50% of BC children in single families live in poverty

[Atomoa]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3865191

While the percentage of children in B.C. living in poverty has decreased slightly from the 20.4 per cent in last year's report, the percentage of children affected by poverty who live in single-parent families stayed the same, at 50.3 per cent.

"B.C. has made no substantial progress in reducing this astounding rate of poverty for children in lone-parent families since 2006, and in fact it has trended upward since 2009," the report says.

I guess when Christy Clark said "Families first" she was talking about unbroken homes.

[Veovis]

Good point. The provincial government should fix divorce. Make it illegal maybe, because shame on them for peoples marriages not working out.

[The Green Barbarian]

The report defined the poverty line as $24,954 for a single parent with one child, $30,301 for either a couple with one child or a single parent with two children, and $35,648 for a couple with two children.

So 50% of children in BC who are children of divorce are living with one parent who only makes $24,954 or less? What about the other parent? What about the support payments the parent with custody receives from the other parent? Are these being factored in to the income number? My ex-sister-law probably makes less than $24,954 a year, but with all of the child support she receives from my bro in law (and spends on herself) and the tax cheques she gets from Justin Trudeau, she's more than able to afford to live in Vancouver and pay rent on a really nice place, without having much if any meaningful employment. She can't be the only single parent doing this. I am curious as to how these numbers were calculated given there is a complete conflict of interest going on whenever an "advocacy group" is the one releasing these numbers.

[Veovis]

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.

[The Green Barbarian]

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.

Yeah it's incredibly convenient to state that someone is "living in poverty" when they actually aren't, just by using tax returns as the metric. Why am I not surprised that these "advocates" are deliberately mis-stating reality to paint a much darker picture than actually exists. So typical.

[GordonH]

Province should be nailing very hard the deadbeat parent for not paying their support payments.

[Veovis]

Province should be nailing very hard the deadbeat parent for not paying their support payments.

Yes. They can do garnishments, but the process is slow as can be, honestly I think all support agreements should be registered and the payments made in a required fully traceable style and a tax slip issued even though the funds are not taxable. It would greatly increase the true metrics of our society and who actually needs help vs those that use it and don't need it.

[Urbane]

Of course there are people having a tough time but let's also keep in mind the meaning of the word "poverty." There will always be RELATIVE poverty:

Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is ... mples.html

[The Green Barbarian]

Province should be nailing very hard the deadbeat parent for not paying their support payments.

They also should be nailing very hard parents who are capable of working but don't because they are content to dine on the support payments that are supposed to be going to the kids.

[GordonH]

Province should be nailing very hard the deadbeat parent for not paying their support payments.

They also should be nailing very hard parents who are capable of working but don't because they are content to dine on the support payments that are supposed to be going to the kids.

Yes, unfortunately this type of parent is also part of the problem as well.

[Jlabute]

If the payer owes $1000 a month support, the payee still only receives barely enough to survive if they are on welfare. It would be better for children to be shared among both parents without the ministry ever being involved. If an unemployed parent found work, plus getting support, while paying for child care, they would be miles better off. Too many single parents are not working and living off the rest of us in more ways than one.

[Jx3]

And 50% don't. You're one of those "glass is half empty" people obviously.

/s

[Atomoa]

Interesting that everyone assumed this had to do with child support delinquency rates.

It couldnt be anything else but that!

[gman313]

If the payer owes $1000 a month support, the payee still only receives barely enough to survive if they are on welfare. It would be better for children to be shared among both parents without the ministry ever being involved. If an unemployed parent found work, plus getting support, while paying for child care, they would be miles better off. Too many single parents are not working and living off the rest of us in more ways than one.

I completely agree

[Veovis]

Interesting that everyone assumed this had to do with child support delinquency rates.

It couldnt be anything else but that!

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