dialamah Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said: I might support a proposal that gives every single individual 1000$ per month (or whatever), then anything they make over and above that is 100% theirs. That's an interesting idea, but how does it address TimG's contention that providing any kind of basic income is too expensive and will ultimately come back to bite the taxpayer? 3 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: Give them 1000$, give them 2000$ or 3000$, nothing will change, they'll still come back wanting low income housing and all their free benefits (medical, dental etc). Someone I know is on provincial disability, but doesn't have to pay medical premiums or most prescriptions - although he does receive substandard medical care. If his medical costs, per month, are $100 on top of his support cheque, and you only raise the basic income by that $100 and then ask him to pay his own premium/prescriptions, how is his poverty alleviated? Should the basic income be enough for a decent standard of living + medical/dental care? Or should it be decent standard of living, while medical/dental still provided? I do think a 'decent standard of living' is to be the goal, then the support should provide market rent amounts. In this area, market rent is between twice and three times as much as people on disability/welfare receive. Many of them end up in substandard housing, which can add to their medical costs and the burden on the taxpayer. 10 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: Walmart will get a spike in big screen TV sales, and drug overdoses and alcoholism will increase I know about half a dozen people who are on welfare or disability; only one of them has a drinking problem, but he still manages to pay his rent; none of them do drugs or even have big-screen TVs. Still, it's a valid concern when you look at people who are awarded $375 a month support, live on the street and do drugs. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to invest in effective drug treatment for these people? In my opinion, that means long-term (a year) treatment instead of jail time. I have heard of a program where providing street addicts with a place to live as a start was extremely effective in combating addiction and converting addicts into employed and tax-paying citizens. I'll see if I can find any info on it. Quote
?Impact Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 40 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: The vast majority of homeless have been abused growing up, many from broken homes where they've spent time in group homes or foster homes and then run away. Some have mental illness on top of this. Are you aware of any study of homelessness that substantiates that opinion? Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: Are you aware of any study of homelessness that substantiates that opinion? I got it from a quote from this video from this psychiatrist who works with homeless addicts in Vancouver's Downtown East Side at the Onsite/Insite facilities. I remember he said something like "just about all my patients, almost without exception, suffered some kind of abuse growing up", I couldn't find the quote in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpHiFqXCYKc Best I could find quickly: Quote The Causes Of Homelessness People become homeless for a wide variety of reasons - loss of a job, marital breakdown, mental illness and alcohol and drug addiction. But when it comes to youth and children, the reasons tend to revolve around the family. Missing child reports: In 2003 in Canada, there was a record total of 53,459 reports of runaway children. While these are reports, and not individual children, this figure represents an alarming 24 percent increase over the past decade. Abuse in the home: Ultimately, experts say that the vast majority of youth or children rarely leave happy homes for the streets. Several studies have indicated that 70% of youth have experienced some form of sexual, physical or emotional abuse. Many of the rest simply felt neglected. That only has to do with youth though. Maybe I shouldn't have said "vast majority", I should have said "significant number". My point is, homelessness is usually more complex than simply lack of money. If you or I had no job or money or home, we'd probably get help from or move in with a family member. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
WestCoastRunner Posted January 4, 2017 Author Report Posted January 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: My point is, homelessness is usually more complex than simply lack of money. If you or I had no job or money or home, we'd probably get help from or move in with a family member. Homelessness is indeed complex. Having a permanent address helps to find a job. It's a good starting point to allow an individual to regain self-worth, and attain a level of pride to move forward to seek help with education, mental health issues, addiction etc. Many people are just one pay cheque away from homelessness. Rising rental rates, low vacancy rates and reductions in govt social services expose many to the threat of homelessness, couch surfing and living off relatives. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
H10 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 18 hours ago, Bryan said: How did you pay for a piece of land that was assigned almost 70 years ago? The idea of the free land is to get people contributing to society and the tax base (people who own that land today PAY tax). There are some current town in Canada with "free" land programs too, but the caveat is that you have finite time to develop the land into something that generates tax revenue. They never bought that land, they inherited it. They should have to pay again. No one should get free land, there are no free lunches. No such towns exist. Quote
