How about a government run program where everyone can pick up a food photocard at a major participating supermarket ( with a couple of peices of I.D.) It entitles the cardholder to say $10 of food per day. At the end of the year those with a low income that used the card would get their food for free and those with a higher income that used the card would have the "income" tacked on to their tax bill.
guaranteed annual food
Mon, 2009-11-16 21:23
#1
guaranteed annual food
Mon, 2009-11-16 21:31
#2
Frustrated Mess
How about a government run program to fund local and regional farmers to operate community supported agriculture on a grand scale to feed, up to $10 per day, anyone with the same photo I.D. that can be picked up at any government office. I'd much rather people eat good food and fund farmers than pay giant retailers to push corn.
Mon, 2009-11-16 21:53
#3
What about ration cards for kids? Think about the short people who can't produce any T4's for the feds yet. Come on!
Mon, 2009-11-16 21:56
#4
ok fine parents get an extra $3 for every kid
Mon, 2009-11-16 21:59
#5
You rock!
Mon, 2009-11-16 22:26
#6
I like this plan, and I like FM's amendment, and I like Fidel's amendment too. Gee: Is this still babble we're on?
Since we're on a positive roll, how's about a few ration stickers for kitteh food too?
Mon, 2009-11-16 22:32
#7
Boom Boom
And outlaw the eating of kittehs, even if it means Harpoon will starve.
Mon, 2009-11-16 22:35
#8
Could we have a thoughtful calculation at the end of the year so it isn't just low income = free food bonanza, low income + one dollar = you're SOL?
Also, why lock people in to just one supermarket?
Side note: I'm pretty sure some bureaucrat would want to make sure that Doritos aren't covered.
Mon, 2009-11-16 22:38
#9
Since we're on a positive roll, how's about a few ration stickers for kitten food too?
Whiskas and Iams coupons all around! Jeez that stuff's expensive now.
Mon, 2009-11-16 22:45
#10
I don't think we should outlaw eating kitten food, because there are a few very tasty varieties available. But they are expensive.
Mon, 2009-11-16 22:56
#11
Could we have a thoughtful calculation at the end of the year so it isn't just low income = free food bonanza, low income + one dollar = you're SOL?
Also, why lock people in to just one supermarket?
Side note: I'm pretty sure some bureaucrat would want to make sure that Doritos aren't covered.
Of course the low income levels would be determined over an incremental cut off range. The card would be accepted at all participating and qualifying grocery stores. Doritos aren't covered but strangly Lays brand smoky Bacon Chips are. Don't ask why.
Mon, 2009-11-16 23:21
#12
How about a seafood item once a week and maybe a bottle of vino? If so, I'm in!
Tue, 2009-11-17 00:12
#13
Why not just give people $3,650 a year (based on Ward's suggestion of $10 a day) in cash and let them meet their needs as they see fit, rather than subjecting them to the hassle and humiliation of a paternalistic food stamp regime?
Along with that you can just re-jig tax rates/brackets to tax-back the money for anyone earning a higher income (addressing G. Pie's concern about a cut-off).
Tue, 2009-11-17 00:24
#14
Why claw any of it back. Just give everyone $3650 and be done with it. Man, woman, and child. Any age. Let them do whatever they want with it. Make it tax free.
Tue, 2009-11-17 00:30
#15
Let them do whatever they want with it and indexed to inflation. Us guys rock!
Tue, 2009-11-17 09:10
#16
Snert
Why claw any of it back. Just give everyone $3650 and be done with it. Man, woman, and child. Any age. Let them do whatever they want with it.
But then how will we keep people from just blowing it on Doritos? If the goal is to get people eating organic, macrobiotic food grown within 100 feet of them, just give them an organic celeriac, two free-range eggs and a carton of soy-milk (that should add up to $10) and let the health begin.
Tue, 2009-11-17 09:36
#17
Except for Breast Cancer survivors. They should avoid soy, so rice milk for them.
Tue, 2009-11-17 09:47
#18
Snert
It's gotta be locally grown rice.
Tue, 2009-11-17 09:54
#19
Why not just give people $3,650 a year (based on Ward's suggestion of $10 a day) in cash and let them meet their needs as they see fit, rather than subjecting them to the hassle and humiliation of a paternalistic food stamp regime?
Is it paternalistic or humiliating if everyone gets it? If it's a universal program? If everyone who goes to the store has one of those cards that they spend until it's done? I don't think so. No moreso than $7 a day universal day care in Quebec is paternalistic or humiliating. Or showing your health card at the doctor's office is humiliating or paternalistic.
