# Universal basic income



## Just a Guy

I always see people encouraging a basic income...they suggest it should be a living wage. 

So, I have a basic question...

1) where does the money come from? 

Someone, a lot of people actually, need to earn more than the basic income to support those who don't. If you can get enough to survive without working and, if you work you have to give a lot of what you make to support those who don't, what's encouraging you to work?

Maybe it should come from businesses? Except they need to earn more than they make to pay taxes...if we raise taxes, the business needs to charge more, which raises the cost of living. This means the government needs to raise the payouts on the living wage, so they need to increase taxes. 

There is only one source of government money, that's the tax payer. It's not "free" money. If they print more, the buying power decreases, it's a zero sum game. 

It's always nice to help out others, give to the needy, etc. But where does he money come from? Do we just "tax the rich"? Who is classified as "rich"? Seems anyone not getting government money.


----------



## nobleea

The premise is that there are cost savings in other parts of govt by doing this. Healthcare, social services, eliminates GIS, welfare, etc. Is it enough in savings to offset the costs? I don't know.

Most experiments with it have shown that there is no drop in workforce participation rates.

I'm indifferent on the subject either way.


----------



## bds

I think the number of people who are currently sitting around, happily milking the system will be the same and the number of people who have a job because they would go mad without something to do all day will be the same. It will just result in a simpler, more efficient government for the reasons nobleea has mentioned.


----------



## sags

Spent money circulates through the economy (velocity of money) and it ends up back to the government.

Governments create deficits when the money doesn't circulate........like tax breaks for the rich.

It was never more obvious than the comparison of the efforts of the US and China to provide impetus during their recessions.

The Americans spent Trillions propping up their banks, and the banks earned money by lending it back to the government.

The Chinese directed their stimulus capital to the people in the form of vouchers to buy Chinese products and cash.

China recovered fairly quickly. The US has languished for years.


----------



## CalgaryPotato

I've said this before, but right now I believe we are peak jobs in the world. Automation is going to be increasing at a much faster rate over the next few years. I also see consumerism dropping (if slightly) from it's current peak which will reduce need for jobs even more.

At some point society needs to address this. When 5% or 10% of the population is unemployed we can support them partially through taxes, and heck if a few fall through the cracks, it isn't that significant a number anyway. But what happens when it's 90% unemployment? Is it fair that the 10% who happen to have jobs get all of the money or conversely fair for them to get taxed to pay for the rest?

Or does it become a matter of decreasing the retirement age to something like 40, or making a 20 hour work week?

Again, remember I'm not talking next week or next year, but we will reach this point sooner rather than later and it's something we need to think about.


----------



## MrsPartridge

I was listening to Sam Harris's podcast and this is an example of how it could work:

Everybody would get 12,000 a year. After one reaches 30,000 there will start to be a small clawback till it's gone. This ensures that people who can get a raise to 35,000 don't decide to quit because who wants to slide back to 12,000.

As for where the money comes from. We would eliminate Disability, Unemployment, GIS CPP etc. Right now, some of those various offices have paperwork and people have to track any work they might have done, where they looked for work etc. Then they get called in to talk to a government clerk to show their supporting paperwork. You know the drill. Eliminate most of this and just give people a basic amount. 

With AI coming really quickly, we don't have many options.


----------



## OptsyEagle

Just a Guy said:


> I always see people encouraging a basic income...they suggest it should be a living wage.
> 
> So, I have a basic question...
> 
> 1) where does the money come from?


If you give money to someone without any corresponding generation of goods and services, it will become purely inflationary. Milton Friedman won a nobel price when he proved this economic theory. 

Price increases, in a society, are paid for by everyone in that society, but the highest cost is paid for by the lowest incomes, since the effect of any price increase will be a higher percentage to lower income people then higher income people. Since the people getting the free money will obviously benefit, the highest cost will therefore be paid for by the people at the lowest incomes in that group that do not qualify to receive any free money. So the ones who just missed out on the free lunch. They will become the most poorer of all the citizens in that society as a result of this program. 

The middle class get to take it in the behind again.


----------



## Just a Guy

MrsPartridge said:


> As for where the money comes from. We would eliminate Disability, Unemployment, GIS CPP etc. Right now, some of those various offices have paperwork and people have to track any work they might have done, where they looked for work etc. Then they get called in to talk to a government clerk to show their supporting paperwork. You know the drill. Eliminate most of this and just give people a basic amount.


So, instead of just giving to the minority (the unemployed and the retired), we'll take that money and give everyone money...I don't see that working as there are way more people currently not getting government handouts (umm I mean benefits) that can't afford to pay for the few who are currently. 

As for the advent of AI and more unemployed people, my question gets even more relevant from what I can see.


----------



## Just a Guy

OptsyEagle said:


> If you give money to someone without any corresponding generation of goods and services, it will become purely inflationary. Milton Friedman won a nobel price when he proved this economic theory.
> 
> Price increases, in a society, are paid for by everyone in that society, but the highest cost is paid for by the lowest incomes, since the effect of any price increase will be a higher percentage to lower income people then higher income people. Since the people getting the free money will obviously benefit, the highest cost will therefore be paid for by the people at the lowest incomes in that group that do not qualify to receive any free money. So the ones who just missed out on the free lunch. They will become the most poorer of all the citizens in that society as a result of this program.
> 
> The middle class get to take it in the behind again.


So, if we we give everyone a base amount, aren't we just raising the bar for everyone equally? Maybe the poverty line goes from 25k to 50k, how's that any different if we just gave everyone 25k now.


----------



## andrewf

MrsPartridge said:


> I was listening to Sam Harris's podcast and this is an example of how it could work:
> 
> Everybody would get 12,000 a year. After one reaches 30,000 there will start to be a small clawback till it's gone. This ensures that people who can get a raise to 35,000 don't decide to quit because who wants to slide back to 12,000.
> 
> As for where the money comes from. We would eliminate Disability, Unemployment, GIS CPP etc. Right now, some of those various offices have paperwork and people have to track any work they might have done, where they looked for work etc. Then they get called in to talk to a government clerk to show their supporting paperwork. You know the drill. Eliminate most of this and just give people a basic amount.
> 
> With AI coming really quickly, we don't have many options.


Clawback has to be much more aggressive to make the numbers work. Really, there is no reason/need to have a 0 marginal tax rate on all income up to 30k. Really, the clawback should be at least 33% from $1. It's much better than the current welfare clawback of 100%+ (penalizing work).


----------



## OptsyEagle

Just a Guy said:


> So, if we we give everyone a base amount, aren't we just raising the bar for everyone equally? Maybe the poverty line goes from 25k to 50k, how's that any different if we just gave everyone 25k now.


Not quite sure I understand the question. If the poverty line goes from $25K to $50K, someone who earned $40K, who was a reasonably well off middle class person is now living in poverty. 

That is what will happen approximately. The poverty line will simply increase from the inflation that ensues when you give money to someone for producing nothing. They will take that free money and start bidding up the prices of the goods and services everyone else was buying. Since they did not produce anymore goods and services this increased demand on no increase in supply will force prices up. Everyone's rent will go up, everyone's restaurant meals will go up, the price of shoes will rise, etc. If you were making $40,000 per year and your expenses were $39,000 you were pretty well off. If your expenses for the same stuff are now $41,000, you are poor.

That is the cost of giving money to someone who does not produce any goods or services for it. I am not saying we don't do it. I am just explaining how it is paid for.


----------



## Just a Guy

No, I'm suggesting by giving everyone a base of 25k, then the line moves up the scale...prices will rise so that those who make 50k will still be just as poor as when they made 25k. Those at 65k will be the same as when they were at 40k, etc. O thing changes after the initial windfall. 

I do admit that, in the first little bit, there will be benefits, but there will eventually be a return to the mean and people will be right back in the same position. 

It's like when the 7% gst replaced the 13% manufacturing tax. Prices of goods dropped by about 13% for a few months, then returned to their old prices, only now you had to pay gst on top of it. Retail made an extra 13% profits. Another example is a friend of mine who had his furnace replaced just before the government handed out rebates. He paid $3500 for a high efficiency furnace, a few months later the government issues its $1000 rebates which he didn't qualify for. The next year, his neighbor used the same company, had the same furnace installed and got the rebate...only problem is he paid $6500. The government rebate handed tons of profits to struggling furnace installers. Today, you can't even buy mid efficiency furnaces anymore so the prices should have gone down according to supply and demand, yet they're still about 7k to install.


----------



## OptsyEagle

That is exactly how it will work.

The problem with getting rid of poverty is that it is a necessary ingredient to be rich or well off. Wealth explained simply, is the ability to convince someone else to do something for you or to give you something that was theirs. That is all wealth is and will ever be. If everyone had the exact same amount of money, NO ONE WOULD BE WELL OFF. I think communism proved that quite well.

2ndly, in a free market pricing environment, the price of goods and services will rise and fall with the supply and demand of those goods and services. If you give more money to the people in a society BUT you do not increase the supply of goods and services (give money for nothing), the prices of those same goods and services will rise. This is what happens when you give money to people without asking them to produce any goods or services. In other words, without asking them to work for it.

Lastly, the current prices of all our goods and services is a direct reflection of the amount of money in our society that is currently available to bid for the goods and services our society has currently produced. Since our society tries desperately not to over-produce anything, we can assume that there is a limited amount of goods and services available to buy. In this situation, the prices of those goods and services will be set so that the people at the bottom deciles of income levels cannot afford them. This is done by the people at the higher levels of income bidding for them and driving up their prices. If the poor people somehow could miraculously afford them, they would bid up the prices even further until they or someone else could not afford them again. This is how it works. For the bottom deciles of income levels, the people in that group will always find that their rents will be too high, their food costs will be too much, they will need a program to provide snow suits for their children, etc. It is how capitalism and free markets work and unfortuneately it cannot be solved by simply giving the poor more money. It may help out that particular individual who received the free money but will simply reduce the standard of living of everyone else or just make someone else poor to replace him. 

It is an economic law not much different then trying to make water boil at 99 degrees C.


----------



## nobleea

OptsyEagle said:


> It is an economic law not much different then trying to make water boil at 99 degrees C.


The boiling point in Edmonton is 97.8°C.

Guaranteed income is limited wealth redistribution. It gets taken from government workers who administer the plethora of services that are currently required, and gets given to the people who currently use those services. If no additional money was added, it was just 'taking out the middleman', then I could get behind the idea. There would be the same amount of money given to society, therefore the prices of goods and services should not rise. And we can all get behind a more efficient govt.


----------



## canew90

No matter how much they got from a Universal Income it would never be enough. Look at how many people refuse to find a basic job because they can make more on EI, welfare or they can sit at home and their parents will pay the bills.

Certainly there are those who need assistance, but the vast majority don't. Cut gov't spending\benefits, cut the handouts, cut taxes and if the only option is to find a job, than that's what they will do.


----------



## m3s

CalgaryPotato said:


> Or does it become a matter of decreasing the retirement age to something like 40, or making a 20 hour work week?
> 
> Again, remember I'm not talking next week or next year, but we will reach this point sooner rather than later and it's something we need to think about.


Germany has reduced work hours to avoid job loss with great success. They have the shortest average work week as well as one of the most productive economies

The 40 hrs work week is a carryover from the industrial era that doesn't really make sense in the age of computers. Just look at the internet activity of "employed" people



canew90 said:


> Look at how many people refuse to find a basic job because they can make more on EI, welfare or they can sit at home and their parents will pay the bills.
> 
> Certainly there are those who need assistance, but the vast majority don't. Cut gov't spending\benefits, cut the handouts, cut taxes and if the only option is to find a job, than that's what they will do.


That's why the current clawback of 100% doesn't work. There is a balance somewhere that keeps enough incentive for the willing and able to work 

With the likes of self-driving cars hitting the streets, AI could soon be more disruptive than the PC. Jobs are quickly becoming obsolete, so good luck with that theory


----------



## Just a Guy

nobleea said:


> The boiling point in Edmonton is 97.8°C.
> 
> Guaranteed income is limited wealth redistribution. It gets taken from government workers who administer the plethora of services that are currently required, and gets given to the people who currently use those services. If no additional money was added, it was just 'taking out the middleman', then I could get behind the idea. There would be the same amount of money given to society, therefore the prices of goods and services should not rise. And we can all get behind a more efficient govt.


Umm, you've obviously never worked in government, they never get rid of bureaucracy and I very much doubt that it would cover double (at a minimum) the amount of people who would get money that currently don't. 

Even if they did cut the jobs, how do we handle the unemployed government workers now?

As for cutting the work week, that just means people will want to be paid more. If they have a hard time surviving on their current salary, how would they handle a 20% reduction? They can't afford it, so they'll demand a 20%+ wage increase.


----------



## lonewolf :)

Government loans & grants to students has put up the cost of education. Government trying to make housing affordable makes housing more expensive & less affordable. 

The reason so many manufacturing jobs have left Canada to over seas is the over seas government will guarantee there taxes will not rise for 20 years. Would you rent a house from a landlord that spent money recklessly & could increase your rent when ever they felt like it to support their spending addiction ? Why start a business in Canada when a politician that wants to get elected will tax your hard work so others can leach off of you ? In the U.S the states that have the highest taxes people are leaving. When the productive are taxed they will leave & look to live where they are taxed less.

Going to have trouble with leaches coming into Canada to live off the system while the productive leave. Basic income will be good for bitcoin & digital currency because who will want to work for Canadian dollars.

The government cant seam to understand the poor will always be with us & trying to change the fact will not work. Is the government blind to what happened in the U.S when the U.S government thought it was every ones right to own a house ? Each wolf, fox, rabbit etc provides for its own life or is granted no life @ all. We are becoming wimps with sporting events for kids where everyone participating is rewarded no matter how much work was done to perform well. If someone does not want to take responsibility for them self why should that responsibility be put on someone else?


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> No, I'm suggesting by giving everyone a base of 25k, then the line moves up the scale...prices will rise so that those who make 50k will still be just as poor as when they made 25k. Those at 65k will be the same as when they were at 40k, etc. O thing changes after the initial windfall.
> 
> I do admit that, in the first little bit, there will be benefits, but there will eventually be a return to the mean and people will be right back in the same position.
> 
> It's like when the 7% gst replaced the 13% manufacturing tax. Prices of goods dropped by about 13% for a few months, then returned to their old prices, only now you had to pay gst on top of it. Retail made an extra 13% profits. Another example is a friend of mine who had his furnace replaced just before the government handed out rebates. He paid $3500 for a high efficiency furnace, a few months later the government issues its $1000 rebates which he didn't qualify for. The next year, his neighbor used the same company, had the same furnace installed and got the rebate...only problem is he paid $6500. The government rebate handed tons of profits to struggling furnace installers. Today, you can't even buy mid efficiency furnaces anymore so the prices should have gone down according to supply and demand, yet they're still about 7k to install.


Prices don'd tend to scale that way. This would be re-distributive.


----------



## Pluto

OptsyEagle said:


> If you give money to someone without any corresponding generation of goods and services, it will become purely inflationary. Milton Friedman won a nobel price when he proved this economic theory.
> 
> Price increases, in a society, are paid for by everyone in that society, but the highest cost is paid for by the lowest incomes, since the effect of any price increase will be a higher percentage to lower income people then higher income people. Since the people getting the free money will obviously benefit, the highest cost will therefore be paid for by the people at the lowest incomes in that group that do not qualify to receive any free money. So the ones who just missed out on the free lunch. They will become the most poorer of all the citizens in that society as a result of this program.
> 
> The middle class get to take it in the behind again.


I'm pretty sure Friedman didn't mean what you think it means. You seem to be thinking that if you give someone some of your earned income and they spend it it is inflationary, but if you don't give the money and you spend it, it is not inflationary. That's not what he meant. 

Besides, he believed in negative income tax, which is in the ballpark of a basic income. 

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


----------



## OptsyEagle

For the most part our governments are not giving these people our money they are giving these people money they borrowed against the national debt. Debt in many instances is inflationary.

What Friedman proved is that inflation is caused by money supply and only money supply. This government program sounds a lot like supplying money to me.


----------



## mordko

Yes, its inflationary but above all the program is designed to disincentivise work, to remove the fear and consequences of not doing anything useful, to make parasitism easier. 

Terrible idea.


----------



## martinv

No one has mentioned the real problem with a basic income for everyone. 
It is not the amount you give them, it is what they spend and how they spend it. 
Some will spend it in one day and then come back pleading poverty and wanting everyone else to help again. 
Think we have seen this scenario before.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> Yes, its inflationary but above all the program is designed to disincentivise work, to remove the fear and consequences of not doing anything useful, to make parasitism easier.
> 
> Terrible idea.


How is it worse than welfare? Do you acknowledge that welfare represents a much greater disincentive to work? Are you also aware that what studies have been done of basic income schemes show that the impact to workforce participation is modest?

You have a mental picture of what basic income will do. There is a good chance it does not align with reality. Have some humility.


