Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Mark Anderson]

I wrote and asked Toby Barrett about this Bill here is the reply

----- Original Message -----

From: Barrett, Toby

To: 'Mark Anderson'

Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:08 AM

Subject: RE: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Hello Mark,

 

Chris here from Toby’s office.

 

This bill won’t have any negative impacts on ODSP or OW. The bill would allow easier access to programs for individuals on both OW and ODSP.

 

OW and ODSP would be separate still, just administered under one roof.

 

 

Regards,

Chris Rell

Constituency Assistant to

Toby Barrett MPP

Haldimand-Norfolk

36 Norfolk St. North

Simcoe, Ontario N3Y 3N6

T: 519.428.0446

T: 800.903.8629

F: 519.428.0835

 

 

 

 

---

From: Mark Anderson [mailto:mande...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:48 PM
To: Barrett, Toby
Subject: RE: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

 

Dear Sir

I was ondering if you could explain the ramifications of this to people on ODSP.  All of us are already living below the poverty line.  And we fear that this may make it next to impossible for us to survive on a day to day basis.

 

Sincerly

Mark Anderson

[Andy Thompson]

Wow! The person responds, "Chris here from Toby's office;" how unprofessional.

The line below is from Toby Barrett's own statement in regards to combining the programs. It would appear that unifying social assistance would do more than "just administer [the programs] under one roof."

This statement is clearly an expression of intent to put more people with disabilities back into the labour market regardless of whether or not jobs exist for them.

“This proposal would open up new opportunities for those with disabilities to find training, to acquire new skills and to participate in Ontario’s workforce to the fullest of their abilities.” -- Toby Barrett, MPP

---

From: mande...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [odspfireside: 50143 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:10:38 -0400

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit:
 
Http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
 
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com
 
 

[Ron Payne]

OW had a lot more missing or lost documents that ODSP according to my research   Ron Payne Welfare Legal Hamilton, Ontario

--

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Aha! I KNEW there was a lot of unnecessary worry over it.   DM          -------Original Message-------

From: Mark Anderson Date: 29/04/2013 10:02:49 AM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[abrowne]

The Conservative paper was clear about downloading ODSP to the

municipalities and running them from the same office.  This means eventually

the province will find it too easy to cut transfers to the municipalities so that

the cities can make the deep cuts that Harris and his protégé Tim Hudak would

not even think of ...

We cannot have that happen.  I don't care what he says about how they will be

still 'separate', they will be integrated with the same set of rules, same set of

computers, same staff administering OW.  People here where I live experience

frequent holds, cuts off, suspensions, etc. and I have seen way too many problems

with this, three in February alone, one of which actually got evicted because of the

cheque being suspended.

People on ODSP need a completely different administration and set of rules, as

most of them cannot work for lengths of time and even among those that can,

many will not be hired.

 

From: "doggy...@gmail.com" <doggy...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:49:22 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50168 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Aha! I KNEW there was a lot of unnecessary worry over it.   DM          -------Original Message-------   From: Mark Anderson Date: 29/04/2013 10:02:49 AM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com Subject: [odspfireside: 50143 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013   I wrote and asked Toby Barrett about this Bill here is the reply ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrett, Toby To: 'Mark Anderson' Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:08 AM Subject: RE: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013 Hello Mark,   Chris here from Toby’s office.   This bill won’t have any negative impacts on ODSP or OW. The bill would allow easier access to programs for individuals on both OW and ODSP.   OW and ODSP would be separate still, just administered under one roof.

-- --

[ROBERT ALDRED]

If that is the case then why not upload the whole thing and give people on Social Assistance access to the Ombudsman.   

[Bill Higgs]

We are very right to be worried!!!!!!!  Would you stake your life on what Barrett said???

All politicians lie, if they did not they would never get elected.

Barrett is no different,  and it is not for him to say anyway

If Hudak get elected as well as Barrett,  Barrett will have to do what his leash holder Hudak tells him to.

If Hudak decided to cut ODSP back (which is likely and he has hinted at) there will be nothing Barett can do to stop the cuts

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: doggy...@gmail.com

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Andy Thompson]

Dog Mama has not even bothered to read the report...

Combining the programs would be the first step towards eliminating disability....

Everyone now on ODSP would be expected to search for a job. 

There would be four streams: the first would be for those "closest" to the labour market and the fourth would be for those most distant from the labour market. But EVERYONE would be expected to job search. Being except, according to the report, would stigmatize people with disabilities. 

---

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:00:55 -0700
From: sus...@rocketmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50180 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

i think if combining them saves mony then good. that leaves more for odsp payments.

why have 2 programs that do the same thing. it makes no sense.

i knew DM was right. theres nothing to worry about. some people are only happy when there worrying but not me.

[Bill Higgs]

Very good point,  if the sole purpose as we have been led to belieive is about cost savings due to efficiencies, then isnt OW being uploaded to the province and combine the two provincially.

 

So what could the reasoning be??????

if its municiapal, than the Ombudsmans office will have no jurisdiction,  nor will the SBT b  of any help, and the biggest kicker, if its municapl  any and all benfits can be deemed discretionary just like dentures are now, or maybe dental or glasses will be deemed discvretionary

 

Those who think amalgamating under the municipalities is a good idea, better hope that their municaplity doesnt decide to class a great many things discretionary!!!!! and canel the benefit.

 

 

Bill

[Andy Thompson]

So, a low level staffer at a constituency office makes a flippant statement contrary to what's in the MPP's own news release and you believe its proof of something you've believed all along?

---

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:49:22 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50168 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Bill Higgs]

if any savings are realized which I doubt, where are these saving coming from, OW and ODSP staff will not be reduced,  the only savings possibly is that they would be housed under the same roof which might save some money,  but how many millions will be wasted doing the move???

 

and what on earth makes you think for one minute that any savings would be passed along to us in increased support??????

both the Liberals and and PC want odsp cut back, the Drummond report suggested it and the SAR report suggests it too.

so I think theres a snowballs chance for an increase for us

in fact the liberals tried to cancel our yearly 1% increase and now you think they are going to be generous????

any savings will be dumped into the general coffers for the government to waste on whatever lame brained idea they dream up.

 

Bill

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:00 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50180 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

i think if combining them saves mony then good. that leaves more for odsp payments.

why have 2 programs that do the same thing. it makes no sense.

i knew DM was right. theres nothing to worry about. some people are only happy when there worrying but not me.

[abrowne]

It's not to save money; it's to save face in the future when provincial governments

cut municipalities back, so that benefits will be harshly cut by the municipalities.

Municipalities, unlike the province or federal government, cannot run an operating

deficit, so they will cut where it hurts the most and the province can point its fingers

at 440 municipalities instead, even though they did the dirty work.

 

I will not work with my region. I will go to court first.  I will not see my housing

put into jeopardy just because some municipal worker decides to suspend or hold

my husband's benefit.  I cannot take time off to take two buses and two buses back

and throw a whole day's earnings out the window to deal with their pettiness.

 

Believe, me.  If this goes to municipalities, things will be decided on ARBITRARY

criteria.  If they don't like the way you speak.  If they like blond hair and not brown

hair.  If they don't like people with green eyes.  Or your worker is going through PMS

that day.  They will decide what THEY feel like.  No right of appeal.  No oversight

by the Ombudsman or anybody else.  Because we have been successful in appealing

most benefits, this is why they want to do what they are proposing to do.  They don't

want people to be able to enjoy even a basic life.

 

People in Toronto may end up getting more money.  People up north may end up

getting their benefits cut in half.  People will lose various benefits.  Not right away, but this

is on track.  Because the province wants to do away with ODSP benefits and in doing

so, they will cut back the municipalities, which in turn will have no choice but to make

deep cuts to benefits and so forth.  Especially if Hudak gets elected.

 

Amalgamating the two programs will not save money, even if this is a reason.  The

City of Toronto amalgamated and it now costs more to run the City of Toronto than

it did for the total of all the six cities that amalgamated into the new Toronto.  If they want

to save money, why can they not amalgamate it provincially, upload everything so that

even Ontario Works can now enjoy the scrutiny of the Ombudsman, etc.?

