Universal guaranteed income experiment

[WestCoastRunner]

Finland will be introducing an experimental program offering 2,000 of its citizens a guaranteed mthly income of just under 600. 

Ontario is also proposing a similar program of at least 1300 mthly, no strings attached to low income people. The reasoning is that it will end the cycle of poverty and encourage people to seek out employment knowing the guaranteed income won't be clawed back. 

Italy has a similar program already in place while Brazil, Uganda and Iceland are considering a similar program. 

I think it's time that this proposal is explored further to determine how effective it can be especially considering how automation is replacing many jobs. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/03/proposed-basic-income-pilot-would-provide-monthly-payments-of-least-1320.html

Finland is giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/02/news/economy/finland-universal-basic-income/index.html

 

[TimG]

Sounds great in theory. Too expensive in practice. In Canada a GAI at a reasonable level would need a huge increase in taxation to support it.

[Argus]

45 minutes ago, TimG said:

Sounds great in theory. Too expensive in practice. In Canada a GAI at a reasonable level would need a huge increase in taxation to support it.

Given half the population pays no, or almost no taxes it ought to enjoy strong support.

[WestCoastRunner]

45 minutes ago, TimG said:

Sounds great in theory. Too expensive in practice. In Canada a GAI at a reasonable level would need a huge increase in taxation to support it.

Well you don't really know that because not much research has been put into it. There could be savings from eliminating the costs of administration and policing of ei and social assistance. 

Thete coukd be other savings that we just don't know about. Hence the term 'experiment'. 

[TimG]

Just now, Argus said:

Given half the population pays no, or almost no taxes it ought to enjoy strong support.

Everyone pays GST even if it is rebated later. One way to raise the taxes necessary would be to raise the GST to 10%. That would make it clear to people that programs come with a cost.

[WestCoastRunner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Given half the population pays no, or almost no taxes it ought to enjoy strong support.

So what do we do about the homeless population, the workers losing their jobs to automation?  The service industry doesn't pay a heck of a lot but having additional guaranteed income could actually put more spending money into the economy. 

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Well you don't really know that because not much research has been put into it. There could be savings from eliminating the costs of administration and policing of ei and social assistance. 

Thete coukd be other savings that we just don't know about. Hence the term 'experiment'. 

Actually, I did sit down and add up all of the programs that could theoretically be cancelled and concluded that a GAI could not work in Canada unless the OAS/GIS payments that retired people currently receive are cut and redistributed to younger people. If you wanted to raise the total taxation level by $100 billion or more (i.e. a 5% hike in GST)  you could keep current OAS/GIS payments.

Targeted programs are cheaper by a long shot.

Edited January 3, 2017 by TimG

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

So what do we do about the homeless population, the workers losing their jobs to automation?  The service industry doesn't pay a heck of a lot but having additional guaranteed income could actually put more spending money into the economy. 

I am not responsible for earning them a living. That's up to them. Too much of my earned money is already taken away to pay for freeloaders.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Finland will be introducing an experimental program offering 2,000 of its citizens a guaranteed mthly income of just under 600. 

Ontario is also proposing a similar program of at least 1300 mthly, no strings attached to low income people. The reasoning is that it will end the cycle of poverty and encourage people to seek out employment knowing the guaranteed income won't be clawed back. 

Italy has a similar program already in place while Brazil, Uganda and Iceland are considering a similar program. 

I think it's time that this proposal is explored further to determine how effective it can be especially considering how automation is replacing many jobs. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/03/proposed-basic-income-pilot-would-provide-monthly-payments-of-least-1320.html

Finland is giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/02/news/economy/finland-universal-basic-income/index.html

 

Why would it not be clawed back if employment was found?  I'm employed.  Can I get some?

[WestCoastRunner]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

Actually, I did sit down and add up all of the programs that could theoretically be cancelled and concluded that a GAI could not work in Canada unless the OAS/GIS payments that retired people currently receive are cut and redistributed to younger people. If you wanted to raise the total taxation level by $100 billion or more (i.e. a 5% hike in GST)  you could keep current OAS/GIS payments.

I think every proposal should be looked at. The homeless population is increasing and job loss is occurring because of automation and globalization. Govts can't seem to build low income housing fast enough so it's a very real and pressing issue. 

Are we as a country supposed to turn our backs on the less fortunate or experiment and come up with real solutions. 

[WestCoastRunner]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Why would it not be clawed back if employment was found?  I'm employed.  Can I get some?

Maybe. 

[WestCoastRunner]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

I am not responsible for earning them a living. That's up to them. Too much of my earned money is already taken away to pay for freeloaders.

But not everyone has the good luck to find a well paying job through no fault of their own whether it's due to intelligence, foster children not able to start out with the solid foundations lije other children. It's very complex and as a country we should be able to look out for each other. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

I think every proposal should be looked at. The homeless population is increasing and job loss is occurring because of automation and globalization. Govts can't seem to build low income housing fast enough so it's a very real and pressing issue. 

Are we as a country supposed to turn our backs on the less fortunate or experiment and come up with real solutions. 

We're not really supposed to have a clue what to do.  It would be nice, but there is no reason why we should.  There's no reason whatsoever why automation and globalization shouldn't result in poverty and mass starvation.

[TimG]

1 minute ago, WestCoastRunner said:

I think every proposal should be looked at. The homeless population is increasing and job loss is occurring because of automation and globalization. Govts can't seem to build low income housing fast enough so it's a very real and pressing issue. 

