ODSP/Employment income question

[klam]

Hi! I'm looking for some informed answers here. I am on ODSP, and have
just stepped into a subsidized housing unit, where my rent portion is
now only $130.00
I'd like to begin employment, perhaps full time, but I have several
major concerns! Let's assume I earn $400 in my first month. I am
assuming I will receive the first $100, and then $50 for each of the
remaining $300 earned dollars. This is already somewhat disincentive.
Now, with my take home pay of $250 instead of $400 in wages, will
subsidized housing also want to take another percentage? I understand
a great number of people in subsidized housing units (68%) are working
full time. Are all the positive aspects of being in subsidized housing
eliminated for me, as a potential wage-earner, because of these income
rules? Suppose I earned $1200.00, would the math still be
disincentive? Does anyone know of any way I can move towards positive,
gainful employment without quite such a rocky outlook?
Thank you!

[Margaret]

If you earned $400 in a month, ODSP takes 50% off, leaving you with $200. Then they give you the work benefit of $100, so you would have $300 ($200 + $100). I believe your rent in subsidized housing would go up, but I don't know the formula they use to calculate it.   Margaret     -------Original Message-------

-- 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

[justice4odsp]

Hi,

This is the formula that was given to me by my housing provider. I don't know if this varies from city to city or not. If it doesn't, this might prove to be helpful to you. If you start working full-time and can leave ODSP, the formula goes out the window. They take 33% of your income.

justice4odsp

The formula:  

Gross income per month multiplied by 4.333 to get the weekly amount.
 
Subtract $75  - it is the employment incentive.
 
Multiply this by 30%.
 
Subtract $22 as the hydro allowance.
 
When I get back on ODSP, the maximum they can charge for my unit is $109.00 per month. They then deduct the hydro allowance to give me a monthly rent of, get this, $87.
 
If on a mix of ODSP and own income, subtract $440 from Gross, the follow above formula.

justice4odsp

[Lorene]

Louise, your formula for subsidized housing including hydro was a bit
hard for me to understand. I live in subsidized housing and my hydro
and heat is included in the rent. I pay a total of $139 per month.
According to my lease, it says the rent is $109 plus $30 for hydro.
Everyone in my building pays the same $30 when it comes to hydro. It
has been like that for over 10 plus years so I was told.

For those who are on OAS/CPP or working P/T or F/T, their rents are in
different amounts and they also pay $30 on top of their rent. They
take my mom's full OAS/CPP pension amount and her hydro and calculate
times 32% monthly. I know because I calculate using her pension plus
hydro back few months ago and it came almost right to the dollar when
she gets a letter how much her rent would be for the upcoming year.


Lorene

On Nov 14, 11:34 pm, justice4odsp <justice4o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> This is the formula that was given to me by my housing provider. I don't know if this varies from city to city or not. If it doesn't, this might prove to be helpful to you. If you start working full-time and can leave ODSP, the formula goes out the window. They take 33% of your income.

> justice4odspThe formula: Gross income per month multiplied by 4.333 to get the weekly amount. Subtract $75 - it is the employment incentive. Multiply this by 30%. Subtract $22 as the hydro allowance. When I get back on ODSP, the maximum they can charge for my unit is $109.00 per month. They then deduct the hydro allowance to give me a monthly rent of, get this, $87. If on a mix of ODSP and own income, subtract $440 from Gross, the follow above formula.justice4odsp

[katkit]

There is a certain amount before it affects your rent, for a single
right now is it about $440. After that is when they start changing
your rent. So if you earn $1200, you would stand to lose more than the
standard 50%. if working in housing on ODSP it is easiest
unfortunately to stay within that 440. In you example, if you earned
$400, you would keep $250, if you made $1200, you would keep $472.
Thats really not fair to the person who can work more than very part
time

[abrowne]

Katkit,

The $440 is GROSS income, not what the ODSP recipient actually

gets to keep after they claim it to ODSP.  They max out at $220, in

fact, and then rent begins to rise.  It doesn't take very much for

the clawbacks combined to make it cost more to work than not to.

Angela

[Lize]

I'm not sure i understand what you mean.

you'd be paying for your own rent, then. that's just fair if your working and can afford it.

[justice4odsp]

Lorene,

I know it's confusing. I pay my own hydro so I think that's why some of
those numbers enter in there. If I get time later (or tomorrow) I'll
look up the Social Housing Act and share the link. That act too, is
confusing.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

justice4odsp

[jbkeh]

Perhaps the easiest way is to first see what RGI does - for each $1 of
income (other than what you get from ODSP) MORE than $440, your rent
will increase by 30 cents. As long as that rent (plus any other
shelter costs) does not exceed your maximum Shelter Allowance, you
could not care less, as ODSP will foot the bill.

In fact, ODSP 'sees' your Budgetary Requirements increase, staving off
the point that you would become financially disqualified. They look at
your income and if any of it is not "earned" (from employment), that
portion is deducted from your Budgetary Requirements dollar-for-
dollar. The "earned" income is whatever is left after income tax and
any "mandatory deductions" AS CALCULATED BY ODSP. They deduct 50% of
this from your Budgetary Requirements and then award a $100 "Work-
Related Benefit" for having "earnings". (In the case of self-
employment or casual work, ODSP presumes you have undocumented
"expenses" of $100, so you cannot have any "earnings" until you have
made more than $100.)

[abrowne]

True, but your net gain from working is in the negative.  I did it before, and lost a $1,20 for every dollar I earned, which is why I begged off subsidy at the time, so I could actually budget my rent from month to money AND start my consulting practice in my home.  I was tired of their mental and psychological harassment.  The rules are still the same now, as they were for me in the early 1980's.

---

From: Lize <tomsaw...@yahoo.ca>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: abrowne <browne...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:04:08 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41233 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[abrowne]

$440 in GROSS income is where it starts.  If you are on ODSP, you only get $220 of that $440, but housing treats you as though you have that full $440, and jacks your rent up to 30% of your non-benefit portion.  I know of few employers that will hire people for only a few hours a week, unless you are self-employed, involved in Avon or something, but then again, self-employment is prohibited in social housing.

---

From: Lize <tomsaw...@yahoo.ca>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: abrowne <browne...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:04:08 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41233 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[jbkeh]

Past experiences should not be applied to the present. RGI takes 30%
of the result of the gross (pre-tax deductions) non-benefit income
LESS $75 if any of that income is "earned" (or a minimum of $109) as
the base rent. Another way to look at this is to say that if there is
"earned" income, the "threshold" (for a single) at which the RGI base
rent of $109 increases is $440+$75 or $515. One decent thing RGI does
is consider E.I. payments to be "earned" income, not "other" income as
does ODSP.

