The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Child Poverty

Recently British Columbia, Canada was named for Canada’s highest children’s poverty rate. The reaction among many in British Columbia was to blame the government. In fact someone I know said to me that the government has really dropped the ball on this one. If they are not careful, I wouldn’t doubt war will happen.
The person who said this has three children and works as much overtime as he can, and his wife also works. However, he says he barely makes ends meet. Despite the fact he lives in government low income housing. He told me that in the last year his rent has gone up twice.
I think this kind of reaction is quite silly, but can sort of understand where that kind reaction comes from.
Apparently many people are leaving British Columbia because they say they have a hard time making ends meet, despite them having skills such as carpentry, welding, etc...
Personally, I think many of the people who say things like that believe that the government is responsible for all poverty. I disagree with this kind of sentiment; at best I think the government can do is make it easier for employers to hire more people. Maybe create incentive programs for employers to invest in their employees in training etc.
Other than that, I am not sure how to react as a Christian to the subject of child poverty.
What are your thoughts?
Tom

I am inclined to agree with some of the things your friend has expressed Tom. I have wondered how it is Canadians can endure the heavy taxation Canada imposes upon its subjects. Socialism is not a healthy system by any stretch of the imagination and that is the direction the US is headed. The poor are becoming poorer. There is little incentive, considering the risk factor, to start a new business. Yet, new business is necessary for the health of the economy. The more restrictions and taxes that the gov't puts on business, the less likely new business will start or for existing businesses to stay in the country.

It is not that I can't identify with what my friend said. It is just that he seemed to be advocating more government assistance to the problem of child poverty.
The only way for that to happen is to add more taxes.
Seeing you used to live in British Columbia, you know that most people seem to think that all big business are greedy and do not get their fair share of the taxes.
This to me is biting the hand that feeds them.
Although in my job, I am not paid great. Still I am treated very well and I have been told by management that my efforts do not go unnoticed.
Yet, I have heard some people at my work do nothing but complain about one thing or another. We have free coffee and tea at breaks and also have pizza days every 3 months. Yet, many speak as though they are entitled to these things. One person even refuses these kind of things because (in her words) they are sucking up to the workers and she doesn't go for that kind of thing.
I hope you get my point.

Tom

The more I think about the issue, the more I believe the answer lies in fewer taxes; not more taxes.
The government would do well to understand that healthy business, not social programs do more to end things like child poverty.
The government should try to provide a healthy atmosphere where business can prosper and be able to hire more employees. They could even provide incentive programs for employers to invest in their workers. Although the government didn't provide an incentive program for my wife's employer, never the less they invested in her education and for the past 12 years has been an accountant, who has become a valuable asset to her company. I can only imagine how many businesses would jump on board if the government was offering them this kind of thing. Yes, taxes might be paying for these kinds of incentive programs, but this kind of money is not going down the drain.

Tom

The redistribution of wealth via taxation has never worked. It is not only unbiblical but has proven to be a failure historically. We just had a discussion with a woman at the eye glass store yesterday as a matter of fact and she held to this socialistic notion. She felt that the gov't needed to take money from the rich and provide for the poor because the rich do not give to the poor voluntarily. Ironically, she initiated the discussion by announcing that she had a habit of buying new glasses all the time so that she had a pair that matched all of her outfits when she traveled. Well, (chuckling to myself. I hadn't bought glasses for probably 15 years or so and made do with an old pair that I found in a box.) why hadn't she thought of buying fewer glasses and contributing that money to the needs of the poor? No way, that was for the gov't to do. Tax these rich corporations and people and then take care of the poor. The conversation went on but, she just didn't get it. The problem is the depravity of man. Man is selfish, and will see his neighbor suffer before doing anything to help him.

There is a new article online that I think you might really enjoy. Don't be put off by its length. It is a wonderful, thought provoking article! The article, written by Jonathan Edwards, Christian Charity, or the Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced

Tom,

First, let me say that government is in most democratic societies a reflection and extension of the populace. Put another way, politicians are voted into office by those who support their political philosophy and agenda(s).

Second, Canada is governed by a Socialist political structure, i.e., government controls the majority of what goes on from healthcare, to food to morals or lack of it. The underlying philosophy of Socialism is that a few select individuals are better able to know what is best for the masses and how to care for them. Basically, Socialism discourages individualism and promotes communism; share and share alike.

Third, one of the major contributors to poverty in Canada; the government being its designer and controller according to the desire of the people, is its universal public Healthcare system. This uncontrollable beast has an insatiable appetite for money and thus it consumes nearly 70% of the nations income. That's why the taxes, both obvious and hidden, many of which are called 'fees', are so extremely high. The cost of living is exorbitant in British Columbia. Consequently, just to make ends meet, wages are also very high for many, particularly those in unions which many (most?) are. But the others who own or work for small business enterprises, such high wages are out of reach. Thus a 'class system' exists, which is inevitable for any type of socialistic political system. Ironically, this is one of the main ideas Socialism boasts will prevent.

Lastly, and MUCH more could be said, the overall social structure with its "fix all" programs are bleeding the people dry of liquid assets. And most of these social programs are designed to promote immorality and those who practice it, e.g., homosexuality, prostitution, drug use, etc. But again, these things are nothing more than an extension of who the majority of people are in Canada. They agree, promote and practice these abominations and demand that money be spent to further their existence or in some cases provide an alleged 'cure'. Additionally, Canadians in general are extremely hedonistic. Recreation is what most people live for. This is not to say that these things are unique to Canada or British Columbia... no, no, no!! But the matter of "child poverty" is one of the consequences of how people think and live and of course demand how the government be run.

