So what would an NDP government do?

[PrimeNumber]

What incentive would they have to work at all?

Well if no one works, society ceases to function and nobody gets any money. The wheel turns and everyones happy. There has actually been a variation of this field tested here in Canada in the 70's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

Edited June 26, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Canada_First]

So we all become slaves to the government. No thank you. They control enough of our lives.

[-1=e^ipi]

What incentive would they have to work at all?

You get paid for working. It's called a wage. That's your incentive.

Also, you can get rid of things like welfare, minimum wage, employment insurance, the progressive tax system, etc.

[Canada_First]

You get paid for working. It's called a wage. That's your incentive.

Also, you can get rid of things like welfare, minimum wage, employment insurance, the progressive tax system, etc.

Sounds like communism.

[PrimeNumber]

Sounds like communism.

Sounds like you don't know what communism is.

So we all become slaves to the government. No thank you. They control enough of our lives.

They already have you right where they want you. Don't take the red pill.

[-1=e^ipi]

Sounds like communism.

Are you trolling? Advocating the abolition of the progressive tax system, the minimum wage and employment insurance is communism?

[Canada_First]

Are you trolling? Advocating the abolition of the progressive tax system, the minimum wage and employment insurance is communism?

You're advocating people get 25k a year for free for doing nothing then choosing to work or not. Yes it's communism. This is how it was in communist Poland pretty much. You worked only if you wanted to. Got free housing. Free money. 2 bottles vodka a month. Etc.

Is that next? Rationing our booze and food?

Thank God I'm almost dead. I can't stand to live in a world with kids of today running things...lol.

[PrimeNumber]

You're advocating people get 25k a year for free for doing nothing then choosing to work or not. Yes it's communism. This is how it was in communist Poland pretty much. You worked only if you wanted to. Got free housing. Free money. 2 bottles vodka a month. Etc.

Is that next? Rationing our booze and food?

Thank God I'm almost dead. I can't stand to live in a world with kids of today running things...lol.

Let me define communism for you

Communism: a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production by the people, with the absence of social classes, a monetary system and the state.

In reality no one, except maybe very early tribal humans have ever accomplished communism. In fact no one has really even gotten close. The Soviets and Chinese decided to steal the name and images. What they have is closer to State Capitalism.

[Canada_First]

Let's not play with semantics. It's communism as most people know it today. Not everyone is a political science or philosophy major.

[PrimeNumber]

Let's not play with semantics. It's communism as most people know it today. Not everyone is a political science or philosophy major.

Neither am I. I just know how to use the internet and read.

[Canada_First]

I advocate for freedom. Less government and less government control over my life.

[Canada_First]

gggggggggggggggg

Edited June 26, 2015 by Canada_First

[On Guard for Thee]

I advocate for freedom. Less government and less government control over my life.

In that case you are not voting for Harper.

[-1=e^ipi]

You're advocating people get 25k a year for free for doing nothing then choosing to work or not.

When did I ever say 25K?

Yes it's communism.

That still wouldn't be communism even if that were what I was advocating.

[-1=e^ipi]

I advocate for freedom. Less government and less government control over my life.

But you don't support simplifying the tax system and reducing bureaucracy?

[Evening Star]

Why would it slow upward mobility? With respect to how it taxes affect the labour-leisure decision, what matters is the marginal tax rate, not the effective tax rate.

Right, so you would always keep (1-x) of each dollar you make [x=flat tax rate]. My mistake. And again, I think I come back to the position that I'd have to know your numbers. The only way it seems to me like it could generate sufficient revenue and not immiserate people who are out of work would require at least a 50% marginal rate, probably closer to 65%, which seems politically unviable.

[cybercoma]

I thought more about how to deal with disabled people, children, and people in remote areas.

You're going to eventually come back to a system of credits and exceptions that will leads you to where we are today again, effectively making the "flat" tax meaningless. The government will also use these exceptions and credits as carrots during election time, further complicating the system after it's put into place.

[cybercoma]

In order to pay for the GAI, it seems that the 'flat rate' would have to be set at such a high level that it would significantly slow the upward mobility of anyone who is in the lowest group of income earners just above the 'zero point'. Very high earners would probably also end up keeping significantly less than half of what they make in a year, which tends to make them unhappy.

