Charity Donates Car to Family so they can be a Two-Car Family

[totoro]

The car is good and comes with some gas cards and insurance for a year, and the intentions are good, but I suspect the logic may be flawed.

This family of seven can't currently make ends meet and are using a food bank.  The solution seems to be that they need a second car that does not fit them all because "when you are part of a family of seven, one vehicle can’t keep up with demand".  In addition, when dad uses the current car to get to work mom "walks the youngsters to their destinations and worries that going out in the cold could affect their health".  Having a second car means a lot to the family because "it will help us get day-to-day things done quicker".

If this family is eligible for charitable donations it likely means the one income is around $30,000.  If this is the case, they would also receive $1500 a month in tax exempt child tax credits.  Their take-home would be about $4000 a month net as very little in the way of taxation would be taken off the one income given the deductions for a sahm and children.  They would also be eligible for subsidized housing.

I don't see how this family can afford to operate a second vehicle after the first year. Even if the mother goes back to work as it appears likely unaffordable to me as it will also mean increased childcare costs given the ages of the children, decreased child tax benefits (based on family income), and increased taxation on earned income.  I really wonder if the donors have done the math.

I can't help but think that an MMM style case study would be more valuable to this family than a donated car.  Questions would be posed such as "what does your budget look like currently?", "why does dad need to drive to work?", "how far do you live from amenities/work/school?".   Charitable donations in the form of food, bikes, warm clothes, help with subsidized housing, and budgeting assistance might be much more sustainable and financially rewarding.

- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/businesses-get-together-to-donate-a-car-to-a-family-of-seven-1.752848#sthash.bPqlB4Dx.dpuf:

[EK]

Wow did I get a good lol out of the idea that the children shouldn't be walking FOR THEIR HEALTH.

[kms]

In addition, when dad uses the current car to get to work mom "walks the youngsters to their destinations and worries that going out in the cold could affect their health".

First, I chuckled. Then, I laughed. Then, I cried. Because I realized that this woman is going to raise five children with that sort of propaganda and I'm scared what she will turn them into.

[totoro]

And the really odd thing is that they do not live in a cold climate.  It is the warmest winter weather in all of Canada - rarely falling below zero.   

[MrsPete]

Huh.  One of the things we did to get ahead as a young couple was to live with only one car (and we didn't live anywhere near public transportation, so it wasn't always convenient).  When I finished college and got a job, that second car was quite a jolt to our budget.  A car is pretty expensive. 

Yeah, I agree that this wasn't really a help to a needy family. 

[wifeytini623]

Ummm...I dunno. I'd say that having seven kids warrants being a two-car household. We don't know what their medical needs are, how far away they are from doctors, schools, food banks, etc. Obviously a brisk, 1/2 mile walk isn't going to kill anybody, but if they have, say, a kid with a stomach flu, a doctor's appointment at a specialist 9 miles away, and it's 0 degrees outside, then it would be ridiculous to walk there.

EDIT: My bad, they have five kids. Misread.

[totoro]

They don't have seven kids.  Did you read the article? No medical needs were mentioned and they do currently walk.  The reasons given for the car was the mom was worried the kids would get sick if they walked and they want to save time. A taxi is much cheaper than operating a car if you need something for emergencies. 

[mpbaker22]

Ummm...I dunno. I'd say that having seven kids warrants being a two-car household. We don't know what their medical needs are, how far away they are from doctors, schools, food banks, etc. Obviously a brisk, 1/2 mile walk isn't going to kill anybody, but if they have, say, a kid with a stomach flu, a doctor's appointment at a specialist 9 miles away, and it's 0 degrees outside, then it would be ridiculous to walk there.

Sounds like someone needs a major face punch.  I wouldn't recommend this, but I met a family with 15 kids (or something like that) and one car.

[GuitarStv]

I'm not really anti-children . . . but one has to question why you would choose to continue having children if you feel you're not able to provide and care properly for them.