 

And no, the two programs do NOT do the same thing.  I am really tired of educating

people on this list about this.  If you want to go on welfare so bad, then cancel your

ODSP benefits and apply to your municipality for welfare.  The rest of us want nothing

to do with it. 

A

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:00:55 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50180 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Ron Payne]

Oh Billy your such a wise man.

If the province wants the municipalities to decide everything, we can eliminate the whole deficit and give all on benefits a

reasonable income by eliminating the provincial government.

In the next election lets vote for Billy

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Bill Higgs <bill...@xplornet.com> wrote:

Very good point,  if the sole purpose as we have been led to believe is about cost savings due to efficiencies, then isn't OW being uploaded to the province and combine the two provincially.

 

So what could the reasoning be??????

if its municipal, than the Ombudsman's office will have no jurisdiction,  nor will the SBT b  of any help, and the biggest kicker, if its municipal  any and all benefits can be deemed discretionary just like dentures are now, or maybe dental or glasses will be deemed discretionary

 

Those who think amalgamating under the municipalities is a good idea, better hope that their municipality doesn't decide to class a great many things discretionary!!!!! and cancel the benefit.

 

 

Bill

[Ron Payne]

Susan When you look in the mirror who do you see (DM)? If your not worried what are you doing on this board? Olli sus...@rocketmail.com via googlegroups.com
to odspfireside

[abrowne]

Olli,

This may be the wrong group for you then.  This is not a "Christian" group.  This is

not a "non-Christian" group.  This is a group for discussion, information,

political action and sharing strategy.

 

I, like many people in this group, am not Christian or any religion.  If you prefer

to have a Christian forum, there may be some out there.  Or you can start your

own.  If you are uncomfortable with people taking political positions here then

you might not even want to participate in it anyways.

A

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 12:45:56 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50221 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

im looking to talk to people who are in the same situation im in.im not looking to talk to politicans. this is a support group. not an activist one. people can go other places if thats what they want.im just looking for good christian converstation and caring.On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:51:03 AM

[Bill Higgs]

I have said for years we have way too many levels of governement and duplication, there is where all the waste is

 

picture this

 

level 1.  federal government, mp's and programs and staff

 

level 2,  provincial government , mpp's and prgograms and staff

 

level 3.  municiple  ie counties  politicans and staff

 

level 4. muucipalities, ie cities, villages and townships , ploticians and staff

 

is it any wonder we can no longer afford all this bureaucracy??????

 

Bill

 

 

and I am NOT being combative, I am simply stating things as they are!!!!!!!!

[doggy...@gmail.com]

What do you mean by the first question?   I was unaware that people who are not worried aren't allowed to be here.   DM          -------Original Message-------

From: Ron Payne Date: 01/05/2013 12:15:13 PM To: ODSP Fireside Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50215 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013   Susan When you look in the mirror who do you see (DM)? If your not worried what are you doing on this board?

--

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Please show me where it says everyone will have to job search.   DM          -------Original Message-------

[Andy Thompson]

Why do you refuse to read the report, but continue to ask questions about its content here???

THE CHART BELOW SAYS AN AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN EMPLOYMENT PLANS WOULD BE SIGNED BY ALL RECIPIENTS INCLUDING THOSE WITH DISABILITIES.... This was taken from page 47 of the final report.

The report explicitly says, to not require everyone to participate in an employment plan would stigmatize people with disabilities.

The report says there would be 4 streams ranging from those requiring the least support to those requiring the most support.

A “distance from the labour market”
approach
In order to ensure that no one is left behind, the level of services and supports that people receive should be proportional to their level of need. Accomplishing this requires a standard way of defining different segments of social assistance recipients and allocating resources appropriately so that people with the greatest needs receive more intensive supports than they do today.



7. We recommend that a standard way of defining the needs of different segments of social assistance recipients, based on a ―distance from the labour market‖ approach, be developed and used across social assistance and the provincial employment and training system.

Table 2: Comparison of Participation Agreements with New Pathway to Employment Plans

Current Participation Agreements	New Pathway to Employment Plans
Completed by Ontario Works recipients, adult members of their benefit unit, as well as ODSP non- disabled spouses and dependent adults.	Completed by all social assistance recipients, including people with disabilities.
Do not indicate people’s employment goals.	Indicate clear and achievable employment goals and identify the steps toward reaching those goals.
Include planned activities29	Include planned activities, and also document the integrated services and supports recipients will access – and in what sequence – to achieve their employment goals. These may be employment- related services or other supports, such as housing or child care.
Record start and end dates for planned activities	Include relevant dates and highlight all accomplishments and progress toward achieving goals.

 

 

---

Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 21:02:59 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50240 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Ron Payne]

My statement was directed to Susan

Did you just slip up and admit that you are her?

--

[Andy Thompson]

If you can volunteer, if you sit at a desk and type on a keyboard as I am at this moment, then you and every other person with a disability is capable of employment, according to the final report. 

It does not specify full-time employment or number of employment hours. The report says every participant will sign an employment agreement, which will include specific employment goals and a plan to achieve those goals; no exemptions. 

For those completely bed ridden, perhaps, they would be expected to lick envelopes. 

---

Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 03:39:16 -0700
From: sus...@rocketmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50262 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

but when i read it its based only on your ability to work.

if you cant work then you cant work. if your able to in some whay then they will help you.

i volnteer alot but if i can get payed work then i will take that too.
i hate just sitting around all day doing nothing.

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:00:53 PM UTC-4, andy_th...@outlook.com wrote:

THE CHART BELOW SAYS AN AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN EMPLOYMENT PLANS WOULD BE SIGNED BY ALL RECIPIENTS INCLUDING THOSE WITH DISABILITIES.... This was taken from page 47 of the final report.

[aline legault]

 

Aline

I'm not the only one eh?? boy, they're getting 'touchy' or is the word 'insensitive'. I have told my landlord acc't'g services they need to wait for my ck.

aline

[abrowne]

Olli,

While I do support strong programs to help people with disabilities back to

work, I do not support them being mandatory.  People should also be able

to keep more of what they earn.  There are three key reasons why only 11%

of ODSP benefit units have earnings.  The top reason is the clawback, which

when combined together, even with the ODSP benefits one receives,

represents a higher proportion of marginal effective taxes than somebody

else with the same income, but all of it earnings.  So a person with ODSP

and earnings combined to $20,000 a year is taxed more highly than somebody

that just goes out and earns $20,000 a year.  Exempting the first $200 is a hill

of beans, as that doesn't even pay for what it costs to go to work.  Also, people

reliant on the charity of families can keep $500 a month free and clear and do

anything they want with it, without affecting their benefits.  Most of us don't

have that kind of support, so this is why I believe earnings should at least be

equal to that.  Also, any assets related to retirement savings should be exempt,

regardless of where they are put, and only count against ODSP if they were

withdrawn prior to age sixty for non-exempt expenses.

 

The second top reason is that many people simply cannot handle a job, full

or part-time.  They will not be working regardless of how much earnings

they can keep or how effective the job market is.  The third reason is the

labour market itself.  Many people with disabilities can work, but employers

are simply not hiring.

 

Perhaps you should correct your language when you say ODSP is abused by

those that receive it and don't try to work.  If you propose ideas for people

here, be prepared to accept these things being done to you too.  Perhaps,

you should not be on ODSP because you mentioned how you are able to

volunteer.  Perhaps, you should be made to find a job?

A

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50285 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

i agree with you here. many people simply just give up entirely and dont even consider looking for a differnt kind of work that they used to do. they just want to get paid because they cant do there old work.

odsp was never meant for that and its one way it gets abused and i can that being cut back.
it just makes sense. it was never meant as a permanent unemployment insureance.

[Andy Thompson]

Reforming social assistance is only one part of the solution, however. If the recommendations of the final report are implemented without labour market reform then the problem will not be solved. 

Moreover, some people on ODSP cannot work regardless of the quality and intensity of support available. The report says even in such circumstances there would be an expectation of employment. I do not believe such an expectation is realistic, fair, or appropriate. 

