payments from being deducted at all.

[Lady tehMa]

Perhaps it is time to think outside the box?

Single parent families don't make enough to live on their own. So why should they? Why not have "single family housing" where everyone pools together in a boarding house like scenario? They'd have the emotional support of those around them who are going or have gone through it themselves. They may not have as much privacy as their own house, but it would cost less.

It used to be that we'd have multiple generations under one roof helping each other. Now the dysfunctional, shattered family is the norm.

[onestop67]

Perhaps it is time to think outside the box?

Single parent families don't make enough to live on their own. So why should they? Why not have "single family housing" where everyone pools together in a boarding house like scenario? They'd have the emotional support of those around them who are going or have gone through it themselves. They may not have as much privacy as their own house, but it would cost less.

It used to be that we'd have multiple generations under one roof helping each other. Now the dysfunctional, shattered family is the norm.

There are a bunch of housing buildings that are available to those in need. Unfortunately, there are not enough of them to fill the demand.

As for a boarding type place, I don't see that working out well. Emotional support for a situation like that sounds good, but all it takes is one negative person in the building to make it a disaster.

I do work for a bunch of recent immigrants, and they do all live together in the beginning. 12-15 family members all live together in one residence. But they all also go out and work 2 or 3 jobs each, for 10 years or more, and earn money so they are able to afford to buy their own places. Say what you want about these immigrants, most sacrifice and work harder than any other people I have ever known. They don't understand what "entitlement" means. Entitlement is definitely a western problem.

[Atomoa]

Generally speaking single incomes and people don't count in Canada. Government policies and statistics are structured around dual family income. A single income family of the 70's is a dual income family plus weekend internet side job of today. Dual income families enjoy increased value for housing (one bedroom vs 2/3 bedroom rental value) and utilities are halved and food costs lowered. This is without factoring quality of life. Couple can rent small house, single income family is going to end up in a urban apartment on a busy street and the single income family will be paying out a higher percentage of their income to rent. Housing has become a strictly speculative financial marketplace despite it's harm to society, action from government has come too little too late.

As 30-40 year old single person in Canada today, unless you are in the top 10% of earners your "family unit" is statistically 50% of the income level of what your parents family unit was in the 60's and 70's.

That's probably why "single" family children are at such a disadvantage in BC.

Mansions on the hills and hungry kids in the schools.

[onestop67]

Bahhhh.

My ex has been on welfare for the last 15 years. She has no desire to actually go out and work. Why would she when she gets enough from the government, plus what I give her, each month???

My son lives with her.

My son and I have a good relationship. He "get's" it.

Yes, I pay monthly child support. Never missed a payment, never will.

My son is now 18 and ready for college.

I am happily paying for that!!! I am so proud of my son for wanting to get a higher education.

[Rosemary1]

Poverty threshold is a pretty sweeping one.

But for those who are quick to blame Christie Clark, (and every other government ) . Shame on them all...... After all, none have

-banned divorce or single parenthood.
-None haven't introduced a means test that people must pass before having children
-None have banned procreating by those with mental and other disabilities or addictions who are unable to work
- None have forced able bodied single parents who don't have job skills to get training and a job.

Um, For sure it's all Christies fault (and that of every other provincial and federal government).

[Urbane]

You'd think from listening to some people that more and more people are living in "poverty" all the time. Things are getting worse and worse and the sky is falling. In fact, the opposite is true but instead of celebrating a bit we just move the goalposts and preach doom and gloom. From Andrew Coyne:

In 2011, the latest year for which StatsCan has figures, the proportion of the population living on low income — that is, with incomes below the agency’s Low Income Cut-off (LICO) — fell to its lowest level … well, ever. At just 8.8%, it beat the previous record of 9.0%, set in 2010. As recently as 1996, it was at 15.2%. In 1965, the first year for which LICO rates were calculated, it was 25%.

You would think a near-halving of the “poverty rate” (StatsCan doesn’t call it that, but that is what it has always informally been called by others) in the space of 15 years would be cause for celebration. You’d at least think it would be news. But you may look in vain for any mention of it in any major media. This is surely as remarkable a story in itself.