[kudy]

I'm not really anti-children . . . but one has to question why you would choose to continue having children if you feel you're not able to provide and care properly for them.

I was mockingly called "Ayn Rand" at work the other day for saying something similar. I don't understand why the rest of the population feels entitled to have a family, no matter the support or upbringing they can provide for them. It's like there's no choice in the matter, they are going to have 3 kids, and the rest of society better be ready with social assistance programs and minimum wages that can support a lavish lifestyle for a family of 6.

[jrhampt]

And the really odd thing is that they do not live in a cold climate.  It is the warmest winter weather in all of Canada - rarely falling below zero.

hahahahaha!!!  Sorry, I just think it's funny.  I consider anything north of the Canadian border to be a "cold climate."  And "warmest winter weather in all of Canada"!!!  **snort, snort***  Sorry, grew up in Dallas, TX. 

[TGod]

It is mind blowing that there is still the attitude that being outside in cold weather can make you sick. I always feel so much better if I go spend time outside in the chilly air. Granted it rains a lot here on the west coast, but this family would have benefitted more, both health-wise and financially by receiving bikes for the whole family, a bike trailer for the little ones, and some good rain gear for biking in the crap weather. Instead they've received a future of additional bills.

That any charity dealing with lower income households would think that giving a family a car is a step up is crazy. Will they continue to pay insurance, maintenance and gas for this family, because this extra car is going to be an extra drain on them financially when all the goodies are gone.

They didn't have a 2nd car because they couldn't afford one. They still can't, but they've been given a year to get comfortable and used to it before reality sets in and they have to start assuming the costs of having 2 cars.

Dumb.

[totoro]

And the really odd thing is that they do not live in a cold climate.  It is the warmest winter weather in all of Canada - rarely falling below zero.

hahahahaha!!!  Sorry, I just think it's funny.  I consider anything north of the Canadian border to be a "cold climate."  And "warmest winter weather in all of Canada"!!!  **snort, snort***  Sorry, grew up in Dallas, TX.

You do realize we use the metric system in Canada right?  Zero Celsius is 32 F.  Winter here is more like 45-50 F usually.  This city is located in a sub-Mediterranean zone, and boasts the mildest climate in Canada. It receives an average of 2,183 hours of sunshine each year, with flowers in bloom year-round and an eight month frost-free season.

Average Monthly Temperatures

January: 6.5°C (44°F)
February: 8.4°C (47°F)
March: 10.2°C (50°F)
April: 12.9°C (55°F)
May: 16.3°C (61°F)
June: 19.3°C (67°F)
July: 21.8°C (71°F)
August: 21.8°C (71°F)
September: 19.1°C (67°F)
October: 14.1°C (57°F)
November: 9.4°C (49°F)
December: 6.8°C (45°F)

[totoro]

Today for example Dallas and this town have exactly the same temperature 6c or 43f.

[jrhampt]

I guess I'm just used to eastern Canada since I'm on the east coast - Montreal has a high of 14 F today and a low of -6 F tomorrow, for example, which is why I think it's a fantastic place to visit in August, but tend to avoid it (along with Minnesota) in January.  45-50 is pretty warm for winter...although I still think the "warmest winter weather in all of Canada" statement is pretty funny on the surface ;-)

Ooh, and Quebec City (another of my favorite places to visit) has a high of 3 F today.

[hybrid]

I get a sneaking suspicion we aren't getting the whole story why this family needs two cars, when it seems more like it would be nice for them to own a 2nd car.  Somehow or another this family rose to the top of that annual charity list, I have a hunch we're not getting all the reasons why.

Having said all that, yeah, at what point is it fair to say "Hmmm, these little bundles of joy are starting to add up....".

