Canadian province Ontario to pilot Guaranteed basic income (GBI) plan.

[jhungary]

Lived in several so called 'Welfare State" myself, it may not be as cracked up as you think it is to be.

In Australia, there exist a blanketed welfare system in which you basically sit on your arse and do nothing while the government took other people money and pay you $427 a fortnight, as well as giving you free (or assistance) housing and free general healthcare.

Problem is this, while this all sounded nice. HOWEVER, there is a catch (There are always a catch)

Without a job, it's Impossible for you to literally do anything, you cannot open a bank account (unless you are a student), you cannot rent anything (house, furniture and so on) and you cannot borrow money.

While almost all the whisky tango don't really care and simply live with their parent and having lobster for dinner and weed every night. Those of us who worked, you will pay a high price for these supplement.

While on one hand, you have those kind of people who are okay not to find a job ever, as long as they have their mums and dads house to crash and they have their weed (or cocaine), on the other, it stressed out the tax payer, ALL THE TAX PAYER.

Universal Income would not help those actually need help, those people are not the WT I mentioned above which always have a pad to crash, they don't care, but those who work merger job and not enough (or barely enough) to support themselves, that's the people welfare should be targeting.

 

[That Guy]

Lived in several so called 'Welfare State" myself, it may not be as cracked up as you think it is to be.

In Australia, there exist a blanketed welfare system in which you basically sit on your arse and do nothing while the government took other people money and pay you $427 a fortnight, as well as giving you free (or assistance) housing and free general healthcare.

Problem is this, while this all sounded nice. HOWEVER, there is a catch (There are always a catch)

Without a job, it's Impossible for you to literally do anything, you cannot open a bank account (unless you are a student), you cannot rent anything (house, furniture and so on) and you cannot borrow money.

While almost all the whisky tango don't really care and simply live with their parent and having lobster for dinner and weed every night. Those of us who worked, you will pay a high price for these supplement.

While on one hand, you have those kind of people who are okay not to find a job ever, as long as they have their mums and dads house to crash and they have their weed (or cocaine), on the other, it stressed out the tax payer, ALL THE TAX PAYER.

Universal Income would not help those actually need help, those people are not the WT I mentioned above which always have a pad to crash, they don't care, but those who work merger job and not enough (or barely enough) to support themselves, that's the people welfare should be targeting.

I don't know about other nations, but this sort (Canadian) of basic income is extremely different.

How? There is literally zero conditions to this. Every single citizen, regardless of wealth, would get a basic minimum every year, but it would be just enough to get by, and wouldn't be enough to live a comfortable life. Basically, the catch is that if you work, you end up with more money, and if you don't work, you end up with minimum income.

The point isn't to force people to work, rather it's to encourage people to work.

The experiment has already been conducted before, and it was a massive success.

Mincome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This plan would eliminate homelessness and poverty in one fell swoop. If you make minimum wage, you'd have a much higher income. If you're already rich, or upper middle class, this wouldn't effect you at all, so you wouldn't care one way or another.

 

[jhungary]

I don't know about other nations, but this sort (Canadian) of basic income is extremely different.

How? There is literally zero conditions to this. Every single citizen, regardless of wealth, would get a basic minimum every year, but it would be just enough to get by, and wouldn't be enough to live a comfortable life. Basically, the catch is that if you work, you end up with more money, and if you don't work, you end up with minimum income.

The point isn't to force people to work, rather it's to encourage people to work.

The experiment has already been conducted before, and it was a massive success.

Mincome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This plan would eliminate homelessness and poverty in one fell swoop. If you make minimum wage, you'd have a much higher income. If you're already rich, or upper middle class, this wouldn't effect you at all, so you wouldn't care one way or another.

maybe I am not very clear on the issue in my last post.......

My point is, Blanketed Welfare is never a good idea. It does not matter if you are talking about Minimal income or even extending some assistance.

Welfare needed to be specially designed to help a certain group of people, by design, those people are not enough to live by, either they can't earn enough, or they are limited in their earning ability (Like being disable or so on)

Problem is, welfare today tended to be indiscriminating who is getting those welfare. Which will basically strain the tax payer. Those who do not work, too lazy to find work or just simply don't want to work would not care about this, simply because they never have to pay taxes. Those who earn more than enough will not care, because what 3 grands is nothing when you earn 75 or more a year. Now those people who got stuck in the middle, the one which welfare are supposed to help by design, they earn a little yet they got hit by the same tax structure. In effect, by doing a blanketed welfare, we are harming the people welfare by definition are supposed to help and helping those people that we aren't supposed to help.

This is my point

 

[Butchcassidy]

Why not promise the moon while at it.
Where r they going to get funds for it?
There is only finite amount of money to go around.

 

[Indika]

Wow , back to socialism!

Well it will definitely put stress on the economy. But it does have advantages. For ppl who have no money or starting afresh like just out of college it gives independence to choose their own paths. Ppl need not be worried about their everyday meal. The system will work well if there are more number of workers and less number of slackers say 8:2.

Its good move ppl can certainly follow their passions.... err I mean career without worrying about next meal.

 

[HAIDER]

That's the thing I explain in the end, no one is sure if the healthcare system will even exists, if this happens. The government needs funds for this program, and the first cuts are gonna be welfare programs, which may or may not include Canada's government healthcare insurance.

Also, moving here may not be worth the effort. The money you make will be just enough to live on and pay your basic needs, nothing more, and it's only a temporary experiment that may or may not become permanent.

In fact similar plan already exist in US. But, its very tough. Need to cut corners and sacrifice many projects. Its kida Norway where people stay home and get more money ,then working...

