# Ontario starting basic income test pilot



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

http://globalnews.ca/news/3399407/what-you-need-to-know-about-ontarios-basic-income-plan/

"Eligible individuals will receive up to $16,989 per year, less 50 per cent of any income they earn. Couples will receive up to $24,027 per year, less half of any income earned. Ontario residents with disabilities will receive up to an additional $6,000 per year."

This will be tested in Hamilton, Lindsay, Thunder Bay. However this, and the earlier Manitoba pilot in the 1970s are not true basic income policies. Instead they are only for low-income residents.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

And all that Wynnbag is asking for in return, is a check mark next to her ugly face again next summer.

But unlike the low income hydro rebate program, where 97.5% of the funds went to consultants, this time around, Wynnbag promises only 96% will go to consultants.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Well soon marijuana will be legal too. Help tranquilize the zombies. This program will encourage dependency and a lack of ambition. Then there are the robots that will take away so many jobs. You will have to warehouse the millions somehow.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

That's a fancy name for an even bigger redistribution of other people's money but the real question is this: "how well are these handouts targeting marginal constituencies that the liberals need to win?"


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Better a pilot, to test, than to jump into a plan to rollout formally? No?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)




----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The other alternatives are..............?


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

sags said:


> The other alternatives are..............?


status quo

"Oh look I got the government paycheck, time for a trip to Mexico ,think I'll go to the casino too"


----------



## lifeliver (Aug 30, 2010)

This can be advantageous to entrepreneurs. If your basic needs are covered you can take risks. On the other hand you get the lazy people who will take advantage. What are the other alternatives to deal with displaced workers that will come with all the robotics and AI?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

The idea of basic income-which is a good one-was to reduce government overhead and efficiently smooth out/share financial resources of the society-the plan was for the basic income payment to replace EVERY other government handout-and for the payment/tax credit to go to everybody simply to save money on implementation. Naturally in practice it becomes the opposite-just another excuse to set up a new Wynnebag government money pit.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Nelley said:


> ..... in practice it becomes the opposite-just another excuse to set up a new Wynnebag government money pit.


For sure, and even more funds will be wasted in studying it for three years. For someone on welfare making $8500 a year, will now make $17000 a year for doing nothing. Then after three years they'll ask them a list of questions basically to determine if they're happier. I don't have to guess how the recipients will answer those questions and I can see the Liberal government patting themselves on the back at how successful the program was.

If I doubled your wage, how would you answer?

ltr


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

There needs to be a family planning component to this - and to the exisitng welfare system for that matter. But it will never happen. 

I recognize this support isn't just for this situation - but from personal experience, for various reasons, a percentage of those in need have no financial, life, or parenting skills. It is sad to see babies born to a (usually transient) pairing and then raised in a setting lacking those skills. 

As they say, you don't need any training or qualifications to become a parent - and it is the kids who suffer, often perpetuating the same lack of skills and repeating the lives their parents had.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

imho, The Witch should do referendum on this, how is was done in civilized countries like Switzerland


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The other alternatives are..............?


It's so easy sags. Just walk down the street to your local factory, submit a job application, and get a job for life with pension benefit.

LOL!!


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> imho, The Witch should do referendum on this, how is was done in civilized countries like Switzerland


...but only let the taxpayers vote. Does not make sense for Pete to decide how John's money is going to be spent. Tax paid inthe previous year = weighting factor for each vote.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

james4beach said:


> It's so easy sags. Just walk down the street to your local factory, submit a job application, and get a job for life with pension benefit.
> 
> LOL!!


Yeah, I almost forgot that people who run businesses OWE everyone a guaranteed lifetime job with a pension...especially those who spend 4 years in university getting a degree in gender studies or Medieval poetry.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

mordko said:


> ...but only let the taxpayers vote. Does not make sense for Pete to decide how John's money is going to be spent. Tax paid inthe previous year = weighting factor for each vote.


I'd go for that....I've never liked the idea that people who don't pay tax can decide how tax dollars should be spent, because the answer is always on themselves. You know, because that's "fair".


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Right. It's a viscious circle. Dependent voters support handouts. Handouts create dependence. More dependent voters support handouts.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Yet those kind of voters are typically 100% tax efficient in terms of tax dollars spent priming a healthy economy where everyone wins imho.

Every dollar spent goes pretty much right back into the local economy. Not into overseas vacations, not into overseas tax havens, not into savings, just right back into the economic machine.



mordko said:


> ...but only let the taxpayers vote. Does not make sense for Pete to decide how John's money is going to be spent. Tax paid inthe previous year = weighting factor for each vote.


Lets run that by the current voters and see what they say.
Anybody wanna run on that platform? Good luck with that


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

mrPPincer said:


> Yet those kind of voters are typically 100% tax efficient in terms of tax dollars spent priming a healthy economy where everyone wins imho.
> 
> Every dollar spent goes pretty much right back into the local economy. Not into overseas vacations, not into overseas tax havens, not into savings, just right back into the economic machine.


 Ah, so that makes it okay?



mrPPincer said:


> Lets run that by the current voters and see what they say.
> Anybody wanna run on that platform? Good luck with that


We all know how non-working people vote...they vote for more entitlements that the left are more than willing to give them in exchange for their votes. Lazy people are greedy for money and the liberals are greedy for votes, and the only use that working people are to the left is to shut up and support them.

