Welfare whinefest - recipients feel betrayed

I must have used up a whole box of facial tissue while reading the article "Welfare cuts hurting families - 'depressed, angry' moms lashing out" in the Friday Feb. 2, 1996 issue of the Hamilton Spectator .

First of all, I think it's time for a name change..... how about the Hamilton Commiserator. It was yet another profile of a poor single mother suffering unbearable consequences as a result of the fact that mean old Mike Harris has eased up... on the degree to which some Ontarians are coerced into accepting responsibility for the actions of other Ontarians.

"I might be in a house and I might have a couch to sit on but when you have no food, you still have no food." says welfare recipient Roxanne Graveline, of North Bay, comparing being poor in Canada to being poor in a third world country.

It made me think of an earlier profile in the Spec, prior to the welfare cuts, which featured the agonizing fate of a Hamilton family about to incur a reduction of 21.6% in the amount of money transferred to them from those who earned it.

Hamilton Spectator Readers may remember the revealing photo of an emaciated young woman sitting upon a ... couch... in her living room surrounded by all of the accoutrements of poverty in Ontario in the nineties.

Food banks brace for longer lineups - it says at the left.

Should have said, "Electronics and appliance stores expectingshorterlineups".

She might have compared her situation with third world poverty somewhat differently -"I might be in a house, have a couch to sit on, a colour TV with pay box and VCR, stereo, air conditioner and vista phone but when you have no food, you still have no food."

It seems Ms. Graveline quit a nursing job two years ago 'partly' because she believed her children deserved more of her time.

The report does not mention, perhaps because it is an obvious fact, that Ms. Graveline also believes that it is a duty of Ontario taxpayers to subsidize her heroic effort to be with her children.

Universality is held in great esteem by Canadians. In the interests of universality perhaps all Ontario parents should quit their jobs to spend more time with their children.... or are we to believe that only Ms. Graveline's children deserve such devotion.

What would it be like if all Ontario parents quit their jobs believing their children deserve more of their time? Would there be enough childless workers left to pay all of that welfare?

If complete exsanguination via taxation of Ontario's childless workers turned out to be insufficient to provide benefits at the new levels, let alone the old levels, who shall we blame then?

We can't blame Mike Harris can we? Even if he resurrected the old benefit level he will have done absolutely all that any politician can do.

Perhaps then we should appeal to the feds for assistance but then the rest of Canada's parents would surely wish to jump on the bandwagon. What then?

There's still that obscenely rich nation to the south. Come to think of it, why hasn't Bill Clinton offered any assistance to Ontario's beleaguered welfare recipients?

"I'm depressed, I'm angry, I'm frustrated and resentful," says Ms. Graveline. Perhaps Bill Clinton can feel her pain. Or is he just mean spirited like Mike?

I was just about ready to open up a new box of facial tissues when I got to the numbers around Ms. Gravelines situation.

Hmmmmm..... let's see now... the article says that before the cutbacks she received $1500 a month in benefits. Today she gets [only] $1197 (that's more than a minimum wage worker grosses in a month), $676 of which goes to rent.

"Her ex-husband, a seasonal worker, is required to contribute $450 a month when he's working and $150 when he's not.

That means, on bad months, she's left with $671 to feed and clothe her children, pay for utilities and any extras like transportation."

If you study the numbers given in the article you will discover that 'bad months' are the months when the ex-husband isn't working. Therefore, Ms. Graveline receives a benefit cheque for $1197 plus $150 dollars from her ex for a total of $1347. After paying rent of $676 she is left with $1347 - $676 = $671 for food, utilities and extras.

To more accurately determine how much money an individual is receiving, additional credits such as Ontario Tax credits, GST credits and, for those with children, Child Tax Benefits should be included. A truer sense of the degree of suffering involved can thus be derived.

Since the difference between Ms. Graveline's pre-cutback benefits ($1500) and her post- cutback benefits ($1197) is roughly equal to the 21.6% reduction implemented in October 1995 it is obvious that the reporter has chosen to ignore, for whatever reason, the additional income via Ontario Tax Credits (annually), Goods and Services Tax Credits (quartely) and Child Tax Benefits (monthly).

Based upon $1197 per month now it seems that she was more likely being paid about $1527 per month for doing nothing before the cuts. (21.6% of $1527 is $329.83 and $1527 minus $329.83 is equal to $1197.17.)

Given the above figures it's not hard to determine that Ms. Graveline had a net income, as reported on line 236 of the T1 income tax form, for 1995 of about $19,134 assuming that every month was a 'bad month'(ie: her ex-husband only gave her $150 per month if he was unemployed for the entire year.)

A net income of $19,134 for 1995 would yield Ms. Graveline an additional $359 'refund' on her 1995 tax return due to the Ontario Tax Credits. If she wanted to she could spend this amount over a twelve month period giving her about $29.92 per month.

Ms. Graveline is also entitled to a GST credit of about $713 which comes out in quarterly installments of $178.25 -- the equivalent of an additional $59.42 per month.

Now for the real "bonus". Even if none of her children are under the age of 7 she is entitled to an annual Child Tax Benefit of around $3135 which translates into an additional monthly government cheque of $261.25. Of course, she gets even more if one or more of her children are still under the age of seven.

Now let's recap. Ms. Graveline gets

• $359 from the Ontario Tax Credits,
• $713 from the Goods and Services Tax Credits and
• $3135 in Child Tax Benefits

annually which works out to over $350 per month in addition to the meager $1347 she gets during a 'bad month' for a total average monthly take of $1697 ( tax free ) and she has the audacity to be "depressed, angry, frustrated and resentful,". What a villain that Mike Harris is! (not to mention Bill Clinton)

Getting back to the $671 per month that she is supposedly limited two-four the payment of her food, utilities and 'extras' like transportation..... what about the extra $350 per month in 'refunds' and tax credits? Are these treated as 'off budget' items dedicated to bingo, booze and taxi cabs?

You really have to wonder after reading this, and many other articles in the whining litany of misery allegedly caused by Mike Harris, just how objective is the Hamilton Spectator?

Surely the majority of readers are not so lacking in knowledge that they will take the report of Ms. Graveline's travails as gospel truth.

How many readers are unaware of the effects of the Ontario Tax Credits, Goods and Services Tax Credits and the Child Tax Benefit on a welfare recipient's take home pay such that they can be taken in by this bogus tale of woe.

I found myself feeling depressed, angry, frustrated and resentful after I finished reading that sorry tale.... not because I had used up a box of perfectly good tissues for naught but because all levels of government in this great nation, like leeches, attach themselves firmly to the backs of it's most responsible and productive citizens so that the Gravelines of the world can receive a subsidy for their personal lifestyle choices.

Further Reading:

last modified:Wednesday,March 19, 2008 at 04:40