Loss from "earned" income - 30% pretax earnings by RGI, and 50% post-
tax earnings by ODSP. RGI counters with a $75 reduction from "earned"
income; ODSP counters with a $100 "Work-Related Benefit". That's a tad
less than 80% as worst case (just before you earn enough to become
financially disqualified for ODSP).

[abrowne]

JKBEH,

I know it is done the same way; have had a few legal

cases dealing with the matter of RGI and it is NO different

than it was for me back then.  In my view, if you are on

ODSP now, RGI is not a good prospect for you if you want

to try to either work yourself off the system or make more

than $220 a month.  Legitimate work expenses are not

considered, and as you know ODSP does not count all

legitimate work expenses either.  If you are just on ODSP

and can't work, or are just going to school, it may be OK.

 

I have a girlfriend who is in this boat right now, moving

from ODSP to a minimum wage job and she is actually

losing by working.  She is a determined sort though, and

would rather work, even though her rent has gone up 600%

since she started.

 

I will *never* live in RGI again.  The mental and financial

harassment I got while I lived there for about a year was

too much for me.  Those that write these rules assume

everybody is the same and has the same needs.  If I wanted

that I would move to a communist country ;-)

Angela

 

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:21:11 AM
Subject: [odspfireside: 41259 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[jbkeh]

I am left a bit confused....

Assuming your girlfriend's original "rent" was $109 base rent plus say
$31 for included utilities, a 600% increase would be $840. This would
mean a base rent of $809 which in turn would mean gross earnings of
$2697 + $75 or $2772, which would be $33264 per year,. Excluding
personal deductions of around $10,000 and applying a 15% tax on the
remaining $23,264 would result in an annual net income of around
$19,774 or $1648 per month and she would be financially disqualified
from ODSP. After rent, she would be left with $808. In contrast, if
she were not working, she would be getting $584 Basic Needs (with ODSP
picking up the tab for the shelter costs), a increase of $224 or 38%.
Granted, she loses the health coverage, but if those costs exceed the
difference between her net earnings and her Budgetary Requirements
(which are at max) she regains the coverage.

It would really help my understanding if you would use concrete
numbers in an example...

(I fully understand that RGI is not your cup of tea.)

[jbkeh]

Oops, I just remembered - if she is working and does not have health
coverage, she is then covered by the Transitional Health Benefit.

On Nov 16, 12:16 pm, abrowne <browne200...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Already shown

[abrowne]

She doesn't even get near that much, e.g. $33,264 as you put it.

Her income is in the low 20's.  She lives alone so she pays almost

full market rent, if not market rent.  Plus she has the costs of going

to work (has to drive - average $150 -200 a week, including gas,

insurance and all the other stuff for driving in the region) - nobody

covers her for that.  She can sit at home, not have a car and be better

off. She also doesn't feel she gains much from working either.

 

I know when I did this, I lived with my then future husband and

I literally lost $1.20 for every dollar I earned.  There were cases

I worked on in the mid-2000's that showed the same effect.  The

variable here is that it COSTS money to work, regardless of where

you are working.  When I calculated the $1.20 loss for me, I only

included my transportation and work dues.  Also, I always worked

and ditched social assistance - I think that would make matters

even worse with what they take off if I stayed on.  Don't forget at

that time, I was only allowed $235 a month and 75% of the balance.

 

I also have another family who gets kicked out every time one

of their kids leaves home ... they have 60 days to move, or their

rent moves to market.  I know this.  I saw the letter.  I think if they

want you to move because you are over-housed, they should pay

your moving costs.  She has three more that will sooner or later

leave home (don't ask:  she's a good Catholic).  The remaining kids

have had to switch schools, etc. because of dorky rules.

 

Better to have a portable subsidy that works like the Ontario Child

Benefit (except with no clawback on social assistance basic needs)

and have it calculated in accordance to your taxable income only,

with a very gradual decline in support.  For CCTB, parents making

up to $50,000 - $55,000 get even some benefit from it.

I see nothing positive with RGI housing except for those that cannot

work and for whose income is relatively the same each month,

 

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

[jbkeh]

Still can't reconcile the numbers....

Assume $23,000 annually, approx $1900 monthly, less taxes of about
$160 and E.I. contributions etc, say a total of $200, giving a net of
around $1700. RGI would be a base of about $548 (say $579 with
utilities). This leaves more than $1100. What I find difficult is the
vehicle costs of over $600-$800 per month. This seems to be somewhat
of a 'self-inflicted wound' stemming from the choice of employment
location, if not the vehicle itself. (And isn't there some income tax
relief here?)

I note that you now recognize that ODSP deductions were quite
different in the past....

This 60 days to move also has me confused. My understanding is that if
a household is over-housed:

1. If the housing provider has units of appropriate size, the
household is placed on the internal transfer list. When a unit becomes
available, they move to it.
2. Otherwise (or if a year has passed without a unit becoming
available), the household must select a minimum number of other
locations with appropriate sized units from the central list for the
region..
3. Only if the household rejects three offers of appropriate sized
units, are they no longer qualified for RGI and market rates applied.

A portable RGI would be wonderful if landlords were prevented from
knowing that RGI subsidies would apply, as otherwise landlords would
jack the price accordingly.

No argument that some RGI rules are "dorky" and exacerbated by even
more "dorky" managers.

On Nov 16, 3:00 pm, abrowne <browne200...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.

> Her income is in the low 20's.  She lives alone so she pays almost
> full market rent, if not market rent.  Plus she has the costs of going
> to work (has to drive - average $150 -200 a week, including gas,
> insurance and all the other stuff for driving in the region)
>

>  Don't forget at
> that time, I was only allowed $235 a month and 75% of the balance.
>
> I also have another family who gets kicked out every time one
> of their kids leaves home ... they have 60 days to move, or their
> rent moves to market.
>

> Better to have a portable subsidy.

[abrowne]

JBKEH,

She rarely has more than $200 - 300 after paying her rent,

bills and transportation costs.  I don't know where you get

the $1,100 from, because I just read this to her over the

phone and she laughed out loud at me and said, "Boy, I wish."

Her rent is higher than $548 and she pays utilities on top of it

(and they are certainly HIGHER than $31 -- my utilities are

over $600 EVERY month, thanks to Dalton's "programs").

 

As for a vehicle cost, it is very difficult to find and hold any

kind of job without a driver's license and a car here and this

person is not going to work in a call centre.  Her job is not

great, but she's like me, would rather work than sit at home

and stare at four walls, but she is beginning to wonder what

will net her more.

 

She also wants to buy a house someday too, but when you

are paying $109 a month for rent (until only this year), the

banks will laugh you out the door.  So, you get sort of trapped

in that system.