Bryan Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 8 minutes ago, hernanday said: No such towns exist. There are plenty of towns giving free (or next to free) land. Here's an article about a few of them:http://www.theloop.ca/9-canadian-towns-where-you-might-be-able-to-score-free-land/ Again, it's all about the conditions. You have a set time limit to build something taxable on it. Quote
?Impact Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 The Last Best West, free farms in Western Canada, homes for millions. Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior. The Dominion Lands Act required that each homesteader provide proof that the land had increased in value through additions (cultivation, building construction, etc.) costing labour and/or capital. The Dominion Lands Act stipulated the improvements that had to be made to a land grant before a homesteader would receive a Letters Patent from the Crown. When a homesteader filed an application, the local Dominion Lands Office screened and validated the claim, and sent an inspector to the property to confirm that the improvements had been made. If the Board approved the application, it was forwarded to Ottawa for the "preparation and issuance of patents" by the Lands Patent Branch. Letters Patent were issued to grant or confirm title to a portion of land. They are the first title to land, and serve as proof that the land no longer belongs to the Crown. Quote
Hal 9000 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 2 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said: Homelessness is indeed complex. Having a permanent address helps to find a job. It's a good starting point to allow an individual to regain self-worth, and attain a level of pride to move forward to seek help with education, mental health issues, addiction etc. Many people are just one pay cheque away from homelessness. Rising rental rates, low vacancy rates and reductions in govt social services expose many to the threat of homelessness, couch surfing and living off relatives. The idea that giving someone with an addiction or mental illness more money is a good start to a solution is simply adorable. My M.I.L does this and feels good about helping her son - She might as well be buying his drugs directly. Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
H10 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 55 minutes ago, ?Impact said: The Last Best West, free farms in Western Canada, homes for millions. Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior. The Dominion Lands Act required that each homesteader provide proof that the land had increased in value through additions (cultivation, building construction, etc.) costing labour and/or capital. The Dominion Lands Act stipulated the improvements that had to be made to a land grant before a homesteader would receive a Letters Patent from the Crown. When a homesteader filed an application, the local Dominion Lands Office screened and validated the claim, and sent an inspector to the property to confirm that the improvements had been made. If the Board approved the application, it was forwarded to Ottawa for the "preparation and issuance of patents" by the Lands Patent Branch. Letters Patent were issued to grant or confirm title to a portion of land. They are the first title to land, and serve as proof that the land no longer belongs to the Crown. So what? That was to weed out lazy land speculators from taking up dozens of lots and sitting on them and reselling them. No different than a store putting a limit on a heavily discounted item to prevent the chinese guy running the corner store from buying all the items and selling them on markup. Quote
Army Guy Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 18 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said: Homelessness is indeed complex. Having a permanent address helps to find a job. It's a good starting point to allow an individual to regain self-worth, and attain a level of pride to move forward to seek help with education, mental health issues, addiction etc. Many people are just one pay cheque away from homelessness. Rising rental rates, low vacancy rates and reductions in govt social services expose many to the threat of homelessness, couch surfing and living off relatives. So are all tax payers now going to be held accountable for people who have made bad choices along the long road of life. getting pregant at 15 or 16 years of age, failure to complete high school, failure to get a higher education, to damn lazy to get of their arses to find a good job or upgrade their education...for every free program you bring forward, there are thousands that will take advantage of it....every one likes free.... What ever happened to work hard and earn a honest living....there are thousands of jobs out there , Stop blaming automation on job losses, automation has been happening since the begining of the 1900's.....it is not a new concept, failure to keep current in what jobs are viable or not ,and your deemed to find yourself in the unemployment lines. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
The_Squid Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 11 minutes ago, Army Guy said: So are all tax payers now going to be held accountable for people who have made bad choices along the long road of life. getting pregant at 15 or 16 years of age, failure to complete high school, failure to get a higher education, to damn lazy to get of their arses to find a good job or upgrade their education...for every free program you bring forward, there are thousands that will take advantage of it....every one likes free.... Because that will all simply go away if only we just tossed them all out on the street... illegitimate kids with their teen moms and all... let them learn that tough life lesson and let their kids suffer for it too. The conservative approach in a nutshell. Quote