Certainly if the trend were in the other direction, we’d be reading about nothing but. That’s not speculation: when the poverty rate was rising, it was a staple of news and commentary. “Nearly 4 million Canadians,” the Toronto Star told its readers in December of 1992, “now live in abject poverty.” But now that fewer than three million Canadians are in poverty, it is no longer worthy of notice?

This is all the more remarkable since the line below which so many fewer people are falling is drawn at a higher level than ever. The LICO thresholds (plural: they are adjusted for family size and city population) aren’t defined as fixed sums of money, or even in relative terms, that is as a proportion of the average. Rather, they are set by a byzantine process that defines even the relevant proportion in relativistic terms.
Full column: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... g-about-it

[Atomoa]

"There is no such thing as poverty"

[Urbane]

"There is no such thing as poverty"

"Poverty" is certainly an imprecise term, open to manipulation by changing the goalposts, and susceptible to a muddying of the waters by those who confuse absolute poverty with relative poverty. We should certainly look for ways of continuing the tremendous progress that's been made while also celebrating that progress. Anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

[Atomoa]

We should certainly look for ways of continuing the tremendous progress that's been made while also celebrating that progress.

What progress? Families are at 50% of where the last generation was and in 10 years we've grown the amount of children living in poverty. Oh snap there's that fake poverty word again! What's poor according to these crazies?

One adult with one child: $24,319

A parent and kid that lives on 24K a year doesn't mean they're actually poor, says a editorial piece from 2013. They're lives are great!

[Urbane]

From the Andrew Coyne column that I quoted earlier:

But as Canadians have grown richer over the years, they’ve tended to spend a smaller proportion of their incomes on the necessities. When those first LICOs were being calculated, it was estimated the average family spent half its income on the necessities, so the LICO standard was set at 70%. By 1978 those proportions had fallen to 38.5% and 58.5% respectively; by 1992, to 34.7% and 54.7%. So not only were LICOs being calculated against much higher average incomes, but families could spend a much smaller proportion of it on necessities and still be counted as poor. What is defined as low income today — $30,945 in 2012, for a family of four in a mid-sized town — would have been the average not so long ago.

Ten years from now there could be NO people living in poverty as per the parameters now but there would still be lots of people living in poverty because the parameters would change.

[twobits]

What the goalposts for poverty level do not take into consideration is how many people are content with their income level and make no effort even if they can, to elevate themselves above it. I'd bet that as many as half of those that qualify for the definition don't even consider themselves as in "poverty" and don't know that someone has classified them as such. Sure, they would like more money, as anyone would, but a large percentage are quite content with the lifestyle they have relevant to the effort they want to put out.
Should the village raise the child without first determining if the parent is making enough efforts themselves? Perhaps we should raise the level required in care provided to children by the parent before they are apprehended and placed in foster care? I would rather increase funding to the Fostering Programs and be sure the innocents are provided for than give more money to parents who have demonstrated that they had no business being parents to begin with.

[maryjane48]

What the goalposts for poverty level do not take into consideration is how many people are content with their income level and make no effort even if they can, to elevate themselves above it. I'd bet that as many as half of those that qualify for the definition don't even consider themselves as in "poverty" and don't know that someone has classified them as such. Sure, they would like more money, as anyone would, but a large percentage are quite content with the lifestyle they have relevant to the effort they want to put out.

yes im sure the mother choosing between food for kids or bills is just living up and really sees nothing wrong , hell kids can go few days without eating right? oh and lets just givem a shovel ,

[The Green Barbarian]

What progress? Families are at 50% of where the last generation was and in 10 years we've grown the amount of children living in poverty.

Once again, you are just quoting phony made-up stats to suit your disgusting personal agenda.

One adult with one child: $24,319

A parent and kid that lives on 24K a year doesn't mean they're actually poor, says a editorial piece from 2013. They're lives are great!

but they aren't living on that. That's the whole point. These shysters at this "advocacy group" aren't giving the entire picture, just one that generates sound-bites for the socialist/communist losers out there to parrot to the masses to try and sell a story that doesn't exist.