 

Even though when I switched back to market rent, my rent

took up nearly 70% of my income, at least I knew what I had

to budget for and I was no longer afraid to take on additional

hours and get more work done.  Because of this risky move I

took, I was able to buy a house in 2004.

A

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:33:39 PM
Subject: [odspfireside: 41286 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[Lize]

I don't understand. Are you including utilities and transportation expenses? that seems like an artificial way of forcing an illusionary negative income. we all have to live in the real world i think. i'm just glad to be able to work.

[abrowne]

Lize/Soraya,

The real world is even at the best of times in subsidized housing, you get to

keep just under 20 cents on the dollar.  Millionaires keep 65 cents.

This is just a method to trap people into poverty, which is why I don't

recommend RGI housing.

And if you have problems with my opinions, or anybody else's here, I would

prefer you not to bother answering with your sarcastic quips.  Share

experiences, but also respect those of others.

Angela

---

From: Lize <tomsaw...@yahoo.ca>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: abrowne <browne...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:19:01 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41296 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[T Spa]

Bravo  Angela !!!!! 

---

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:25:07 -0800
From: browne...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41298 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[jbkeh]

Well, the numbers simply come from a calculator. The formulae come
from Toronto's Guide (municipality / region doesn't matter - the
numbers are set by the province):

http://www.toronto.ca/housing/social_housing/providers.htm#rgi

Given a gross monthly income, the base RGI rent is simply 30% of it
(or of it less $75 if there are earnings in that income), or $109 if
it is the greater. (Numbers for a single on ODSP.) Conversely, given a
RGI base rent greater than $109, the annual income is readily derived.

On top of the base rent, fixed (according to household size) charges
are added for utilities paid by the housing provider or subtracted if
the client pays for the utility directly. (Thus if one switches from
having a utility paid by the provider to paying it directly, the RGI
total rent is reduced by double the fixed charge.) The numbers are all
in the Guide.

In the past, when Social Housing and ODSP literally "clawed back" more
than one earned, it was indeed both counter-intuitive and counter-
productive to seek employment (let alone be self-employed) and you had
every right to be bitter; I am in absolute awe and admiration that you
chose to overcome that insane obstacle and become independent of RGI.

But that was then and this is now.

Yes, if one's unrecoverable employment costs are high enough (the
threshold varying according to whether one is on RGI or ODSP or
both) , then the job costs more than it is worth. But that is a
problem with the job (or more precisely the selection of that job) or
unnecessary transportation choices; not a problem with RGI or ODSP.

I find it most strange that you let your past experience dissuade
people from following your footsteps.....

On Nov 16, 8:06 pm, abrowne <browne200...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't know where you get

> the $1,100 from,...
> ... but she is beginning to wonder what

[abrowne]

JBKEH,

It is the same as it always was.  Many of my husband's cousins are in RGI.  I have

friends in RGI.  The key issue is THEY NEVER LEAVE RGI.  If they work, they 

are usually working for relatively the same amount on a monthly basis, and if 

not, they are better off sitting at home.

Read John Stapleton's "Why is it so tough to get ahead?"  The document is

on the Metcalf Foundation website, metcalffoundation.org, which is how it

works today.

It explains how RGI interferes with all sorts of things.  And believe me, that is

how it worked then, and how it still works now.

I know you are in RGI, Brian, but you are not working.  I am not referring to

people like you.  I am referring to those that are trying to work themselves OFF

ODSP, or to get a job that pays more than  a couple hundred a month.  I already

said it works for those who are unable to work or who are retired, or whose

income is the same or relatively the same each and every month (but low).

And work related expenses count for zero.  Remember, transportation, clothing,

additional lunches for work etc. cost nothing.

A

---

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:28:51 AM
Subject: [odspfireside: 41301 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[abrowne]

RGI calculates earnings BEFORE it is clawed back from ODSP.

For the $440 threshhold, you can only "get" $220 after ODSP clawback.

---

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:28:51 AM
Subject: [odspfireside: 41301 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[Margaret]

You couldn't pay me to live in RGI.   Margaret       -------Original Message-------

[jbkeh]

Thanks for the link. Read it.

It is out of date (Nov 2007) and some of its claims are now utterly
FALSE. (e.g. That when a child turns 18, the household "loses" Social
Assistance income. Nowadays, it would gain income as the child is now
a "dependent adult" under ODSP or eligible for OW under their own
right. And RGI rent does NOT increase unless the household has an
increase in its non-benefit income because the ex-child has earned
income.)

I cannot fathom why you keep insisting things are the same as the
1980's let alone 2007 - THEY ARE QUITE DIFFERENT!

In Orwell's "1984", he wrote about "doublethink", Today it is referred
to as "cognitive dissonance". It is the simultaneous holding of two
(or more) "views" that are in contradiction.

One can hold the "view" that Social Assistance should be a "reward"
for being unemployed or disabled (with a higher reward for the
disabled, regardless of any income). Try selling that to the general
public.

One can hold the contrary view that Social Assistance should be a
"safety net" assuring a minimal income to provide sustenance and
shelter, with a higher minimal income for the disabled.

One cannot "Have your cake and eat it too." Yet, that is exactly what
Stapleton attempts.

If one takes the second "view", one can "push the envelope" by
allowing (with possible conditions attached) the retention of some
earned income until a higher 'plateau' is reached, but again, the
general public will tolerate only so much, as this is moving things
back towards the "reward" view.

Stapleton is correct in that much falls from having multiple
uncoordinated agencies addressing the same problem and tripping over
each other.

Myself, I like the idea of a "negative income tax" where the
government sends you money if your income is below a "threshold". (The
"threshold" for the unemployed at about OW rates and the "threshold"
for Seniors at the poverty level with the Disabled a bit higher and
retained when they turn 65. Eliminate OAS, GIS and GAINS and only
start to "claw back" other income at about $37,000 - same as is done
with OAS today.) Unfortunately, this would require "rent control" or
rates would go into a "positive feedback runaway". Think of all the
bureaucrats we'd no longer need to employ....)

Could things be improved? Of course. Perhaps the "clawback" of
earnings could be made "progressive" so that there is more of an
initial incentive. Perhaps the earnings of the able spouse should not
be deducted with the disabled person then paid at OW rates. Perhaps
RGI should be based on "net" income including ODSP / OW Basic Needs
(less SDA).

(And still waiting for RGI....)



On Nov 17, 10:28 am, abrowne <browne200...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It is the same as it always was..
>
> Read John Stapleton's "Why is it so tough to get ahead?",.... which is how it

[justice4odsp]

Angela,

You missed a detail... or I misread you.