Mailman Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 I, for one, am very curious how this pilot program will work out in Finland. I've got a friend there and intend to keep tabs on this story as it's quite interesting. There's no reason why this couldn't work, if implemented well, in Canada as well. It would solve a good number of problems. The only issue I see is, not taxes, but the bureaucracy that stands in front of it. The fat cats in the government who drain the budgets for their "business" trips and vacations, the fat bonuses, not to mention their higher than necessary pay cheques wouldn't allow this to happen. I mean, the 5K spent to fix some coat hangers just makes my blood boil. Or, almost half a mill to renovate some office building. It's irresponsible actions like these that wouldn't make this sustainable in Canada, not the current tax schemes. We pay more than enough to make this work, but politicians love their fat cheques more than the people they claim to work for. Quote
The_Squid Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 One of the points of a "universal guaranteed income" is to eliminate all the duplication in government... Look at all the ministries that hand out money for various reasons and all the red tape involved... E.I., veterans, First Nations people, welfare, old age security, disability, etc, etc, etc. These payments could all be done from a single agency for a single reason. Quote
TimG Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Squid said: Look at all the ministries that hand out money for various reasons and all the red tape involved... E.I., veterans, First Nations people, welfare, old age security, disability, etc, etc, etc. Except in the real world none of these civil servants can be fired even if their jobs are redundant. At most we would see 'retirement incentives' which would saddle taxpayers with even bigger public pension obligations. And that assumes that Canadians would be OK with the ~5% increase in GST (or equivalent) needed to fund the universal benefit at a level higher than what OAS/GIS offers today. The main benefit of targeted programs is they can be rationed - i.e. the rules adjusted until the people collecting benefits match the funds available. Give up that ability to ration and the costs explode. Quote
Army Guy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 5 hours ago, The_Squid said: Because that will all simply go away if only we just tossed them all out on the street... illegitimate kids with their teen moms and all... let them learn that tough life lesson and let their kids suffer for it too. The conservative approach in a nutshell. Come on Squid at least put on the crocodile tears outfit for the readers....maybe put up some pictures of teen moms routing through garbage cans..... dirty little kids dressed in rags, tagging along in the back ground..... "Parents" should be responsible for their kids bad choices not the tax payers, and if they refuse, TFB.....we already have a welfare system in place, we don't need two of them. Can't find work move, upgrade your education, work two jobs, if you do nothing to change your situation then nothing will change...........Of course Squid is now going to tell us of all the Liberal generated programs coming out shortly.....oh wait....so it is not just a conservative approach is it.....in fact liberals care about as much as we do....not to much.... I'm sure the average Canadian would be thrilled to hear we are picking up the tab for someones poor choices. And from the sounds of it not a cheap tab either.....Instead of a new welfare system why not offer free education, so there would not be any excuses, to many people are abusing the current welfare system we have, can't wait to see the new one , pay these people even more money for doing nothing.... I've got neighbors that do that very thing, take advantage of the welfare system, the whole damn family lives under one roof all of them are on in, shit there is even boy friends and girl friends all under the same roof.....Dad just bought a new dodge ram, to tow his 30 foot camper trailer he bought last year ......He's never worked since high school, he's 55 years old....tell me as tax payers why should we be paying for his fat ass....because he chooses to stay home, and collect his money for nothing.... I'm i jealous , i'd be lying if i told you no, i just have to much pride to take money i did not earn.....there is a lot of people taking advantage of the system, and yes it pisses me off....when a capable, healthy person refuses to help themselves, because of hand outs...Now i get there are families out there that do need this help...but to be on it for 38 years and brag about it to all his neighbors....well sir puts it all into a whole new category..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Come on Squid at least put on the crocodile tears outfit for the readers....maybe put up some pictures of teen moms routing through garbage cans..... dirty little kids dressed in rags, tagging along in the back ground.... With Canadian CEO's laughing in the background...You know, for context. Canada's top CEOs earn 193 times average worker's salary Salary of highest-paid CEOs jumps 7% in 2015 https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3907662 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 13 hours ago, eyeball said: With Canadian CEO's laughing in the background...You know, for context. are you saying that the CEO were handed their jobs on a silver platter, or did they have to earn those positions..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