----------



## Just a Guy

You realize that this theory is not exactly new. The original basis of social credit was a similar idea, but it too failed in practice...just like communism/socialism which looks great on paper, but doesn't work in practice.


----------



## NorthernRaven

mordko said:


> Yes, its inflationary but above all the program is designed to disincentivise work, to remove the fear and consequences of not doing anything useful, to make parasitism easier.
> 
> Terrible idea.


Actually, I was reading about the Finnish pilot project, where there were a number of people who were able to try various entrepreneurial things because they would no longer have to worry about the income causing their existing benefits to shrink or disappear while they were getting started. And if something like the gig economy becomes more prevalent, some sort of base layer or safety net may be needed to prevent workers from being ground to pieces while corporate employers enjoy the benefits of fractional labour.


----------



## OptsyEagle

NorthernRaven said:


> Actually, I was reading about the Finnish pilot project, where there were a number of people who were able to try various entrepreneurial things because they would no longer have to worry about the income causing their existing benefits to shrink or disappear while they were getting started.


There will always be exceptions that the government will cite to make you feel better about them taking your money and giving it to someone else less deserving of it (did not earn it).

All I can say is that my primary reason for working was a pay cheque. If something replaced that paycheque, I would not have worked. It doesn't get more simple then that to understand.

Sure, some will want more and will be willing to work for it, but way too many will be like me, who would adjust their lifestyle to live within this income level so as to enjoy this new found freedom...to basically do nothing productive for society. That is what I do now, but in my case, I saved for it. The people that will get this money may have done a lot of things, but it is unlikely saving was not one of them. I don't think giving them free money will improve their views on that.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> You realize that this theory is not exactly new. The original basis of social credit was a similar idea, but it too failed in practice...just like communism/socialism which looks great on paper, but doesn't work in practice.


You would have to be more specific. Social credit is a term that has been used to describe many things.

Regardless, there have been a handful of studies that indicate that the policy is relatively benign to work incentives. If there is a controversy, that is an argument for further study. We need to figure this out before automation starts causing major social upheaval.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> How is it worse than welfare? Do you acknowledge that welfare represents a much greater disincentive to work? Are you also aware that what studies have been done of basic income schemes show that the impact to workforce participation is modest?
> 
> You have a mental picture of what basic income will do. There is a good chance it does not align with reality. Have some humility.


Welfare has a stigma associated with it. You have to go through hoops to get it and at least pretend you are seeking work. 

I am not aware of any "studies", nor do I care for social "studies" all that much. Would be happy to observe a 30 year experiment as long as it covers the whole country and that country is very far away. Very familiar with the socialist experiment and not all that keen to go through that again.


----------



## humble_pie

OptsyEagle said:


> There will always be exceptions that the government will cite to make you feel better about them taking your money and giving it to someone else less deserving of it (did not earn it).
> 
> All I can say is that my primary reason for working was a pay cheque. If something replaced that paycheque, I would not have worked. It doesn't get more simple then that to understand.
> 
> Sure, some will want more and will be willing to work for it, but way too many will be like me, who would adjust their lifestyle to live within this income level so as to enjoy this new found freedom...to basically do nothing productive for society. That is what I do now, but in my case, I saved for it. The people that will get this money may have done a lot of things, but it is unlikely saving was not one of them. I don't think giving them free money will improve their views on that.




that was then ^^ but this is now

the way i look at it, the time is coming when there wlll be no work.

meanwhile the population is increasing. Cohorts of young males are the most likely to take up destructive activities, even bush league warfare, when normal avenues of development & advancement are blocked.

i don't see how we can spend too much time tut-tutting over the disappearance of yesterday's values of working hard, being thrifty, saving for one's individual retirement. In the world that's coming, we will have to learn how to gain satisfaction, preserve civilization & its ethical social order, find dignity, happiness, even honour - all without work & without even being able to use money as a measuring stick.

to me, finding out what other countries are doing is illuminating. Germany reduced its work week yet the economy is thriving. Finland's experiments increased entrepreneurship.

.


----------



## sags

I don't think the universal income is intended to replace current poverty level programs with another poverty level program.

The idea is to provide sufficient income to live without any other income. (This will be the reality in a job less world)

The $1000 a month figure seems to continually pop up in right wing lobby group papers, who want to set the bar as low as they can. 

I have seen some reports that $3000 a month would be more appropriate.


----------



## mordko

Of course the "jobless" world hasn't actually happened. Right now countries like Canada and US have low unemployment levels - or as low as they have ever been. 

The scary story about machines replacing human workers goes back many centuries and keeps coming back. For example in the 19th century luddites were destroying weaving machinery because of this fear. Well, some unqualified workers did get replaced. Overall the number of people in employment went up.


----------



## andrewf

This time could well be different. Humans made out well in the industrial revolution. Horses were decimated. In the AI revolution, we're the horses--many of us will be competing for jobs where the marginal product isn't enough to cover the necessities of life.


----------



## mordko

"This time could well be different."

^ the phrase that goes back many thousand years.


----------



## andrewf

And yet the world keeps changing.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Millions of people starving to death in countries all over the world, has nobody told these governments that all they have to do is just give everyone free money to end this terrible problem they're facing?


----------



## sags

There is no shortage of food or money to solve all those problems.

But listen to the outcry when our government spends on foreign aid ?


----------



## gibor365

> Millions of people starving to death in countries all over the world


 I personally don't give a **** about it... this is their own problem...

and if you care so much, transfer your income directly to help them


----------



## mordko

The solution to everything is to set basic minimal income to $100/h for every hour of the day and night, 7 days a week. 

Since $100/hour creates double the wealth of $50/hour, $200/hour would double wealth again. 

Yes, there is some mathematics here (which discriminates against females members raised in a male-dominant environment), but take my word for it: $400/hour would double the wealth yet again. And so forth. $4000/hour would increase wealth by another ten-fold. Ideally, the basic minimum income would be infinite, and thus create infinite wealth. And, as a bonus, higher wages mean more tax revenue – and that means even more wealth. The corporate pigs hate guaranteed incomes, but the people vote for it time and again because they know it is right.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

I guess I didn't illustrate my point cleary. Although mordko appears to have gotten it.


----------



## wraphter

gibor365 said:


> I personally don't give a **** about it... this is their own problem...
> 
> and if you care so much, transfer your income directly to help them


When young people feel they have no reasonable chance of a life and a future ,they rebel. When you have nothing ,you have nothing to lose. Whether its in Germany and other countries in the 30's or Russia in the 20's or the Middle East
now this condition leads to internal and external violence.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> The solution to everything is to set basic minimal income to $100/h for every hour of the day and night, 7 days a week.
> 
> Since $100/hour creates double the wealth of $50/hour, $200/hour would double wealth again.
> 
> Yes, there is some mathematics here (which discriminates against females members raised in a male-dominant environment), but take my word for it: $400/hour would double the wealth yet again. And so forth. $4000/hour would increase wealth by another ten-fold. Ideally, the basic minimum income would be infinite, and thus create infinite wealth. And, as a bonus, higher wages mean more tax revenue – and that means even more wealth. The corporate pigs hate guaranteed incomes, but the people vote for it time and again because they know it is right.


Jeff Bezos has $81 billion. He earned it? Really? How much do the serfs in Amazon's fulfillment centres make. They won't even give them bathroom breaks.


----------



## sags

There is more than sufficient wealth in the world. It is the division of the wealth that has always created problems.

The capitalist system is failing and needs to be replaced by a better system.


----------



## gibor365

I don't believe that Universal basic income is a good idea in Canada. Whatever government does , at the end gonna screw up people who work.... Although, on the other hand , it may be good for "less fortunate"


----------



## m3s

I've been pointing to the writing on the wall now for years

The growth of inequality and population will hit a breaking point. Things cannot just continue the way they are as if automation doesn't exist. More youth will be unable to find jobs to pay off student debt, less and less will chose to have kids, next they will stop buying homes. We're going to see more mass migrations and perpetual war as the masses become unhappy. Throw climate change into the mix, regardless of the human impact, and you may want to think long and hard before bringing another child into this world.

Here's a 50min documentary on topic (discusses UBI from 20mins on)


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Nah, that is an old system too and there is no reason to rely on any old systems.
> 
> It is time for new systems, designed in a way they serve everyone most effectively and that don't advantage a few.


In all of human history, capitalism has always had the highest success rate for the greatest percentage of people. Even the unemployable in a capitalist society are taken care of in a manner that provides a better standard of living than communism can give to even the smartest and hardest working people.

One of the by-products of capitalism is that some people may be disproportionally rewarded for their success, but that minor irritation far surpasses the major flaws of every other system where no one but the elite are rewarded. I would rather live in a society where some people earn "too much" than one where no one earns enough (except for a few at the top).


----------



## james4beach

I'm re-opening this thread. The off topic part of the thread has been moved to Hot Button.

Please try to stay on topic. Don't attack other forum members.


----------



## fplan

james4beach said:


> I'm re-opening this thread. The off topic part of the thread has been moved to Hot Button.
> 
> Please try to stay on topic. Don't attack other forum members.


if UBI is or every adult then I support..but if it is based on income, then I don't..

UBI for every one: students will get some income to cover their expenses when they are in school and till they find a good paying job.. this way students can only focus on learning and take some risks , which will create new companies.. 
seniors can live their last years peacefully without worrying about money..

UBI based on income: you take student loans and go to school.. if you find a good paying job then hey your buddies are in bad shape , we want take some of your income and help your buddies..who may be dropped out of school, who may not want to work etc.. doctors spend almost 10 yrs in school with lot of debt is perfect example..

remove all credits/deductions then UBI for all may not be a bad idea..


----------



## olivaw

Glad the thread has been reopened. 

Sags is correct when he said upthread that there is sufficient wealth in the world but the problem is unequal distribution. 

I disagree that it is capitalism's fault. It is capitalism that created the abundance that we all enjoy. 

It's the will to ensure that every human being has a minimally acceptable standard of living that is missing. Canada has made decent progress towards reducing domestic poverty but we need to do more. If Universal Basic Income achieves it more efficiently then let's give it a try. 

We also need to recognize our commitment to alleviate global poverty. We have never achieved our commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid. In 2015 we spent a paltry 0.28%. http://cidpnsi.ca/canadas-foreign-aid-2012-2/

Kevin O'Leary (of all people) suggests that we all give 5% of our personal income to charity. If we did that it might reduce pressure on the government to solve every social issue with taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Just a Guy

The original question of the thread, which seems to have been lost since reopening, was where does the money come from?

Also, wealth distribution will always be unequal, just like work done by multiple people will be unequal.


----------



## sags

Bill Gates and others have suggested that government revenues will have to increasingly come from taxation on production, rather than labor.

A guaranteed income doesn't necessarily mean that people sit at home and collect free government money for doing nothing.

It may mean more people "employed" by the government performing functions for society, than there ever has been in the past.

Those who believe that public service employment must be diminished aren't paying attention. 

It is already certain the world is heading in the opposite direction.


----------



## sags

Ben Carson is in charge of HUD in the US, and it has been noted that he has been studiously avoiding situations where he has to answer for Trump's budget cuts to the poor and those most affected by his housing authority.

As sarcastically noted by one observer on kicking people out of subsidized housing on the precept that people would be better off free from the shackles of government intervention.........."there is nothing that provides more focus for the mind and enrichment for their soul than kicking a mother with two children and a $7.25 an hour job out of their home and into the street".

When it is put like that...............it is a pretty stupid ideology.

Before people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps............they need to have boots.

The world is changing. We can't build new cupboards with rusty old saws. It is time to replace the old with something brand new.

A universal income is a new concept. We can figure it out if we want to. The only question is who will lead the charge ?


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> The original question of the thread, which seems to have been lost since reopening, was where does the money come from?
> 
> Also, wealth distribution will always be unequal, just like work done by multiple people will be unequal.


The money (or more accurately the wealth) will come from productivity and resource extraction. Same as it always does.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Socialism and communism is not brand new. They are both far more immoral and deadly than capitalism. Of course this time, when we do it properly, it will work, seems to be the modern thought. 

Where will the money come from? It will start initially with taxpayers of course and adding to our nearly insurmountable debt, and we'll decline rapidly from there.


----------



## bass player

5Lgreenback said:


> Socialism and communism is not brand new. They are both far more immoral and deadly than capitalism. Of course this time, when we do it properly, it will work, seems to be the modern thought.


That's what they always say..."this time we'll do it right". No one's done it right yet, and I don't expect the pattern to change.


----------



## sags

The Nordic countries are doing quite well in world rankings.

High levels of socialism certainly haven't hurt their quality of life or economic prospects.


----------



## Just a Guy

olivaw said:


> The money (or more accurately the wealth) will come from productivity and resource extraction. Same as it always does.


Okay, we can't balance a budget with the current productivity and resource extraction, and you want to give out even more...

I suppose we could just run up the deficits, same as they always do.


----------



## olivaw

Socialism, communism and capitalism have to do with the means of production. UBI is about making sure that everyone can afford a reasonable life. 

On a global scale, we have enough food to feed every man, woman and child on the planet. A billion people go to bed hungry every night. https://www.oxfam.ca/there-enough-food-feed-world. Capitalism is great but it ain't perfect.

ETA: JAG, we may have to raise taxes rates on productivity and resources and implement additional taxes on externalities. I'm also a fan of consumption taxes.


----------



## sags

Just a Guy said:


> Okay, we can't balance a budget with the current productivity and resource extraction, and you want to give out even more...
> 
> I suppose we could just run up the deficits, same as they always do.


Two men in Canada own more wealth than the bottom 11 million Canadians. (30% of the population)

David Thompson and Galen Weston own more than $33 Billion in wealth.

Is that what capitalists call success ?

44 Million in the US are on food stamps. Is that a capitalist success story ?

As Bernie Sanders said...........sorry billionaires, but you can't have it all.

Deficits..........no. We just need to collect taxes from those who actually have all the wealth.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Two men in Canada own more wealth than the bottom 11 million Canadians. David Thompson and Galen Weston own more than $33 Billion in wealth.
> 
> Is that what capitalists call success ?


If you haven't noticed, the top 2 people in communist and socialist countries also do very well for themselves. So don't focus on the few at the top....they will always be there no matter what system exists. Look at how the "average" person lives in each system. Or, the bottom 11 million....they both do better under capitalism. Every. Single. Time.


----------



## Just a Guy

So, we take $33 billion from them and give everyone $1000 (one time payment as that's all you can give). How does that fix the problem. As for the rich don't pay taxes bull, they probably paid more in actual money than anyone else. They also emply people, invest that money (it's not sitting in any hisa), build housing and building...

What have the majority of Canadians built, how much housing do they provide, how many employees do they have?

Even if you want to play the "they get huge tax breaks" card, understand that the tax breaks come because they spent the money on things that benefit society, they don't get to keep it.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Deficits..........no. We just need to collect taxes from those who actually have all the wealth.


We hear that every day...we just need to take even more from the rich and then everything will be fine. All that happens with that approach is that the money is used to buy more votes. It reminds me of that old joke:

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER 
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100... 
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this... 
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 
The fifth would pay $1. 
The sixth would pay $3. 
The seventh would pay $7.. 
The eighth would pay $12. 
The ninth would pay $18. 
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.. 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80. 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? 

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. 

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). 
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). 
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). 
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). 
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). 
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving). 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. 

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! 

That is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


----------



## sags

The rich guy owns the bar. He took everyone's money and is drinking at a five star resort in Mexico.


----------



## sags

We benefited from capitalism.

We had steady work for more than 40 years each with only a couple of employers.

We earned enough to pay for our existence and build DB pensions for our retirement.

We earned in the 1990s the wages that people are earning today. There are no pensions today, except for the public service and a few industries.

Jobs for life have been replaced with contract, part time work.

The benefits of capitalism are in the rear view mirror. 

We are now dealing with the fatal flaw of capitalism that all wealth eventually flows to the owners of the assets.

I don't know how anyone can observe the wealth/income inequality charts and believe it can continue forever.

Capitalism used to have a cleansing mechanism known as the "debt jubilee". Every hundred years all debt was forgiven and society reset.

The wealthy continued to be wealthy and everyone else started over with a clean slate. It was the pressure valve for capitalism.

That isn't going to happen today. There is too much debt to forgive. Capitalism will continue to it's logical demise.


----------



## ian

sags, I agree. People in their late 40's and 50's are being greatly impacted by our new ecomomy. They are not prepared for it, have loads of consumer debt, and little or no retirement savings. And do not think that all in the public sector are immune. We know many RN's who can only get part time work...often working two part time jobs. Same with many hospital ancillary staff.

The big challenge is the our politicians are not talking about the new economy and not pledging near enough money to our post secondary institutions, universities in order to position Canada for it. If Canada is not careful we will be left behind and we will miss out on these new opportunities. Other more nimble, more forward looking countries will get the jump on us through their education, government, and taxation policies. 