[totoro]

I guess I'm just used to eastern Canada since I'm on the east coast - Montreal has a high of 14 F today and a low of -6 F tomorrow, for example, which is why I think it's a fantastic place to visit in August, but tend to avoid it (along with Minnesota) in January.  45-50 is pretty warm for winter...although I still think the "warmest winter weather in all of Canada" statement is pretty funny on the surface ;-)

Ooh, and Quebec City (another of my favorite places to visit) has a high of 3 F today.

I'm not sure why it is humorous?

[wifeytini623]

Ummm...I dunno. I'd say that having seven kids warrants being a two-car household. We don't know what their medical needs are, how far away they are from doctors, schools, food banks, etc. Obviously a brisk, 1/2 mile walk isn't going to kill anybody, but if they have, say, a kid with a stomach flu, a doctor's appointment at a specialist 9 miles away, and it's 0 degrees outside, then it would be ridiculous to walk there.

Sounds like someone needs a major face punch.  I wouldn't recommend this, but I met a family with 15 kids (or something like that) and one car.

I need a face punch? what?

[Forcus]

No charity until dad gets a vasectomy.

[YK-Phil]

This is ridiculous to say the least in more ways than one. I am currently in Yellowknife where the temperature was around -43 (without windchill factor) last night, and -41 this morning when I biked to work. My colleague, who has a 6 year old son, walks him to and from school every single day of the year, whatever the temperature and weather is. Their commute is 2.4 km as per Google Maps. Incidentally, I am flying this weekend to that very same area where these people live to check out some properties, because that area has the most decent winter weather in Canada and that's where I want to spend part of my winters!

[totoro]

Hybrid - I'm not sure if there is another reason. I do know that the rate of need in that community, with the exception of the Indian reserve, is relatively low.  I did heAr that part of the reasoning was that it would help the mom get a job. I suspect that someone did not calculate the costs and benefits of the car, childcare and loss of subsidies and tax breaks if the income increases

[MrsPete]

Ummm...I dunno. I'd say that having seven kids warrants being a two-car household. We don't know what their medical needs are, how far away they are from doctors, schools, food banks, etc. Obviously a brisk, 1/2 mile walk isn't going to kill anybody, but if they have, say, a kid with a stomach flu, a doctor's appointment at a specialist 9 miles away, and it's 0 degrees outside, then it would be ridiculous to walk there.

EDIT: My bad, they have five kids. Misread.

True.  Emergencies happen, but it'd be considerably cheaper to pay a taxi occasionally (or to pay a neighbor for a ride) than to maintain a car all the time "just in case".  As for trips to the food bank, etc., plan one day a week when mom can drive dad to work, and let her run all the errands on that day.   

[mm1970]

I'm not really anti-children . . . but one has to question why you would choose to continue having children if you feel you're not able to provide and care properly for them.

I was mockingly called "Ayn Rand" at work the other day for saying something similar. I don't understand why the rest of the population feels entitled to have a family, no matter the support or upbringing they can provide for them. It's like there's no choice in the matter, they are going to have 3 kids, and the rest of society better be ready with social assistance programs and minimum wages that can support a lavish lifestyle for a family of 6.

My problem when I hear this type of talk is the assumption that people "kept having kids they couldn't afford" instead of, just maybe, they were doing fine and then somebody got laid off/ got sick, etc.

[MoneyCat]

I'm not really anti-children . . . but one has to question why you would choose to continue having children if you feel you're not able to provide and care properly for them.

I was mockingly called "Ayn Rand" at work the other day for saying something similar. I don't understand why the rest of the population feels entitled to have a family, no matter the support or upbringing they can provide for them. It's like there's no choice in the matter, they are going to have 3 kids, and the rest of society better be ready with social assistance programs and minimum wages that can support a lavish lifestyle for a family of 6.

My problem when I hear this type of talk is the assumption that people "kept having kids they couldn't afford" instead of, just maybe, they were doing fine and then somebody got laid off/ got sick, etc.

Don't be reasonable.  The average person really hates that when it's so much easier to just hate on the poor.