?Impact Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Army Guy said: are you saying that the CEO were handed their jobs on a silver platter, or did they have to earn those positions..... Nobody is saying the CEOs are not hard working and deserve more than the average worker. It is the gross disparity that is the problem. Many people work hard, or even harder than the CEOs ever did, why are they earning several hundred times less? Quote
TimG Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Nobody is saying the CEOs are not hard working and deserve more than the average worker. It is the gross disparity that is the problem. Many people work hard, or even harder than the CEOs ever did, why are they earning several hundred times less? Because the core principle of a capitalist economy is that people are paid based on the value they provide to a profit making entity. CEOs, as individuals, add a lot more value than an retail clerk. That said, I think CEO pay is higher than it should because there are too many CEOs that set their own pay which distorts the "market". Quote
Army Guy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Nobody is saying the CEOs are not hard working and deserve more than the average worker. It is the gross disparity that is the problem. Many people work hard, or even harder than the CEOs ever did, why are they earning several hundred times less? You just imply it. Funny how that works, education, and position are keys to working your way up the corporate ladder, not all of us wanted the same path up the corporate ladder,which is why their are so many career paths...if your chosen career path dies out or not for you change your path......lots of people are doing it, it takes hard work and dedication to earning a higher wage or changing a career path.... So it has been proven it can be done, all without the assistance of the government. But now your talking about the gross disparity in wages, its not fair...... Before i go on are you suggesting we all be paid the same, that say a specialist at NASA should make the same as the kid at Mac Donalds. or are you saying Nobody deserves the wages current CEO make. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
?Impact Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 15 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Before i go on are you suggesting we all be paid the same, that say a specialist at NASA should make the same as the kid at Mac Donalds. or are you saying Nobody deserves the wages current CEO make. I thought I was clear when I stated that nobody is saying CEOs don't deserve more than the average employee. It is all about the gross disparity. This has been further distorted by the changes to the tax code over the past 50-70 years where one those who earned more actually paid more and now it is the exact opposite. The more you make the less you end up paying. The economy is supposed to provide benefits to everyone, and not just lead to the old robber baron system. Nobody, repeat nobody is suggesting everyone earn the same. Stop making that accusation, because it is not true. Quote
cannuck Posted January 9, 2017 Report Posted January 9, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 1:24 PM, TimG said: Because the core principle of a capitalist economy is that people are paid based on the value they provide to a profit making entity. CEOs, as individuals, add a lot more value than an retail clerk. That said, I think CEO pay is higher than it should because there are too many CEOs that set their own pay which distorts the "market". UNFORUNATELY: we no longer have a capitalist economy. Since the shift to Casino Capitalism, people are rewarded for their treachery in re-distributing wealth (capital gains from speculative or "synthetic" gains) and penalized for the capitalistic sin of creating wealth. THAT is why the huge income disparity Quote
H10 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) On 1/5/2017 at 2:00 PM, ?Impact said: Nobody is saying the CEOs are not hard working and deserve more than the average worker. It is the gross disparity that is the problem. Many people work hard, or even harder than the CEOs ever did, why are they earning several hundred times less? Hard work has nothing to do with your earnings. Earnings is a combination of probably a dozen or more factors but here are the ones that come to mind: -training -education -reliability -face time -neopotism -toadyism - Sycophantism -Butt kissism -luck -parents wealth and connections -personality -outgoingness -Hard work is a factor too -ambition -willingness to give up friends, family, religion all for success. -smartness -cleverness -ability to manipulate -likability -connections I think we should focus on why CEO pay and compensation has exploded since the 1960s and 1950s. Yeah CEO use to make alot back then, but the gap was much smaller. 1. More wealth and money floating around, more money to be made = more opportunities to make obscene amounts of money = higher pay 2. Finding highly skilled CEOs is very difficult. How many people are willing to work the 80-100 hour work weeks, and be in meetings right through until 10 pm consistently and are actually capable of turning around a major corporate enterprise? 3. The drastic cut in corporate and personal taxes, where the top corporate and personal tax rates during this period topped out in the low 90% range to high 80% range and the general incentive was for a business to spend money through expense accounts to avoid paying taxes. Now tax rates have been cut and decimated downwards. As such, CEOs are just replacing what they use to expense as a business expense as personal pay. Ie. CEO use to have access to 20 different cars and a business owned retreat etc. Now they want the money to buy it personally because tax rates are low enough that with stock options it makes sense. When you had to pay close to 90% tax rates under the Kennedy government, for anything over $1 million, wasn't much point in taking a $10 million salary when 8.1 of that 9 million goes right to the government! 