RGI calculates GROSS earnings and takes their cut before it is clawed back from ODSP.  No consideration is given to the fact that, after you pay taxes, employee plan deductions, and other things, the take home pay is actually 15 - 20% less.  ODSP then claws back their amount based on NET income. No consideration is given for how much housing took 

It's hard to figure it out and, to date, I've not found an accountant or a financial planner who can understand their formulas and come back to me with a straight answer so I can properly set out a budget.  We come close, but there's enough oddities there that has the accountants concerned. The best I got was an acknowledgment that the formulas do not make sense.

justice4odsp

[sue dube]

you do fill alot better when ur earning money. yes they take 50% off you but its aleast abit better then not working.
 

---

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:32:26 -0800
From: browne...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41303 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[abrowne]

Wheelchair Demon (love that name!)

 

You end up with the same result.  Housing takes from money you don't see.

 

The Linda Chamberlin rule - don't know if you had a chance to look at it;

just sent it to Brian to look at.  He does like to read these things too.

 

But when I earn a dollar, I want to keep a dollar and only have my MARGINAL

TAX RATE, as determined by Canada Revenue Agency involved.  Instead

when I lived in housing, had to live with up to 600 - 700% rent increases

depending on how much I made from month to month, and when I got out

(thank God!), but when I started having to work again after getting sick for

two years and spent down my entire RRSP and everything else, I now

subsidize ODSP by 50% of my earnings ... so I end up with 15 cents left.

Better though, than what it was when I lived in housing.

 

But I think we are all in agreement that these things need to change - make

it easier for people to work, and less costly for those that can't.

 

I have a chartered accountant that thinks I should sue the government or

something because my net household income has actually dropped by almost

30% since 2006.  That includes everything, tax credits, earnings, ODSP, etc.

A

From: justice4odsp <justic...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 5:35:47 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41314 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[justice4odsp]

Angela,

One quick question... do people not accuse you of being mentally ill when you say this?

I'm not joking or being factious. I just always get in trouble for saying the rules are punitive. When I say that, I am labeled as paranoid or delusional in my thinking and it makes things a lot worse for me. Physical issues are taken less seriously and, due to a shortage of psychiatrists, I just get dropped by the wayside.

For this reason I am too scared to be so blunt about anything I might think is closer to the truth than what they say and we experience.

justice4odsp

On 17/11/2011 6:41 PM, abrowne wrote:

Brian, you have to realize they set these rules up for a reason.  They

do not want people to escape poverty. 

[abrowne]

Justice,

I don't know if they accuse me of being mentally ill.  But I have been

labelled arrogant, a shit disturber, over-entitled (e.g. don't know where

that comes from because I certainly have a LOT less than other

families do), etc.  I've been called "paranoid" once by somebody when

I told them the provincial government is embarking on a program of

slow genocide.  When this person did this, I asked them to present

evidence this is not taking place, that people among the poorest are

being kept up with inflation, are able to find decent housing within

their cheque amount, etc.  Never heard another word from that bonehead.

 

Lately in my region I am being accused of causing a $41 tax hike for

homeowners across Niagara because of my international fit I threw over

regional transit.  My response to that is to ask the regional treasurer to

tell us how much of a tax hike we are getting each year from automobile

infrastructure (more than a third of it is auto related).

 

I don't have the niceties to talk around an issue like those paid to speak

for us do.  I am tired of seeing people die in their 30's, 40's and 50's from

conditions directly related to poverty and malnutrition.  I had to phone

one of the doctors my office works with for disability claims and on it,

the person in question had a particular health condition I couldn't even

pronounce, let alone spell and he told me this condition was common in

the Third World and is caused by long-term malnutrition.  The individual

in question had about $100 left after housing costs on his OW cheque,

which had to go to travel (he was getting the full amount), groceries,

clothing, phone, etc.  But after speaking to his doctor, I was so taken

aback and angry ... and even my Conservative friends here understand

why I have chosen to do some of my pro bono hours with the Occupy

Niagara movement here.

 

Justice, nobody has any business calling you names or questioning your

sanity when you speak out on the issues that mean a lot to you, or that

affect you personally and directly.  Your experience is your experience,

and to me, nobody can take that away from you.

 

Yes, we do have to be blunt sometimes, use personal examples or

examples that we are aware of, or if available, statistics.  We need to

put the onus on the policy makers as to why they want to keep these

"punitive" rules in place, as to making us always have to argue why

the rules don't work, etc.

Angela

From: justice4odsp <justic...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:54:32 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41319 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[justice4odsp]

Wrong name for this forum, but I'll accept it. LOL.

You're right about the rules not making sense at all. When I started to work the rent went up. When I earned enough to leave ODSP behind (just barely), the rent jumped a full 640%.  I then had to pay the hydro on top of that. I also lost disability discounts on just about everything.

In the end I was better off for working emotionally, but I was not better off financially. Well, I was maybe a slight bit better off financially, but I lost home supports, had to push myself twice as hard to keep up to the able-bodied expectations that were being placed on me, and I was burning out and very exhausted.  I'm high energy so, for me to say I was burning out, it was bad. It also had a negative impact on my physical health; some of which lingers a bit to this day. 

If I needed to miss time for medical appointments beyond the legal 10 Essential Absence Days, I went without pay. It wasn't until after I lost the job that I found out I could have got EI Sick Benefits when I had to take close to a month off for a minor operation.

I had to pay the rent as though I was working, even though I reported zero income for that month because the rules were, if I went down pay, they adjusted the rent 2 months hence. If I went up pay, housing took the money right away.  It had to pay the rent with a line of credit and then, 2 months later, I started to get the money back through 3 months worth of credits to pay me back. The timeline to pay back the overdraw was wrong, very wrong, but I couldn't fight it.  I had to let them take advantage of the extra interest by doing the adjustments this way. 

I tried to go to full rent (I could do that and still live in the same building) but the rent would have gone up to $840 per month or more.. I can't remember the exact amount, but I knew it was definitely not doable on the income I was receiving.

I've looked for full-cost rentals many of times and, because of the wheelchair, the cheapest I can generally find is over $800 per month. If the rent is less, the space is so small it can't accommodate the wheelchair and the furniture. I'd have to get rid of the furniture, including the bed, so I would have space to move around.  The other issue in the smaller, cheaper apartments, was the size of the washroom door - 24 inches in most cases. My wheelchair is 26 inches wide if I take the armrest off.  Again, it's not doable. I can't reasonably be expected to sleep on the floor or drag myself into the bathroom on my but. Nor can I be expected to get back into my chair from the floor.

Oh well, the job is gone now - thanks to a very discriminatory employment supports worker who was paid for by ODSP. She was hired to help with job retention and instead, she told the employer I was just being a sissy and trying to extract special privileges because I was disabled. Sadly this person still has a job.

justice4odsp

[abrowne]

JBKEH,

Now that you read that first link, now go to ZERO Dollar Linda (and

Million Dollar Malcolm).  Linda is Toronto's own Linda Chamberlin.