---

Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:12:00 -0700
From: sus...@rocketmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[ROBERT ALDRED]

It so odd don't you think that Social Assistance is always being reformed but the failed banking system is always praised.   Odd.



On Thu 02/05/13 5:42 PM , Andy Thompson andy_th...@outlook.com sent:

--

[Bill Higgs]

Good point Angela this house I own(????)  was bought for with family inheritance,  I wish I could get this house declared a relative so I could withdraw 500/month from its equity without being clawed back.

If I access any of the qequity it is automatically classed as income.

 

this whole family gift thing has been out of touch with the rest of the rules for a very long time.

 

Bill

[Bill Higgs]

Indeed forcing ODSP recipients to work is no solution,  when there are no jobs, Employers are not going to hire someone with limitations UNLESS they are either forced to hire the disabled or are given some sort of remuneration for employing a disabled person. 

 

seems to me its just a smokescreen toward cuts for the disabled who either cant or refuse to work,  that would be very aplatable for the voting taxpayers

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Andy Thompson

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

--

[Bill Higgs]

Odd isnt the word for it, they are constanmtly reforming that of which they themselves created. LOL

A Conservative named Mike Harris seperated OW and ODSP in the first place cause it was the right thing to do, now  Conservative named Hudak wants to amalgamate them back togethter cause its the right thing to do??????????

so who doesnt know what the h they are talking about??

A,B,or C  or all of the above??

LOL

 

Bill

[Bloggy.Deb]

Corrina, how is your present situation?

D

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of corrinna

Sent: April-30-13 8:36 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50265 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Yes Angela, I ended up homeless for over a year because of holds that I could do nothing about. This possibility has me very worried for my already

tenuous well being.

 

From: abrowne

 

 

  People here where I live experience

frequent holds, cuts off, suspensions, etc. and I have seen way too many problems

with this, three in February alone, one of which actually got evicted because of the

cheque being suspended.

--

[Ron Payne]

Angela

Andy does bring up a valid point.

As I have always said to my friends,

You will remember Harris/Anderson/Accenture/ OW/ODSP and then Workers Comp!

They will adopt similar rules as Workers Comp (Meat Chart)

I look forward to your thoughts

Ron

**************************************************************************************

[Bill Higgs]

lets say you are getting close to 20,000 between ODSP and work, just what benefits are you getting from ODSP???

 

Bill

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:00 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50306 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

sure. i was able to work a couple of years ago full time and didnt have to take any mony from odsp. my wages covered it all. then i got sick again and had to cut back and then leave because i was in the hospital.

if i can work again i will. and the nice thing the way odsp takes 50% off is that it gradually disappears so that when your making 20,000 a year you get to keep practically off of it. no one who isnt on odsp gets their salary and then things like the benfits odsp gives you.

[abrowne]

$20,000 a year just barely covers housing for a family of four.

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:00:52 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50306 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Thank you. I am one of those who cannot work. I don't want to go into my medical situation but not only could I not handle working, it's highly doubtful an employer would hire me. I would not be able to be depended on to show up every day or even to stay the whole shift if I am having a bad medical day, and I resent people insinuating that just because I can sit here and read the discussion group and send some replies for a bit, that I could find, handle and keep a job.   DM         -------Original Message-------

From: abrowne Date: 05/02/13 17:56:38 To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50288 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Actually, yes it is meant to be permanent for those of us unable to work and who will never be able to work (again).   DM     -------Original Message-------

From: Olli Date: 05/02/13 17:23:04 To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50285 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Being able to sit at a desk for a bit does not mean one can work.   There is also an issue of 'employability'. Most employers will not hire someone who can't be depended upon to show up every day and stay for the whole shift.   Another issue would be transportation. There are people who live far from a city with no car and no public transportation. Who's going to pay their taxi fare?   DM          -------Original Message-------

From: Andy Thompson Date: 05/02/13 16:21:12 To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50275 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[doggy...@gmail.com]

What on earth are you talking about?   When you post, anyone can reply. I see the initials I sign my posts with and of course I am going to wonder what you mean. Geez.   DM

[doggy...@gmail.com]

1. This is just a report, nothing has been implemented.   2. All it is doing is asking people to fill out the form - if you can't work, then you would state that you have no goals because you are unable to work at all.   Seriously, do you really think they are going to force people who CANNOT work to work? How would they do that? How do you force someone who physically cannot do something to do it? And do you really think the public would stand for it?           -------Original Message-------

[Bloggy.Deb]

$20,000  scarcely is enough a single person survive, let alone a couple living, I am incredulous of a family of four surviving.

D

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of abrowne

Sent: May-02-13 10:29 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

--

[abrowne]

DM,

No, it is actually proposing all people sign up for some type of employment plan, including

people with disabilities.  If you don't believe me that any government is capable of doing this,

check out what is happening in the UK and their work capacity assessments.

Websites to check out: Victims of ATOS, We Are Spartacus, Committee of 100, as

well as google search "UK, welfare reform, persons with disabilities".  Also look up

Scapegoat by Kathryn Quarmby that has documented that stratospheric climb in the

numbers and depths of hate crimes against persons with disabilities in connection to\

the UK's version of welfare reform, which in short, is similar to the Pathways to 

Employment (how people will be determined as required to do this), as well as any

half baked plans of merging the two programs and running it municipally.

This is serious stuff and this is no time to be in a state of denial  The only reason

the budget is not as bad as it could have been is because a lot of us have been

fighting against some of the more spurious notions from the SAR report, etc.

including me.

Believe me, the British public deals with this just fine.  They see people with

disabilities as no different than lazy people on welfare that don't want to work.

Angela

---

From: "doggy...@gmail.com" <doggy...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:45:42 PM
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50320 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[abrowne]

Well Deb believe it or not, when all is said and done and both ODSP and CRA have done their

hatchet job on my earnings against my husband, my family of four have rarely exceeded $25,000

in total income, both from husband's ODSP and my work.  My accountant has the numbers to

prove it.  We have to keep pushing this nonsense until we are not clawed back anymore than

anybody else is that works.

And then people wonder why I am so resentful being forced to work eighty hours a week *because\

I can't hire anybody to assist me* and then losing most of it this way?

A

---

From: Bloggy.Deb <blogg...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 10:58:59 PM
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50324 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[abrowne]

That's CPP.  There is nothing about being permanently unemployable in the ODSP Act.  Yes, there are

some that will probably not be able to work, such as yourself as you stated, but many want to work.

To say to people they should not be allowed to work if they are on ODSP is to sentence them to a life

of degradation.  This is what the Conservatives originally did under Mike Harris, until one of those

individuals deemed 'permanently unemployable' under the old Family Benefits program tried to work

ten hours a week at minimum wage, and as a result, was cut off benefits.  She went home and killed

herself.  I pushed for a coroner's inquest, got the story front page coverage and created circumstances

at the time that forced the Conservatives to change the legislation to what it is now.  If anybody tries

to pull that, I know that this will easily happen again and I will certainly continue to publicly embarrass

any government that tries to do this, or on the converse, tries to force people who are disabled to work

or get cut off.  Neither scenario will ever work.

A

---

From: "doggy...@gmail.com" <doggy...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 12:19:56 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50316 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[abrowne]

Olli, did that.  Have three university degrees.  Sure did me a lot of good,

ODSP rules for my husband prevent me from ever bringing my family out of poverty.

Self-employed in one of my professions, but I watch my peers go well past me in

terms of income because they are not clawed back most of it like my husband is.

If they'd leave my income alone,I can make $80,000 a year or more ... 

their stupid rules are designed to make any business fail.

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 3:16:16 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50313 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

you cant expect to raise a family of 4 by working at macdonlds or tim hortons. that doesnt make sense to even try.

thats why you go to school and get a degree and become a professional. i wish i could go back again.

[Bill Higgs]

ok, so specifically what health benefits am I getting now that I wouldnt get if I was not on ODSP???

 

subsidized housing is available to all NOT just ODSP receipeints if of course you can wait that long

 

and the vast majority of us get NO transit refunds

 

I am still waiting to hear what these TONS are?????