Trump talks about the jobs in the coal industry that have disappeared. It is even worse in the lower paid retail sector. Those jobs will not come back despite the promises of politicians of all stripes. They are being replaced with jobs that require different skills. Time for us to wake up and invest some real money.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Capitalism will continue to it's logical demise.


And then we're all screwed...


----------



## wraphter

So there is a basic income for the unemployed and unemployable. Then what? How can they have a meaningful life if they are unemployed? What about when they have children? What is there are no jobs for them? Will there be a new definition of life that doesn't include work? I mean the British royalty don't really work
and they have a pretty happy life.Maybe the new economy will be so productive and the standard of living will be so high that everyone can live like royalty.

Or maybe scarcity will prevail and some classes of unemployables will be discouraged from having children.maybe some kind of Darwinian negative selection will occur.


----------



## fplan

sags said:


> It may mean more people "employed" by the government performing functions for society, than there ever has been in the past.


more government employees.. with their union dramas , guaranteed job for life , gold plated pensions are the reasons why many countries are facing troubles . while private workers don't have any of these and still have to fund govt employee luxuries.. and same job in govt pays 3 times salary when compared to a private worker.. govt should remove DB pensions for all its employees and give them DC pensions..

Globalization is the main culprit.. US expected globalization to make life easier for their citizens .. but when it started creating trouble then they are shouting loud and clear against globalization.. I am surprised why there is no ban on any US companies' products around the world..


----------



## mordko

The problem with modern capitalism is that we don't have enough of it. And eventually the liberals are going to run out of other people's money. Always the same story.


----------



## mordko

fplan said:


> I am surprised why there is no ban on any US companies' products around the world..


Perhaps there is but we don't get to learn about it because the proponents have no access to the web.


----------



## fplan

sags said:


> Capitalism will continue to it's logical demise.


I think true Capitalism is not there any more..If US govt folks believed in Capitalism , they would not have intervened in 2008-09 and save the big banks.. they would have left it to the markets..


----------



## Just a Guy

I read sags' life story, it's pretty common.

My life story was a little different. I went to school in a depression time, there were no jobs. The school used to have a program where they brought in industry workers to tell us what life would be like upon graduation. Their main line was "we're not hiring, we don't plan on hiring, and I may get laid off next week". The university cancelled the course halfway through the year and gave us full credit for it. 

When I graduated, I was one of only two in my class (nearly 700 grads in my class) to find a job. It was part time contract work for the government. My boss, seeing my skills, got me more work, but still I was only a contractor. Because I was good at what I did, much of my time was spent in office politics as many of the remaining employees realized the threat I posed to them (there were constant layoffs, and the remaining employees were mostly the deadwood who couldn't get jobs in the private sector).

After a couple of years, my entire sector was shut down ( I think I went through 12 reorganizations and 9 different offices in those years) and I was laid off. I had made contacts while in government, so I decided to start my own company. My company did well, mainly because I changed what it was doing and evolved over the years to keep supplying my clients with what they needed. Had I tried to do the same thing as I did when I started, I probably wouldn't have lasted as demand for that service is minimal these days. 

My company did well, I lived modestly and managed to get to the point where I was living mortgage free for a few years. It was at this time when I realized living debt free, while nice, had some serious drawbacks, so I started looking into investing. Then I sustianed an injury which left me unable to work for more than two years. We had just moved to a larger house, so I was no longer mortgage free. I'd just started to get into real estate investing so, before the banks cut me off of credit, I immediately went out and bout more rentals putting myself in more debt than I'd ever had.

i also started to buy some stock. I picked companies I understood, it happened to be another downturn in the economy, so the market was on a downward trend. Many of my purchases continued to lose money over the next several months, but my research said they were good companies, so I held on.

During those injured years, my company took a large hit to its business (downturn in the economy and I was unable to guide it properly is not a good combination), things didn't look good. My rentals brought in enough to cover their costs as well as my personal mortgage, so I didn't lose my house. Because I was self employed, I didn't qualify for any benefits or insurance, didn't have any family support either (I was told to get a job and support my wife and kids), as I'd never had the traditional job which family didn't understand. I wasn't able to function long enough to hold a job, but that didn't matter. 

My credit card bills started to grow after all my savings were eaten up even though we lived very frugally. My investments (and real estate) had recovered to the point where, if I sold, I'd be back to zero but with no other income or savings. Eventually I recovered enough that I could do some work on a part time basis. I got in and worked as hard as I could, taking contracts I normally would have passed on if I'd had a choice.

After a couple years of doing junk contracts, I remember I was working on one particularly bad contract, I pulled up my investment portfolio, something I hadn't done in a while. I was shocked to learn that my portfolio was earning more money in a week than I was earning on a month of this contract. My real estate holdings had slowly grown, and I didn't even notice that the banks had gotten a little more friendly about loaning me money. I'd paid off the credit cards, but had poured excess (not that there was much) into investment. Because of the real estate, I was in way more debt than I ever had been (on paper), but the cash flow from everything meant I was basically earning more outside of my company than the company easy paying me. Aside from money borrowed for investing, I was debt free once again and hadn't even realized it. Even today I'm still a bit paranoid and frugal because of my experience, I don't think that'll ever leave, just like those who lived through the depression.

These days, I now run several companies (more on paper than hands on), I still invest and I buy real estate (averaging 4.5 new additions per year over the past few). I don't aim for the high end rentals, I supply the higher side of the low end affordable housing. I do that by buying places cheap to keep the costs down. I rarely have any vacancies as my places are nicer than average and relatively inexpensive. 

While im not in the 33B category, I'd probably be classified as being in the rich category (I own a lot of real estate, several companies, no personal debt, etc.). You'd probably feel very justified in taking stuff away from me looking at things from the outside as I "have" more than others.

Of course, if you took from me, than many would lose their homes and jobs, because few people (as this board shows) can find and buy real estate the same way as I do. Few can start and run companies as I found when I was injured and others tried to run it in my place. Not everyone has the skills and personality to do what I do.

I admit I minimize my taxes, but I also know that I spend that money stimulating the economy (wages, equipment, contractors, etc), I don't get to keep it (you have to understand how the tax system works, you either spend money supporting society and have a choice where it's spent, or the government will spend the money for you where it thinks it should be spent, either way you don't keep the money). Also, you need to spend more money in some cases (charity donations for example are only a partial write off) than you would be taxed for directly.

Now, after a rather long winded story, the great thing about Canada or many other countries is...

Anyone can travel the same road. 

The sad part is, most want their cake and the ability to eat it too. They want the job withthe defined benefits at the end. They want their company to do the same thing every year...bring back the horse and buggy taxi, it what I want to do, just like gramps did.

Sorry, life doesn't work like that, you have to change and adapt or get left behind. This isn't capitalism, it's reality. I don't know anyone personally who got rich off a paycheque, I didn't get rich off a paycheque. I've never had a real "job", even though I grew up being taught that was the only way...but nothing stopped me from becoming rich. 

Of the rich friends I know, nothing stopped them either. Of the people I know who aren't rich however, I see one common thread standing in their way...themselves. They are too afraid to even try. They want it handed to them. I've offered to help many people buy a rental, invest in the market, whatever. I post publicly here how I do it, yet in all the years I've done this, I know two people who've taken me up on the offer and the second one only did it last year. The first is a partner of mine now in a different business. 

So, in my opinion, you can talk about life being unfair and unequal, but you should still ask yourself what exactly you've done to change it and what is really holding you back before coming after the assets of those who've maybe already answered that question.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

We live in a hybrid socialist-capitalist system right now and its pulling closer to socialism everyday, which is increasing our debt and and size of government enourmosly and unsustainably. It's also an almost impossible path to reverse as well. 

There has always been and always will be wealth inequality. The nice thing about capitalism is it gives everyone an opportunity to pursue more wealth if desired.


----------



## Beaver101

Just a Guy said:


> ...
> 
> My life story was a little different. I went to school in a depression time, there were no jobs. The school used to have a program where they brought in industry workers to tell us what life would be like upon graduation. Their main line was "we're not hiring, we don't plan on hiring, and I may get laid off next week". The university cancelled the course halfway through the year and gave us full credit for it. ....


 ... before I (or if) make additional comments to your post (of which I know someone following similar to your path - you deal with what you have been given), have you considered writing a book?


----------



## Beaver101

^ PS: Btw, I'm not being sarcastic about a book relative to your long winded story. In fact, your story is one of extreme interest where you were able to rise back to your feet and beyond despite all the setbacks. Very inspiring.


----------



## Just a Guy

I've been accused of being a writer many times on this board, when I promote that website with the book on real estate investing, however I don't really see myself as a writer. The real author also lead a similar lifestyle, he and his wife were injured in a car accident.

Also, I've kind of become cynical of inspiring anyone. In all the years I've tried to help people change their lives, I know less than a handful who've ever even attempted it. It's easier to sit back and complain. It gets depressing after a while. Writing a book no one would read, and even fewer would act upon doesn't sound like a worthwhile endeavour, not to mention that many would feel I did it for ego gratification anyway. 

I spend time teaching my kids, they hate the stories, but they've also lived them and are turning out to be the real beneficiaries of it. I'm not too worried that they'll end up in trouble that they can't handle themselves.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

sags said:


> The rich guy owns the bar. He took everyone's money and is drinking at a five star resort in Mexico.


Isn't it great we live in a society where anyone can open a bar, get rich, and go drink in on a beach somewhere?


----------



## bass player

5Lgreenback said:


> Isn't it great we live in a society where anyone can open a bar, get rich, and go drink in on a beach somewhere?


It is. Unfortunately, it's turning into a society where too many people think that the person that opened the bar makes "too much", so they now demand that he give them his hard earned money because that's "fair".

People no longer want the same opportunity...they want the same outcome without doing the work.


----------



## ian

I find that there is far too much of the 'blaming others or the Government for my troubles'. People need the think about what they are doing, forget about living only in the present, think about the longer term, and move forward with their lives. 

If someone is lazy, lacks initiative, blames others, and cannot be bothered to move forward with some training or education then that person will most likely end up very unhappy and unfulfilled in a low paying service industry job or worse. And they may blame everyone else for their situation. Initiative, ambition, and some basic common sense will move most people forward.


----------



## Just a Guy

For me, the inspiration was being dead broke and having a family to support. The "pain" encouraged me to make changes as quickly as possible, it also inspired me to be "right" in my choices as I couldn't afford to be wrong (in any sense of the word afford). 

Today I have tenants that fall behind on their rent, then get the government to bail them out. They don't fear losing their home, so if they blow the rent money elsewhere, no one's the worse off. I didn't have that luxury, if I didn't make my payments, I lost everything...of course now I'm a greedy landlord living off the poor, some on this board feel I should be cutting tenants a break on when the rent is due, like the bank would cut me a deal if I didn't pay the mortgage.

While I don't recommend anyone should have to go through what I did, I actually like the fact that we have social assistance (even though I couldn't qualify personally for bureaucratic reasons like being self employed, owning a house, etc., so it doesn't help "everyone"), the existing system certainly doesn't inspire people to change. 

My life inspired me to learn about investing, and making passive income and as quickly as possible. Of course others would probably just give up, some animals won't move an inch just to get more comfortable.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Sorry for contributing to the slight derail of this thread JAG. But I think its quite fair to say that the money is only going to come from going nationally bankruptcy, sooner or later.


----------



## andrewf

5Lgreenback said:


> We live in a hybrid socialist-capitalist system right now and its pulling closer to socialism everyday, which is increasing our debt and and size of government enourmosly and unsustainably. It's also an almost impossible path to reverse as well.
> 
> There has always been and always will be wealth inequality. The nice thing about capitalism is it gives everyone an opportunity to pursue more wealth if desired.


Interestingly, this is comically unsupported by data. The Canadian government has been shrinking relative to GDP for decades. Ditto for public debt.

Some inequality is fine, even desirable. We are arguing about how much is too much.


----------



## olivaw

Capitalism, communism and socialism are about who owns the means of production. UBI is about wealth redistribution. 

UBI could provide a basic income to everyone, without penalty for getting a job, attending school, taking a trip or starting a business. Some will pursue wealth. Some will pursue their passion. Some will volunteer. Some will be lazy, addicted or sick.


----------



## mordko

It's not actually a hybrid socialist-capitalist system. One hundred percent of wealth is produced via capitalist means and the state does not own means of production.

The issue isn't socialism as such; it's the bureaucrats in Ottawa and the provinces on fat pensions who do very little except red tape, market distortion, working hand in hand with various lobbyists and redistribution.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Capitalism will continue to it's logical demise.


that's what karl Marx claimed, but he was wrong. USSR blew apart due to economic stresses and strains. China eventually caved in and turned capitalistic unleashing tremendous productivity. Under communisim China could't even feed their own people. With the entrepenerial system they turned to, they produce enough to feed themselves and export food. 

sags, you chronically offer the typical union shop steward Marxist inspired line of thinking that clearly is kaput.


----------



## Moneytoo

Just a Guy said:


> So, in my opinion, you can talk about life being unfair and unequal, but you should still ask yourself what exactly you've done to change it and what is really holding you back before coming after the assets of those who've maybe already answered that question.


I have nothing to add to what I said in the old thread on the subject, but just wanted to say *respect!*


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Interestingly, this is comically unsupported by data. The Canadian government has been shrinking relative to GDP for decades. Ditto for public debt.
> 
> Some inequality is fine, even desirable. We are arguing about how much is too much.


Which data? 
This data has debt to gdp perilously close to a 1995 high.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

The following uses net debt and as a % of gdp is about the same as in 1962.

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


----------



## KaoruChiwa

why hasn't universal basic income existed before? what's welfare then? another name - same product. this is another method of transferring the wealth from the very wealthy to ensure that the very poor do not rise up and equalize the funds their own, and violent ways as shown throughout history in many occasiions. 
frankly, do you rather the very poor resorting to other, and more unscrupulous means of equalizing their wealth? or do you rather the tax $$$ you spent on law enforcement, court system and 'forced rehailiations' being spent on opportunities that have more productive ends?


----------



## mordko

KaoruChiwa said:


> why hasn't universal basic income existed before? what's welfare then? another name -


There is a difference. UBI is higher, payed without having to prove you are seeking a job and has no stigma attached. It is a particularly harmful type of welfare "without any strings attached" which is designed to secure votes and kill incentives.


----------



## bass player

KaoruChiwa said:


> frankly, do you rather the very poor resorting to other, and more unscrupulous means of equalizing their wealth? or do you rather the tax $$$ you spent on law enforcement, court system and 'forced rehailiations' being spent on opportunities that have more productive ends?


I'm all for law enforcement preventing people from "equalizing" my wealth (or perceived wealth). Of course, I'm also for finding productive ways to get people off welfare. 

What I am against is just handing out money freely with no apparent qualifications or time limit. If a person needs welfare, then they should go though the process to qualify for it. If a person is on welfare for several years and has to answer questions that they may not like, that's just too bad...it's not supposed to be a free ride.

It seems that those who are proposing a universal income have never mentioned giving it a reasonable time limit or having a qualifying process, and have no interest in doing so.


----------



## Just a Guy

One of the reasons we don't have UBI is we can't afford the current systems we have in place, even by running deficits, so where does the money come from to fund UBI?


----------



## sags

It isn't difficult to imagine a comprehensive system that would replace the current myriad of expensive overlapping systems.

A universal system could replace...

Workers compensation, unemployment insurance, disability (CPP) benefits, social assistance (welfare), OAS/GIS, student grants, child care benefits, boutique tax credits...

The benefit would be guaranteed and not subject to time consuming scrutiny by government employees in office cubicles, or the whims of successive governments based on ideology.

A universal benefit opens up the box for more creative thinking on how to best utilize the opportunities to provide services at lower cost.


----------



## sags

Canada's debt to GDP is 31%, which is relatively low compared to other developed countries. 

Canada is one of the few countries in the world with a AAA rating.

All the angst over the level of government debt is misplaced. The level of personal debt is far more problematic and worrisome.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...fund-budgets-deficit-fueled-spending-promises


----------



## mordko

Federal debt is only part of the story. Ontario is the most indebted entity at subnational level. And having an AAA rating isn't meant as an invitation to blow it.


----------



## bass player

mordko said:


> Federal debt is only part of the story. Ontario is the most indebted entity at subnational level. And having an AAA rating isn't meant as an invitation to blow it.


Sags thinks massive government debt is just fine. Who are we to question their wisdom...


----------



## mordko

Great; that in itself should qualify him for a desk in Ottawa.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags, you ignore the fact that all those programs you listed only go to a minority of Canadians, UBI would go to all Canadians...meaning it would cost significantly more than all those programs combined.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> There is a difference. UBI is higher, payed without having to prove you are seeking a job and has no stigma attached. It is a particularly harmful type of welfare "without any strings attached" which is designed to secure votes and kill incentives.