The same mentality exists in the U.S. And the current state of affairs and the government run by Barack Obama and his regime is causing similar consequences as have existed in Canada for decades. Of course, the majority of Republicans have moved more to the left (liberal) of a political center rather than right (conservative). They are affectionately known as RINOS (Republicans in Name Only). And thus their proposals are nothing more than dumbed down versions of the Democrats' proposals. In other words, the current majority of both the major political parties here are promoters of Socialism.

That's my

Pilgrim

Very well written.
As I was reading what you said, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps socialism is a response of what can happens when depraved people misuse power.
For example, unions form because employers use their power in unfair manners. Of course when unions do form, the tail ends up trying to wag the dog; but isn't that exactly what the depravity of man does?
As I think about this a little more, I realize that I have incomplete thoughts on the issue.
Am I on the right track; can you offer anything more concerning a system that might actually work?

Tom

Oh, to be sure LOTS more could be said because poverty in general exists for myriad reasons. However, the fact that "child poverty" is the focus, which is a rather dubious subject, IMHO, because it usually is an attempt to paint a picture of little waifs running around the streets who have no parents, no home, no money, no food nor clothing.

To be more realistic, children suffer FROM the poverty of others, but hardly can it be said THEY are poor. Now, what about the poverty of children's parents? In many cases the poverty is self-made due to their lifestyle; the spending of money on non-essential and often self-gratifying things. Again, humans in general are very much hedonistic and think it is their RIGHT to have recreation and constant pleasurable stimulation, whether it is from junk food, to tobacco/alcohol, movies, big screen TVs, iPhones/iPads/Smart phones, new cars, the latest Nike shoes or designer clothes, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

There surely are 'legitimate' instances of poverty, e.g., getting laid off or fired from a job that didn't pay that much to begin with. A serious accident or illness can drain one's savings, if there even was any, quickly. But with all the social programs taxes are extracted for, it is rarely the case where a child needs to go without food, clothing or shelter. And since the government is 'stealing' so much money from its citizens to allegedly provide 'services' and to fund all these necessary programs to help those less fortunate, people are less motivated to help the needy directly. If the government is allegedly taking care of the poor and so many other 'needs' since it has more compassion than the average citizen and it has an endless supply of cash that comes out of every else's pocket, why would anyone really want to spend what little money they have left to remedy a problem which the government claims it has control over?

Oh, one last thing for you to think about, which doubtless you have pondered already... Since the majority of people think that living a 'good life' is a RIGHT (what isn't a right in most people's mind these days?) and that the government 'knows best' how to control their lives, where is the incentive for self-help? The response to personal problems becomes an outstretched hand because Big Brother surely has the solution and the money to take care of it for me. Got a drug addiction problem? No problem... just go down to one of the local dispensaries and get a dose of your preferred drug which is said to be the way to get you off your addiction. In short, why try to do something for yourself when the government has taken so much of your hard-earned money to create 'solutions' to poverty and has a plethora of programs which will meet your particular need? That's one of the main tenets of Socialism... make the populace DEPENDENT upon the government which means it controls you.

What do you mean by child poverty? Are the street kids who have not parents or relatives caring for them? I guess I find that I am a little confused by this term. With child labor laws, one would expect that children would not have the ability to earn a living. And with the increase of minimum wages, working age children will have a more difficult time finding places that will hire inexperienced workers.

I am a little suspicious about things like this. I can remember when my wife and I were first married. Back then, we were surprised to learn that we were living below the poverty line. Despite the fact we both owned cars and although we certainly needed to be careful with how we spent our money; we never the less lived comfortably.

Over the years, I have known people who lived beyond their means. One person I know, bought a huge TV and said to me; I am beginning to think this is a common thought among many today.

Actually, this kind of attitude is understandable if one is living with out God in the equation.

Tom

I agree with you, but being how in reality both Canada and the USA are secular countries, meaning that most people live for pleasure and only live in order to support their pleasure.
Are you suggesting that Capitalism, without Christian charity is the answer?
Can you expand on a system you believe is the answer; in the same manner you showed the problem with Socialism?

Tom

1. Capitalism is NOT the "answer" but it is exponentially better than Socialism.

2. There is no "Christian" government here on earth and never will be despite those who think there can be, Reconstructionists, or those who believe there will be, Postmillennialists.

3. But there is a system that works but unfortunately for most, they will never see it. The name of that 'system' is the "New Heaven and New Earth" where righteousness dwells and a most benevolent King rules the minds and hearts of all.

Remember, "For the poor always ye have with you;..." (Jh 12:8) and it is one of the services of the true Church that collections be taken for the poor and used to relieve their earthly sorrows, even if it is but temporary and partial. I'm NOT referring to adopting a "Social gospel" approach, but rather the biblical teaching of ministering to the poor among us both physically and spiritually, e.g., Rom 15:26; Gal 2:10, et al.

So what you are basically saying in the here and now, is Capitalism with the following mixed in it?


Are you in favor of things like Workman's Compensation and Health Insurance?

Tom

I do think Capitalism is about the best one can do. What makes any/all the various political systems fail is man in his fallen state. So given that humans aren't going to change by any significant number, there is always going to be problems, suffering, etc.

What do you mean "in favor of..."? IF you are asking if I am in favor or a government designed and controlled public/universal healthcare system, then my answer is a resounding NO! But if you are asking something else, please state your question in another way.

I guess what I am asking is when someone gets injured on the job; what do they do for money? I am not talking a week or two; a few years ago I was off work for almost 6 months.