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:25 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50312 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

if you taking home 20,000 a year it means your only working for 16,000 and odsp is topping you up an extra free 4,000.
plus you get all kinds of health benefits, subsidized housing, transit refunds to that people who work on there own dont get at all.
\
tons of benefits.

[aline legault]

we're blessed to have you Angela

 

Aline

[ROBERT ALDRED]

Maybe not today.   How about the future.   Could you imagine a mad dog tory coming to power and forcing people to work by legislation the Liberals put in place.  I can.



On Thu 02/05/13 11:45 PM , "doggy...@gmail.com" doggy...@gmail.com sent:

1. This is just a report, nothing has been implemented.   2. All it is doing is asking people to fill out the form - if you can't work, then you would state that you have no goals because you are unable to work at all.   Seriously, do you really think they are going to force people who CANNOT work to work? How would they do that? How do you force someone who physically cannot do something to do it? And do you really think the public would stand for it?

-------Original Message-------   From: Andy Thompson Date: 01/05/2013 11:05:48 PM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50248 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Why do you refuse to read the report, but continue to ask questions about its content here??? THE CHART BELOW SAYS AN AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN EMPLOYMENT PLANS WOULD BE SIGNED BY ALL RECIPIENTS INCLUDING THOSE WITH DISABILITIES.... This was taken from page 47 of the final report. The report explicitly says, to not require everyone to participate in an employment plan would stigmatize people with disabilities. The report says there would be 4 streams ranging from those requiring the least support to those requiring the most support.

A “distance from the labour market” approach In order to ensure that no one is left behind, the level of services and supports that people receive should be proportional to their level of need. Accomplishing this requires a standard way of defining different segments of social assistance recipients and allocating resources appropriately so that people with the greatest needs receive more intensive supports than they do today. 7. We recommend that a standard way of defining the needs of different segments of social assistance recipients, based on a ―distance from the labour market‖ approach, be developed and  used across social assistance and the provincial employment and training system.

Table 2: Comparison of Participation Agreements with New Pathway to Employment Plans

Current Participation Agreements

New Pathway to Employment Plans

Completed by Ontario Works recipients, adult members of their benefit unit, as well as ODSP non- disabled spouses and dependent adults. Completed by all social assistance recipients, including people with disabilities.

Do not indicate people’s employment goals.

Indicate clear and achievable employment goals and identify the steps toward reaching those goals.

Include planned activities29

Include planned activities, and also document the integrated services and supports recipients will access – and in what sequence –  to achieve their employment goals. These may be employment- related services or other supports, such as housing or child care.

Record start and end dates for planned activities

Include relevant dates and highlight all accomplishments and progress toward achieving goals.

Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 21:02:59 -0400 From: doggy...@gmail.com To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50240 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013 Please show me where it says everyone will have to job search.   DM

--

[ROBERT ALDRED]

The whole phony issue of people with disabilities being classified as people that are able to work is disgusting.   This sort of issue is a human rights issue.   We are now trying to assess whether we are able to work or not when the decision has already been made by qualified medical people.   We are not ready nor will we ever be ready to compete in the workforce.   We can however volunteer.   This is how it really is and anything else is just fraud.   Their fraud.   The governments. 

It would be worse with  theTories in power.

Robert



On Fri 03/05/13 12:31 AM , "doggy...@gmail.com" doggy...@gmail.com sent:

Thank you. I am one of those who cannot work. I don't want to go into my medical situation but not only could I not handle working, it's highly doubtful an employer would hire me. I would not be able to be depended on to show up every day or even to stay the whole shift if I am having a bad medical day, and I resent people insinuating that just because I can sit here and read the discussion group and send some replies for a bit, that I could find, handle and keep a job.   DM

-------Original Message-------

From: abrowne Date: 05/02/13 17:56:38

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50288 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

The second top reason is that many people simply cannot handle a job, full or part-time.  They will not be working regardless of how much earnings they can keep or how effective the job market is.  The third reason is the labour market itself.  Many people with disabilities can work, but employers are simply not hiring.

--

[Andy Thompson]

The authors of the final report would tell you employment varies in structure from occasional to full-time. They would also tell you employment can be permanent, contractual, or self organized. 

Actually, the fact that you can and do navigate computer programs, interact with people online in a coherent manner, are literate and create online messages indicates you are capable of "productive work" for which you could be compensated. 

I am not suggesting you do not have serious medical problems, however. What I would say is reconsider your definition of "employment." 

Additionally, you say, its "highly doubtful any employer would hire me." In fact, many nonprofits and social enterprises exist exactly for that purpose: to hire workers traditionally considered difficult to employ. Under a mandatory labour market participation scheme you would likely be referred to such a organization. They could even send work to your home. 

---

Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 00:31:41 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50314 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Ron Payne]

Troll Troll Troll your boat gently down the stream.

[abrowne]

It's because most of the expenses that are required for the business are not permitted as deductions under

ODSP rules and I am not allowed to hire anybody, so I have to work at least 12 - 16 hours a day just to get

things done and I am perpetually behind. I even have to work if I am very sick, even like last week vomiting

all over the place.  If this is done to a regular employee, the employer would be in jail.  I am not allowed

to accommodate my own disability needs. I am supposed to be Superwoman.

A

---

From: Goldielover <fio...@hotmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: abrowne <browne...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 10:00:32 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50350 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Angela, you must feel like a hamster on a wheel - never getting ahead.  Obviously, they need to do something about the self-employed.  My income from both employment and ODSP was just over $26,000.00 last year, and I was only working a part time job averaging about 15 hours a week.  There's also only two of us.   (It will be less next year - the company where I worked has just gone belly up.)

I saw somewhere that whatever changes they make will be implemented over a three year period.  If that is the case, I will be very close to retirement.  If I had to fill out a participation agreement outlining my goals, they would read "retirement".  I do wonder how many service providers would be willing to take on someone who has just over a year to go.  

[abrowne]

Ron,

What are you still doing in this group?  If you think somebody is trolling, please write to

the owner as opposed to posting it here.

---

From: Ron Payne <welfarel...@gmail.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 10:20:37 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50349 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[abrowne]

Olli,

Then maybe you can tell me how I can bring in INSTANTLY over $5,000 every month and yes, EACH and

every month in addition to what I am already bringing in without increasing the number of hours I already

put in each day.  Remember: I can't hire anybody.  I'm supposed to do this myself.  The damage to my

budget has been done, no savings, nothing to cushion me forward.  It takes time to build the business to

that point.  If my income were simply not counted against my husband, as in the case with ANY OTHER

SPOUSE OF ANY OTHER PERSON WITH A DISABILITY NOT ON ODSP but on other benefits,

like WSIB, CPP, LTD, etc. then I'd be able to move towards that objective by hiring somebody and

moving upwards.  I only have 24 hours in a day.  I already work 16 of them.

Perhaps, you might like to learn about how a business operates, how it grows, how much it costs to

keep a business' door open, etc. before you make these kinds of sage comments.

A

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 10:28:56 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50348 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

wow. if you can make 80,000 a year with your husband not on disability then i would take him off it and just live on the 80,000.

odsp cant be adding more than 10,000 or so so you would be way ahead. your lucky you can make mony like that. thats why school is such a good idea.

[abrowne]

Dental - basic, if you can find a dentist that will accept it

Medications, some of them, but many here are taking medications that aren't covered.

Start up allowance when people move - gone.  It was called CSUMB.  It waved bye bye as of Jan 1, 2013.

Employment start up, hard to get.

Subsidized housing, you don't WANT it, who wants to live in the kinds of buildings where subsidized

housing is offered?  Besides that, ANYBODY ... you don't have to be on assistance can apply as subsidized

housing, like subsidized childcare is available to low wage workers as well, including those without disabilities.

But if you are working, do you really want an additional 30% clawback on top of your other clawbacks to live

in subsidized housing?

A

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 12:03:51 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50352 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

you get dental, optical, medications for free. plus you can get a start up allowance if your moving, plus allowances when your starting a new job, clothing, travell. it can get you subsidized housing.

none of those can someone get if there just making minimum wage and not disabled. none of those.