Are we as a country supposed to turn our backs on the less fortunate or experiment and come up with real solutions. 

Why should some people get subsidized housing while people who work have to pay full cost?

Money does not grow on trees. It has to be generated by adding value with goods or services. People who add value should pay taxes but at some point taxes become confiscatory and governments end up killing the part of the economy that generates the wealth. So whether you like it or not we need solutions that do not depend on a massive increases in taxation levels. 

[WestCoastRunner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

We're not really supposed to have a clue what to do.  It would be nice, but there is no reason why we should.  There's no reason whatsoever why automation and globalization shouldn't result in poverty and mass starvation.

Thanks for the input. 

[WestCoastRunner]

Just now, TimG said:

Why should some people get subsidized housing while people who work have to pay full cost?

Money does not grow on trees. It has to be generated by adding value with goods or services. People who add value should pay taxes but at some point taxes become confiscatory and governments end up killing the part of the economy that generates the wealth. So whether you like it or not we need solutions that do not depend on a massive increases in taxation levels. 

I'm saying all proposals should be looked at. I certainly don't have an answer to the problem but clearly every city and town in this country has huge problems with homelessness etc. 

[Guest]

Just now, WestCoastRunner said:

Thanks for the input. 

I'm not saying I like it.  Just that we as a species don't think about stuff before we do it.  Population keeps on rising, along with sea levels, and we keep on turning jobs over to robots or to Bangladeshi women in cardboard factories.  Sorry if that's too harsh for you, but really, there is no reason why things should work out.  Giving people money for nothing will only work for so long.  Eventually there will be no more money.

[WestCoastRunner]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not saying I like it.  Just that we as a species don't think about stuff before we do it.  Population keeps on rising, along with sea levels, and we keep on turning jobs over to robots or to Bangladeshi women in cardboard factories.  Sorry if that's too harsh for you, but really, there is no reason why things should work out.  Giving people money for nothing will only work for so long.  Eventually there will be no more money.

I understand the harshness when reality sets in.  I don't walk around with rose tinted glasses. I'm just bringing up this experiment in a thread because I think it could be an important one. 

 

The experiment, not the thread  

Edited January 3, 2017 by WestCoastRunner

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

I understand the harshness when reality sets in.  I don't walk around with rose tinted glasses. I'm just bringing up this experiment in a thread because I think it could be an important one. 

 

The experinent, not the thread  

I think that, once you start providing a guaranteed income to anyone who can qualify, instead of welfare and disability payments to those who genuinely cannot fend for themselves, you will do so for ever more people from an ever diminishing pool, until something really awful happens.  I have no idea what.  It just seems to make sense that it will.

Edited January 3, 2017 by bcsapper

[WestCoastRunner]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think that, once you start providing a guaranteed income to anyone who can qualify, instead of welfare and disability payments to those who genuinely cannot fend for themselves, you will do so for ever more people from an ever diminishing pool, until something really awful happens.  I have no idea what.  It just seems to make sense that it will.

Well, there seems to be some underlying purpose to experiment with this proposal in Canada as well as other countries. I'm willing to take a wait and see approach. I believe that Italy has actually extended it to include additional families. Not sure why they did that. 

Ww are living in a different economic world now and we can't toss those less fortunate to the curb. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by WestCoastRunner

[Argus]

19 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

But not everyone has the good luck to find a well paying job through no fault of their own whether it's due to intelligence, foster children not able to start out with the solid foundations lije other children. It's very complex and as a country we should be able to look out for each other. 

And not everybody wants to work, or is willing to work hard. My nephew, for one, who has been fired from every job he's ever held because he couldn't be bothered to show up for work or even call in to lie about being sick. Back when Mike Harris took over Ontario and reformed the welfare system 10% of the population of Ontario was on welfare. Why? Because it was easy to get.

[WestCoastRunner]

28 minutes ago, Argus said:

I am not responsible for earning them a living. That's up to them. Too much of my earned money is already taken away to pay for freeloaders.

You keep saying we should not help refugees with taxes paid by Canadians and now you are also saying we shouldn't extend help to fellow Canadians to get them off the streets into a place of their own to start a new life. 

Perhaps you are the one who lacks Canadian values. 

[WestCoastRunner]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

And not everybody wants to work, or is willing to work hard. My nephew, for one, who has been fired from every job he's ever held because he couldn't be bothered to show up for work or even call in to lie about being sick. Back when Mike Harris took over Ontario and reformed the welfare system 10% of the population of Ontario was on welfare. Why? Because it was easy to get.

Thanks for the anecdote that tarnishes everyone in need of a helping hand. 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, WestCoastRunner said:

You keep saying we should not help refugees with taxes paid by Canadians and now you are also saying we shouldn't extend help to fellow Canadians to get them off the streets into a place of their own to start a new life. 

Perhaps you are the one who lacks Canadian values. 

I didn't say we shouldn't help any refugees. I said that in some cases, like the Syrians it was a preposterous waste of resources. I also did not say we shouldn't help fellow Canadians. I said we shouldn't given them a free ride. Maybe if you were a taxpayer you'd understand.

[WestCoastRunner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I didn't say we shouldn't help any refugees. I said that in some cases, like the Syrians it was a preposterous waste of resources. I also did not say we shouldn't help fellow Canadians. I said we shouldn't given them a free ride. Maybe if you were a taxpayer you'd understand.

Why would you think I'm not a Canadian tax payer?