This is the Linda Chamberlin rule.  She was in subsidized housing and

ended up having to cut her hours and then quit her job because of

the way income is calculated.  It did not differ one iota than it did for

me during the 1980's, when I read her situation in detail.  ZERO Dollar

Linda is on the same site, same author.  But instead of me quitting my

job in the 1980's which I did feel pressure to do, I quit the subsidy.

 

Brian, you have to realize they set these rules up for a reason.  They

do not want people to escape poverty.  There has to be a large enough

number of people kept down and kept from ever getting ahead, so they

can keep on enforcing their 800 rules down people's throats.  By the

way, Linda's story happened in 2010 and 2011 - today's rules.  I have

11 banker's boxes of memorandums of understanding, position papers,

notices to area housing managers, various background documents to

the Social Housing Reform Act, with respect to cases I handled in 2002,

2003 and 2004.  The rules spoken of then were exactly as they were in

the 1980's, except what the SHRA did is standardize housing programs

across the provincial jurisdiction, take over the programs operated for

example by housing co-ops, supportive housing, seniors, etc. because

there were fragmented rules then (and then shove everything down to

the cities to manage - thanks to Mike Harris), but I am referring to the Ontario

Housing regulations, which applied to where I lived then.  But today under

SHRA, it is the same everywhere now (outside of federal housing co-ops,

which seem to have their own way of doing things - CMHC rules them).

 

You will never convince me any different about their ability and willingness,

in my view, to keep people entangled in this for life.  It was the best thing

for my mental health to do is to get out of RGI, as I felt I was living under

a financially abusive spouse when I was there, even though the housing

manager was alright to me personally, but rules are rules.  I don't want

rules in my life that prevent me from fulfilling my potential - period.  If my

neighbour who is not married to a man on ODSP can do something and

run a business, hire staff, grow the value of his business so he can sell

or retire some day, I want the same right.  If I was in subsidized housing,

forget about the business, as you can't have one in your home period -

even though 70% of all businesses that are commercial START in the

home (including mine).

 

My husband's disability has nothing to do with me.  I didn't cause it, nor

should I have to subsidize it.  I am already doing more than my fair share

under the Family Law Act.  Where else does 50% of one spouse's income

get taken off another spouse who has a different job, a different income,

or even a different disability income (e.g. CPP, WSIB, EI, LTD)?  Also,

the cost of subsidized housing per unit is over $2,500 per month per unit,

which includes operation, administration, subsidy (both bridge and RGI),

amortization, waiver of development fees, etc., etc., etc. I know that because

I sat on the finance committee for my co-op and we were trained in the Operating

Agreement, financing of co-ops, reserve laws, etc.  It is cheaper just to give

people MORE MONEY.

 

If I was still in subsidized housing paying $139 per month for rent, I would

never be able to buy a house, let alone pass a credit check to get into

a decent market rent home.  The bank would laugh in my face.  But because

I did several years as market rent and kept it up (which added up to more

than what I pay the bank for my house each month right now by the way), I

was able to secure a mortgage and buy the house I live in now, which may

give me some equity when I am older.

 

As for a child turning 18, the child benefits disappear and they become a

dependent adult and if they work, they have to support the whole family

too, as 50% of what they make gets taken off the parent's cheque - only

exception is if they are going to post-secondary education and for the

16 weeks of summer preceeding start of school.  I think a child turning

eighteen and working in subsidized housing, they add to the amount of

rent that has to be paid by the family.  This just happened to one of my

client's.  Her rent is higher because he is 18 and working.  He has a job,

she loses $100 from her ODSP, but he pays enough to her to make up for

what she loses in ODSP and housing clawbacks, but that kid is never going

to be able to save enough to move out on his own. He may go back to

college though, which will certainly make things less complicated.

 

My son will be turning 18, but he is hoping to go right to university, so

his earnings won't count.  Or I would not be able to afford to keep him

at home.

 

I need my own home for equity when I am older.  I am also fighting for my

right to have independence with my business as well, so I can sell or take

dividends when I am older.  But one can't do that if I have to the the chief

cook, bottle washer and everything else in my business, which makes an

office which can sell for as much as $150,000 - $200,000 if I had equity

and turnkey operations, or more with more employees and assets - but the

way I am forced to right now, it has no more value than if I tried to sell a

dog walking business. 

 

It's because I want to escape poverty, not find more ways to be trapped in it,

as in my view, that infringes on my right to life, liberty and security of my

person and family, as well as my equality rights under the Charter.

 

As for a person who cannot work, perhaps RGI might work for them, but

keep in mind everything else, gasoline, groceries, clothing, transportation

and so forth, are also going up which will erode the value of the cheques

of these individuals as well.

A

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:34:08 PM
Subject: [odspfireside: 41309 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[justice4odsp]

Thank you for confirming that I'm not the only one that gets it.  I just don't have the people backing to save me when they lock me up. This has been done before, albeit many years ago.

All I can say is keep doing what you're doing and I'll keep doing what I'm doing. The other members here will add their voices too and one day, just one day, things MIGHT improve around here.

It's sad that the blame game is so alive and well here in Ontario.  You know, in the psych system, I was forever having to OWN the mistakes of the staff.  I took the verbal abuse - the bullying - the messages you'll never get well, and I reported it to the patient advocate. The patient advocate tried to investigate, they told him I was mentally ill, and he dropped the case.

Thank God I still have visual proof of the abuse and neglect that went on inside the system.

We all have our crosses to bear and, with me, I've chosen to acknowledge it, learn from it, and keep speaking out about it. I know how wrong they were so I will share the stories and, come hell or high water, prove to the government that they are seriously wasting the taxpayers money by abusing us like this.

I keep thinking of how the war crime hearings went on so long after the holocaust and I wonder, hmm... how do we report this in a way that will get a similar type of hearing started for us?

For now, I guess it's Keep on Truckin'... and speaking, and doing whatever we can.

justice4odsp

[abrowne]

Justice,

What somebody like you need is a fixed rent "affordable" unit that is not

subsidized, sort of like the units that Katkit was talking about in

Peterborough, and I know we have here in Niagara, where they are

built for accessibility and are convenient to bus, para-transit, shopping, etc.

 

I can understand what you say - you say you can probably find a place

that is cheap enough for you, but wouldn't handle the wheelchair.  You

need both.

A

 

From: justice4odsp <justic...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 7:16:05 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41321 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[Bill Higgs]

I get told I am a downer, a doomsayer, depressing, a pessimist, a curmudgeon etc etc.

 

Its hard to have a positive outllok these days when you look at the current state of the world and the future looks like.