[Angela Best]

I don't llike the idea that ODSP and OW are being administered under the same roof because I suffered at the hands of OW Staff after my partner died.  I lost my home, I was evicted, my child was almost taken away from me while I was trying to obtain a motion to stop an eviction.  OW staff partner with the co-op to help them ignore the membership vote to stay and pay my arrears.  The Co-op falsify documents ignoring the vote and never worked to make a payment arrangement.  Mind you ODSP help mew when I transferred from OW to ODSP.  OW took over $2,700.00 Dollars from the payout of ODSP.  That $2,700.00 could have helped to pay off or pay down my arrears.  I kept paying my monthly rent.  They combined the arrears with the monthly rent.  Then they threatened to put me in collection.  Then when I was in shelter they President of the Co-op and a friend of her track me down at the shelter and the bill collector starting calling me.  They moved the content of my home and put it in storage and said I owe them over $11,000.00 which includes interest.  Housing said they would help me and then tell me to give away the contents of my home to charity.  When I refused they said that they can only pay storage for three months.  Then they tried to force me into a housing that had smokers and cat in the apartment. I am allergic to both the smokers, their clothes and cats.  If I come in contact with a smoker I would react and the only way I would stop is by going to the doctor for medication.  When it comes to cat I would have my chest tightening up and gasping for air and feel like I am having a heart attack.   I just would have to get out of that surroundings and run for my life.  How forced me to sign storage documents so that I get help from them.  They also wanted me to sign a document for my daughter which I refuse because the document had nothing to do with what they were saying.  Then I tried to get some more help from the Mayor, the Mayor's Office sent the letter over to Housing and housing refused to help me any further.  They put up the contents of my home for auction.  Even though I got back on track with the help of ODSP with my rent the arrears are still outstanding.  The Housing said if I owe any of their providers  I will not get housing.  The Outreach staff was forcing me to pay $25.00 and I refused because  before this matter went into the court I offered to pay $50.00 plus my rent and the President of the Co-op Board of Directors said that would take a long time to pay and laughed at me and chased me out of the meeting.  My eviction could have been avoided because my case worker refused to help me.  Everybody turned their backs on my family. 

Just imagine that a heart attack killed my partner and my 8 yrs 10 months old daughter and I turn to social services and Ontario Works Staff, Housing and the Co-op throw us out in the streets. 

I have lived through the degradation of Ontario Works Staff, Housing and the Co-op teaming up together and the Legal Aid Clinic.  I will keep as far away as I can from OW.  My ODSP case worker has been nothing but helpful and respectful.

I want nothing to do with Ontario Works. 

Angela

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Mark Anderson <mande...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wrote and asked Toby Barrett about this Bill here is the reply

----- Original Message -----

From: Barrett, Toby

To: 'Mark Anderson'

Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:08 AM

Subject: RE: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Hello Mark,

 

Chris here from Toby’s office.

 

This bill won’t have any negative impacts on ODSP or OW. The bill would allow easier access to programs for individuals on both OW and ODSP.

 

OW and ODSP would be separate still, just administered under one roof.

 

 

Regards,

Chris Rell

Constituency Assistant to

Toby Barrett MPP

Haldimand-Norfolk

36 Norfolk St. North

Simcoe, Ontario N3Y 3N6

T: 519.428.0446

T: 800.903.8629

F: 519.428.0835

 

 

 

 

---

From: Mark Anderson [mailto:mande...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:48 PM
To: Barrett, Toby
Subject: RE: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

 

Dear Sir

I was ondering if you could explain the ramifications of this to people on ODSP.  All of us are already living below the poverty line.  And we fear that this may make it next to impossible for us to survive on a day to day basis.

 

Sincerly

Mark Anderson

[Andy Thompson]

This is why labour market reform is critical. The social assistance reform should not proceed without meaningful change in the labour market. I received employment support once and it was inadequate. 

I was offered job development services. The job development worker "developed" a job for me at the local dollar store, which I could have "developed" on my own. I was not offered any accommodations. I was told accommodations would be inconsistent with "competitive employment." However, competitive employment is not appropriate for everyone. There was no alternative employment service option. After three months of physical pain and feeling inadequate I departed. 

---

Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 09:20:38 -0700
From: browne...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50356 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[ROBERT ALDRED]

Mandatory!  Don't you mean forced labor.  That is illegal.   It is however how we may be headed in the future.   We have seen many examples in history of forced labor regimes and how they turn out.   This must be stopped. 

We had a slogan in the sixties that was quite popular.   "It couldn't happen here."   Of course things did happen here.  Wars. Torture. etc.   Do not believe that it could not happen here.   All it needs to be implemented is time and a distracted misinformed public.   Oh.   We have that now.

Robert



On Fri 03/05/13 10:44 AM , Andy Thompson andy_th...@outlook.com sent:

The authors of the final report would tell you employment varies in structure from occasional to full-time. They would also tell you employment can be permanent, contractual, or self organized. 

Actually, the fact that you can and do navigate computer programs, interact with people online in a coherent manner, are literate and create online messages indicates you are capable of "productive work" for which you could be compensated. 

I am not suggesting you do not have serious medical problems, however. What I would say is reconsider your definition of "employment." 

Additionally, you say, its "highly doubtful any employer would hire me." In fact, many nonprofits and social enterprises exist exactly for that purpose: to hire workers traditionally considered difficult to employ. Under a mandatory labour market participation scheme you would likely be referred to such a organization. They could even send work to your home. 

Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 00:31:41 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50314 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Thank you. I am one of those who cannot work. I don't want to go into my medical situation but not only could I not handle working, it's highly doubtful an employer would hire me. I would not be able to be depended on to show up every day or even to stay the whole shift if I am having a bad medical day, and I resent people insinuating that just because I can sit here and read the discussion group and send some replies for a bit, that I could find, handle and keep a job.   DM

 
 

--

[Andy Thompson]

By continuing to interact on this board you continue to demonstrate your "employability." Another member has suggested you familiarize yourself with what's been happening to people with disabilities in the UK. I agree, this is something you should do. 

---

Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 00:19:56 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50316 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Andy Thompson]

1) Wrong! The government is currently in the process of reforming social assistance. An executive committee of cabinet is being formed at this very moment to begin the process. 

2) And yes, you can be "forced" to participate in employment activity, if you want to continue to receive social assistance. Social assistance is based on a contractual agreement between the recipient and the government. In order to receive support you must agree to the terms as determined by the government. 

Please, define "work"? You continue to use the word, but refuse to consider its meaning. To be frank, licking envelopes from your bedside is something for which one could be compensated.

Refusing to accept reality does not change it. 

---

Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 23:45:42 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50320 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Andy Thompson]

Mandatory labour market participation already exists for Ontario Works recipients. The same philosophy will be extended to ODSP soon as the two programs are combined into one. 

---

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com; andy_th...@outlook.com
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 12:40:55 -0400
Subject: Re: RE: [odspfireside: 50346 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013
From: chrys...@primus.ca

[Ron Payne]

Angela Best

It is stories like this that make me do what I do.

You can find good workers both at OW and ODSP it's just at OW they seem harder to find.

Ron

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Angela Best <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't llike the idea that ODSP and OW are being administered under the same roof because I suffered at the hands of OW Staff after my partner died.  I lost my home, I was evicted, my child was almost taken away from me while I was trying to obtain a motion to stop an eviction. 

Just imagine that a heart attack killed my partner and my 8 yrs 10 months old daughter and I turn to social services and Ontario Works Staff, Housing and the Co-op throw us out in the streets. 

[Ron Payne]

But Angela!

You know better than I who the trolls are.

Why don't you tell the owner who they are yourself.

Oh ya, I forgot that you already did, remember.

If you want me to leave the group and keep the trolls just let me know.

Ron

[Ron Payne]

Andy

We will not be seeing all those ads on the internet saying "Hamilton woman makes $7000. a week from home on the internet" anymore because we will all be working

[abrowne]

Ron, I am just keeping an eye on you, to keep your "sarcasm" to a bare minimum.