 

[mingle]

That's the thing I explain in the end, no one is sure if the healthcare system will even exists, if this happens. The government needs funds for this program, and the first cuts are gonna be welfare programs, which may or may not include Canada's government healthcare insurance.

Also, moving here may not be worth the effort. The money you make will be just enough to live on and pay your basic needs, nothing more, and it's only a temporary experiment that may or may not become permanent.

I think tax hike ,hydro hikes will work here its another way put money in one pocket take it out from other but it will be success full .Health care ppl already contribute when they file the tax except low income Bracket .

 

[Quwa]

Guaranteed basic income is basically a form of stimulus investment. Instead of putting that money through infrastructure programs, the government is literally handing cash to the citizen, with the idea that he or she will invest it in the economy. In the hands of some, such as young business owners, it could be of huge benefit, individually and collectively. Imagine the 25 year old who manages to pay for rent, utilities and internet while he or she makes an app, which in turn results in a business and/or employment opportunities with a tech firm. Worst case scenario, most people will use the funds to at least stay healthy enough to not be a burden on the healthcare system, which may end up being reformed.

 

[NP-complete]

Its a great idea. Will be a huge success. It will create free time. And people can do terrific things when they have free time. Humans are naturally inclined to understand things and solve problems. But they dont have the time to do that mostly. They end up using all their time working to make the ends meet. This plan will allow people to move up to the higher skill set and consequently higher income through enhanced understanding.
What it does is that it takes the long-time work to the micro level. Most valuable things take a long time in the making and deliver benefit only after the completion of the project at the end. Now individuals will be able to take up these long-time projects without having to worry about income in the meanwhile and reap massive benefits at the end.

 

[That Guy]

Why not promise the moon while at it.
Where r they going to get funds for it?
There is only finite amount of money to go around.

By cutting redundant welfare programs. Basically, instead of wasting money on programs that people may not even use, they're planning on just giving the money straight to people. Getting the money isn't the main problem, the problem arises when looking at the benefits as opposed to the issues.

For example, ODSP will (on average) give more money to people, as opposed to this income plan. Unfortunately, if this plan goes ahead, ODSP may end up getting cut, so people who received ODSP cheques, now they have to deal with a decline in their income levels.

Wow , back to socialism!

Well it will definitely put stress on the economy. But it does have advantages. For ppl who have no money or starting afresh like just out of college it gives independence to choose their own paths. Ppl need not be worried about their everyday meal. The system will work well if there are more number of workers and less number of slackers say 8:2.

Its good move ppl can certainly follow their passions.... err I mean career without worrying about next meal.

Canada is already a market based socialist country, even if no one wants to admit it. This won't really change that status.

the mincome project proved that there would be a negligible drop in employment, as people were more motivated to work. Of the people that chose not to work, a vast majority chose to go back to school and complete their studies.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Are there any US states that have adopted this? How has it worked for them so far?

No. I love Canada and Canadians, but this is a good example of how even though America and Canada may have much in common, may look similar on the surface, or to outsiders...........we are not and are two totally different countries. In America, you would be branded a radical socialist for advancing this kind of idea. The majority of Americans would take the same basic attitude as this poster does...

Lived in several so called 'Welfare State" myself, it may not be as cracked up as you think it is to be. In Australia, there exist a blanketed welfare system in which you basically sit on your arse and do nothing while the government took other people money and pay you $427 a fortnight, as well as giving you free (or assistance) housing and free general healthcare.

It just doesn’t go down well with Americans struggling to make ends meet and provide for their kids, to have to pay for some person who they doubt is really trying to become self-reliant, and is just milking the system for all it's worth.

 

[That Guy]

No. I love Canada and Canadians, but this is a good example of how even though America and Canada may have much in common, may look similar on the surface, or to outsiders...........we are not and are two totally different countries. In America, you would be branded a radical socialist for advancing this kind of idea. The majority of Americans would take the same basic attitude as this poster does...



It just doesn’t go down well with Americans struggling to make ends meet and provide for their kids, to have to pay for some person who they doubt is really trying to become self-reliant, and is just milking the system for all it's worth.

How do you feel about Bernie Sanders? He's actually quite popular, despite describing himself as a socialist. Do you think there is a change in US opinion on left wing politics? Or is there any change at all?

 

[Quwa]

The idea of BIG also has some small-c conservatives. More money in the hands of individuals, smaller government footprint (thanks to reduced services), greater direct impact on the market (i.e. money in the hands of consumers), giving people choice, etc.

Moreover, BIG is also a good way to stave off the decline of the middle class core. The economy is becoming increasingly automated, so if outsourcing didn't do a number on jobs (which it did), robots will go a few steps further (globally). Given the employment situation in Canada, especially in regards to Gen-Y/Millennials, I don't think people will be concerned about folks free-riding the system when a huge proportion of them have kids who will benefit from that support.

You'll also have to transition to an economy where jobs are created from services, knowledge production (e.g. media, think-tanks, teaching, etc), and R&D. For that you need a population with specialized education in STEM, and that takes time and financial cushion to cultivate.

 

[Desertfalcon]

How do you feel about Bernie Sanders? He's actually quite popular, despite describing himself as a socialist. Do you think there is a change in US opinion on left wing politics? Or is there any change at all?

He's been probably the most successful of anyone on that part of the American "Left", but that is a pretty small group in America and he will never be president. He's just too far out there for the American people. Sen. Clinton may very well win the presidency, mostly because my Party is such a complete mess right now, but she, although still to the right slightly of Canada's Liberal Party, is still of their ideological bent.

 

[gambit]

This is an F-up idea.

The government is not taking care of anyone. All the government is -- in this idea -- is an enforcer of a distributive income scheme. If I work extra hard, the government will take the excess of my labor to give to someone else. That is all there is to it.