Also, welfare penalizes earning a market income with 100% MTR. UBI encourages work by allowing recipients to keep a good portion of their market income.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Also, welfare penalizes earning a market income with 100% MTR. UBI encourages work by allowing recipients to keep a good portion of their market income.


Free money with no strings attached never encourages people to work, in fact, it has the opposite effect.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Sags, you ignore the fact that all those programs you listed only go to a minority of Canadians, UBI would go to all Canadians...meaning it would cost significantly more than all those programs combined.


But...think of all the votes it would buy!! :greedy_dollars:


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> One of the reasons we don't have UBI is we can't afford the current systems we have in place, even by running deficits, so where does the money come from to fund UBI?


We could afford it before Stephen Harper became Prime Minister.  His corporate tax cuts and GST cuts reduced federal revenues by about 12%. Our budget surplus became a budget deficit. 

There is sufficient wealth in Canada to pay for a modest UBI. Our per capita GDP is over 46K. The challenge is to decide how and how much to divert to basic income.


----------



## Just a Guy

Okay, lets do some basic math...

35M people in Canada. 

Everyone gets a modest UBI of $1000/month. 

That's 35B/month

$420B/year

That's only $12000/person. Poverty level is 22k. 

But let's keep saying that 12% tax cut made up the difference.

BTW, the total federal budget in 2017 was $330B.


----------



## hboy54

olivaw said:


> We could afford it before Stephen Harper became Prime Minister.  His corporate tax cuts and GST cuts reduced federal revenues by about 12%. Our budget surplus became a budget deficit.
> 
> There is sufficient wealth in Canada to pay for a modest UBI. Our per capita GDP is over 46K. The challenge is to decide how and how much to divert to basic income.


I don't understand blaming historic governments for things that the current government has the power to change. To the extent that you are unhappy that current tax rates are too low, the correct person to blame is JT. If he does not reverse these policies he implicitly agrees with them.

Hboy54


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Okay, lets do some basic math...


No need for inconvenient math...olivaw was using the Magic Money Tree that pays for all socialist fantasies.


----------



## like_to_retire

bass player said:


> What I am against is just handing out money freely with no apparent qualifications or time limit. If a person needs welfare, then they should go though the process to qualify for it. If a person is on welfare for several years and has to answer questions that they may not like, that's just too bad...it's not supposed to be a free ride.





bass player said:


> Free money with no strings attached never encourages people to work, in fact, it has the opposite effect.


Excellent points. The Universal Basic Income is especially problematic since it provides at least two times what welfare offers, with no strings attached. The socialists must be dancing in the streets. 

Why would anyone now on welfare, with all the hoops they need to jump through to get that money, bother to ever get off the couch once they receive twice as much with no red tape?

Socialism. Take money from those that earn it, and give it to those that don't.

ltr


----------



## Earl

Just a Guy said:


> Sags, you ignore the fact that all those programs you listed only go to a minority of Canadians, UBI would go to all Canadians...meaning it would cost significantly more than all those programs combined.


But most people would return most of it when they pay their income taxes. Only the very lowest earners would keep it all.


----------



## Earl

Just a Guy said:


> Okay, lets do some basic math...
> 
> 35M people in Canada.
> 
> Everyone gets a modest UBI of $1000/month.
> 
> That's 35B/month
> 
> $420B/year
> 
> That's only $12000/person. Poverty level is 22k.
> 
> But let's keep saying that 12% tax cut made up the difference.
> 
> BTW, the total federal budget in 2017 was $330B.


Children obviously wouldn't get the UBI.


----------



## Moneytoo

Earl said:


> But most people would return most of it when they pay their income taxes. Only the very lowest earners would keep it all.


Even in the highest tax bracket it'd be 50%+ (53.53% for taxable income more than 220K in Ontario: http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm) - most people would "return" less than half...

Seriously, this is emberassing...


----------



## sags

The "simple math" folks don't understand some basic principles of economics. 

People hoarding money (the wealthy 1% or cash rich corporations) stifles economic growth and government revenues.

As Finance Minister Bill Morneau noted..............it is dead money.


----------



## Earl

Moneytoo said:


> Even in the highest tax bracket it'd be 50%+ (53.53% for taxable income more than 220K in Ontario: http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm) - most people would "return" less than half...
> 
> Seriously, this is emberassing...


Could we not modify the income tax so that high earners return all of the UBI? Something like OAS clawback.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> The "simple math" folks don't understand some basic principles of economics.
> 
> People hoarding money (the wealthy 1% or cash rich corporations) stifles economic growth and government revenues.
> 
> As Finance Minister Bill Morneau noted..............it is dead money.


Spend a couple months in Venezuela and let us know how well socialism is working there.

*TIP* You might want to pack a very large lunch...


----------



## bass player

Earl said:


> But most people would return most of it when they pay their income taxes. Only the very lowest earners would keep it all.


Ah...so the CPP I paid into for 35 years would now be clawed back because I was foolish enough to do well for myself?


----------



## Earl

bass player said:


> Ah...so the CPP I paid into for 35 years would now be clawed back because I was foolish enough to do well for myself?


Who said the CPP would be clawed back? UBI wouldn't replace CPP.


----------



## bass player

Earl said:


> Who said the CPP would be clawed back? UBI wouldn't replace CPP.


Sorry, I wasn't very clear...I was referring to sags definition of UBI:



> A universal system could replace...
> 
> Workers compensation, unemployment insurance, disability (CPP) benefits, social assistance (welfare), OAS/GIS, student grants, child care benefits, boutique tax credits...


But, the reality is that if UBI takes hold, we have no idea how far they will go and what benefits will be cut.


----------



## sags

bass player said:


> Spend a couple months in Venezuela and let us know how well socialism is working there.
> 
> *TIP* You might want to pack a very large lunch...


And Bolivia thrives..........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...via-thrives-heres-why/?utm_term=.a189cdcc6167


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> And Bolivia thrives..........
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...via-thrives-heres-why/?utm_term=.a189cdcc6167


The average salary on Bolivia is $272 a month. That's hardly "thriving", but maybe it is by WashPo standards 

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


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> And Bolivia thrives..........
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...via-thrives-heres-why/?utm_term=.a189cdcc6167


Sounds like you found your new home Sags. 



> And past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Bolivia is now clearly having trouble adjusting to lower commodity prices: Since 2015 it’s been running large deficits, *drawing down its international reserves far too fast as the government resists the kind of spending cuts it will take to adjust to the new normal*. *Keep that up for another few years, and Bolivia could find itself on the same downward trajectory Venezuela is now on*.


----------



## mordko

Utopia has always been very attractive - from "Paradise" to Thomas Moore and Communism. In the real world "free money for everyone" has to come from somewhere. Yes it can be obtained by borrowing from future generations, but the time always comes when you have to pay up. 

The other options is higher taxes. Well, we are already overtaxed. If US lowers capital gains and corporate taxes then Canadian taxes will have to be lowered to have any chance of attracting investment. Because without investment there will be no jobs and without jobs there will be no taxes to collect. 

Then again - it won't be a problem cause who needs a job when they can live swimmingly on free money? Right?


----------



## 5Lgreenback

I already work 7 months of the year to pay the government (when all taxes are factored in). I'm just a middle class private sector schmuck with no pension and really wondering if I will ever be able to save enough to retire at this rate.

My job is all in or nothing (no options to work less etc) and makes having any kind of a life or schedule outside of work nearly impossible. If my taxes were to increase further to redistribute my earnings even more I will be first in line to quit, get some roommates if I have to and start living off this magical free money. And I certainly know I won't be alone in this.

I work with many different seasonal employees in summers and winters who have been taking more from the government every year than they have contributed in their lifetimes. They're great folks and they're living it up, but this kind of abuse is common and shouldn't be allowed to happen. Instead of clamping down on rampant abuse, we are trying to ramp up the free money train and take a giant leap towards socialism. 

So the question remains, whose going to pay for it? Sags and Oliva better have deep pockets.


----------



## sags

Far more important than the actual debt number is the strength of the economy and the ability to service the debt.

Example............a hospital may cost $1 billion to build today. In 20 years it may cost $2 billion to build the same hospital.

If a government borrows the $1 billion and still owes $1 billion for a $2 billion asset in 20 years, that is a good use of debt.

Some people unnecessarily freak out about overall debt numbers. 

Most economists and financial experts view Canada as extremely well positioned in the world.

Any future problems Canada could have would be dwarfed by the problems of some of the other countries in the world.

It isn't a coincidence that the most prosperous and healthy countries in the world are more socialist oriented societies.

View attachment 14930


----------



## olivaw

5LGreenback, Your universal basic income will offset the higher taxes. No need to quit your job and recreate the college dorm experience.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

olivaw said:


> 5LGreenback, Your universal basic income will offset the higher taxes. No need to quit your job and recreate the college dorm experience.


Ah right yes, unfortunately I'm stuck living down here in the real world.:chuncky:


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Free money with no strings attached never encourages people to work, in fact, it has the opposite effect.


UBI has a much weaker disincentive to work that traditional welfare. For the exact same reason why a 100% tax rate has a much stronger disincentive than a 50% one.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Okay, lets do some basic math...
> 
> 35M people in Canada.
> 
> Everyone gets a modest UBI of $1000/month.
> 
> That's 35B/month
> 
> $420B/year
> 
> That's only $12000/person. Poverty level is 22k.
> 
> But let's keep saying that 12% tax cut made up the difference.
> 
> BTW, the total federal budget in 2017 was $330B.


Part of granting a UBI is a clawback from $1 of income, with the 'breakeven' point where people begin paying net positive income tax not all that high. So, while the gross cost of a UBI might be $400 billion as you describe, most of that would be clawed back for anyone who earns over the 'breakeven' point (which would be most working adults).


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Excellent points. The Universal Basic Income is especially problematic since it provides at least two times what welfare offers, with no strings attached. The socialists must be dancing in the streets.
> 
> Why would anyone now on welfare, with all the hoops they need to jump through to get that money, bother to ever get off the couch once they receive twice as much with no red tape?
> 
> Socialism. Take money from those that earn it, and give it to those that don't.
> 
> ltr


Because they can earn more without 100% clawback penalty. Want a vacation? Want an iPhone? Work for it. On welfare you can't earn a market income. Many might engage in informal work (under the table).


----------



## andrewf

Moneytoo said:


> Even in the highest tax bracket it'd be 50%+ (53.53% for taxable income more than 220K in Ontario: http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm) - most people would "return" less than half...
> 
> Seriously, this is emberassing...


This assumes that the tax rates would remain the same. I think a clawback of 50% until the 'breakeven' point would be reasonable.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Spend a couple months in Venezuela and let us know how well socialism is working there.
> 
> *TIP* You might want to pack a very large lunch...


Spend a few months in Somalia to see how well total libertarianism/anarchocapitalism works.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Ah...so the CPP I paid into for 35 years would now be clawed back because I was foolish enough to do well for myself?


No, but you would continue to get OAS (UBI for old farts).


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> It isn't a coincidence that the most prosperous and healthy countries in the world are more socialist oriented societies.
> 
> View attachment 14930


Sanders isn't much of a socialist...he owns 3 houses, just like any successful capitalist would do. He also has massive debt and his wife is being investigated for fraud.

Capitalism with a touch of socialism has been the most successful model. The problem is that some people want to move us further into socialism and that's when the wheels will fall off. You don't seem to get it in spite of all the evidence...you tried to claim that Bolivia and their $272 monthly wage and massive poverty is a "success".

Perhaps you should limit your comments about the success of socialism to the "fake news" thread where they belong...


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Spend a few months in Somalia to see how well total libertarianism/anarchocapitalism works.


I prefer to live in Canada...a capitalist country with a small amount of socialism, which is the exact system that I think is the best for the most amount of people. Why would I want to move to a country that isn't as well run as Canada?


----------



## andrewf

^So poor people aren't allowed to argue for more socialist policies because they are just trying to steal other people's money. Also, rich people also can't argue for socialist policies because they are not poor.

You are all being too rigidly dogmatic. Market economies are very efficient at producing wealth and maximizing efficiency, but absolutely awful at producing broad-based prosperity. Government intervention is needed to help produce broad-based prosperity through wealth redistribution.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> I prefer to live in Canada...a capitalist country with a small amount of socialism, which is the exact system that I think is the best for the most amount of people. Why would I want to move to a country that isn't as well run as Canada?


Canada just happens to be perfect right now? I think this is what you call status quo bias.

The problem with Venezuela is that it was run by incompetent, kleptocratic fools. The government of Venezuela has ignored how economies work. It's almost as inescapable as the laws of thermodynamics. If you want to give a fair example of competent market social democracy, you can use Scandinavian countries as examples.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Canada just happens to be perfect right now? I think this is what you call status quo bias.


I didn't say Canada was perfect...I said our current system works the best for the most amount of people. Don't twist what I say to try to prove your argument.



andrewf said:


> The problem with Venezuela is that it was run by incompetent, kleptocratic fools. The government of Venezuela has ignored how economies work. It's almost as inescapable as the laws of thermodynamics. If you want to give a fair example of competent market social democracy, you can use Scandinavian countries as examples.


That's the beauty of our system...even with incompetent fools in charge (Trudeau for some, Harper for others), as long as they don't change too much, it still works fairly well. On the other hand, socialism has a 100% failure rate when led by fools or greedy people. 

Scandinavian countries are not the socialist paradises that you think they are. Some of them have massive problems, many of which are ignored by their adoring fans.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Government intervention is needed to help produce broad-based prosperity through wealth redistribution.


Re-distributing wealth doesn't create prosperity....it takes from the prosperous. It now takes too much and uses that money to buy votes, which has created a cycle of dependency.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

There's all kinds of flaws with the "Scandanavian socialism is great" argument if one wants to look into it.

Heres a fun video on the freshly popular term that Bernie Sanders popularized. Democratic Socialism, cause this time, we're gonna do it right. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvF_D4tVfYU


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Example............a hospital may cost $1 billion to build today. In 20 years it may cost $2 billion to build the same hospital.
> 
> If a government borrows the $1 billion and still owes $1 billion for a $2 billion asset in 20 years, that is a good use of debt.
> 
> Some people unnecessarily freak out about overall debt numbers.
> View attachment 14930


Umm, your logic is a little faulty here...at best you own an asset that is at 50% of its lifespan, your "asset", especially a hospital which has to be torn down because it can't be repurposed, is still only worth $1B when you account for depreciation. In 20 more years it will be worthless. And we haven't even gotten into the maintenance and upgrading that would be required.

You also seem to ignore inconvenient facts like UBI costs more than the entire federal budget for substandard coverage. If even half the people get covered, but need nearly twice as much coverage, it's still more than the entire federal budget. 

Also, what people in favour of UBI are promoting, isn't true UBI (universal basic income). What they seem to be supporting is a variety of modified versions (all different) of UBI. Of course, you're all willing to vote in UBI, but you don't even seem to know what it means...it's not what any of you are truly supporting.

Of course, you'll wind up getting the government you deserve, and boy when reality sets in are you in for a surprise.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Part of granting a UBI is a clawback from $1 of income, with the 'breakeven' point where people begin paying net positive income tax not all that high. So, while the gross cost of a UBI might be $400 billion as you describe, most of that would be clawed back for anyone who earns over the 'breakeven' point (which would be most working adults).


Where's the logic in giving out and then taking it back in the first place? Oh wait, government bureaucracy to add to the cost...


----------



## Moneytoo

Sorry, just to make sure I got the latest development right: so the goverment prints some money and/or expropriates "dead money" from savings accounts of 1%-ers and corporations, starts paying everyone (excluding kids - up to what age?) 25(?)K, taxes those idiots who keep working because they want an iPhone or vacation more - and everyone lives happily ever after before the robots get here?


----------



## mordko

I've changed my mind. Inequality is indeed a bad thing. Rather than just talk, I am going to do something about it. 

See, every now and then I get invited to read lectures at one of the local unis. This year will be very special. Here is the plan:

1. *Grade Redistribution.* At the end of the semester, the classroom equalises everyone's final-exam grades through a form of taxation. Say the average final-exam grade is 70 -- but not everyone has a 70. I will remedy this by taking ten points from the student who gets an 80, and award them to the student who gets a 60. Similarly, a student with a perfect 100 would be "taxed" thirty points to help the student who received a 40. 

2. *Guaranteed Minimum Grade. * Notwithstanding the above, I will introduce a provision that guarantees that all students get a grade sufficient for an honours degree. The primary goal of the guaranteed minimum grade system is to reduce poor grades and reduce testing. The added benefit here (important!) is that reduction in the number of tests will save tons of time for administering the tests. Not only that but students who are no longer tested will naturally spend the free time studying thus further enhancing their grades. 