Tue, 2009-11-17 12:13
#20
How about a government run program to fund local and regional farmers to operate community supported agriculture on a grand scale to feed, up to $10 per day, anyone with the same photo I.D. that can be picked up at any government office. I'd much rather people eat good food and fund farmers than pay giant retailers to push corn.
What's to stop food exporting farmers from accessing this money and then selling to these products to developing nations under cutting local producers in foreign countries as is already done with subsidised agriculture. Thus wiping out the self sufficency of foreign nations and reinforcing the power differential between countries.
Tue, 2009-11-17 12:22
#21
There's already something like this in the US, though it isn't universal. Apparently the Bush administration replaced paper food stamps with electronic benefits and debit cards in 2004. Here's a excerpt from this New York Times article, June 23, 2004:
Frederick Henry, 35, of West Palm Beach, Fla., said the electronic benefit system ''gives you a lot more privacy in purchasing merchandise.'' By contrast, he said, ''it was sometimes embarrassing'' to use paper coupons. ''It would lower your self-esteem. People would hiss at you and look at you funny because you were holding up the line.''
Tue, 2009-11-17 13:36
#22
I can relate. I used to have a disability bus pass and I got all kinds of grief over it.
Tue, 2009-11-17 15:51
#23
Is it paternalistic or humiliating if everyone gets it? If it's a universal program? If everyone who goes to the store has one of those cards that they spend until it's done? I don't think so. No moreso than $7 a day universal day care in Quebec is paternalistic or humiliating. Or showing your health card at the doctor's office is humiliating or paternalistic.
Absolutely! Some of Canada's richest citizens are not behind the door when it comes to using Canada's medicare. And some Canadians even cut their snow bird time short in Florida and California if they become ill and require hospitalization, and they scoot back to the land of Tommy Douglas and universal health care. I think we'd be surprised by how the creme de la creme appreciate their universal health care entitlements.
And at least some of Canada's elected and non-elected officials in this country's several layers of government will be appreciative of their taxpayer-funded wages, full benefits, and gold-plated pensions indexed to inflation while preaching reliance on free market forces to the rest of the working class slobs in our Northern Panama with a few Polar bears.
Tue, 2009-11-17 16:04
#24
Is it paternalistic or humiliating if everyone gets it? If it's a universal program? If everyone who goes to the store has one of those cards that they spend until it's done? I don't think so. No moreso than $7 a day universal day care in Quebec is paternalistic or humiliating. Or showing your health card at the doctor's office is humiliating or paternalistic.
But using your food stamp card at Whole Foods would be so déclassé.
Tue, 2009-11-17 17:02
#25
I guess roads, cops, and libraries are paternalistic too.
Tue, 2009-11-17 17:08
#26
Damn straight, I don't need society to condesend to me by building me a road, telling me where I may or may not drive. I'll make my own road if I need to drive and go where ever I damn well please. 
Tue, 2009-11-17 17:22
#27
rural - Francesca
I'm allergic to dairy and wheat...so no chocolate for anyone, if I can't have chocolate...no one should have chocolate
oh was this about access to food...sorry...hungry and waiting for the next event of the day (Babbler's forgive me I'm about to imbide in the excess of corporate showmanship in the name of charity)
Swipe cards are nice as long as they don't have the Conservative logo on them.
100 mile food is elitest and insular...as far as my experience goes
We've done 2 amazing garden projects and I can't get any focus or attention from the 100 mile/green/eco nuts because my target is low income and mentally ill. Watch the video!!! http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1756208
sorry off topic again
people need more money
people need Doritos once in a while, no harm there
people need dignity and self determination, and support when self determination is problematic
Tue, 2009-11-17 17:33
#28
^ Exceptional post Francesca, I laughed, I thought, I learned a bit. Good on so many levels.
Tue, 2009-11-17 17:44
#29
remind
Damn straight, I don't need society to condesend to me by building me a road, telling me where I may or may not drive. I'll make my own road if I need to drive and go where ever I damn well please.
I love this...... :D
Tue, 2009-11-17 18:50
#30
[url=http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2009/17/c9778.html]Food Banks Canada's HungerCount study shows largest year-over-year increase in food bank use on record[/url]
OTTAWA, Nov. 17 /CNW/ - The results of the HungerCount 2009 survey released today show food banks across Canada helped 794,738 separate individuals in March 2009, an increase of 17.6%, or almost 120,000 people, compared to March 2008. This represents the largest year-over-year increase since 1997.
Of the 794,738 people helped in March this year, 72,321 - 9.1% of the total - stepped through the front door of a food bank for the first time.