[totoro]

I personally have no problem with having five kids.  I'm okay with having more kids and less money.  In any case, it is not like this is a choice here - the kids exist and they should have help if they need it.

The only thing I have an issue with is a charity making a big deal of helping by providing a second family car that a family cannot afford.  It seems to me that the family is probably financially better off with one car and the mom not working given the taxation/benefits consequences and costs associated with maintaining a second car. 

The fact that local paper published an article celebrating this as a huge blessing and justifying the need because the kids might get sick if they walked is hard to fathom.  To me, it means that it was expected that the average person would agree. Maybe they do.  That is the most difficult part for me. 

Why is the long term not part of the picture in this all?

[BlueMR2]

My problem when I hear this type of talk is the assumption that people "kept having kids they couldn't afford" instead of, just maybe, they were doing fine and then somebody got laid off/ got sick, etc.

If one is in the position where being laid off/getting sick results such trouble, then one really couldn't afford the kids to begin with.  The belief that the kids were reasonable was a false belief based on assumptions that nothing would ever go wrong.

[MrsPete]

I'm not really anti-children . . . but one has to question why you would choose to continue having children if you feel you're not able to provide and care properly for them.

I was mockingly called "Ayn Rand" at work the other day for saying something similar. I don't understand why the rest of the population feels entitled to have a family, no matter the support or upbringing they can provide for them. It's like there's no choice in the matter, they are going to have 3 kids, and the rest of society better be ready with social assistance programs and minimum wages that can support a lavish lifestyle for a family of 6.

My problem when I hear this type of talk is the assumption that people "kept having kids they couldn't afford" instead of, just maybe, they were doing fine and then somebody got laid off/ got sick, etc.

This is what happened in our family.  My parents had five kids, and they could've afforded us (with some frugal choices). . . If everything had gone smoothly and ideally. 

The reality was that the last child was a preemie with big medical bills, a divorce followed years later, my dad lost his job, and my mom (having planned on staying home for the rest of her life) had no job skills. 

So, were they good planners who fell on hard times, or foolish people who bit off more than they could chew?  I say the reality is skewed a bit towards foolish -- or say overly idealistic, if you prefer.  If things had stayed as they were in my preschool and elementary school days, my parents would've been fine -- quite wealthy, in fact.  If just one of those negatives hadn't happened (say, if my mom hadn't let her job skills go stale), they could've avoided all that befell us.  But the reality is that they never made any contingency plans, never had a fall back option.  And that is where they fell short in their planning. 

I don't think this is an uncommon story. 

[Abe]

I agree. The problem is people don't think about potential major negative events that could affect their ability to raise kids. Saying "I have enough money now, so I can have a bunch of kids" is irresponsible unless one can be reasonably certain that they will have enough savings to tide over temporary setbacks. The best way to improve that chance is by having fewer kids, thus allowing one to have a significant emergency fund & other savings. Children are a big responsibility, and one must put their desires for a "large family" behind their childrens' future. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen and society has to pick up the pieces.

[totoro]

It looks like the mom has been off work for a medical leave and is returning to her job in Jan. I can understand how difficult it would be to coordinate getting two people to work and kids to at least three different locations (daycare, elementary, secondary). Also, I don't know all the ages, but expecting a preschooler having a fit to walk alongside you in cold weather is very difficult. I had a double stroller, but there were the other kids that would slow us down. Have you guys ever herded sheep?! I often feel that this is what I am doing.

I just don't agree with the perspective.  The issue for me is not how difficult it is to coordinate but how come the focus is not on really solving the underlying difficulties instead of buying into the idea that an added expense, the car, is the magical answer.

What is cold weather to you?  It doesn't really get cold here in my opinion.  My friends don't even have a car.  The bike and walk and bus everywhere year round.