 

It is me that holds the whips and chains.

 

Have a good weekend!

A

[Bill Higgs]

as we have seen on numerous occasions, the government does NOT follow dictionary definitions,  words mean whatever they want ithem to mean and to hell with Websters LOL

.

to sum it up black is not black if the government says it isnt.

to the government unless you are comatose you could be deemed employable if the government says so,  and its not their problem that there are no jobs for either the public or people with limititations.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Andy Thompson

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[doggy...@gmail.com]

That's crazy that you can't hire anyone. Insane. They need to change that.   I hope you are feeling better now.   DM          -------Original Message-------

From: abrowne Date: 05/03/13 12:15:12 To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50352 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Bill Higgs]

You do realize a great many graduates are not working in the trade of their degree and have to settle for a waitressing job etc , amd hope they make enough to pay their student loan, Timmies and Mickey D's have lots of graduates serving coffee and flipping burgers.

Gone are the days when a degree guaranteed you a good job

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:16 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50313 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

you cant expect to raise a family of 4 by working at macdonlds or tim hortons. that doesnt make sense to even try.

thats why you go to school and get a degree and become a professional. i wish i could go back again.

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 10:28:52 PM UTC-4, Angela wrote:

$20,000 a year just barely covers housing for a family of four.

--

[VICKY SWERBRICK]

some people cant afford to take courses and do other things in life that they want to do i know i cant . i use to work at a animal shelter i would like to go back but i cant because of the transplant and i just found out last year that i have ashsma and i cant stand or walk like i use to
 

---

Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 17:24:16 -0700
From: sus...@rocketmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50375 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

my point is a normal person making 20,000 a year doesnt get these things at all but someone on odsp does.

if anyone should be c omplaining its them but they dont. sometimes if you want more you just have to work more and get better at it and take courses.

On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:20:38 PM UTC-4, Angela wrote:

Dental - basic, if you can find a dentist that will accept it

Medications, ...

[Bill Higgs]

With this group being open for the whole world to see, the last thing we need is for posts like this which is full of misinformation and painting it as if we are lving on easy street available for the naysayers to use as ammunition for why we should be cut back in our support.

 

Bill

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 12:03 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50352 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

you get dental, optical, medications for free. plus you can get a start up allowance if your moving, plus allowances when your starting a new job, clothing, travell. it can get you subsidized housing.

none of those can someone get if there just making minimum wage and not disabled. none of those.

[Bloggy.Deb]

Hi Olli- Deb here.  

I am so sorry to hear about the way things turned out for you.  But you sound like a real trooper!!!!

Hope you don’t mind if I ask a bunch of questions…..

What type of work were you doing before your hospitalization?  Without prying what type of disability do you have?

When you were working, what was it that you did and do you feel you may be able to return to it possibly at a later date? And your employer were they supportive. And finally the most encouraging question I have for you, had you thought about career change, job training.

Olli wrote:

:the nice thing the way odsp takes 50% off is that it gradually disappears so that when your making 20,000 a year you get to keep practically off of it. no one who isnt on odsp gets their salary and then things like the benfits odsp gives you. :   

Olli, how does that work.  I am not receiving benefits so my questions might seem a little odd to you, but I’d really like to understand your situation better.

Cheers

Deb J

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Olli

Sent: May-02-13 8:01 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50306 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

 

sure. i was able to work a couple of years ago full time and didnt have to take any mony from odsp. my wages covered it all. then i got sick again and had to cut back and then leave because i was in the hospital.

if i can work again i will. and the nice thing the way odsp takes 50% off is that it gradually disappears so that when your making 20,000 a year you get to keep practically off of it. no one who isnt on odsp gets their salary and then things like the benfits odsp gives you.

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:51:29 PM UTC-4, Angela wrote:

Perhaps,

you should not be on ODSP because you mentioned how you are able to

volunteer.  Perhaps, you should be made to find a job?

 

 

[Bill Higgs]

Seems to me your post being spread for the world to see are just the fodder they need to justify major cutbacks in your support.

 

Bill

 

 

I am happy for you  that you are living so well but I for one would be better off living on minimum wage, at least then my wage wouldnt be getting cut back for renting out space in my house!!!!.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:56 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50377 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

im sorry to hear that. id like to take courses to and work again but right now i cant. the extra bit of mony would be nice.

thing is i have friends who are working at minimm wage and not on odsp and im living better than they are. its really hard for them.

[Bill Higgs]

Angela ther are a few reasons I wouldnt beother approcaching the owner, one of which is that in the recent past he has accused my of a being a non postiver member  (aka troll) with multiple alaises and email account and only having been a memebr for 2 years, ALL of which are false.

And to put it bluntly not just I but many members dont feel like getting the 'if you dont like it here dont let the door hit you on the way out" responce

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: abrowne

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Bill Higgs]

I am confused about the figures you quote,  it has been my understanding that a single who works part time has their ODSP support cut back as per the formula and if you work more hours when you salary reaches the same level as ODSP support you no longer receive ODSP except possibly some benefits..
if ODSP has decided that roughly 11,000 is sufficient for a single to live on , how on earth can you earn 16,000 and have ODSP top you up to 20,000?????

 

when I tried doing a rural paper work, I actually ended up in the hole after ODSP got done hacking

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Bill Higgs]

I have a tenant who rents to live in my house and ODSP hacks it back at 65%, considering the additonal utlities etc  I am probably making 30 bucks a mnonth for having a tenant!!!!

 

Fair huh??

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Goldielover

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:44 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50385 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Your rent will skyrocket if you are in subsidized housing while working and collecting OW/ODSP.  Not sure what you mean about transit refunds.  I worked part time, and certainly didn't get any of those.  The only transit money I get is for medical travel, and covers three trips a week.  If you buy a transit pass rather than paying cash or buying tokens, then you can claim it on your federal tax, but that's only a benefit if you need to bring your taxable income down.  That's not OW/ODSP specific, either - anyone can claim that.  Also, low income working people can get the federal Working Income Tax Benefit, which we don't (unless we are also working). 

I had an income of about $26000.00 last year.  $10,000.00 of that was employment income, the remainder of $16000.00 was ODSP.  If I had not worked, my ODSP for the year would have just under $21,000.00, including medical transportation.  I am not single, though - I have an adult dependent still in high school.  As you can see from those figures, the clawback is pretty well right at 50%

[ROBERT ALDRED]

Raise the minimum wage to a livable wage.   Say $18.00 per hour.   In Australia people working at Macdonalds make almost $20.00 per hour and buy houses.   MacDonalds has not pulled out of that country.   You are being conned here in Canada and the only way to fix it is to fight every proposal they put forward otherwise the corrupt agenda continues as it has for thirty years.  



On Fri 03/05/13 8:56 PM , Olli sus...@rocketmail.com sent:

im sorry to hear that. id like to take courses to and work again but right now i cant. the extra bit of mony would be nice.

thing is i have friends who are working at minimm wage and not on odsp and im living better than they are. its really hard for them.


On Friday, May 3, 2013 8:49:17 PM UTC-4, vick...@bell.net wrote:

some people cant afford to take courses and do other things in life that they want to do i know i cant . i use to work at a animal shelter i would like to go back but i cant because of the transplant and i just found out last year that i have ashsma and i cant stand or walk like i use to

[Ron Payne]

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

thats how it worked for me when i was w orking.

Susan your 100% wrong on this one.

What do they do with the 50% that you don't keep?

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

50% of 16,000 is 8,000 and that gets added to your odsp so 12,000+8,000 = 20,000.

thats how it worked for me when i was w orking.

[Bill Higgs]

This makes absolutley no sense  to me, ODSP tells the rest of us who cant work that 12,000 is a liveable income, and go to every step imaginable to cut us back or cut us off.

So if you are well enough to work and earn 16,000  which is far more than the 12,000 they think is sufficient, why on earth would thyey top you up to  20,000??

 

No wonder someone working part time or for minumum wage would be jealous  and want to see us cut back!!!!

This is totally unfair!!!

I collect 400 from having a tenant and ODSP hacks it back at 65%,, and where is my 100 bucks month???