Except that the wheels are falling off the progressive bandwagon...Brexit, Trump, and possibly France. The people that actually keep the economy and countries running have had enough and are making their voices heard at the ballot box.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

^Above trend of thinking being exactly why science-based policy is going out the window, and scientists are being muzzled south of the border, just as it was up here during the Harper era.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

mrPPincer said:


> ^And also why science-based policy is going out the window, and scientists are being muzzled south of the border, just as it was up here during the Harper era.


Yup...any scientist who dares to question the leftist position on climate changes is silenced or attacked in the media. But, it had nothing to do with Harper. Or Trump.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

leftist - position - on. climate change LOL
Ok I'm outa here, g'night alice


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

bass player said:


> I'd go for that....I've never liked the idea that people who don't pay tax can decide how tax dollars should be spent, because the answer is always on themselves. You know, because that's "fair".


It would be perfect, but infeasible in Liberal society


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

mrPPincer said:


> leftist - position - on. climate change LOL
> Ok I'm outa here, g'night alice


Facts can be difficult for some people, sometimes causing them to run away when exposed to them. This is from the New York Times:

"Nearly seven of 10 Democrats believe climate change is mainly a result of human activity; fewer than a quarter of Republicans believe that. A similarly worded question that appeared on surveys from 2006 to 2015 found comparable gaps on the perceived causes of climate change."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/science/climate-change-poll-pew.html?_r=0


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

mordko said:


> ...but only let the taxpayers vote. Does not make sense for Pete to decide how John's money is going to be spent. Tax paid inthe previous year = weighting factor for each vote.


+1 I've said it before: universal suffrage is a mistake. No tax paid = no right to vote.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

"Society" is made up of more people than just tax payers.



Koogie said:


> No tax paid = no right to vote.


It would be interesting to see how your opinion might change if you suffered a major health problem, mental illness, family disaster, or one of many other factors that made you no longer a taxpayer. What if you were born into very disadvantaged circumstances?

Or even if you decided to stop working to raise a child. Would you no longer have a right to vote?

As a taxpayer myself (in two countries) I think all members of society have a right to vote. It would be unfair of me, with my privileged circumstances, to dictate how society should be run. As for taxes, I am happy to pay my fair share to provide support and services to people who need it, in the communities I'm part of.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> "Eligible individuals will receive up to $16,989 per year, less 50 per cent of any income they earn. Couples will receive up to $24,027 per year, less half of any income earned. *Ontario residents with disabilities will receive up to an additional $6,000 per year*."
> 
> This will be tested in Hamilton, Lindsay, Thunder Bay. However this, and the earlier Manitoba pilot in the 1970s are not true basic income policies. Instead they are only for low-income residents.


Still better than nothing. My friend who is disabled due to a stroke a few years ago is living on ODSP and CPP disability for around $1030 a month. That's only $12,360 a year. He is living in subsidized ottawa housing and barely able to make ends meet at the end of each month.

Another $500 a month subsidy from the provincial gov't would help him out a lot.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

james4beach said:


> "Society" is made up of more people than just tax payers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you. I consider it immoral to not let everyone vote equally, and I'm not against this trial run either. If there's proven positive results from the program, then expanding it would make sense and is better for society.

My problem is with the current gang of clowns in office, with their utter hate for financial responsibility, and extreme prejudice against tax payer money. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, if we find out that the vast majority of money went into the pockets of fat cats in office, vs actually helping out those who need it the most.

Clearly the liberal cockroaches are trying to win the next election, by positioning themselves as the far left and more socially conscious. They'll claim they're here for the average and disadvantaged people, meanwhile their wealthy friends are leaching all of us.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

carverman said:


> Still better than nothing. My friend who is disabled due to a stroke a few years ago is living on ODSP and CPP disability for around $1030 a month. That's only $12,360 a year. He is living in subsidized ottawa housing and barely able to make ends meet at the end of each month.
> 
> Another $500 a month subsidy from the provincial gov't would help him out a lot.


This new program is not targeted at the disabled.The recipients can be able-bodied ; they are chosen at random. Some will be the working poor. Some will be unemployed. The hypothesis that is being tested is
that the extra money will lead to a marked improvement and change in their lives . The recipients can do what they want with the money.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

STech said:


> I agree with you. I consider it immoral to not let everyone vote equally, and I'm not against this trial run either. If there's proven positive results from the program, then expanding it would make sense and is better for society.
> 
> My problem is with the current gang of clowns in office, with their utter hate for financial responsibility, and extreme prejudice against tax payer money. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, if we find out that the vast majority of money went into the pockets of fat cats in office, vs actually helping out those who need it the most.
> 
> Clearly the liberal cockroaches are trying to win the next election, by positioning themselves as the far left and more socially conscious. They'll claim they're here for the average and disadvantaged people, meanwhile their wealthy friends are leaching all of us.


Yes-the Liberal party works for 1.the mega rich 2. guv workers 3. immigrants (legal or otherwise) 4. the poor. Basically in that order. If you do not fit into one of those four categories listed here, you are the enemy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If this is such a horrible idea, hopefully this 3 year, 4000 participant study will suss that out.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> If this is such a horrible idea, hopefully this 3 year, 4000 participant study will suss that out.


Depends for who. Will work out great for the recipients of free $s and people who give away other peoples money. But eventually they'll run out of other people's money.


----------