3. *Homework Sharing.* A student's homework is not his or hers (or its) but instead belongs to all the students. And this is why homework is done in two phases. Phase 1: "Normal" submission of homework. Phase 2: The classroom permits the so-called "weaker" students free access to any other student's homework for inclusion in their own assignments. Not only does this tend to equalize outcomes, but it also stresses the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

4. *Disability-Adjusted Final Grades.* Students will be given further enhancement to their final grade if they can demonstrate how a learning handicap has held them back. The evidence I need is poor scholarship, as this in itself is proof of a learning disability. Other evidence can include membership in any disadvantaged community which can claim educational challenges from past centuries.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Lol. Thats a good start. 

Grades? I didn't think they gave those out anymore.

Edit- Also, bill C-16 passed. Referring to students as "his or her or its" is obsolete. There is officially 71 genders so far and counting, not referring to one by their preferred pronoun or identity can land you in prison.


----------



## Just a Guy

Mordko, 

I think your missing the point. You're only giving everyone 70%. In reality, we should be taking grades from future generations so that everyone achieves their maximum potential and gets 100% despite their actual achievements. Then they can all go out and get top dollar for their work. 

Now, the children of this generation may worry that their grades will suffer having dropped say 30% before they even were born, but that's okay, their kids will contribute to their grades. Sure that leaves them with only 10% at best on average, but they can borrow from their kids...leaving those kids at -20% to start, but then that's several generations away and won't really matter as the original beneficiaries are probably close to being dead anyway, and the next two generations were all much smarter (having 100% averages to prove it) than that last bunch of failures...

Kids these days are always wastrels.


----------



## Moneytoo

*this is sparta*

C'mon, guys, how 'bout some constructive ideas? I for one was researching home growing marijuana kits:



> The Leaf resembles a refrigerator and is meant to completely take care of the growing process once seeds are planted. It’ll eventually retail for $2,990 and only ships to the US and Canada. For comparison, Grobo costs $1,399 and works in much the same way.


Growing marijuana at home could become as easy as plugging in a machine and walking away


----------



## mordko

Just a Guy said:


> Mordko,
> 
> I think your missing the point. You're only giving everyone 70%. In reality, we should be taking grades from future generations so that everyone achieves their maximum potential and gets 100% despite their actual achievements. Then they can all go out and get top dollar for their work.


Far more important than the actual borrowing from future generations is the strength of the scientific community and progress in global warming models. 

Example............a university may borrow 30% for each of its 1000 students today. In 20 years it may cost 60% to get all the students to 100%.

If a university borrows the 30% and still owes 30% for a 60% asset in 20 years, that is a good use of debt.

Some people unnecessarily freak out about overall debt numbers.


----------



## mordko

5Lgreenback said:


> Edit- Also, bill C-16 passed. Referring to students as "his or her or its" is obsolete.


No, they just make them get up before class and tell the teacher whether they are a "he", a "she" or an "it". Then the teacher puts a sticker on each student and names it/he/she according to his/hers/its wishes. And this is not a joke.


----------



## Just a Guy

We could just hand out PhD's with honours along with birth certificates. Cutting out the need for any future education spending whatsoever and that's not even talking all the money we'll save on bureaucracy.


----------



## Moneytoo




----------



## gibor365

mordko said:


> No, they just make them get up before class and tell the teacher whether they are a "he", a "she" or an "it". Then the teacher puts a sticker on each student and names it/he/she according to his/hers/its wishes. And this is not a joke.


Yeah, really...this is the biggest problem in Canada


----------



## wraphter

This is Sparta

That is a line from the movie "300" where the Spartan leader rejects the Persian emissary and pushes him into the pit.

The phrase now means that we are tough and don't compromise.

Sparta was a state noted for its military discipline and strictness.

Athens was noted for its democracy, philosophy and art.

It made a great contribution to Western Civilization which we all benefit from.


https://youtu.be/QkWS9PiXekE

Regarding the growing of marijuana at home which moneytoo describes, the huge "War on Drugs" can be viewed as an oppressive project to increase the domination and control of the state at the expense of the individual and providing employment for many police, special agents,
prison guards,court employees ,judges, psychologists ,doctors, nurses,social workers and the like.

We are Sparta.
No.
We are Athens.


----------



## sags

This is why systemic change is coming and can't be stopped.

View attachment 14954


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> This is why systemic change is coming and can't be stopped.
> 
> View attachment 14954


Gimme, gimme, gimme...that's all we hear from the socialists. They never ask what they can do to improve their lot in life, they just want to enjoy the fruits of other people's labour.

sags...how many more times does runaway socialism have to fail before you grasp that it will never work?


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Re-distributing wealth doesn't create prosperity....it takes from the prosperous. It now takes too much and uses that money to buy votes, which has created a cycle of dependency.


I thought you just said that Canada had exactly the right mix and you wouldn't change anything?


----------



## andrewf

5Lgreenback said:


> There's all kinds of flaws with the "Scandanavian socialism is great" argument if one wants to look into it.
> 
> Heres a fun video on the freshly popular term that Bernie Sanders popularized. Democratic Socialism, cause this time, we're gonna do it right.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvF_D4tVfYU


I would not say Scandinavia is perfect or that Canada should try to replicate. But we can learn from what they do.

At the end of the day, I don't think we should be afraid of small scale pilots to understand how UBI works. People are hyperventilating about a pilot, when Canada already has UBI elements with OAS/GIS for the wrinklies and working income tax benefit for working age folks, and child tax benefit for the breeders. It's not branded as UBI, but it shares a lot of the same mechanics and Canada hasn't turned into a Mad Max-esque wasteland as a result. I suggest the critics breathe into a paper bag for a while and await the evidence of UBI studies such as the one planned in Ontario.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Where's the logic in giving out and then taking it back in the first place? Oh wait, government bureaucracy to add to the cost...


What bureaucracy? The existing income tax collection and refund infrastructure would serve.

And there would be no hand-out for most people, because most people earn too much to keep anything of the UBI. The UBI is not intended to have much effect for well-off people, it is to provide an alternative for welfare/disability for those with low-income. Currently, those on welfare and disability are expressly forbidden to work, or they lose benefits. Sounds like a recipe to force people to stay at home.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> I've changed my mind. Inequality is indeed a bad thing. Rather than just talk, I am going to do something about it.
> 
> See, every now and then I get invited to read lectures at one of the local unis. This year will be very special. Here is the plan:
> 
> 1. *Grade Redistribution.* At the end of the semester, the classroom equalises everyone's final-exam grades through a form of taxation. Say the average final-exam grade is 70 -- but not everyone has a 70. I will remedy this by taking ten points from the student who gets an 80, and award them to the student who gets a 60. Similarly, a student with a perfect 100 would be "taxed" thirty points to help the student who received a 40.
> 
> 2. *Guaranteed Minimum Grade. * Notwithstanding the above, I will introduce a provision that guarantees that all students get a grade sufficient for an honours degree. The primary goal of the guaranteed minimum grade system is to reduce poor grades and reduce testing. The added benefit here (important!) is that reduction in the number of tests will save tons of time for administering the tests. Not only that but students who are no longer tested will naturally spend the free time studying thus further enhancing their grades.
> 
> 3. *Homework Sharing.* A student's homework is not his or hers (or its) but instead belongs to all the students. And this is why homework is done in two phases. Phase 1: "Normal" submission of homework. Phase 2: The classroom permits the so-called "weaker" students free access to any other student's homework for inclusion in their own assignments. Not only does this tend to equalize outcomes, but it also stresses the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
> 
> 4. *Disability-Adjusted Final Grades.* Students will be given further enhancement to their final grade if they can demonstrate how a learning handicap has held them back. The evidence I need is poor scholarship, as this in itself is proof of a learning disability. Other evidence can include membership in any disadvantaged community which can claim educational challenges from past centuries.


Strawman.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> I thought you just said that Canada had exactly the right mix and you wouldn't change anything?


I said Canada has a decent mix. Bringing in UBI will change things, and not in a good way. That's why I'm against it....it's a change in the wrong direction.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> This is why systemic change is coming and can't be stopped.
> 
> View attachment 14954


I think some here are hoping for a replay of the French revolution.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> I said Canada has a decent mix. Bringing in UBI will change things, and not in a good way. That's why I'm against it....it's a change in the wrong direction.


You are saying we do 'too much' and you would change the status quo. Which is it?


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Strawman.


It's always tough when socialist logic is applied anywhere other than to the very narrow window that some people selectively choose, isn't it?


----------



## Moneytoo

wraphter said:


> This is Sparta


This is Captcha lol My account had a glitch more than a year ago, and the only way to restore my ability to post was to turn on Captcha. Sometimes I find having to prove that I'm human in every post annoying, but more often than not it looks like the algorithm uses machine learning (a Computer Science subfield that I find fascinating ) Current one is "lunatic fridge" for example, the previous one was "she's a witch" lol 



> Regarding the growing of marijuana at home which moneytoo describes, the huge "War on Drugs" can be viewed as an oppressive project to increase the domination and control of the state at the expense of the individual and providing employment for many police, special agents,
> prison guards,court employees ,judges, psychologists ,doctors, nurses,social workers and the like.


That was actually a sarcastic attempt to come up with something that everyone can make at home to help the economy, like Chinese Backyard furnaces  But your interpretation is also interesting - thanks!


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> You are saying we do 'too much' and you would change the status quo. Which is it?


That's it...keep on nitpicking my comments. That way you don't have to discuss the many flaws of UBI.


----------



## sags

People are confusing free market capitalism with aristocracies.

Inherited wealth creates aristocracies, and is certainly not what the founders of the US sought to recreate after leaving Europe.

Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Adam Smith railed against inherited wealth as a danger to society that impinged democracy itself.

Herbert Hoover called the wealthy families.........the "idle rich", and Theodore Roosevelt sought to break up great family fortunes.

The original concept was that people "owned" the land and assets while they were alive, and then they were passed back to the country for future generations. Over time, the wealthy used their power and financial influence to keep their assets all to themselves.

The US will go full circle back to it's origins. It is just a matter of time until the current form of capitalism implodes.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> It's always tough when socialist logic is applied anywhere other than to the very narrow window that some people selectively choose, isn't it?


No, it's a strawman because no one is advocating for eliminating inequality of outcome. So, it is an example of the strawman fallacy to argue against policies that create perfect equality of outcome.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> The original concept was that people "owned" the land and assets while they were alive, and then they were passed back to the country for future generations.


So this guy for example, wouldn't count on his 2M inheritance: http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...-when-inheriting-a-large-sum-of-money-(C-2M-) ? Or you'd have some kind of limit how much can be kept by family? 



Riverdale DIY said:


> Something in the range of C$1.75-2M. It is comprised primarily of two UK properties which I have no intention nor desire to keep. *This amount is after the 40% UK inheritance tax comes off the top. *
> ...
> Current situation:
> 
> Aged 50, earning $35K/year and wife earns $10K/year etc.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> What bureaucracy? The existing income tax collection and refund infrastructure would serve.
> 
> And there would be no hand-out for most people, because most people earn too much to keep anything of the UBI. The UBI is not intended to have much effect for well-off people, it is to provide an alternative for welfare/disability for those with low-income. Currently, those on welfare and disability are expressly forbidden to work, or they lose benefits. Sounds like a recipe to force people to stay at home.


Okay, on one hand you say that the current system doesn't work because claw backs make them "forbidden to work", this right after (without actual thought being put into your statement) you say UBI will work because claw backs will take away the benefits for the wealthy. Will clawbacks not apply to the poor? Won't that make them "forbidden to work" the same as the current system?

As for the bureaucracy, I thought some of the UBI "benefits" would be reduced bureaucracy, thus savings. Now you want them to do even more work. When I was in government it cost about $30 just to process cutting a cheque. Let's do that for 35M every month, then process the collections of it back again. Just a waste of taxpayer money. 

Let's spend millions "rebranding" welfare to UBI people will love it...typical government idea.


----------



## andrewf

^I have already explained the difference between a 50% clawback and 100% clawback (ie, marginal tax rate). The rate would apply to everyone, but a $10k UBI would be 'clawed back' for anyone earning >$20k in market income with a 50% MTR. This is not complicated.

Saying that the existing income tax collection infrastructure would serve to manage a UBI makes no commentary on what would happen to the rest of the social welfare bureaucracy. Also, it is wrong to assume cheques would be mailed to everyone. Might as well assume it would be paid in TTC tokens sent by carrier pigeon while we are making things up.


----------



## mordko

bass player said:


> It's always tough when socialist logic is applied anywhere other than to the very narrow window that some people selectively choose, isn't it?


It's tough when the socialist logic is applied anywhere any time. It was tough in Russia, Poland, Hungary and GDR. It was tough in China. It is tough in Cuba, N Korea and Venezuela. 

Sweden was never socialist; all the wealth was produced by the likes of Volvo and Motorolla. The nanny state did go out of control but they have reversed the course and these days the state is no bigger than in Canada (both countries mark tax freedom day in June). 

The interesting thing about Sweden is out of control trade unions and immigration policies. They brought in a bunch of uneducated underclass and now nobody can hire them because the cost of labour is so high and the rigid labour market is forcing even locally trained workers to go abroad. US, Canada and UK are far better at integrating immigrants but Sweden keeps importing crazy numbers it can't employ. Should be fun going forward.


----------



## olivaw

UBI has nothing to do with socialism or immigration policy. It's about tax policy and social programs. 

As *Andrew Coyne says*, 



> OK, so maybe a one-size-fits-all basic income guarantee is out of reach, at least at one go. It’s still possible to move in that direction, one piece at a time. Indeed, we already have what amount to basic income guarantees for children in the new Canada Child Benefit (combining the old Universal Child Care Benefit, the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit Supplement) and the elderly, via Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The federal Working Income Tax Benefit is a basic income for the working-age population, in embryonic form.
> 
> Could the WITB be merged with OAS/GIS, the basic personal exemption, other federal and provincial tax credits, and provincial social assistance programs to create a universal adult income guarantee? In principle, certainly. Would it be worth some additional cost? Again, yes: ensuring no one goes without, while restoring work incentives and granting greater choice in public services, would seem one of the best uses of public funds imaginable.
> 
> But getting federal and provincial governments to agree on this? Alas, some things are too much to hope for.


----------



## bass player

> Again, yes: ensuring no one goes without, while restoring work incentives and granting greater choice in public services, would seem one of the best uses of public funds imaginable.


Why is UBI need to restore work incentives? Do we have to bribe people to go to work? If they won't work while on welfare, what magically changes with UBI?


----------



## like_to_retire

bass player said:


> ....If they won't work while on welfare, what magically changes with UBI?


What changes is that UBI pays twice as much as welfare without any hoops to jump through. What a deal.

ltr


----------



## 5Lgreenback

like_to_retire said:


> What changes is that UBI pays twice as much as welfare without any hoops to jump through. What a deal.
> 
> ltr


And thats just initially. To think that this plan won't morph into a monster is rather naive. 

After this plan is implemented and not working out so well, we'll be hearing the same cries about it being morally justified to take even more from those who have to sacrifice and earn a living, along with a swath of more crazy ideas. Or maybe, like many other socialist civilizations, it might even appear to work great for a decade or so before everything crumbles.


----------



## bass player

5Lgreenback said:


> And thats just initially. To think that this plan won't morph into a monster is rather naïve.


Around here, a 1-bedroom apartment in a slightly less desirable part of town (but still reasonably safe) goes for $800 a month or less. A lazy couple making $2,000 a month on UBI could live well enough that they would never have to work again, and all incentive to even consider looking for work would be completely removed.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

bass player said:


> Around here, a 1-bedroom apartment in a slightly less desirable part of town (but still reasonably safe) goes for $800 a month or less. A lazy couple making $2,000 a month on UBI could live well enough that they would never have to work again, and all incentive to even consider looking for work would be completely removed.


At this point, I would do the same. 

Of course, everything will look great when this "experiment" is done in isolated test areas for a short term period.


----------



## like_to_retire

5Lgreenback said:


> And that's just initially. To think that this plan won't morph into a monster is rather naive.
> 
> After this plan is implemented and not working out so well, we'll be hearing the same cries about it being morally justified to take even more from those who have to sacrifice and earn a living, along with a swath of more crazy ideas. Or maybe, like many other socialist civilizations, it might even appear to work great for a decade or so before everything crumbles.


You're exactly right 5L, and that's the important point that's usually missed. Just as I could start spending much more than I make for quite some time, and enjoy a much richer lifestyle, eventually, as they say, the "chickens will come home to roost". By that time the universal income will have become ingrained and how could we be so cruel to terminate it.

The universal income should be nipped in the bud.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Why is UBI need to restore work incentives? Do we have to bribe people to go to work? If they won't work while on welfare, what magically changes with UBI?


Surely you are capable of grasping this:

On welfare, a recipient faces 100% marginal tax rate. They keep nothing of what they earn until they claw their way entirely out of welfare. This is called the welfare trap.

With a UBI, a recipient can keep a good portion of what they earn, and so have an incentive to make an income, even if they cannot make enough to escape the equivalent of the welfare trap.