 

This is so totally messed up

 

Bill

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:25 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50312 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

if you taking home 20,000 a year it means your only working for 16,000 and odsp is topping you up an extra free 4,000.
plus you get all kinds of health benefits, subsidized housing, transit refunds to that people who work on there own dont get at all.
\
tons of benefits.

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:19:10 PM UTC-4, tooguyca wrote:

lets say you are getting close to 20,000 between ODSP and work, just what benefits are you getting from ODSP???

 

Bill

[Bloggy.Deb]

Olli,

as I don’t presently receive ODSP I’m not up on the formulas etc.  so please understand if I sound like I am asking daft questions, they are not I just need to get my head wrapped around this  a bit more…… Could I ask that you detail this top-up to $20,000, why or how does this happen to you

Thanks so much in advance!

Deb

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Higgs

Sent: May-07-13 8:25 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

--

[abrowne]

Olli, all this does is discourage people from working more than they are "allowed".  Less

than 1% of those on ODSP ever work themselves off the system.  Yes, many are capable,

but at what amounts to a very high marginal effective tax rate, people aren't going to make

the effort.  That is not going to change with the $200 exemption they are putting in place.

My bet is that people will earn their $200 and then stop.

In my own surveys, when I provided my own input into the SAR, the #1 reason why

people on ODSP weren't working was because of the very high clawbacks.  Even with

the $200, their total composite METR is higher (almost by double) of that of millionaires.

This reason exceeded the issue of not being able to work because of disability by a large

margin.

A

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:39:44 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50424 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

it does make sense and seems fare to everyone who has to pay in their taxes for the money odsp gives us.

[abrowne]

Olli, they did that before.  That is actually against the law to do that.  I almost got a

coroner's inquest going here because this is what the Tories tried under Harris.  When

somebody did try to work and was considered no longer permanently unemployable,

and was cut off, she committed suicide.  I have the media on speed dial.

A

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:46:40 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50423 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

here its never admiting you can work in anyway. the point of odsp was for people who are unemployable because of a disability. but they left the door open to work in some way if we are able to. 

i think now they are going to use that bit of rope down the road where if weve shown we can work then we dont deserve odsp and should have it cut way back since we can work.

[ROBERT ALDRED]

That  would be money for tax breaks for the filthy rich.   Banks too that can bank properly.   Working for rich companies for half of the minimum wage seems to be the rage now.   If they can keep this up maybe we could work for one third minimum wage.    Heck no. Why not work for nothing to help the economy (Rich Welfare Bums.)  



On Tue 07/05/13 12:09 PM , Ron Payne welfarel...@gmail.com sent:

[Deborah Masters nee Alexander]

See Yah, So Long,

DEB

The biggest laugh I have gotten recently was when I had to approach my doctor recently about ODSP application and he told me due to the present economy and the raised age for retirement now 67 many people are applying for ODSP and being rejected.  I asked him if after 18 years of not working if they are going to send someone my age back to school and he remarked he just had " a man required under the new system to go back to school or work at 64 years of age"  Apparently the gentleman chose school.  So two, three years college (probably funded) finish school just in time for retirement.  Give me a break, now if that is not a big waste of tax payers money and government money tell me different

---

Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 09:14:33 -0700
From: browne...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50428 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Olli, all this does is discourage people from working more than they are "allowed".  Less

than 1% of those on ODSP ever work themselves off the system.  Yes, many are capable,

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:39:44 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50424 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

it does make sense and seems fare to everyone who has to pay in their taxes for the money odsp gives us.

[Ron Payne]

Yes Robert

If I could and did work while on ODSP that is the one thing that I would remember.

It is the money being taken of my cheque

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:08 PM, ROBERT ALDRED <chrys...@primus.ca> wrote:

That  would be money for tax breaks for the filthy rich.   Banks too that can bank properly.   Working for rich companies for half of the minimum wage seems to be the rage now.   If they can keep this up maybe we could work for one third minimum wage.    Heck no. Why not work for nothing to help the economy (Rich Welfare Bums.)  

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

thats how it worked for me when i was w orking.

[Ron Payne]

Has anyone heard of this saying

employment income exceeded budgetary requirements.

It means your cut off. (if you don't have a real good ODSP lawyer)

Ron

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com> wrote:

In Susan's example, a total annual income of $20,000 with $16,000 coming from earnings means that ODSP is only contributing $4,000 (about a third of the normal amount for a single and even less if a family).

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Was this guy able bodied?   He will not be affected by the new retirement age, it's being implemented gradually   http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/oas/changes/oasgiseligibility/tables/1957_before.shtml   Even if he is able bodied, it's nuts to require him to go to school for one year! There was a time when if you were 60 or over, you automatically qualified for disability due to your age and the difficulty in finding a job at that stage of your life.   DM         -------Original Message-------

From: Deborah Masters nee Alexander Date: 08/05/2013 3:03:25 PM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50437 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

[Restoring Dignity]

Thank you!

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:20 AM, jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com> wrote:

Nope.

Try "NON-EXEMPT income exceeded budgetary requirements". (Most income is non-exempt, but only half of net earnings from employment is non-exempt and that can be reduced by related child care and work expenses.)

See Dir 5.3:

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/directives/directives/ODSPDirectives/income_support/5_3_ODSP_ISDirectives.aspx

Assuming the shelter costs fully exhaust the Shelter Allowance maximum, a single currently would have to have annual employment earnings (after taxes, union dues etc) greater than $25,800 to be financially disqualified.

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:44:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Payne wrote:

Has anyone heard of this saying

employment income exceeded budgetary requirements.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit:
 
Http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
 
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com
 
 

--
With every best wish,
___________________

Roch Longueépée

Founder & CEO, RESTORING DIGNITY

"A worldwide effort to find Restitution and Justice for victims of institutional child abuse."

I encourage you to visit our NGO's international website: http://restoringdignity.org
 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this electronic mail message are confidential and strictly reserved for the sole use of its intended recipients. This message may contain information protected by solicitor-client privilege. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message as well as all copies. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. Thank you.

AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ: Le contenu de ce courrier életronique est confidentiel et strictement réservé à l'usage des personnes auxquelles il s'adresse. Ce message peut contenir de l'information protégée par le secret professionnel. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, contactez immédiatement l'expéditeur et détruisez le message original et toute copie. Veuillez noter qu'il est strictement interdit de divulguer, reproduire ou diffuser le contenu de ce message ou de prendre des mesures en conséquence. Tout nouvel envoi, reproduction ou usage de ce message par une personne autre que le destinataire est strictement interdit. Merci.


FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/groups/restoringdignity/

Facebook 'Like' Page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Restoring-Dignity/278096795557836

TWITTER: twitter@rochnation

YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/user/Longueepee/videos

Blog: http://restoringdignitycampaign.blogspot.ca/

[Ron Payne]

Please scratch out OW and I meant thanks for taking the time.

Ron

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Ron Payne <welfarel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I hear you jbkeh but!

One question that I and a lot of others are asking and pointing out would be!

How many workers at OW and ODSP know about this?

Thanks for talking the time.

Ron

***********************************

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:20 AM, jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com> wrote:

Nope.

Try "NON-EXEMPT income exceeded budgetary requirements". (Most income is non-exempt, but only half of net earnings from employment is non-exempt and that can be reduced by related child care and work expenses.)

See Dir 5.3:

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/directives/directives/ODSPDirectives/income_support/5_3_ODSP_ISDirectives.aspx

Assuming the shelter costs fully exhaust the Shelter Allowance maximum, a single currently would have to have annual employment earnings (after taxes, union dues etc) greater than $25,800 to be financially disqualified.

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:44:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Payne wrote:

Has anyone heard of this saying

employment income exceeded budgetary requirements.

[Restoring Dignity]

I am heading to the Human Rights Tribunal, I welcome others to join me. I am in this to win.

[abrowne]

Ron, I can't even get near to "keeping" $50,000 a year; I lose more than I earn.

---

From: Ron Payne <welfarel...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:38:40 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50466 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Now that the cat is out of the bag I am sure taxpayers will be extremely upset knowing that a family of 4 could be earning just under
$50,000 a year and still be on ODSP.