"Food banks have unfortunately seen first-hand the effects of three recessions in three decades," said Katharine Schmidt, Executive Director of Food Banks Canada, which coordinated the annual national study. . .
The profile of those assisted is as varied as in past years:
- 37% of those assisted by food banks are children and youth under
18 years old.- Nearly half of assisted households are families with children.
- 19% of households that turn to food banks for help each month are
living on income from current or recent employment.- 6.3% of assisted households report some type of pension as their
primary source of income.
"It is likely that hunger in Canada is even more widespread than HungerCount findings suggest," Ms. Schmidt said. "For every person who turns to a food bank for help, several others in need of assistance do not ask for it. Canadians need to focus on long-term, policy-based solutions to resolve the problem of hunger."
The neoliberal voodoo has been very successful with delivering free markets in poverty.
Wed, 2009-11-18 01:43
#31
RevolutionPlease
meh, don't know if people are joking or not but it's not funny.
Wed, 2009-11-18 01:44
#32
RevolutionPlease
At least Fidel keeps it real. Keep teaching my friiend.
Wed, 2009-11-18 01:47
#33
RevolutionPlease
And frick of course rural-francesca that got me so pumped up.
Wed, 2009-11-18 05:20
#34
But using your food stamp card at Whole Foods would be so déclassé.
Like Woody Guthrie said once, they could still pretend to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Me older rellies in England used to talk about poorer Brits who voted conservative as sometimes being the kind who could brag off a threp'ny bit. Some people can be too proud. And what for really? You, me, and all of us are just as good as they are. Don't ever fool yourself.
If you didn't care
What happened to me
And I didn't care
For you
We would
Zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain
Wondering which of the buggers to blame
And watching
For pigs on the wing
Wed, 2009-11-18 10:48
#35
meh, don't know if people are joking or not but it's not funny.
No harm in lightening the mood once and a while. But some times there's a bit of truth in the joke. For example, my post number #25. Mostly joking, but there is an underlying truth with respect to Ward's comment on roads et al being paternalistic. Overall the provision of public goods by the government such as roads, libraries, hospitals and so forth are not bad things. What is problematic at times is the fact that these goods are not provided with the broader public interest at heart. Instead private interests or well meaning but misinformed intentions have these goods being made less useful to the public.
In the case of public food, Francesca so wonderfully alludes to, there is a tendancy for the government to tell people what is best for them and dictate to them what foods will be made available to them. This becomes paternatalistic because those dependent on the program are unnesscessarily limited in their choices.
Anyway back to serious business.
Wed, 2009-11-18 13:16
#36
Why not just give people $3,650 a year (based on Ward's suggestion of $10 a day) in cash and let them meet their needs as they see fit, rather than subjecting them to the hassle and humiliation of a paternalistic food stamp regime?Is it paternalistic or humiliating if everyone gets it? If it's a universal program? If everyone who goes to the store has one of those cards that they spend until it's done? I don't think so. No moreso than $7 a day universal day care in Quebec is paternalistic or humiliating. Or showing your health card at the doctor's office is humiliating or paternalistic.
Maybe someone's issue isn't with affording groceries, it's with paying for housing (or clothing, or transportation, etc.). $10 in food stamps doesn't do them a whole lot of good.
Sure, you might say, they can trade the food stamps for money, or use the money saved on groceries to spend on other things; but at that point, why bother with the stamps at all and not just give them cash in the first place? It would be a whole lot cheaper to just distribute cash than also paying for the bureaucracy that would be necessary to administer stamps.
But the real issue is this: do you not trust people to use the money to look after themselves? Are you looking for a say in how others go about feeding themselves (limiting their purcahses to free-range eggs, organic locally-grown rice, etc. as Snert jokes above)? Those are the only reasons I can think of for insisting on food stamps over cheaper, and more useful, cash.
Basically, I agree with p-sto's latest post.
Wed, 2009-11-18 13:20
#37
But the real issue is this: do you not trust people to use the money to look after themselves?
Usually yes but in some cases no. I have met people who, even though they received disability pensions, were incapable of seeing that their rent was paid on time. These were not cases of being short of money; it was simply not having the resources, skills, whatever, to manage their own affairs.
Wed, 2009-11-18 13:27
#38
So what do you think would be appropriate support for such people?
Wed, 2009-11-18 13:34
#39
So what do you think would be appropriate support for such people?
Rent should be paid directly to the landlord. A similar arrangement could be made for food where the supermarket is paid directly and the customer carries a gift card.
Wed, 2009-11-18 14:07
#40
Now would this be done for everyone who requires social assistance on the basis that some people can't manage their money or would government control be dictated on a case by case basis depending on who the government deems can't handle their money.