This is basic microeconomics.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Surely you are capable of grasping this:
> 
> On welfare, a recipient faces 100% marginal tax rate. They keep nothing of what they earn until they claw their way entirely out of welfare. This is called the welfare trap.
> 
> With a UBI, a recipient can keep a good portion of what they earn, and so have an incentive to make an income, even if they cannot make enough to escape the equivalent of the welfare trap.
> 
> This is basic microeconomics.


Surely you are capable of grasping this (what I recently posted):

"Around here, a 1-bedroom apartment in a slightly less desirable part of town (but still reasonably safe) goes for $800 a month or less. A lazy couple making $2,000 a month on UBI could live well enough that they would never have to work again, *and all incentive to even consider looking for work would be completely removed*."

Let's call it the UBI trap...


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Around here, a 1-bedroom apartment in a slightly less desirable part of town (but still reasonably safe) goes for $800 a month or less. A lazy couple making $2,000 a month on UBI could live well enough that they would never have to work again, and all incentive to even consider looking for work would be completely removed.


Would you be satisfied with this lifestyle? Why do you earn any more than $2k per month? I certainly earn a lot more than this, and yet I magically find the will to earn it. It's like you don't believe in gravity.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Would you be satisfied with this lifestyle? Why do you earn any more than $2k per month? I certainly earn a lot more than this, and yet I magically find the will to earn it. It's like you don't believe in gravity.


I wouldn't be satisfied...I had a drive to be financially independent and wanted to own a house, so I worked for 35 years to make it happen. But, there are a LOT of people who would embrace/take advantage of it. If you think otherwise, it's like you don't believe in gravity...


----------



## olivaw

like_to_retire said:


> You're exactly right 5L, and that's the important point that's usually missed. Just as I could start spending much more than I make for quite some time, and enjoy a much richer lifestyle, eventually, as they say, the "chickens will come home to roost". By that time the universal income will have become ingrained and how could we be so cruel to terminate it.
> 
> The universal income should be nipped in the bud.
> 
> ltr


I think the important point that's is really being missed is that we don't know how it will work out. Let's investigate the idea before we reject it based on the gut feeling that it can't possibly work out.

What we know right now:
- It will not be utopian. There will still be addiction, mental illness, domestic violence etc. 
- It will not lead to the collapse of Canadian society. People will still work to pay for vacations, nice homes, new clothes and consumer goods. 
- UBI/GMI appears to be supported across idealogical lines and opposed across idealogical lines.


----------



## andrewf

^And importantly, a UBI will not be very generous.


----------



## like_to_retire

olivaw said:


> I think the important point that's is really being missed is that we don't know how it will work out in Ontario. Let's investigate the idea before we reject it based on the gut feeling that it can't possibly work out.


I think we already can anticipate how the Basic Income Pilot Project will work out. It will be a huge success, considering they are increasing the participants income by 100% and then when it's over will ask, "How was that for you?".

ltr


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> ^And importantly, a UBI will not be very generous.


What do you consider "not very generous"? Perhaps you should do some research. This took 10 seconds to find:

"About 4,000 recipients will be randomly chosen from the three regions. One group will start receiving the so-called basic income as soon as this summer, and the remainder will be part of the control group, which will not receive any payments, according to a provincial spokesman. *A single person could receive up to $16,989 per year. A couple could get up to $24,027 annually*."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...sic-income-and-who-qualifies/article34795127/


----------



## wraphter

*Bah! Humbug!*

Some of you guys are starting to sound like Scrooge:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46/46-h/46-h.htm



> Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster. The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice. A frosty rime was on his head, and on his eyebrows, and his wiry chin. He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dog-days; and didn’t thaw it one degree at Christmas.
> External heat and cold had little influence on Scrooge. No warmth could warm, no wintry weather chill him. No wind that blew was bitterer than he, no falling snow was more intent upon its purpose, no pelting rain less open to entreaty.


----------



## Just a Guy

I'm wondering how much the UBI supporters on here currently give to charity? Many seem genuinely concerned with their plight, and some have even commented that they make more money than average...so, why not freely donate all your earnings above average?

Before you say "that's not the same", or I already make a paltry donation, why is it right for you to demand that of others? I'd bet none of them donate any significant portion of their incomes, nor do they even volunteer working with the actual poor. I spend a lot of time working with the poor, I see those in need daily, I also see those who aren't in need daily.

Maybe spend some time in reality, working with them, before trying to force your theories on how to improve things. 

Remember too, "tax the rich" applies to anyone above average, if your all for it, lead by example and give up your riches first, if you aren't willing to, what does that say about you?


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> I'm wondering how much the UBI supporters on here currently give to charity?


Studies have shown that those who vote right give more to charity than those who vote left.


----------



## wraphter

Phil Collins : Another Day In Paradise


https://youtu.be/Qt2mbGP6vFI




> She calls out to the man on the street
> 'Sir, can you help me?
> It's cold and I've nowhere to sleep,
> Is there somewhere you can tell me?'
> 
> He walks on, doesn't look back
> He pretends he can't hear her
> Starts to whistle as he crosses the street
> Seems embarrassed to be there
> 
> Oh think twice, it's another day for you and me in paradise
> Oh think twice, 'cause it's just another day for you,
> You and me in paradise, think about it
> 
> She calls out to the man on the street
> He can see she's been crying
> She's got blisters on the soles of her feet
> She can't walk but she's trying
> 
> Oh think twice, 'cause it's another day for you and me in paradise
> Oh think twice, it's just another day for you,
> You and me in paradise, think about it
> 
> Oh Lord, is there nothing more anybody can do
> Oh Lord, there must be something you can say
> 
> You can tell from the lines on her face
> You can see that she's been there
> Probably been moved on from every place
> Cause she didn't fit in there
> 
> Oh think twice, 'cause another day for you and me in paradise
> Oh think twice, it's just another day for you,
> You and me in paradise, just think about it, think about it
> 
> It's just another day for you and me in paradise
> It's just another day for you and me in paradise, paradise
> It's just another day for you and me in paradise
> It's just another day for you and me in paradise, paradise
> It's just another day for you and me
> It's just another day for you and me
> It's just another day for you and me in paradise
> In paradise


----------



## Moneytoo

Recommended Viewing (just watched it lol):


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> What do you consider "not very generous"? Perhaps you should do some research. This took 10 seconds to find:
> 
> "About 4,000 recipients will be randomly chosen from the three regions. One group will start receiving the so-called basic income as soon as this summer, and the remainder will be part of the control group, which will not receive any payments, according to a provincial spokesman. *A single person could receive up to $16,989 per year. A couple could get up to $24,027 annually*."
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...sic-income-and-who-qualifies/article34795127/


I think I should direct you to an article on design of experiments.

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


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> I'm wondering how much the UBI supporters on here currently give to charity? Many seem genuinely concerned with their plight, and some have even commented that they make more money than average...so, why not freely donate all your earnings above average?
> 
> Before you say "that's not the same", or I already make a paltry donation, why is it right for you to demand that of others? I'd bet none of them donate any significant portion of their incomes, nor do they even volunteer working with the actual poor. I spend a lot of time working with the poor, I see those in need daily, I also see those who aren't in need daily.
> 
> Maybe spend some time in reality, working with them, before trying to force your theories on how to improve things.
> 
> Remember too, "tax the rich" applies to anyone above average, if your all for it, lead by example and give up your riches first, if you aren't willing to, what does that say about you?


Why should the government pave the road in front of your house? Once you donate your entire income to maintaining the road in front of your house, then you can consider asking anyone else to help pay. Blah blah blah.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Studies have shown that those who vote right give more to charity than those who vote left.


Also: less educated. Can't win them all.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Also: less educated. Can't win them all.


Education has nothing to do with intelligence.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

andrewf said:


> Also: less educated. Can't win them all.


Thats true, but only if you 'feel' liberal arts degrees, feminist degrees, ethnic studies and lesbian dance theory courses are education. 

Stick to the STEM stuff and things might look a bit different.


----------



## wraphter

bass player said:


> Education has nothing to do with intelligence.


The level of educational attainment and IQ are highly correlated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_education#Education_and_Intelligence_Interaction



> Evidence shows that education and intelligence have a complex interaction, and this is demonstrated in a longitudinal study by Richards and Sacker.[7] They collected data from the British 1946 birth cohort and investigated how childhood intelligence was predictive of other outcomes later in life including educational attainment and mental ability at 53 years old (using the National Adult Reading Test). The results of the experiment produced a path model in which mental ability at 8 years old was predictive of both educational attainment by 26, and mental ability at age 53.


----------



## bass player

5Lgreenback said:


> Thats true, but only if you 'feel' liberal arts degrees, feminist degrees, ethnic studies and lesbian dance theory courses are education.
> 
> Stick to the STEM stuff and things might look a bit different.


Why the "educated" people at universities so threatened by differing opinions to the point where they have to resort to meltdowns, banning people, violence, and arson? Surely, if an opposing viewpoint was so wrong, it would collapse under it own weight.

What are they scared of?


----------



## andrewf

5Lgreenback said:


> Thats true, but only if you 'feel' liberal arts degrees, feminist degrees, ethnic studies and lesbian dance theory courses are education.
> 
> Stick to the STEM stuff and things might look a bit different.


Evidence please. In my experience, not likely.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Why should the government pave the road in front of your house? Once you donate your entire income to maintaining the road in front of your house, then you can consider asking anyone else to help pay. Blah blah blah.


Well, I probably pay more property tax than 90% or more of the people on this board,,so that's probably not a good example...

Btw, if you want to keep arguing about politics and education (especially without any supporting facts) can I suggest you start a new thread, it's easy to do.


----------



## wraphter

5Lgreenback said:


> Thats true, but only if you 'feel' liberal arts degrees, feminist degrees, ethnic studies and lesbian dance theory courses are education.
> 
> Stick to the STEM stuff and things might look a bit different.


For a healthy society you need both arts and sciences. The practice of free speech is a core value of our democracy. Socrates,Plato,Descartes,whatever, they are essential to our way of life.


----------



## bass player

wraphter said:


> For a healthy society you need both arts and sciences. The practice of free speech is a core value of our democracy. Socrates,Plato,Descartes,whatever, they are essential to our way of life.


I agree that free speech is valuable, so it troubles me when one group of people continually try to silence differing opinions. Many of those people are the so-called "educated" university students.


----------



## Moneytoo

wraphter said:


> For a healthy society you need both arts and sciences. The practice of free speech is a core value of our democracy. Socrates,Plato,Descartes,whatever, they are essential to our way of life.


We go to Nuit Blanche every year, and are familiar with Group of 7, but I wouldn't be able to name a single Canadian philosopher... 

When our daughter expressed the desire to become a writer/journalist in mid-school, we suggested she can write in her spare time, but the profession should help her earn a decent living. We just talked about it the other day, discussing the other thread - about useless degrees  Maybe it's more important in immigrants circles, as so far we only know about one girl who got English Major - and wrote a book, while working at Tim Horton's (became a manager there, making us fully appreciate "Would you like some fries with that?" joke)


----------



## wraphter

bass player said:


> I agree that free speech is valuable, so it troubles me when one group of people continually try to silence differing opinions. Many of those people are the so-called "educated" university students.


Yes I agree with you bass. Some opinions are excluded as politically incorrect.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

wraphter said:


> For a healthy society you need both arts and sciences. The practice of free speech is a core value of our democracy. Socrates,Plato,Descartes,whatever, they are essential to our way of life.



I agree with you, I'm not advocating to eliminate liberal arts degrees and in fact many of them are essential and interesting subjects. (Gender studies on the other hand is very damaging and needs to be called out for what it is, feminist propaganda). Psychology and history have always interested me.


----------



## olivaw

like_to_retire said:


> I think we already can anticipate how the Basic Income Pilot Project will work out. It will be a huge success, considering they are increasing the participants income by 100% and then when it's over will ask, "How was that for you?".
> 
> ltr


Gotta give you one - this gave me a good laugh. 

Studies are not supposed to be done this way but sometimes this is exactly how they are done. I had the opportunity to work at the Alberta WCB early in my career. It was a good employer and many of the employees were dedicated, hard working individuals. Unfortunately politicians repeatedly formed commissions to study the organization. The final report always included complaints from companies about the premiums and complaints from workers about the benefits. The minister would, of course, conclude that the current system wasn't working and invest a bunch of taxpayer dollars into an unnecessary reorganization. :bull_head:


----------



## sags

Opportunity knocks............

_In 1949, Lee moved to New York City and took a job as an airline reservation agent, writing fiction in her spare time. Having written several long stories, Lee found an agent in November 1956. The following month, at Michael Brown's East 50th Street townhouse, she received a gift of a year's wages from friends with a note: "You have one year off from your job to write whatever you please. Merry Christmas_

Harper Lee used the opportunity provided by her friends to write "To Kill a Mockingbird", which is recognized as one of the greatest novels of all time.

A UBI provides opportunity. Some will do nothing with it. Others will do good things with it, and a few will do great things.

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


----------



## sags

Moneytoo said:


> We go to Nuit Blanche every year, and are familiar with Group of 7, but I wouldn't be able to name a single Canadian philosopher...


Seriously, you never heard of Pierre Elliot Trudeau ?


----------



## Just a Guy

Just finished channel surfing...was watching a few minutes of dragons den. They were doing backgrounds on all of the dragons. Most are immigrants, came from nothing, had no handouts and are some of Canada's most successful people.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Just finished channel surfing...was watching a few minutes of dragons den. They were doing backgrounds on all of the dragons. Most are immigrants, came from nothing, had no handouts and are some of Canada's most successful people.


Hard working people with drive rarely use government programs for support...but if they do, it's almost always short term help while in a difficult situation rather than an ongoing lifestyle choice.

UBI will increase the number of people who think that it's a feasible lifestyle choice.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags, did you ever read Harper lee's second novel (which was really an early draft of the same novel)? Does she get a free ride for her entire life because she wrote one book? Or, could she write a book and do something else productive with her life? She lived to be 89. She was quite well off because of the book, yet just lived off the benefits instead of giving her money to other aspiring writers. She never even did interviews or inspirational talks. She never created jobs for the poor and downtrodden, yet personally benefitted off them by telling a tale about their lives. Probably didn't even repay the gift which led to her success. She even sued her son-in-law to keep the money in her hands. 

I can see why we should all try to emulate this woman as opposed to greedy business men like...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Herjavec
Who's family came to Canada with $20

Or 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlene_Dickinson
Who was a divorced mother of 4 with no post secondary education (she was a housewife until 31)

Or
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Treliving
An rcmp officer

Or
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Brett_Wilson
Another self made man 

All of these people are philanthropic, create jobs, and didn't get handouts.

I think everyone should read this part of robert's bio, especially his father's first piece of advice...



> Herjavec was born in 1962 in Varaždin, Croatia[7] (formerly Yugoslavia), and grew up in Zbjeg.[8] In 1970,[7] at the age of eight, the family left the country, which had previously incarcerated Herjavec's father for speaking out against the regime.[9][10] According to Herjavec, "He’d drink a little too much, say bad things about Communism, and got thrown into jail 22 times for being an anti-Communist."[11] Herjavec's family arrived in Halifax with a single suitcase[12] and only $20.[5] The family eventually settled in Toronto, where they lived in the basement of a family friend's home for 18 months.[13] For Herjavec, who spoke no English,[14] the transition proved difficult. Having grown up on a farm and raised by his grandmother among neighbours with similar lifestyles, he now found himself in a much poorer economic class than his neighbours.[9] Herjavec's father got a job in a Mississauga factory, making $76 a week—or $464.26 adjusted for inflation, in 2015.[5][15] Herjavec cites his father, whom he describes as "a really, really tough guy", as a major influence in his life. Herjavec has described a seminal memory of his, *when he came home one day to complain to his mother that his classmates were making fun of him. His father who used to walk to work to save money on bus fare, came home, and when he heard what his son described, instructed his son never to complain,* which became a guiding principle in Herjavec's life, one which he says sparked his sense of perseverance.[6] Another influential episode in his youth came when Herjavec's mother was persuaded by a travelling salesman to buy a vacuum cleaner for $500, which was seven weeks' salary. As a result, Herjavec swore his family would never be taken advantage of again.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> Seriously, you never heard of Pierre Elliot Trudeau ?


Not as a philosopher, no 



> ...the revolutionary theories of Georges Sorel and Leon Trotsky all had appeal. Although Trudeau hesitated between being a “philosopher” of the revolution or a “man of action,” he certainly chose action in the streets during the conscription plebiscite of 27 April 1942...


http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/trudeau_pierre_elliott_22E.html


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Just finished channel surfing...was watching a few minutes of dragons den. They were doing backgrounds on all of the dragons. Most are immigrants, came from nothing, had no handouts and are some of Canada's most successful people.


I like your scientific approach. Some immigrants did good and ended up as reality TV stars, therefore there us no social immobility.


----------



## Moneytoo

*As I see it*



andrewf said:


> I like your scientific approach. Some immigrants did good and ended up as reality TV stars, therefore there is no social immobility.