Guess that's why they want all to be on Ontario Works.

Thanks for making this public.

.Life is great for some.

On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:20:03 AM UTC-4, jbkeh wrote:

Assuming the shelter costs fully exhaust the Shelter Allowance maximum, a single currently would have to have annual employment earnings (after taxes, union dues etc) greater than $25,800 to be financially disqualified.

[abrowne]

Not to worry your imagination, nobody who is in a family of four that has a disabled

person on ODSP in it will even be able to keep even near $50,000 ... with all their

clawbacks and repeat taxation on all income included on what was clawed back,

they are lucky to keep maybe a $1,000 (even if they grossed $50,000).

You are no better off by working.

A

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:51:55 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50471 ] Fw: Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

but a family of 4 who are healthy and earning 50,000 a year would naturly be upset if you could do the same plus get all the odsp benefits if only you had some kind of disability. it wouldnt feel fair to them though would it?

[Ron Payne]

Yes Susan and I am upset that I can't work and make extra money.

Everyone must go on OW and make things fair.

A law for the disabled and a law for the not so disabled. Isn't that what we have now.

Just reeling them in. B

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

but a family of 4 who are healthy and earning 50,000 a year would naturly be upset if you could do the same plus get all the odsp benefits if only you had some kind of disability. it wouldnt feel fair to them though would it?

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:38:40 PM UTC-4, Ron Payne wrote:

Now that the cat is out of the bag I am sure taxpayers will be extremely upset knowing that a family of 4 could be earning just under $50,000 a year and still be on ODSP.

--

[ROBERT ALDRED]

I think that is wrong.   Everybody should be put on ODSP rates and have them raised to the poverty line.    We need rents to be controlled to at one percent per annum.    While we are at it everybody should get a free transportation pass who is not working or disabled in order for our society to conform to our agreements concerned a citizens right to participate in her or his society.   We can easily afford this. 

On Sun 12/05/13 9:09 PM , Ron Payne welfarel...@gmail.com sent:

[Ron Payne]

What!

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:23 AM, jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com> wrote:

I shouldn't, but I'll bite (I do appreciate the candor).

Ontario does NOT have a "law for the disabled". It has two programs for the impoverished, OW and ODSP.

NEITHER program provides a "fixed" amount of money. Each provides an assurance that your income will not fall below a minimum, which is calculated according to the makeup of your Benefit Unit, by TOPPING UP whatever income you do have (if any) to reach that minimum.

If the impoverishment is due to not working, the minimum is (in theory) set sufficiently low to ensure motivation to seek employment (OW); if the impoverishment is the result of disability, it is set higher, as it would be an IMMORAL infliction of suffering to expect the seeking of employment (ODSP).

As a further inducement to seeking employment, OW "ignores" half of the net income derived from employment when determining the "top up" amount; it would be utterly unfair and punitive for ODSP to deny the same "incentive" to those disabled who are both MOTIVATED to endure the suffering and LUCKY enough to find a means of employment. Both programs require other non-exempt dependent adults and spouse in the Benefit Unit to participate in the OW job search.

Quit thinking (and talking) of the Benefit Requirements as being "your money" BECAUSE IT IS NOT - it is nothing more than a "benchmark" used to calculate the amount of money Ontario will provide for that month so that you do not fall below that minimum.

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:09:33 PM UTC-4, Ron Payne wrote:

 

A law for the disabled and a law for the not so disabled. Isn't that what we have now.

Just reeling them in.

[ROBERT ALDRED]

I would argue that we have Human Rights.   If that is true then to meet the requirements to fulfill our obligations to our citizens who are unemployed or disabled then there has to be a bottom line.    And there is of course.   Because of our Human Rights agreements we have as a society have an obligation to provide money to meet those requirements. Shelter, food, clothing, education and more.    We do not live in a barter system but a system that uses money.   All citizens should have money to buy goods and services.   Because we elect governments all of which historically and now admit through the maintenance of Social Services payments the acknowledgement that the people in general accept their Human Rights responsibilities then that further confirms our rights.   Just because the successive governments have been selling the idea that if you give everything to the rich everything will turn out ok that doesn't mean I or you should believe them or accept what they do.

It is our money.   Those are our Human Rights.   If government wants to legalize the illegal then they have and will do it whenever they can.   Our job as citizens is to oppose those tendencies.



On Tue 14/05/13 5:25 PM , Ron Payne welfarel...@gmail.com sent:

[ROBERT ALDRED]

I am of the belief that no matter what your status is society you should have enough of an income to meet your needs.   I do not think also that people need to be starved or tortured into wanting to do work.   There is an ideological bent to everything that the governments and the employers want and this is expressed in the false notion that people wont work unless starved.    Its false.   Its not true.   I have seen all sorts of people here trying to figure out how to contribute what they can to society.   Trying to find a way to in their eyes to become contributing individuals.  

I do not believe in forced labor.   I do not believe today there is a shortage of money or food or anything that would prevent anyone here having a good participatory life in our communities except government policy run by big business.   I do think there is a big misdirection going on and a not so subtle blaming process directed towards people who need assistance.  

It is also very important I think to understand that there are not enough jobs to go around.   It is also true that in future there will be even less jobs to go around.    This thrust of the Liberals and Tories to put people into the work force who are disabled is not in conformity with reality.   It is ideologically driven and a breach of our human rights. 

On Tue 14/05/13 9:17 PM , HurtinOntario hurtin...@gmail.com sent:

The social assistance review states something around the lines of OW and ODSP recipients shouldn't be getting the same amount of money as low wage workers.  They have a point I think.  If we got the same amount of money as min wage people there would be less incentive to work at all.  I'm speaking more about OW than ODSP mind you.  Some people on OW can work whereas many people on ODSP cannot due to our disabilities.  

I think that OW should get around $900 as a baseline and people like us with disabilities should be getting $1300 as a baseline amount.  It's sad that even at our current rates we cannot afford to pay rent and eat.  It's even worse for people on OW.  It's really sad that so many companies can get bail outs while the poor people are literally starving to death slowly.  We shouldn't be getting as much as a working person no but surely they can do better then what is currently on offer.

I don't know why anyone would choose to be on welfare forever unless they had no choice due to a illness or disability.  The SAR is complaining that the number of people on ODSP has surpassed the number of people on Welfare.  What do they plan to do kick people off ODSP who are disabled and let them go homeless and perhaps die?  Is that their solution of what to do with disabled poor people?

I am very afraid of the coming next few years and what will be in store for us disabled poor people and you all should be too because some of us may be homeless and starving very soon or forced to live in assisted housing against our will in order to keep our benefits which we so need.  It's very scary to be disabled and poor in today's world.  I was reading Angela's post about disabled people in the UK, perhaps that is what's in store for us.  people calling us 'scroungers' and not giving us any respect or benefits and making fun of us and being mean to us and perhaps even assaulting us.

It makes me sad to think about for sure.  Very sad.

On Monday, May 13, 2013 5:54:31 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

I think that is wrong.   Everybody should be put on ODSP rates and have them raised to the poverty line.    We need rents to be controlled to at one percent per annum.    While we are at it everybody should get a free transportation pass who is not working or disabled in order for our society to conform to our agreements concerned a citizens right to participate in her or his society.   We can easily afford this. 

On Sun 12/05/13 9:09 PM , Ron Payne welfarel...@gmail.com sent:

Yes Susan and I am upset that I can't work and make extra money.

Everyone must go on OW and make things fair.

A law for the disabled and a law for the not so disabled. Isn't that what we have now.

Just reeling them in. B

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

but a family of 4 who are healthy and earning 50,000 a year would naturly be upset if you could do the same plus get all the odsp benefits if only you had some kind of disability. it wouldnt feel fair to them though would it?

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:38:40 PM UTC-4, Ron Payne wrote:

Now that the cat is out of the bag I am sure taxpayers will be extremely upset knowing that a family of 4 could be earning just under $50,000 a year and still be on ODSP.

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit:
 
Http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
 
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com