 

Seems there are alot of people still left with their head buried in the sand.  They will fail to see the roof above them is crumbling till it falls on their head.  They still hold the attitude I have a job and my life is ok, but fail to see that NO job is secure the way thingss are going.

We are in a recessionary period and yet prices are rising at an alarming rate.

 

I cant ever remember that happening before in a shrinking economy.

 

Food prices are skyrocketing and then you see Loblaws latest Q3 profit and you will understand why food is thu the roof

 

Bill

 

 

TORONTO—Loblaw Companies Ltd. says its third-quarter profit was up 19.8 per cent from the same time last year, on higher retail sales and food prices.

The grocer said Wednesday that profit rose to $236 million or 83 cents per share in the three month period, compared to $197 milion or 70 cents per share a year earlier.

Revenue at the country’s largest grocery company was also up, growing two per cent to $9.7 billion in the 16 weeks ended Oct. 8.

Loblaw says it benefited from improved retail sales and financial services revenue. In addition to the grocery business, Loblaw owns President’s Choice Financial as well as the Joe Fresh clothing chain.

The company’s profit was bolstered by improved operating income, lower interest expenses and a lower tax rate.

Loblaws says its profit margin improved to 4.2 per cent from 3.8 per cent in the third quarter of 2010 due to several factors.

Analysts, on average, had been expecting earnings of 85 cents per share from Loblaw on revenue of $9.64 billion, according to Thomson Reuters.

Loblaw Co. has predicted this year will be one of its most challenging as it contends with rising food prices, stiff competition and an uncertain economy, all while it wraps up one of the company’s biggest-ever infrastructure overhauls.

“As our infrastructure program progresses, going forward we expect the related investments to negatively impact operating income,” said Galen Weston Jr., executive chairman of the Loblaw board.

“With our initiatives tracking to plan, we look forward to the ongoing leadership of our new president, Vicente Trius, who is now firmly established in his role.”

Trius, a veteran global retail executive, was appointed to the position early in the year and officially joined the company in August. He replaced Allan Leighton, who has been a long-standing adviser to the Weston family and deputy chairman of the Loblaws parent company, George Weston Ltd.

Earlier Wednesday, Metro Inc., Canada’s No. 3 grocery chain announced a reduced third-quarter profit as closures and other restructuring costs offset improved revenue.

Metro said the profit for the company’s fiscal fourth-quarter dropped 7.8 per cent to of $86.1 million, down from $93.4 million a year earlier. Its sales grew to $2.66 billion from $2.56 billion.

Montreal-based Metro is Quebec’s leading grocery chain with nearly 34 per cent market share. It has more than 65,000 employees in Quebec and Ontario.

Rising world prices for everything from meat and flour to sugar and gasoline have put upward pressure on food processors, grocers and most companies operating in the food business.

Both are feeling a double pinch from consumers reluctant to spend in an uncertain economy and rising raw materials costs, which is squeezing their bottom line.

Rising world prices of everything from meat and flour to sugar and gasoline have put upward pressure on food processors, grocers and most companies operating in the food business.

But consumers are resisting price increases on store shelves so the two big chains as well as Sobeys parent Empire Co. Ltd., are finding it hard to recoup their higher costs.

National grocery chains have increased promotions over the past year to attract cash-strapped consumers and as they face fierce competition, particularly in Ontario, from each other and retailers like Zellers and Shoppers Drug Mart (TSX: SC) who are increasing their food offerings.

U.S. retail king Walmart also plans a major expansion of 40 new grocery stores in Canada this year, its rival Target plans to enter the Canadian market in 2012.

Loblaw is spending $1 billion this year as it wraps up one of its biggest-ever store and technology upgrades. In a search to increase revenue in difficult times, the chain is also ramping up its President’s Choice private label with more gourmet and ethnic offerings in its new black label line.

Loblaw, a subsidiary of George Weston Ltd., operates more than 1,000 stores across Canada under numerous banners which also include Great Canadian Super Store, Provigo, No Frills and Atlantic Superstore. The company employs 138,000 full- and part-time workers.

Metro is beefing up revenue with increasing forays into ethnic foods. The Canadian grocer recently bought a majority stake in Marche Adonis, a Mediterranean-style retailer that’s planning to enter the crowded Ontario market.

 

 

Bill

 

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

From: justice4odsp

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:54 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 41319 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[jbkeh]

Okay, read that.

To be brutally candid, if Stapleton thinks he is doing a "service"
with that kind of tripe, he is an idiot.

Here's a direct quote from it:

"The Toronto Star showcased the dilemma Linda faced when the
combination
of higher rent and reduced benefits resulted in her being not much
better off than
before she started to work"

Stapleton then stands on his head trying to IMPLY, BUT NEVER PROVES,
that rather than being "not much better off" she was worse off, an
utter falsehood. When all is said and done, she had more money in her
pocket working than not.

Yes, it was only a small percentage of her earnings, but it was more
than ZERO, not less!

And yes, there were processing errors.Those errors caused her to be
paid MORE than she should, AND SHE KNEW IT (she advised ODSP). But she
then failed to set aside this unwarranted extra for the inevitable day
of reckoning. Whose problem is that?

As for "Million Dollar Murray", other than showing that the Americans
are even more screwed up than we, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? If there were
some point, why could he not find an Ontario example?

If Stapleton loses his parking stub, that's HIS problem (he's the one
who lost it), no one else's. He should MAN UP!

Stapleton does have some valid points to make, but they are lost,
buried in the nonsense.

It all comes back to "cognitive dissonance" - Stapleton KNOWS Social
Assistance is a "top up" to ensure a minimal income, but he SEES it as
a REWARD for an unfortunate fate.

And it would appear, so do you.

Let me quote you:

"My husband's disability has nothing to do with me. I didn't cause
it, nor
should I have to subsidize it."

So why then do you allow ODSP to subsidize YOU (as a spouse in both
Basic Needs and Shelter allowance maximum, plus health and other
benefits) and YOUR HALF of the responsibility for your children (a
tiny Basic Needs pittance for those over twelve and again an increased
Shelter Allowance maximum plus health and other benefits)?

"But when I earn a dollar, I want to keep a dollar..."

ODSP nor OW takes one penny from your earnings. (Actually, neither
does RGI if you see it as what it really is - a subsidy that reduces
your rent from market value.)

The reality is that the SUBSIDIES are reduced as your need for them
lessens. And this is EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE. Social Assistance is
NOT a reward, it is a top-up support to ensure a minimum income. In
addition, to encourage employment, a percentage of your earned income
is actually discounted, allowing you to garner more than the subsidy
goal and still receive some assistance.

Yes, there are areas needing improvement (ODSP should treat E.I. as
earned income, better algorithm for earnings deduction, RGI based on
actual earnings after taxes less ODSP / OW Basic Needs, not to mention
the rates themselves), but the bottom line is that you are NOT worse
off working, as long as you are not foolish as to the employment costs
of the particular job.