Doesn't seem too bad:










Unless it got much worse since 2009


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> I like your scientific approach. Some immigrants did good and ended up as reality TV stars, therefore there us no social immobility.


Curious how many Canadian welfare recipients have become multimillionaires...you should have plenty of scientific papers to present, case studies where government handouts have had such success. Should we pull out the papers which talk about multi-generation welfare families? I have read those. Heck, I see those almost daily. 

I point out people I know who've done it without help, it's pushed off as a fluke, I point out famous people, it gets pushed off as "reality tv stars" discounting what they did before becoming tv personalities. 

So, let's see a few Canadian welfare millionaires...

How about the great Canadian novelist?

Bestselling author? Common it only takes 5000 book sales to be a Canadian bestseller. That should be relatively easy to list off a couple...

Show me my money isn't being wasted, all this benefit that comes to society. Show me UBI has merit.


----------



## sags

There are many examples of people benefiting from government support when they needed it.

J.K. Rowling was a single mother on welfare when she wrote her first Harry Potter book.

_Rowling signed up for welfare benefits, describing her economic status as being "poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless."_


----------



## sags

As a Republican Dr. Ben Carson prescribes to the mandatory ideology that welfare benefits are not productive, but admits that his mother would not have been able to raise a family without food stamps, and he would never have received his education without low income grants for school.

And then there is Oprah Winfrey.........and many others who at one time in their lives relied on social benefits.

The theory that social benefits discourage people from succeeding in life is misguided.


----------



## RBull

^why are you posting people of other nationalities? How about many examples of Canadians?


----------



## wraphter

The link posted by moneytoo doesn't support JAG's contention that a generous social welfare system will decrease social mobility.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...bility_is_lower_in_more_unequal_countries.jpg

The countries with the highest social mobility are Norway,Denmark,Finland and Sweden.
I haven't checked but I imagine their social welfare systems are quite robust.

Upward mobility and generous social welfare seem to be positively correlated.

There may be other factors involved.


----------



## bass player

2 years ago the fans of socialism were praising how well it worked in Venezuela...today they won't even use the word socialism when talking about the country. They now claim that it failed due to everything EXCEPT socialism.


----------



## wraphter

bass player said:


> 2 years ago the fans of socialism were praising how well it worked in Venezuela...today they won't even use the word socialism when talking about the country. They now claim that it failed due to everything EXCEPT socialism.


So if Canada starts a UBI we are going to turn the country into a Venezuela ?
I doubt it. We have a different culture than Venezuela. Historically the Spanish -speaking ex-colonies of Spain have not been as economically
successful as the English -speaking ex-colonies of Britain.


----------



## sags

RBull said:


> ^why are you posting people of other nationalities? How about many examples of Canadians?


I wouldn't have to look very far.

I personally know a family where the father passed away when the kids were young and the mom had a low income job in a shoe factory. They relied on social benefits, subsidized housing, and education loans. Three kids..........one became a CEO of the Canadian division of a big auto company, one became an RN and one became a specialized educator.

I have a friend who is a native and defense lawyer. He was raised in a low income single mom family that needed government help. He told me the impetus for him to obtain a law degree was to validate his mother's efforts working several low income jobs trying to provide for them and he couldn't have done it without help.

Opportunity is the biggest factor in success. This is already well documented by research on successful outcomes.

A basic income provides the opportunity to improve beyond personal circumstance, which would otherwise lead to a cycle of poverty.

Everybody probably knows people who relied on social benefits at some point in their life. People just don't talk about it a lot.

People should consider it a "hand up" instead of always the negative "hand out" connotation.


----------



## Just a Guy

RBull,

Thank you for making my obvious point. Sags, only managed to come up with jk Rowling, Harper lee, Oprah Winfrey, and Ben Carson...not a single canadian. Whereas all my examples were Canadian. I did specifically ask for Canadian examples, even had low standards like the ability to sell 5000 book (so they didn't have to meet international standards). I just realized that at least three of my examples are bestselling authors as well as multimillionaires, not to mention they all started in poverty. 

Sags needs a pool of 7.5B people over many decades to pull from to support his case, 35M using people of today is too small of a sample to find any evidence it seems. Even though "there are many examples", at least in their mind...reality is another matter.

Classic statistics fallacy, can't prove your point, increase the sample size. If you pick a large enough number, you'll always find the anomalies...

If they are "so common", where is one famous one? Where is the poster child? All my examples came from poverty, some were shamed and ridiculed, most are proud of it. Where is the proof that UBI is a better system? Where is the pride, the success stories?

Success cures a lot of things, no one shuns your examples, so why can't you come up with any?


----------



## CalgaryPotato

bass player said:


> I wouldn't be satisfied...I had a drive to be financially independent and wanted to own a house, so I worked for 35 years to make it happen. But, there are a LOT of people who would embrace/take advantage of it. If you think otherwise, it's like you don't believe in gravity...


As unemployment continues to rise though, is it a bad thing that some people aren't forced to work, especially the ones who don't care that much to begin with?

When all of the jobs are automated, is the goal to force everyone to fight tooth and nail for the 5%-10% of jobs that are actually left? Or does it make sense to leave those for the people that actually want to do them?


----------



## sags

Give people a basic income and perhaps they can spend their days starting a new business, or gaining more education or training instead of flipping burgers to survive day to day.

But therein lies the source of concern for some. Who will flip burgers for them ?


----------



## sags

Sorry JAG....but none of the "dragons" appear to have started out in poverty. Perhaps their parents or grandparents did.......but they didn't.


----------



## Moneytoo

CalgaryPotato said:


> As unemployment continues to rise though, is it a bad thing that some people aren't forced to work, especially the ones who don't care that much to begin with?
> 
> When all of the jobs are automated, is the goal to force everyone to fight tooth and nail for the 5%-10% of jobs that are actually left? Or does it make sense to leave those for the people that actually want to do them?


From the link posted by olivaw, it's not gonna happen any time soon 



> Neither is a basic income needed as a substitute for wage labour, as some advocates contend: robots are no more likely to make humans obsolete in the 21st century than threshing machines did in the 18th.)


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Sorry JAG....but none of the "dragons" appear to have started out in poverty. Perhaps their parents or grandparents did.......but they didn't.


You did read robert's bio right? I did even post it. Entering the country their family had $20? Too rich for you? Should they have been taxed to give that to poorer people? He was alive at that point, grew up poor. 

Arlene Dickensen was a housewife until 31 when she divorced with 3 kids. Took her first job at the company she eventually bought out. 

True, these people didn't like their situations and, guess what, were inspired to change it, note none of them did it by asking for a raise or better paycheque either. From personal experience it doesn't take decades to change ones financial status. It's certainly not overnight, but if you wanted to make more money passively it doesn't take decades.


----------



## sags

_Neither is a basic income needed as a substitute for wage labour, as some advocates contend: robots are no more likely to make humans obsolete in the 21st century than threshing machines did in the 18th.)_

The author of that quote obviously has no knowledge of the evolution of family farms. When my wife lived on her parents farm in Saskatchewan, there were families farming every section of land. Some families lived off the proceeds of quarter sections. With tractors and heavy equipment all those farms disappeared and farms became huge commercial enterprises. All those families my wife knew are all gone and nobody lives out on the land anymore.

So.........yes, threshing machines DID cost a lot of jobs in agriculture.


----------



## Just a Guy

I guess, by your own standards, the only beneficiaries are down to Oprah and JK.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> The author of that quote obviously has no knowledge of the evolution of family farms.
> ...
> So.........yes, threshing machines DID cost a lot of jobs in agriculture.


And how was it handled? I mean, did the government pay to ex-farmers to obtain new skills or sit idle for years, watching the machines do their work?


----------



## bass player

CalgaryPotato said:


> When all of the jobs are automated, is the goal to force everyone to fight tooth and nail for the 5%-10% of jobs that are actually left? Or does it make sense to leave those for the people that actually want to do them?


In other words...why bother working today just in case there may be no jobs left at some indeterminate time in the future? :confused2:


----------



## Just a Guy

Guess what happens if you google "self made Canadian millionaires"?

http://business.financialpost.com/p...ade-and-almost-half-are-immigrants-poll-shows

https://www.narcity.com/ca/on/toronto/lifestyle/8-self-made-millionaires-from-toronto

And plenty more...

When I add the extra "who were on welfare" I got...

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/13/canadas-millionaires-self-made-immigrants-and-women

And a few more such links...

No mention of any being on welfare.


----------



## CalgaryPotato

bass player said:


> In other words...why bother working today just in case there may be no jobs left at some indeterminate time in the future? :confused2:


I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about in this indeterminate time. I'm against a universal income right now to be honest. But I strongly believe that the number of jobs in North America are going to drop sharply over the next 20 years, and at some point we are going to need to address that.

Believe it or don't believe it, but you can't read the news any week without hearing of a major retailer or a newspaper going out of business. Banks are replacing their tellers with ipads, McDonalds are replacing their tellers with computers too. The real estate boom is slowing, and we have way too many realtors right now.


----------



## Moneytoo

CalgaryPotato said:


> Believe it or don't believe it, but you can't read the news any week without hearing of a major retailer or a newspaper going out of business. Banks are replacing their tellers with ipads, McDonalds are replacing their tellers with computers too. The real estate boom is slowing, and we have way too many realtors right now.


Speaking of which, I've been wondering what's gonna happen to all those government workers whose jobs will no longer be needed if UBI replaces all the separate systems? Will they join the UBI recipients - or get moved to another bureaucratic niche?


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> I wouldn't have to look very far.
> 
> I personally know a family where the father passed away when the kids were young and the mom had a low income job in a shoe factory. They relied on social benefits, subsidized housing, and education loans. Three kids..........one became a CEO of the Canadian division of a big auto company, one became an RN and one became a specialized educator.
> 
> I have a friend who is a native and defense lawyer. He was raised in a low income single mom family that needed government help. He told me the impetus for him to obtain a law degree was to validate his mother's efforts working several low income jobs trying to provide for them and he couldn't have done it without help.
> 
> Opportunity is the biggest factor in success. This is already well documented by research on successful outcomes.
> 
> A basic income provides the opportunity to improve beyond personal circumstance, which would otherwise lead to a cycle of poverty.
> 
> Everybody probably knows people who relied on social benefits at some point in their life. People just don't talk about it a lot.
> 
> People should consider it a "hand up" instead of always the negative "hand out" connotation.


In my opinion the common denominator with successful people that came from poverty is their own drive and determination, and to a much lesser degree if at all is financial support. They would thrive regardless of assistance, because they focus on not only safety, security of handouts but on making their own opportunities to be self reliant. The biggest determinant to success is self imposed and comes often from inspiration or desperation. Opportunity is already there but many people focus on why they can't do something or take the easy route. Many people already have a basic income but do not progress further because of this not because potentially a little more income gives them opportunity. 

I know you won't agree with this but it comes down to a major difference in ideology between us. You think all Canadians are simply surviving, need greater intervention and wealth distribution by government and I think most Canadians are doing very well, have tremendous opportunity available and need less government in their pocket. Reading your posts I can see there are MANY other differences. 

I am probably not typical but when I had significant government money available (forgivable government grant for incorporating and employing others) when starting my own business I turned this money down. My accountant and lawyer though I was nuts especially since I was unemployed and also involved in an expensive employment lawsuit. I felt strongly I had to walk my talk and somehow do it on my own, which I did successfully. Anyhow, this probably doesn't matter to you or anyone but I shared only to try and explain with one small example how/why I feel differently. 

While there is good reason to have support programs for those who need and deserve it a program like UBI still has significant potential flaws that could be very costly. I am okay with doing these trials with very careful reviews and public input afterwards. I "hope" there is some efficiency gains in program delivery and most of all significant positive outcomes for those in poverty now and for our society overall. I have my doubts now though. It will be interesting to see the results.


----------



## Moneytoo

RBull said:


> I know you won't agree with this but it comes down to a major difference in ideology between us. You think all Canadians are simply surviving, need greater intervention and wealth distribution by government and I think most Canadians are doing very well, have tremendous opportunity available and need less government in their pocket.


What do you think will happen if this trend continues?



> *CANADIANS STRETCHED TOO THIN*
> 
> Lest there be any doubt that Canadians have taken on too much debt, check out the latest Manulife Bank of Canada survey. Twenty-four per cent of Canadian homeowners reported not having enough cash to cover their bills in the last year. Seventy per cent of mortgage-holding Canadians say they couldn't make their payments if they went up 10 per cent. And one fifth say they have zilch set aside in a rainy day fund.


Just another BNN newsletter


----------



## Just a Guy

Personally, I think Canadians will learn that they can't have everything they want just because they want it. 

When I got hurt, I cut back hard. I didn't cut when it came to food however. I found ways to keep buying quality food for my family. 

In 2007, the USA discovered that the dream of everyone deserves a house was not practical. Canadians will, eventually discover the same. Not everyone can have a house, two cars, an atv, a boat, a lake cabin, a truck, eat out 5 nights a week, buy processed reheat only food, yearly vacations...

Just because you want, doesn't mean you get or are entitled to have.


----------



## andrewf

Moneytoo said:


> Doesn't seem too bad:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it got much worse since 2009


It's a great chart. It reinforces my point that high income inequality is not desirable. JAG has been arguing that high income inequality is fine as long as there is high social mobility. Unfortunately, high inequality/high mobility societies don't seem to exist.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Show me UBI has merit.


That is exactly the point of the Ontario study. You should be pleased.

No one here is advocating rolling out a UBI wholesale. I have seen support for the pilot study, and opposition to the pilot study.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> 2 years ago the fans of socialism were praising how well it worked in Venezuela...today they won't even use the word socialism when talking about the country. They now claim that it failed due to everything EXCEPT socialism.


No one was praising Venezuela. Pics or it didn't happen. Venezuela is run by a bunch of kleptocratic thugs, and has been for decades.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> RBull,
> 
> Thank you for making my obvious point. Sags, only managed to come up with jk Rowling, Harper lee, Oprah Winfrey, and Ben Carson...not a single canadian. Whereas all my examples were Canadian. I did specifically ask for Canadian examples, even had low standards like the ability to sell 5000 book (so they didn't have to meet international standards). I just realized that at least three of my examples are bestselling authors as well as multimillionaires, not to mention they all started in poverty.
> 
> Sags needs a pool of 7.5B people over many decades to pull from to support his case, 35M using people of today is too small of a sample to find any evidence it seems. Even though "there are many examples", at least in their mind...reality is another matter.
> 
> Classic statistics fallacy, can't prove your point, increase the sample size. If you pick a large enough number, you'll always find the anomalies...
> 
> If they are "so common", where is one famous one? Where is the poster child? All my examples came from poverty, some were shamed and ridiculed, most are proud of it. Where is the proof that UBI is a better system? Where is the pride, the success stories?
> 
> Success cures a lot of things, no one shuns your examples, so why can't you come up with any?


Battle of the anecdotes.


----------



## andrewf

CalgaryPotato said:


> As unemployment continues to rise though, is it a bad thing that some people aren't forced to work, especially the ones who don't care that much to begin with?
> 
> When all of the jobs are automated, is the goal to force everyone to fight tooth and nail for the 5%-10% of jobs that are actually left? Or does it make sense to leave those for the people that actually want to do them?


The solution is, I guess, to let them die or to beg on the streets for charity.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> You did read robert's bio right? I did even post it. Entering the country their family had $20? Too rich for you? Should they have been taxed to give that to poorer people? He was alive at that point, grew up poor.
> 
> Arlene Dickensen was a housewife until 31 when she divorced with 3 kids. Took her first job at the company she eventually bought out.
> 
> True, these people didn't like their situations and, guess what, were inspired to change it, note none of them did it by asking for a raise or better paycheque either. From personal experience it doesn't take decades to change ones financial status. It's certainly not overnight, but if you wanted to make more money passively it doesn't take decades.


Arlene received child benefits, which are just UBI for kids (different branding).


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Guess what happens if you google "self made Canadian millionaires"?
> 
> http://business.financialpost.com/p...ade-and-almost-half-are-immigrants-poll-shows
> 
> https://www.narcity.com/ca/on/toronto/lifestyle/8-self-made-millionaires-from-toronto
> 
> And plenty more...
> 
> When I add the extra "who were on welfare" I got...
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/13/canadas-millionaires-self-made-immigrants-and-women
> 
> And a few more such links...
> 
> No mention of any being on welfare.


You don't like welfare. Proponents of UBI also don't like welfare. Sounds like we are all agreed.

OAS, WITB and child tax benefit are all UBI-like social programs. I guess you hate all these and think they make people lazy and quit work?


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> It's a great chart. It reinforces my point that high income inequality is not desirable. JAG has been arguing that high income inequality is fine as long as there is high social mobility. Unfortunately, high inequality/high mobility societies don't seem to exist.


I don't think I ever said high inequality is fine. If anyone can make more money, then there would be less inequality. 

Being able to make money doesn't automatically lead to inequality. 