Also who's to stop there from being restrictions on where you may rent and what food you may buy if you are recieving social assistance.
But perhaps it's an issue of expedience. Spending money on programs to help people learn to budget their money would only spend more resources. Although I suppose that communities could set up programs run by volunteers to save money.
ETA: I suppose if some one wants to sign up voluntarily for a direct payment program that's a rather different issue but forcing it on everyone based on concerns of what a few may do seems excessive to me.
Wed, 2009-11-18 15:51
#41
Timebandit
Social services here already pays rent directly to landlords for some recipients who have a poor history of paying their rent with their rent allowances. Have done for years.
Wed, 2009-11-18 17:03
#42
Frustrated Mess
How about a government run program to fund local and regional farmers to operate community supported agriculture on a grand scale to feed, up to $10 per day, anyone with the same photo I.D. that can be picked up at any government office. I'd much rather people eat good food and fund farmers than pay giant retailers to push corn.
What's to stop food exporting farmers from accessing this money and then selling to these products to developing nations under cutting local producers in foreign countries as is already done with subsidised agriculture. Thus wiping out the self sufficency of foreign nations and reinforcing the power differential between countries.
Yeah, its a real problem with small CSA and local food producers undercutting farmers in the global south. Where's the rolly eyes when you need it?
Wed, 2009-11-18 17:15
#43
remind
here too, timebandit, if persons have had to apply x amount of times for emergency funding to pay rent, or ask intervention on eviction, the rent gets directly paid, and all other monies get allocated directly to the person. Though this might be in installments too though in some cases.
Wed, 2009-11-18 17:53
#44
Now would this be done for everyone who requires social assistance on the basis that some people can't manage their money or would government control be dictated on a case by case basis depending on who the government deems can't handle their money.
Certainly it shouldn't be forced on the masses just because a few people can't manage their money. And it's not really a matter of government "deeming" who can't handle their money. It's more a case of clients demonstrating that they can't do it.
Wed, 2009-11-18 19:26
#45
Tigana
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/ministry/minister/
Everyone should be entitled to healthy food.
http://update.ocap.ca/node/367
PDF: The Cost of Basic Nutritious Food
http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E8425B5F-0B49-4EEB-A10E-F88E3CB54587...
Wed, 2009-11-18 20:20
#46
I've never known anyone that doesn't need social assistance.
Thu, 2009-11-19 02:18
#47
RevolutionPlease
I've never known anyone that doesn't need social assistance.
Again, I've missed the joke. Why would this topic need humour? To satiate ourselves?
Thu, 2009-11-19 02:23
#48
RevolutionPlease
WTF is this thread about? I'm sorrily disturbed.
Thu, 2009-11-19 10:29
#49
Yeah, its a real problem with small CSA and local food producers undercutting farmers in the global south. Where's the rolly eyes when you need it?
Sigh, I suppose that my point that large agriculturilists may object to unfair competition and demand similiar subsidies is rather trite. Nonetheless after reflecting on the issue I'm glad I brought it up.
One subsidises small local sustainable agriculture in the hopes that it grows and replaces to some degree large agri corps that are farming in an unsustainable manner. Now in part land and other resources committed to large scale farming may be reallocated to small sustainable farming. But growth in local producers may largely happen due to more intensive land use and utiilising idle land. This local production crowds out large agriculture but doesn't significantly reduce their out put. Since large scale producers have invested a large amount in thier current scale of production it's unlikely that they'll cut production. Much more likely that they'll try to redirect their focus to exporting their out put more intensively to foreign countries.
Then again perhaps I've totally missed the boat and the scale of these projects is no where near large enough to significantly impact current agricultural production but when you said "grand scale" I assumed it was. If you'd wish to educate me on the finer points of local agriculture I'm happy to learn but I'm not going to take it as given that just because it's local that further subsidising Canadian agriculture won't have negative spill over effects on the rest of the world unless you show me how you plan to mitigate these potential problems.
Thu, 2009-11-19 10:47
#50
Now would this be done for everyone who requires social assistance on the basis that some people can't manage their money or would government control be dictated on a case by case basis depending on who the government deems can't handle their money.Certainly it shouldn't be forced on the masses just because a few people can't manage their money. And it's not really a matter of government "deeming" who can't handle their money. It's more a case of clients demonstrating that they can't do it.
Thanks to you and others for clarifying. Not sure I'm in love with the idea but it does have a practicality to it.
Thu, 2009-11-19 11:02
#51
p-sto, you would rather have a client lose her apartment than suffer the indignity of direct rent? What specifically don't you like?