4. Industries have consolidated substantially since the 1960s and the 1980s. Back in the 1960s, there use to be alot more variety in ownership in most industries, now, most large industries have consolidated into 3-5 major players. Think of how stores never even use to have a name brand or nothing in the 30s and 40s and a CEO might control 10 stores and that would be a big company, compared to now where stores can have thousands of locations. More locations, more profit, profit works its way upwards 5. Boards of directors are often you scratch my back, I scratch yours. The board is controlled by the largest shareholders. During the 1980s financial companies (non-banks) started raising funds to take companies over in a hostile manner by buying up their shares. They would then get board seats and fire the CEOs in place and put themselves into the CEO positions. Then having their cronies fill the BOD and this was done in groups. So just like how you have Donald Trump and his team of billionaire buddies taking over government, they'd do the same to private companies, take over the boards, then raid the company of its assets through huge and inflated CEO pay. Bare in mind that the CEOs in place were frequently not much better in that they themselves were raiding the companies (like conrad black) with all kinds of silly schemes to rip off the company aka shareholders. This is why many board members serve on 10, 15, 20, 25 boards, it is their job to rubber stamp things. As for why the average worker has seen their wages decrease from 1980s and they earn so little, and I am speaking from a US perspective here as those are the economics I studied. Well the answer is quiet simply, there is no real demand or pressure to push wages up. The CEOs are simply raiding their businesses and consolidating industries but not creating anything of much value. The workers are not smart. They permit the government to bring in legions of foreign workers and illegal immigrants (including falsified visa applications claiming they can find no local which is always a lie) to work for cheap, expand the labor pool, push down the labor demand by flooding the place with more workers and permitting the erosion of workers rights, trade barriers, tariffs and the promotion of free trade. Imagine if we let in 100,000 CEOs a year, you'd probably see their wages fall too. 6. There is also another reason I forgot to mention. CEOs now have better access to information and the market than ever, they always have the threat of leaving the business and starting a competing firm. It is why they have golden parachutes. Plus, if you are an investor, if your stock price is doubling, are you going to complain if your CEO made $39 million a year? I am not. I want the best qualified CEO to make me as rich as possible. Edited January 9, 2017 by H10 Quote
H10 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, cannuck said: UNFORUNATELY: we no longer have a capitalist economy. Since the shift to Casino Capitalism, people are rewarded for their treachery in re-distributing wealth (capital gains from speculative or "synthetic" gains) and penalized for the capitalistic sin of creating wealth. THAT is why the huge income disparity I like casino capitaism, it made me have my big house in bridal path, 2 acres in the city, if not for casino capitalism, Id have to go drill an oil well like the rockerfellers or risk getting tetanus in a gold mine or black lung in a coal mine or something dangerous like that. Rather than complain about people getting wealthy, you should join the party. Quote
cannuck Posted January 10, 2017 Report Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, hernanday said: I like casino capitaism, it made me have my big house in bridal path, 2 acres in the city, if not for casino capitalism, Id have to go drill an oil well like the rockerfellers or risk getting tetanus in a gold mine or black lung in a coal mine or something dangerous like that. Rather than complain about people getting wealthy, you should join the party. Well, there are two parties out there: one that uses capital to create wealth, and one that uses privilege to employ capital to no other end than just re-distributing wealth. I could never sink to low as to do nothing but re-distribute wealth. Whether by receiving welfare or in any other way working for government or by reaching to the very bottom of the barrel and buying existing equities or throwing the dice on derivatives to speculate with my capital. Gains that are purely speculative do nothing but put inflationary pressure on the money supply (as someone has to increase it to cover the payout from the Casino) - and I could never do that to my fellow countrymen, my children or my grandchildren. BTW: nothing wrong with drilling a well (or just buying an existing one). Try actually investing some time, instead of just speculating. No, you won't get the 100x return from being the first man in on another dotcomm but when you cash your 5% dividend cheque, you will have actually earned something. If you want to earn more than that, nothing to gamble, just roll your sleeves up and buy your own wells and work them. If everyone did that, we would ALL have a country with a healthy economy to enjoy in the future. Main Street built this country (or should I say "these" countries, as I am a Canadian citizen but mostly US corporately) and is the ONLY thing that can sustain it. Wall Street will once again (as in1929 and 2008) simply destroy it. Edited January 10, 2017 by cannuck Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.