I managed to walk with my preschoolers every day and work.  How?  I chose a location near enough to make it convenient.  We were a one car family, but we only used the car for shopping and medical appointments.  I took the bus to work and back. When my kids were in elementary we moved to live next to the school and I kept taking the bus.  When my kids went to different schools we moved once again to the midpoint between the schools and within walking distance of everything and I worked from home.
 
Is this a solution for everyone?  Maybe not.  But for a family with five children in a situation where they need a food bank I would think that the right location would be the biggest time and money saver that you could have and should be a very high priority. 

The next practical issue would be an analysis of minimum budget necessary to meet expenses and any recommended changes.  Then a calculation of the true costs of that second income taking into account taxation, income-based child benefits, subsidized housing, childcare subsidies and increased costs, car expense and stress.

My view is that if you have five kids it likely does not make sense to have both parents working full time in places they need two separate cars to get to unless the income is quite a bit higher than average.  Not to mention that the car given can't even seat all the kids.  How is that practical?

[Jack]

If this family is eligible for charitable donations it likely means the one income is around $30,000.  If this is the case, they would also receive $1500 a month in tax exempt child tax credits.  Their take-home would be about $4000 a month net as very little in the way of taxation would be taken off the one income given the deductions for a sahm and children.  They would also be eligible for subsidized housing.

Well now that makes me feel like a chump, since my take-home pay is about the same $4000 a month, on a $65K salary (the only difference is that I don't have to provide for kids with that money).

Why should I bother improving myself to make more money when I could have just had a bunch of kids instead, and come out the same? That $1500/month child tax credit provides a perverse incentive to stay low-income.

[totoro]

If this family is eligible for charitable donations it likely means the one income is around $30,000.  If this is the case, they would also receive $1500 a month in tax exempt child tax credits.  Their take-home would be about $4000 a month net as very little in the way of taxation would be taken off the one income given the deductions for a sahm and children.  They would also be eligible for subsidized housing.

Well now that makes me feel like a chump, since my take-home pay is about the same $4000 a month, on a $65K salary (the only difference is that I don't have to provide for kids with that money).

Why should I bother improving myself to make more money when I could have just had a bunch of kids instead, and come out the same? That $1500/month child tax credit provides a perverse incentive to stay low-income.

And yet our birth rate is extremely low at 1.61 - less than the 2.1 required to maintain population levels.

I'm okay with these subsidies for children in low income families.  Most people are not going to want to have more kids based on this because the amount is not enough to cover the extra costs when you add education and other expenses and a lot of people won't want that many kids anyway.

[daverobev]

Canada != USA (really!). The social spending of the Canadian govt is really pretty amazing (and I'm undecided whether or not it is great, or over generous).

We just had our first child... and we get $100 in universal benefit (ie, every child in Canada gets this, regardless of income of parents) until she is 6; plus some other means tested income-based amount - $35 or so for us at the moment.

And, as a Brit, I can absolutely swear to you that Vancouver is a damn site warmer than here - it's down to -20 degrees C today. We went for a walk yesterday but, because I had to wear a bigger coat to fit round the baby, I really wasn't warm enough after a while, so we cut it short.

5 deg C is warm. As in, scarf hat gloves thermals twin-layer coat not required. Beard and moustache does not freeze. T-shirt, jumper and coat are plenty. +5 to -20 is a *huge* difference. Even -5, -10 is fine. At -20, man. I was faffing around putting a car seat in the car today without a coat on. Bbbbrrrrrrrr.

5 degrees C? I'd give my right armpit for 5 degrees C!

Well... no. I'll just stay inside where it's about 17 or so :)

[totoro]

Hey - congratulations on the baby!

[daverobev]

Hey - congratulations on the baby!

Thanks :) I mostly just made the tea, my wife did the hard work!

[BlueMR2]

And yet our birth rate is extremely low at 1.61 - less than the 2.1 required to maintain population levels.

This, I consider a good thing.  Now, if we could get the global rate down to about 1.2-1.4 for a couple decades, we'd be getting somewhere.