Universal guaranteed income experiment

[Argus]

1 minute ago, WestCoastRunner said:

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

Canadian taxpayers usually have some concern for how the money is being spent, and rarely want taxes increased further.

[WestCoastRunner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Canadian taxpayers usually have some concern for how the money is being spent, and rarely want taxes increased further.

I can assure you I pay Canadian taxes and am in a higher than average tax bracket. And I can also assure you that your priorities are different from mine when it comes to social programs. Doesn't make me a non Canadian. This is your problem. You think all Canadians think like you. 

[Michael Hardner]

56 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.

If you don't answer the question, you are admitting that you are as clueless as government is when it comes to this topic.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

 Maybe if you were a taxpayer you'd understand.

You're projecting your own values onto that of other posters.  It makes it difficult to find common ground with the majority of Canadians that you are not.

[Topaz]

I, for one really don't mind helping  through my tax $$  other people who really need the help. If social programs weren't available what do u think would happen?  When people are hungry and in need, it brings the  dark side out in them and  B&Es would be happening and   there would be no peace. The way the hydro and gas, gasoline etc are going,  and if the  rates  for up for loan and mortgages, many people are going to be in trouble.  I heard   that the next 3 years are going to be rough for the world and  people better start  cutting back on their spending or end up homeless.   I can't see how the  government can say  everyone get ?????  when the cost of living is different region.

[Bryan]

I have no problem helping people in need, I have a real problem with the idea of increasing taxes to do it. Taxes added for specific purposes never actually get earmarked for that use. They go into general revenues where how much if any is spent on that cause is at the discretion of the current govt.

I support people in need by giving money directly to the people and agencies that are already doing the work to help them, and by helping out directly. I do not want my taxes raised so that government can work a social experiment to see IF it works.

[H10]

6 hours ago, 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. 

Why should some people get subsidized land and free land from their ancestors who got the land for free? 

[TimG]

13 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Why should some people get subsidized land and free land from their ancestors who got the land for free? 

Not sure what your point is. Only a tiny minority of the population are decedents that benefited from the free land programs 100+ years ago so it is not very relevant today. That does not change the fact that many people living pay to check pay check in Vancouver get pretty upset when they see governments talking about handing out 500K apartments to drug addicts in the DTES.

Edited January 3, 2017 by TimG

[eyeball]

This program is worth every penny simply for the schadenfreude and even more so given how the angst is guaranteed to rise as globalization and automation increases.

With any luck this is the thing that will finally push the right wing over the brink.

[H10]

27 minutes ago, TimG said:

Not sure what your point is. Only a tiny minority of the population are decedents that benefited from the free land programs 100+ years ago so it is not very relevant today. That does not change the fact that many people living pay to check pay check in Vancouver get pretty upset when they see governments talking about handing out 500K apartments to drug addicts in the DTES.

No, it was repealed in 1950.  And millions of Canadians live on those lands and did not lift a finger to get it, why should the rest of us have to work and pay for our land when they got it for free from the government?

[Bryan]

16 minutes ago, hernanday said:

No, it was repealed in 1950.  And millions of Canadians live on those lands and did not lift a finger to get it, why should the rest of us have to work and pay for our land when they got it for free from the government?

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.

[?Impact]

The New Brunswick land grants database lists up to the year 1997 (2 grants given that year, 23 in 1996). I am not sure if there have been grants since then, or just that the on-line database hasn't been updated since then. A lot of the New Brunswick on-line databases seem to be manual entry from paper records, or conversions from other sources.

[Boges]

The reason this plan won't fly is because there's a robust poverty industry. Are we to do away with that? and how many people will lose their jobs because the government wants to cut out the middle man and give that money directly to the poor.

Also, are we OK with idea that the safety net is removed if the Guaranteed Income isn't enough to sustain someone because they have addiction issue or mental problem and that money is just wasted. If the money is no-questions asked, then if it's wasted no more should be on the way. 

Spend all your guaranteed money in a needle or a bottle? Well tough toddles, the government is no longer subsidizing a shelter for you to spend a freezing night night in. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Boges

[blueblood]

8 hours ago, hernanday said:

Why should some people get subsidized land and free land from their ancestors who got the land for free? 

The land was pretty much for all intents and purposes worthless at the time as it was unbroken and isolated.  Pretty hard to subsidize people when there are little to no buyers and sellers of land to establish value.  The government wanted people to come to the country for tax revenue and to establish sovereignty, and given that there were little to no people with money in the Great Plains they had to give it away to get people to come.