This wasn't the case when you were on RGI and again, I salute you for,
through tremendous effort and sacrifice, escaping from it and building
a business that is dedicated to helping those who need it most.

But please stop telling people on RGI not to try to follow you because
they will "lose" money. Nowadays, they won't as long as they don't
select a job that costs more to have than it is worth.

"They do not want people to escape poverty. There has to be a large
enough
number of people kept down and kept from ever getting ahead, so they
can keep on enforcing their 800 rules down people's throats."

Aw, c'mon, that's outright paranoia. ;)

(Although being paranoid doesn't necessarily mean they aren't out to
get you.)

All you're seeing is rampant bureaucracy, the common failing of every
large organization.

That and a phenomenon I call "unthinking greed", but that is a subject
for another thread (or a book).....

[abrowne]

JBKEH,

Well, I guess if transportation was FREE, work clothes were

FREE, additional groceries for lunches each day were FREE,

as well other costs of working that don't exist if one just sat at

home, I suppose she might get to keep 2 cents on the dollar.

I don't know why you are being ultimately rude about this.

John Stapleton worked in the Ministry for 28 years and serves

as a consultant to a number of organizations today.  I don't

see YOUR name on any published documents.  For some

reason, you just want to defend your decision to live in

RGI housing.  I am not saying anything against that, as you

are obviously not working, so it works for you.  I am saying it

does not work for people that want to get ahead and move

OFF social assistance.

Your point about social assistance being a "reward"?  No,

the person has a disability!  So you expect them to be

punished for trying to improve their circumstances from a

very inadequate amount of income?  Brian, I know a LOT

of people who are in public housing of some sort.  I am, the

ONLY ONE that I know that quit the subsidy; most quit the

job when it becomes too expensive to work.  Many families

here are stuck in 2-bedroom 300 square foot coffins here,

because the poor don't deserve room to breathe, privacy

and a place to relax.

As Louise said, some may go on working because of the

mental health of it (e.g. better than staying at home), but

the financial gain does not make it worth it!  That's the same

reason my girlfriend continues to work, but she does not

have more money in her pocket by a stretch!  She has shown

me by her own numbers why it would be cheaper for her

to stay at home and stare at four walls ... she'd have more

money in her pocket then.

As for me, I want NOTHING from ODSP.  Being married

to my husband only adds about $150 to his cheque.  Then

take away that $150, I don't give a darn!  I would be able to

work like my peers and actually earn money instead of

being embarrassed at professional conferences that I

cannot go out after to eat because I have no money, that

I can't purchase the proper work attire without going major

into debt, that I can't go to business networking sessions,

because it costs me too much to travel.

You seem to forget that I am WORKING 70 - 90 hours

a week.  I almost had a stroke 2 months ago, when my

blood pressure was 180/110.  I don't think ODSP is

subsidizing me whatsoever.  I am subsidizing them, and

frankly, I can't afford it.  Millionaires complain about being

taxed and they work less hours a week than I do, and they

get to keep 65 - 70 percent of their income and their

income does not touch their wives' income (or husband's

if the woman is the millionaire).

The points you make are ridiculous!  You don't seem to

be concerned about anybody's situation except your own

and maybe I might wonder if you work for the Ministry or

are here as some kind of troll, because what you are saying

is not making any sense.

It is not okay for me to work for only 15 cents on the dollar,

and no, it is not okay for Linda having to give up a job that

she loved because it cost her too much.  When are you

going to acknowledge that this is a TRAP?

And stop trying to argue with everybody over points you

know nothing about and haven't lived through!

Angela

---

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 10:18:03 AM
Subject: [odspfireside: 41332 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[abrowne]

My half for the support of my kids?  Ha ha ha!  I am earning

about 70 - 90% of what goes into my household right now.

Even if I wasn't, why am I responsible to go beyond my

responsibilities under the Family Law Act?  Couples without

a spouse on ODSP, even if the other is on WSIN, CPP, OAS

or whatever, does not lose 50% of the working spouse's income\

even if they have kids. 

It is when the spouses SPLIT UP, this becomes an issue.  I

am not split up, yet I have to lose like I am split up.b  Why is this

fair for me, but not fair for other couples (including where one

is on WSIB. CPP or the like)?

Again I know you don't have kids, so you don't get this either.

Angela

---

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 10:18:03 AM
Subject: [odspfireside: 41332 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[Chris Carey]

jbkeh,

Your words:

"It all comes back to "cognitive dissonance" - Stapleton KNOWS Social
Assistance is a "top up" to ensure a minimal income, but he SEES it as
a REWARD for an unfortunate fate."

"To be brutally candid, if Stapleton thinks he is doing a "service"
with that kind of tripe, he is an idiot."

You're being remarkably hypocritical. You question the motives and professional integrity of the author based on inferences only then to setup an ad hominem attack on him and the article.

 

You say social assistance is a “top up.” Then attempt to tell us what this man thinks so that you can criticize him for not accepting what you see to be this blatantly obvious fact. And that’s exactly the point. This man may well be staking his view from the position of what should be, rather than from what actually is. Furthermore, your defense of the current system’s moral failings makes me nauseous.

 

For example, my driver's license was recently revoked because I couldn’t afford to pay a traffic fine. What was the ticket for? Driving a vehicle with a broken muffler. Apparently, that’s almost criminal in Ontario now, which means being poor is also considered almost criminal in this province. Fine enough, except now I cannot travel on my own to school, or to a job, or to my regular medical appointments in Ottawa. I live at a rural address with no bus service. Most of the time this means I’m stranded.

 

This situation has caused me tremendous hardship. Who pays, you ask? The taxpayers of Ontario and me: as my health worsens and my employability continues to suffer, I become more and more dependent on an already broken, unfair system. And why did this happen? Because I am financially impoverished and medically sick.

 

Chris

---

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 10:18 AM

Subject: [odspfireside: 41332 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question

[abrowne]

JBKEH,

Transportation costs are high around where I live, whether

your job is in the city or out of it.  Transit is very sporadic and

unreliable at best, and I am speaking from a full regional

perspective.  I don't have a TTC where I live, other than a

"Take the Car" approach to transit policy.  So, that's $600 - $800

a month there that nobody reimburses you for.  Clothing?  I suppose

I can experiment and show up in court with ripped up jeans and

a T-shirt and see what happen to me.  Lunches, yes you do have

to eat but when you are at work, you often do not have cooking

and sometimes even heating or cooling facilities, so you have

to purchase things that are prepared and pre-packaged, when

you don't necessarily have to do that at home.  Or if you work

the hours I do, a bagged lunch isn 't going to do it if I will only

be hungry three hours later anyways.  I don't get to go home

to my family when my peers get to do so.