Hindering upwards mobility is exactly what people have been saying for at least a generation about flat tax schemes. It disproportionately burdens lower income earners, which is exactly what I said at the beginning of this discussion, but Euler wanted mathematical proof. Evidently he can't even see the proof in his own math.

[cybercoma]

You want more free stuff for those that refuse to work right? Like higher welfare rates? You want to give welfare recipients 25k a year you said right?

You know nothing about the people on welfare. Your idea that there's hoards of people who refuse to work is completely unsupported. Go ahead and back that up with an official source. Show me any study that says the unemployed refuse to work. In fact, the very definition of unemployment in this country excludes those not ready and willing to work.

[cybercoma]

Though I don't think children should be entitled. Probably a cut off of 18 years or possibly only recieved if you pay some form of taxes.

What about 18 year olds who are working on their education still? Some 40% of Canadians end up with university degrees. Are you going to arbitrarily cut them off at 18 even though they haven't fully entered the workforce yet? This is why many programs these days go until 25. Parents insurance coverage will often cover their children until 25 or the child leaves school. Radical rightwingers balk at the idea of a 25 year old being a child still, but if they've been in school continuously, I see no reason why they shouldn't be considered for these programs. They're trying to improve their skills so we have a more educated labour force here in Canada. We shouldn't be creating incentives for them to avoid post-secondary education.

Edited June 26, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Are you trolling? Advocating the abolition of the progressive tax system, the minimum wage and employment insurance is communism?

Let's put it this way, if you give everyone $2083/month as Prime suggests, do you really think businesses are going to pay people anything at all when you abolish minimum wage? They'll throw people scraps. They may even pay them $0/hour and just offer benefits as an incentive to go work. We can already see in many places how Walmart relies on government subsidies to keep their employees afloat. The government giving everyone a guaranteed allowance would give Walmart even less of a reason to pay their employees.

[PrimeNumber]

What about 18 year olds who are working on their education still? Some 40% of Canadians end up with university degrees. Are you going to arbitrarily cut them off at 18 even though they haven't fully entered the workforce yet? This is why many programs these days go until 25. Parents insurance coverage will often cover their children until 25 or the child leaves school. Radical rightwingers balk at the idea of a 25 year old being a child still, but if they've been in school continuously, I see no reason why they shouldn't be considered for these programs. They're trying to improve their skills so we have a more educated labour force here in Canada. We shouldn't be creating incentives for them to avoid post-secondary education.

A cutoff age of 16 may be more appopriate, a 10 year old would not need 25k a year, on top of their parents 25k. Even if that parent is a single parent.

A 10 year old does not contribute enough to society to recieve 25k of tax payers money, sorry but that's just how I see it. It's their parents job to feed, cloth and shelter them.

[cybercoma]

A cutoff age of 16 may be more appopriate, a 10 year old would not need 25k a year, on top of their parents 25k. Even if that parent is a single parent.

A 10 year old does not contribute enough to society to recieve 25k of tax payers money, sorry but that's just how I see it. It's their parents job to feed, cloth and shelter them.

Sorry, I got it flipped. I see what you're saying now. I agree with what you're saying about the cutoff. Honestly, I don't think it should be set by age, but rather when someone graduates from high school or begins living independently.

[PrimeNumber]

Sorry, I got it flipped. I see what you're saying now. I agree with what you're saying about the cutoff. Honestly, I don't think it should be set by age, but rather when someone graduates from high school or begins living independently.

Living indepedently would actually work the best. If you can prove you aren't a dependant anymore, you are entitled to the money

[Canada_First]

You know nothing about the people on welfare. Your idea that there's hoards of people who refuse to work is completely unsupported. Go ahead and back that up with an official source. Show me any study that says the unemployed refuse to work. In fact, the very definition of unemployment in this country excludes those not ready and willing to work.

I know more than you think I do. I can't tell you more. I know what I'm talking about. I can go to any drop in Centre in the city and show you able bodied people that simply refuse to go get a job. You don't believe that their are people out there like this? Tons of people on disability who could work also but they game the system so they don't need to. Making it harder for people who actually need the help. As I said. Next time I'm in the city if I remember I'm going to take pics at the welfare offices. Disability offices and drop in centre's. If I get that far. If I have time. I'll post them here and we can see our tax dollars at work.