[?Impact]

20 minutes ago, blueblood said:

The land was pretty much for all intents and purposes worthless at the time as it was unbroken and isolated.

I would not say the land was worthless, just that the settlers needed to invest a lot of time and effort to realize the worth.

[blueblood]

32 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I would not say the land was worthless, just that the settlers needed to invest a lot of time and effort to realize the worth.

Hence essentially worthless at the time.  Just like a fixer upper house isn't worth as much as a mansion.

[?Impact]

Just now, blueblood said:

Hence essentially worthless at the time.  Just like a fixer upper house isn't worth as much as a mansion.

Yes, good analogy. Give me a fixer-upper house in the Bridle path (or Shaughnessy Heights, Westmount/Summit Park, Britannia, etc.).

[TimG]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, good analogy. Give me a fixer-upper house in the Bridle path (or Shaughnessy Heights, Westmount/Summit Park, Britannia, etc.).

Except in this case the "fixer upper" was in the middle of nowhere. Apparently you can still get "free land":
http://www.theloop.ca/9-canadian-towns-where-you-might-be-able-to-score-free-land/

 

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, TimG said:

Except in this case the "fixer upper" was in the middle of nowhere. Apparently you can still get "free land":

Yes, nowhere then but significant location at a later date. I have seen many old farms sell for multi-millions, and they were once nowhere and now are prime development areas. There is a 200 acre farm on the Madawaska river that is priceless IMHO. The grants out west were much larger than that on average. I was recently reading about the history of Lachine, on the island of Montreal; there was a huge land grant there that yes was long ago sold and subdivided but today would be mega-millions (probably billions) in value.

Thanks for the list, very interesting. I got excited over King's Point, NFLD; unfortunately that one appears like it is no longer available.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you don't answer the question, you are admitting that you are as clueless as government is when it comes to this topic.

What question? What to do about the homeless? I've often spoken in favour of improvements to addiction treatment as well as mental health care facilities.

[TimG]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Yes, nowhere then but significant location at a later date.

This is no different than saying people who invested all of their savings in Google in 1996 would be set today. But hindsight is 20-20 and no one had any idea which areas would become valuable and which would remain largely worthless. Many people invested their lives improving properties that did not return any windfall.

The other factor that is often ignored is the development is what made the property valuable. i.e. if the area was left empty because no one wanted to pay an inflated price for the land the land would still be worthless. This means one can look at prices today and say someone got an 'undeserved' windfall. Any windfall they got was directly or indirectly connected to the investments they made which means they 'deserve' the windfall like any person who creates a business from scratch deserves the windfall.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're projecting your own values onto that of other posters.  It makes it difficult to find common ground with the majority of Canadians that you are not.

There's a clear delineation between the 50% of Canadian income earners responsible for 94% of income taxes and the 50% of income earners who pay up just 4%. Do you think both make the same political choices and support the same government spending? No one here admits to paying no taxes, but we know that the odds are half of the people on this site fall into that group. And the most likely members are those who keep decrying any hint of austerity and enthusiastically support more spending.

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, TimG said:

This is no different than saying people who invested all of their savings in Google in 1996 would be set today.

Google IPO was 2004. Perhaps you might be talking about Andy Bechtolsheim? He was the initial investor in 1998, but his investment was just pocket change for him them. Andy is a great guy, I've met him several times and exchanged several e-mails. He is probably one of the greatest computer hardware designers around.

[Moonlight Graham]

22 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

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. 

Homelessness will not be solved with income supplements.  Edit: A significant % 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.  All of this results in substance abuse, in order for them to acquire the "feel-good" neuro-chemicals (ie: dopamine etc) in their brain that every single happy person already has in healthy amounts.

That said, a GIS could be part of the solution. I'm all for experimenting.  I have a lot of doubts and questions about how this will work but it's still worth a shot, there's no harm in trying it out on an experimental basis to see how it works, to work out some kinks etc.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Moonlight Graham

[Hal 9000]

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.  By targeting the impoverished, they are basically just sticking the taxpayer with a higher debt.  You know that those people will spend every dime they get in the same amount of time - nothing will change except tax rates for the middle class.  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).  Walmart will get a spike in big screen TV sales, and drug overdoses and alcoholism will increase.  It's nothing more than a welfare hike.

Here's the experiment that I want to see: 

1) Give $30,000 to 100 random welfare recipients across the province.

2) Make them understand that if 10% of them can significantly improve their life, then the experiment will carry forward to 200 other people. 

3) Have them log how they used the money.

4) Go back 2 months later...and check out what progress they've made.