 

I don't care what you say about John Stapleton.  He is a trained

policy analyst and is up to date in all of his research.  I am citing

materials that are recent, and I am telling you again - that

NOTHING has changed.  Why can't you accept that and move

on?  Or maybe join me to push for the right changes that might

make things more easier for people?

 

No, I don't get to keep my 100 cents on each dollar.  My husband

loses every time I work and that takes more and more money

from the household, and there are many business expenses

that I am not allowed to "expense" on ODSP but can through

CRA or am required to because of the profession that I am

in that I lose approximately 35 cents on the dollar to.

 

My only gain in 15 cents.  I am not going to spell it out here

how it works, but you have to trust me on this.  I am not stupid,

I have three university degrees and am licensed in my own

profession, with the potential (if I was able to drive) to get

licensed in two others, if I chose to jump ship and do something

else (but can't because I don't drive).

 

If I were keeping 100 percent of what I make my spouse would

losing not one iota.  Like it is with every other family, including

those on WSIB, CPP, EI, OAS, etc.  Instead I am subsidizing

his income.  I don't care what the so-called "working poor" think.

They can at least move in with another "working poor" person

and both can combine their respective non-clawed back incomes

and make it work.  I can't.

 

No, if I was not with him, and I did the calculations, he would

be getting a total of $150 less per month.  I did all of this cost-

benefit analysis before I even met you and still do.  The only

"benefit" per se I get is drug coverage, but I suppose there is

good cause to consider this kind of coverage for all low income

without other coverage, which I have nothing against.

 

There is nothing ad hominem in my post, other than stating

you don't have a clue what it is like to be in another person's

shoes and you somehow think you can assume.  I am

telling you what these things really are and you would

understand if you only broadened your perspective beyond

your own.  Why am I disuading people from RGI if they want

to work?  Because it doesn't work financially, unless you are

like Louise or this other girlfriend of mine who will work even

if they are losing money, because they want to work so badly

because it makes them feel good about themselves.  But on

a pure economic, rational basis, there is no incentive to work.

 

I've stated in these forums that these policies are passed

deliberately.  I don't think this government has any intentions

for us besides hoping we die off by starvation to save their

wealthy friends a few tax dollars.

 

Angela

From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 3:29:19 PM
Subject: [odspfireside: 41336 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question
 

"Your point about social assistance being a "reward"?  No, the person
has a disability!  So you expect them to be punished for trying to
improve their circumstances from a very inadequate amount of income?"

Social Assistance is a subsidy given based on financial need, not
disability. The only relevance of disability is that it garners a
higher maximum (inadequate as it may be). Where is this "punishment"?
Normally, the Social Assistance subsidy is reduced dollar-for-dollar
by other income as the need has been reduced by the same amount. To
encourage employment, only half of earned income (and that only after
taxes) is deducted from the Social Assistance subsidy and on top, a
$100 "Work-Related Benefit is added to defray those "employment
costs". You may debate whether this discount of earnings or the Work-
Related Benefit is adequate, but to label it "punishment" is illogical
(unless you 'see'  Social Assistance as a "reward" rather than a
subsidy). Keep in mind that the general public does see this discount
and benefit as a "reward" for being employed and there is only so much
that they will tolerate. (Particularly the "working poor" just above
the threshold for Social Assistance.)

"Being married to my husband only adds about $150 to his cheque."

The actual number would be $554 ($873-$590+$745-$474) added to the
Budgetary Requirements - the amount of the cheque would depend upon
the discounted earnings deducted.

"It is not okay for me to work for only 15 cents on the dollar..."

You don't. You work for 100 cents on the dollar (before taxes). That
statement would be true if and only if the Budgetary Requirements were
a REWARD rather than a needs-based SUBSIDY. If you were to say, "It is
not okay that the Budgetary Requirements are reduced by an immorally
excessive and counter-productive percentage of earnings" and / or "The
Work-Related Benefit is woefully inadequate to cover employment costs"
and / or "RGI should be based on net earned income" and / or "An ODSP
recipient with a business should be able to expense employees" , I'd
back you to the hilt.

[abrowne]

You are absolutely right, Chris.

 

I've seen more poor bashing on this list than I sometimes

see in my own community.  What a shame.

Angela

[Louise]

Hi Angela,
Have you thought of going to your MP? I know zilch about poitics. All I know is the higher up u go the better your chances.Let them know this is affecting your physical health and if u get sick and land up on odsp they will have one less person helping them.Its not ur job to support odsp.
I will add my 3cents for what it is worth...I am one of those that would love to stay at home and stare at the four walls...but I wouldn't be staring my 4 walls. I have a lot of projects going on and I would love to be able to focus on them as well as indulge more on my hobbies. I work not for my mental health as it makes it worse but out of necessity so I can buy groceries, coffee etc.I dread having to do my shifts I get no thrill out of it...its torture on good days. But every week or so I do get hungry and I love 2 feel clean so that costs in soap.....so even its only 40 a day its half of my 80 I need a week for variable expenses: bus tickets, toilet paper & maybe a coke once in a while.
Louise
PS: u are amazing angela keep up the good work. U will be rewarded some day!

Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:37 AM EST abrowne wrote:

>JBKEH,
>Well, I guess if transportation was FREE, work clothes were
>FREE, additional groceries for lunches each day were FREE,
>as well other costs of working that don't exist if one just sat at
>home, I suppose she might get to keep 2 cents on the dollar.
>
>I don't know why you are being ultimately rude about this.
>John Stapleton worked in the Ministry for 28 years and serves
>as a consultant to a number of organizations today.  I don't
>see YOUR name on any published documents.  For some
>reason, you just want to defend your decision to live in
>RGI housing.  I am not saying anything against that, as you
>are obviously not working, so it works for you.  I am saying it
>does not work for people that want to get ahead and move
>OFF social assistance.
>

>Your point about social assistance being a "reward"?  No,
>the person has a disability!  So you expect them to be
>punished for trying to improve their circumstances from a

> From: jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com>
>To: ODSP Fireside <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 10:18:03 AM

>Subject: [odspfireside: 41332 ] Re: ODSP/Employment income question
>
>Okay, read that.
>

>To be brutally candid, if Stapleton thinks he is doing a "service"
>with that kind of tripe, he is an idiot.
>

>Here's a direct quote from it:
>
>"The Toronto Star showcased the dilemma Linda faced when the
>combination
>of higher rent and reduced benefits resulted in her being not much
>better off than
>before she started to work"
>
>Stapleton then stands on his head trying to IMPLY, BUT NEVER PROVES,
>that rather than being "not much better off" she was worse off, an
>utter falsehood. When all is said and done, she had more money in her
>pocket working than not.
>