[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Shades of Animal Farm. So, how will they decide who's "more human" than others and therefore worthy of this free money?

My guess is that they'll give it to a few drug addicts, mentally ill and homeless people just to make themselves feel good with the rest going to Liberal supporters because they've worked so hard at being human.

I think the idea is that it will be like OAS - everyone is eligible to receive but a clawback formula applies above a certain limit, e.g. the benefit is reduced by 50c for every dollar you earn above a certain amount.

I think what' s most interesting would see how the market responds. I think you'll see a who new range of low-end goods and services - like housing - priced at the minimum income.

[BartSimpson]

Bart to BF: How about you stay on topic for a change instead of trying to change the topic when you're not man enough to admit you lost the argument?

[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Single mothers with no income who are going to be dependent upon the state are losers, you're damn right they are.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Bart to battered wives: Should've stuck with your husband and learned to take a punch, you losers!
Bart to widows: Should've married someone healthier, you losers!
Bart to abandoned women: Shouldn't have let your husbands run off with younger women, you losers!
Bart to professional women: Should've handed your baby over to a stranger and got back to work you losers!

[stratos]

$1:

I think what' s most interesting would see how the market responds. I think you'll see a who new range of low-end goods and services - like housing - priced at the minimum income.

Not sure I follow the logic here. Why would this plan cause more housing and other services to be cheaper? More likely, IMO, the people who receive this will see their rent and what not go UP because the land lords and or the company owning the apartments will figure they can pay more.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Bart to BF: How about you stay on topic for a change instead of trying to change the topic when you're not man enough to admit you lost the argument?

My post is on topic and I've lost nothing.

[BRAH]

I'm not a loser.

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Shades of Animal Farm. So, how will they decide who's "more human" than others and therefore worthy of this free money?

My guess is that they'll give it to a few drug addicts, mentally ill and homeless people just to make themselves feel good with the rest going to Liberal supporters because they've worked so hard at being human.

I think the idea is that it will be like OAS - everyone is eligible to receive but a clawback formula applies above a certain limit, e.g. the benefit is reduced by 50c for every dollar you earn above a certain amount.

I think what' s most interesting would see how the market responds. I think you'll see a who new range of low-end goods and services - like housing - priced at the minimum income.

You're probably right but, by that definition the only people qualifying as "humans" will be low income earners, welfare recipients, homeless and the mentally ill.

And if it works that way it'll be nothing more than another social service couched in gov't speak to hide it's real intent which, is to prop up an emerging welfare state.

[andyt]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I'm in favour of it. Just sets a basic living wage for everyone as a standard, one stop program.

But it can't be any higher than what welfare costs.

Welfare in BC for a single employable person is currently $620 a month. So if this program is to be a basic living wage it's going to cost a lot more. Now you could also roll EI and OAS and GiC and various other programs into it, but then you're not going to be collecting EI contributions from employers and employees either. It's going to cost a fark of a lot more than these programs cost now, if the basic income is at all livable. That will be the stumbling block here.

[herbie]

Nope, if the guaranteed income is $2000 a month, they roll back EI benefits by that amount and still collect the premiums.
Then there's a drop in GST rebates with everyone making the basic income. As well as those pitiful $75 provincial credits, etc.
Plus, if as you say the landlords raise rents, they lose any excuse not to upgrade some of the welfare shitholes. Make a law that freezes rent until they do so.
You could also say that making $2000 a month, what fucking reason could you justify being homeless? Charge a minimum and force people into shelters.

[andyt]

None of those would add up to 2000 a month for everybody. NOwhere near. And of course employers would have to pay a lot higher wages than current min wage to attract anybody working for them. Would you work full time at McDonald's at even 3000 a month when you are guaranteed 2000 and no grease just for breathing? Think of what that would do for the cost of a McCrap.

If you're still collecting EI premiums but not paying out EI, that's just raising taxes to pay for this program, and I doubt EI takes in nearly enough to pay for it anyway.

It would be nice if somebody had hard figures of how this would work and what it would cost. But I don't see how any country could afford to do this on a meaningful level, ie pay enough for a truly living income. If not, then it just seems like a different welfare scheme to me.

[herbie]

$1:

And of course employers would have to pay a lot higher wages than current min wage to attract anybody working for them. Would you work full time at McDonald's at even 3000 a month when you are guaranteed 2000 and no grease just for breathing?

Because if you worked at McDonalds you'd make $44,800 a year (based on say $10hr, its more here) instead of $24,000. You're arguing that I wouldn't take a job for $20,000 a raise? You nuts or something?
I had to explain that to my kid when she was going to turn a full manager job down, her friends all told her they'd "take it all away in taxes"...
To implement it, you also eliminate or reduce the 'basic personal exemption' as you received an actual basic income - and you'd have to do some tax planning to accommodate that clawback - you'd be forced to do RRSPs and RESPs.

[andyt]

PRetty well any scheme takes away your basic income as you work, usually at 50 cents on the dollar.

The median wage (ie 50% of people make less than this wage) is in the mid forties. Say 45k. All of a sudden that median person would be earning 65k under your scheme. Think about the inflation that would cause. It would get out of control a la Argentina. We wouldn't export a single thing, it would all cost too much to produce.

Your scheme seems to be to give every adult Canadian $2000 a month. There are 28 million Canadians over 19 (so even more if the cut off is 19). That would cost $672,072,000,000 ie 672 billion a year. The 2015 budget planned for total expenditures of 290 billion. Trudeau might come in at 320 billion or so. See the problem?

[sandorski]

It wouldn't be $2000/month, probably 1000-1500. Still looks hella expensive on Paper, but that's only in comparison if you just tack on the Cost of it to the current system. Once you take into account clawbacks from Work Income, the system would only really be adding the current Poor as an added expense. At the same time it would be saving Cost by a reduced bureaucracy that currently manages numerous Social Services.

Who is eligible, anyone who has a S.I.N., aka every Adult Citizen.

Other things are likely to change though, like a Lowering of Minimum Wage or at least less pressure to raise it.

It would be foolish to rush into such a system. I would certainly want to know more about it, but it's an intriguing idea that just might one day be the norm.

[herbie]

You're assuming it would cause inflation, not stating a fact. And obviously, I picked the $2000 a month randomly. $1500 a month is more likely, $18,000 a year as it fits poverty definitions.
Sandorski's point about minimum wage is good. Lowering or removing it would be political suicide, but there wouldn't be the pressure increase it. And
you're making the #1 mistake most people make: someone else has to make and provide jobs. There's a built in self-employment startup benefit to this: you can already live, you're not 100% dependent from day one!
Yeah there's always the element people whine about - I know people on $900 mo disabilities and $620 mo welfare who won't work because they'll lose it. They're fucking idiots. They couldn't shop in my store when I owned it, imagine if they had been able to. There's be 5 employees or even more still working, one less empty unit in the mall, PST & GST & license revenue still pouring in. I wouldn't get those calls where you talk to some dick and then he promises to bring you his computer to fix "when he gets $50"...

[andyt]

Raising wages for everybody almost 50% overnight would cause huge inflation, that's a fact. 1500 per month to every adult would still be 517 billion. In 2015-16, the govt only expected to take in 290 billion total in revenues.

If the system is just ramping up welfare rates, as Sandorski says, that's not going to do much either. You'd have to keep EI, or are you going to force working people laid off to just get welfare? Seniors get more than the figure Sandorski suggests, so you'd need a top up system for them too.

I would like to see a proper mincome system that eliminates poverty while not reducing the motivation to work, even at shitty jobs. To start with we could raise the basic tax exemption to 20k, then tax the lost revenue back at the upper end.