Now, you may argue it's a zero sum game, that for me to profit, someone else must lose, but that's not the case. If I create jobs, I create more wealth. 

As for not liking welfare, I also never said that (in fact I've said I believe in social nets), what I don't like is free money for doing nothing. It doesn't encourage you to change your life the way facing having nothing does.


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> You don't like welfare. Proponents of UBI also don't like welfare. Sounds like we are all agreed.
> 
> OAS, WITB and child tax benefit are all UBI-like social programs. I guess you hate all these and think they make people lazy and quit work?


If they cover their costs, most people will quit thier work. 

The lion's share of Canadians work simply for their paycheques...or better put, if they didn't get a paycheque or some idiot was willing to give them money to replace it, they would not go to work. These programs reduce innovation and the will to succeed. The few examples that have been given are of people that would have achieved most of what they did, even if they never had a social safety net...actually they probably would have succeeded sooner.


----------



## wraphter

Just a Guy said:


> I don't think I ever said high inequality is fine. If anyone can make more money, then there would be less inequality.
> 
> Being able to make money doesn't automatically lead to inequality.
> 
> Now, you may argue it's a zero sum game, that for me to profit, someone else must lose, but that's not the case. If I create jobs, I create more wealth.
> 
> As for not liking welfare, I also never said that (in fact I've said I believe in social nets), what I don't like is free money for doing nothing. It doesn't encourage you to change your life the way facing having nothing does.


Well if you don't like free money for doing nothing then you would approve of a 100% 
Inheritance tax because you have described the condition of the idle rich, on their super yachts or jetseting around

Money for nothing ,how about the CEO's?

As if they are really worth their outlandish salaries
You have been sold such a bill of goods JAG.


----------



## bass player

wraphter said:


> Money for nothing ,how about the CEO's?
> 
> As if they are really worth their outlandish salaries
> You have been sold such a bill of goods JAG.


If CEO's weren't worth their salaries, no one would pay them that much. Yes, it's really that simple.

What you never see are all those who complain about other people's compensation doing anything about it other than whining and complaining. Not a single one of the complainers is willing to step up and be a CEO for a low salary.


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> If they cover their costs, most people will quit thier work.
> 
> The lion's share of Canadians work simply for their paycheques...or better put, if they didn't get a paycheque or some idiot was willing to give them money to replace it, they would not go to work. These programs reduce innovation and the will to succeed. The few examples that have been given are of people that would have achieved most of what they did, even if they never had a social safety net...actually they probably would have succeeded sooner.


But what are their costs? If people were willing to live on $12k per year, they could work one or two days a week. I'm personally willing to work more to not have to live on such a meagre amount. I think I am not exceptional in this regard.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> I don't think I ever said high inequality is fine. If anyone can make more money, then there would be less inequality.
> 
> Being able to make money doesn't automatically lead to inequality.
> 
> Now, you may argue it's a zero sum game, that for me to profit, someone else must lose, but that's not the case. If I create jobs, I create more wealth.
> 
> As for not liking welfare, I also never said that (in fact I've said I believe in social nets), what I don't like is free money for doing nothing. It doesn't encourage you to change your life the way facing having nothing does.


It doesn't have to be zero sum (it isn't). But having Mark Zuckerbergs and lots of poor people means you see income inequality. Some amount of income inequality is desirable to preserve work incentives. Not too many societies have gotten close to eliminating income inequality (even communists societies tended to have wealthy connected class) but there have been plenty of very unequal societies. The US is very unequal and sees plenty of social problems as a result. We are arguing about being somewhere on the continuum between the Scandinavian countries and the US. We're currently pretty similar to Germany.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> If CEO's weren't worth their salaries, no one would pay them that much. Yes, it's really that simple.
> 
> What you never see are all those who complain about other people's compensation doing anything about it other than whining and complaining. Not a single one of the complainers is willing to step up and be a CEO for a low salary.


I don't think it is so clear-cut. There is a lot of back-scratching and poor corporate governance when it comes to executive compensation.


----------



## Just a Guy

wraphter said:


> Well if you don't like free money for doing nothing then you would approve of a 100%
> Inheritance tax because you have described the condition of the idle rich, on their super yachts or jetseting around
> 
> Money for nothing ,how about the CEO's?
> 
> As if they are really worth their outlandish salaries
> You have been sold such a bill of goods JAG.


I don't see the correlation between being able to earn money if you wanted to and condoning the super rich. The two are not the same at all. 

In no case have I ever championed anything other than self reliance, but people keep trying to twist what I say into inequality, abuse, excess, etc. All trying to justify taking what they are too lazy to try and get themselves (and are unwilling to give themselves too it seems). 

I don't agree with an inheritance tax either. Society did nothing for the money, why should they get it? It's not like governments spend money wisely, they never have and I don't expect they ever will. Having been broke, I particularly hate waste. I imagine daily what I could do just with the wasted money, but that's a different topic. 

I prefer to have a say in where my money, that I worked for, that I earned, goes. There's a term for that...philanthropy. Many wealthy people do it too. Several of the dragons mentioned do it while alive. Rockefeller, Carnegie, buffet, gates...

I asked a while back about donations given from the people after the OPM (other people's money) supporters. Been petty quiet. Guess going after OPM is fine as long as it's not yours. 

That being said, I don't believe kids should inherit enough that their work ethic suffers either. I expect my kids to work, but I'd be thrilled if they set up passive income so that they could do whatever they wanted too. 

Third generation wealth transfer usually ends up with rich welfare cases (though using inherited money not public money). 

My money will be used according to my wishes. I'll choose, as I already do, which groups I'll support. I don't see why other people who didn't earn it should be able to take it from me and decide what's best. If you can't make it yourself, what makes you wiser in how to use it? If I'm wise enough to make
It, I'm probably wiser at spending it effectively too.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> My money will be used according to my wishes. I'll choose, as I already do, which groups I'll support. I don't see why other people who didn't earn it should be able to take it from me and decide what's best. If you can't make it yourself, what makes you wiser in how to use it? If I'm wise enough to make
> It, I'm probably wiser at spending it effectively too.


I agree with that reasoning 100%... :encouragement:


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Society did nothing for the money, why should they get it?


Livable, prosperous societies like Canada do not happen by accident. Civilization & institutions cost money to create and maintain. Buffet gets it:



> When asked why he is so successful, Buffett commonly replies that this is the wrong question. The more important question, he stresses, is why he has so much to work with compared to other people in the world, or compared to previous generations of Americans. How much money would I have “if I were born in Bangladesh,” or “if I was born here in 1700,” he asks.


Why are my taxes being used to pay for the road in front of your house? Like it or not (probably not), you will not agree with how every dollar of public money is spent. What matters is that it is spent and raised in a fair and broadly (not unanimously) acceptable way. That's how democracy works.


----------



## RBull

Moneytoo said:


> What do you think will happen if this trend continues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moneytoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think will happen if this trend continues?
> 
> 
> 
> Just another BNN newsletter
> 
> 
> 
> I already read this earlier today.
> 
> Perhaps you misunderstand my statement or perhaps I was not clear. I am referring to not supporting increased handouts from government.
> 
> The answer to your question is too many Canadians have become immune to the danger of taking on a lot of personal debt, perhaps living above their means and this could end badly. It also seems true most people could care less about government debt and deficits.
Click to expand...


----------



## RBull

Just a Guy said:


> RBull,
> 
> Thank you for making my obvious point. Sags, only managed to come up with jk Rowling, Harper lee, Oprah Winfrey, and Ben Carson...not a single canadian. Whereas all my examples were Canadian. I did specifically ask for Canadian examples, even had low standards like the ability to sell 5000 book (so they didn't have to meet international standards). I just realized that at least three of my examples are bestselling authors as well as multimillionaires, not to mention they all started in poverty.
> 
> Sags needs a pool of 7.5B people over many decades to pull from to support his case, 35M using people of today is too small of a sample to find any evidence it seems. Even though "there are many examples", at least in their mind...reality is another matter.
> 
> Classic statistics fallacy, can't prove your point, increase the sample size. If you pick a large enough number, you'll always find the anomalies...
> 
> If they are "so common", where is one famous one? Where is the poster child? All my examples came from poverty, some were shamed and ridiculed, most are proud of it. Where is the proof that UBI is a better system? Where is the pride, the success stories?
> 
> Success cures a lot of things, no one shuns your examples, so why can't you come up with any?


You're welcome.


----------



## Just a Guy

It must be tough for you to keep intentionally misreading what other people say. Especially since the remainder of the post is about philanthropy, not keeping the money, etc.

I just pointed out that society, which can't manage to save any money of its own, or spend it wisely so that they can live a comfortable life themselves is now trying to take money from those who clearly have that ability and tell them what they should actually be doing with it.

As I said before, in a post you obviously misread, or completely ignored, I pay a lot more property taxes than most people (the road in front of your house is paid by municipal taxes by the way, usually no direct provincial or federal taxes involved). I have no issues with paying property taxes, if I did, I'd sell everything and rent, thereby reducing my tax contribution significantly.

I'm able to pay my property taxes because I use my money intelligently, meaning I have some leftover at the end of the day to pay them. I also pay corporate taxes, income taxes, and many other taxes. My businesses and personal life has to earn enough to not only pay for theses taxes, but also my lifestyle, the lifestyle of my employees, the goods and services needed to run the companies, etc. It's a fine balancing act that not everyone can manage. If I overspend, or miscalculate, my company disappears, so I'd better be good with my handling of money.

Now the government on the other hand, if it overspends, it just borrows more money and raises taxes...let's go after the rich! Nothing lends itself to being responsible with the money. Heck, every tax increase means public unions line up for pay raises, it doesn't matter the tax increase was to cover the last amount of overspending.

I read recently that the NDP in Alberta have a higher deficit than all the other provinces combined, including Ontario. That's impressive. Not only that, but the same article was posting a comment from their premier where she quoted she was looking forward to the new revenue stream from the BC pipelines that they hope get built. Talk about a spending problem.

Why the heck would I want someone like that in charge of my money? Justin isn't much better, nor ontario's premier, nor insert politician of your choice. 

When I give my money to charity, or to support some project, I want to make sure they use my money effectively. I worked hard for it, I expect them to treat it with some respect and produce something worthy of my effort. Not give 1000's to people each month so that they can maybe achieve something if they feel like it, otherwise they could just as well sit around all day no questions asked.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Why are my taxes being used to pay for the road in front of your house? Like it or not (probably not), you will not agree with how every dollar of public money is spent. What matters is that it is spent and raised in a fair and broadly (not unanimously) acceptable way. That's how democracy works.


Most people are okay with roads and hospitals being built, police being funded, and for the funding of most of the basic infrastructure that makes modern living possible. But, many of those same people think it crosses a dangerous line to give people money with no accountability attached to it.

Too many handouts and special interest groups tilts the playing field and a sense of entitlement is created....everyone wants their piece of the pie, but there are no longer enough bakers to make them.


----------



## andrewf

So, I guess if you are opposed to UBI, you think OAS, WITB and child tax benefit should all be eliminated?

I can't help but think you are just knee-jerk opposed to the idea because of your preconceived notion of how it would influence behaviour. The evidence, such as it is, (for instance the Dauphin MB study) suggests that the impact of workforce participation is quite minor. What was observed was more women staying home with children and more students staying in school. The Dauphin study was unfortunately shut down prematurely and the records lost (probably intentionally) before they could be properly and completely analyzed. If you're not an Ontario resident, you should be pleased as punch that the government of Ontario is running a pilot study. If, as you are convinced, UBI is an unmitigated social disaster or merely ineffective from a cost/benefit standpoint, it's unlikely to gain much steam beyond the current piecemeal approach (expansion of child benefits, WITB and senior benefits like OAS/GIS) and we'll continue to muddle along with the unmitigated social disaster that is the welfare trap.


----------



## mrPPincer

Agreed. Science based policy plz. Is it really too much to ask for? It's 2017 for gawd's sake 

Not the 1600s. And Harper's retired.


----------



## Just a Guy

Andrewf, do you ever read anyone's posts or do you just assume you know what I'm thinking and thus know better than I as to what I should do?

If you actually look back and read my postings you'd see that I never said I was against social assistance, even though I didn't benefit from it myself. In fact I explicitly stated that I wouldn't wish others to have to go through what I did. However, that doesn't mean people couldn't survive what I, and many other people, have gone through. 

Why do you insist that we provide a Nanny state? Should we purée all people's food so they don't choke? At what point are people allowed to actually live a life? I bet your in favour of bubble wrapping kids too, sterilize everything they touch, etc.

I've got no issue with limited, short term support, nothing completely comfortable to encourage people to try for something better. 

By the way, you may want to read up on history, a UBI pilot project was already tried in Canada decades ago. People liked the free money (as if anyone wouldn't find free money to be good), but the program ended. You know what? All those people continued to survive and do just fine afterwards, despite UBI termination. 

The benefits didn't seem to justify a continuation of the program however...

But, since people really want free money, let's conduct the experiment again...and again...and again. 

People like free money, just look at Quebec. We need more money, let's ask for separation, again and again, and again. 

No one still has answered the original question of this thread though, 26 pages later and still no idea where the money will come from.


----------



## sags

Consolidating an array of programs into a single program that eliminates the expense of multiple layers of administration, sounds like prudent financial planning to me. The administration savings alone would fund a higher benefit to recipients.

It appears some people prefer the never ending bouquet of tax deductions and social benefits that appear with each election cycle.


----------



## mordko

No, we would much rather have all kids getting straight As without having the expense of teaching them at school. Imagine the saving!


----------



## sags

That would be great. Maybe parents could donate a couple days a month each to teach the kids :joyous:

Anyone who has navigated through social benefit programs understands the layers of administration that extends from the front clerk through multiple layers of executive oversight, to members of tribunals and inspectors..............all to decide if the benefit should be paid or not.

I think it probably cost more to deny people benefits than to actually pay them.


----------



## sags

Alaska has been giving each resident a benefit every year since 1982.

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


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags, the territories all get remote living allowances. You seem to know a lot about Americans, U.K. Residents...shame you don't know much about your current country...any luck finding a welfare millionaire? Oh wait, I asked for Canadian. 

You want to combine programs that pay for kids, unemployed, disabled, remote living, and seniors into one program that pays everyone. 5 distinct, small groups of people with one all encompassing program which pays everyone instead...oops, we lied, we'll give everyone the money, then tax it all back for the majority. Oh yeah, and the first year of implementation will cost more than the entire federal budget, but we tax it all back so it's okay. We'll use the money wisely just like always. Governments never just spend extra money...trust us.

Since we're such geniuses, let's vote ourselves another raise. If people complain, we'll give them more free money...


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> I never said I was against social assistance


vs



> Why do you insist that we provide a Nanny state?


I have no idea what you think, and it seems neither do you. 



> I've got no issue with limited, short term support, nothing completely comfortable to encourage people to try for something better.


And at the end of a limited short term, starve?




> By the way, you may want to read up on history, a UBI pilot project was already tried in Canada decades ago. People liked the free money (as if anyone wouldn't find free money to be good), but the program ended. You know what? All those people continued to survive and do just fine afterwards, despite UBI termination.


Indeed, this is the pilot I referred to in Dauphin, MB. It was a temporary study, just like the one proposed in Ontario. It was ended early for political reasons. The preliminary results were mostly positive, not that you would be persuaded either way.


----------



## andrewf

Since you are in favour of short term support only, I suppose you agree that OAS, child tax benefit and WITB be eliminated? They are effectively UBI schemes for certain population segments.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> No, we would much rather have all kids getting straight As without having the expense of teaching them at school. Imagine the saving!


Same straw man as before. Your analogy makes no sense. Grading is an assessment, income is not (unless low income people are deficient failures to be looked down upon). And, using your grading metaphor, a UBI of perhaps $10k per year would be akin to David Thomson getting 100% grade and the vast majority of Canadians getting a grade of ~0.0037% instead of ~0.0033%. Oh the injustice.


----------



## Just a Guy

At what point can we finally expect people to grow up and start taking responsibility for their own actions?

Unplanned pregnancy when your young? Okay, you made a mistake, learn from it. 5th kid? I'm not so sympathetic anymore. You should have known after the first one where they come from. It's not good for you, society or your children to keep enabling this. 

Lost your job? Okay here's a little help...you've been unemployed for 10+ years? Haven't found anything or any way of making money, you're kidding me. 

I've got kids of my own, they have a work ethic, they use their brains, they aren't perfect, but they learn from their mistakes and rarely repeat them. I don't need 35M more to raise who start off thinking their entitled. 

Help is one thing, lifetime support is another. 

I've got friend who are severely disabled who've managed to find ways to support themselves and live independently, no aish benefits. I've got aish tenants who, by comparison have nothing holding them back, yet sit back and collect cheques. 

There's a time for help and a time to grow up and be an adult. So yes, you waste your time on support not learning to cook, you'd better like charred food or starve. My kids all learned to cook as soon as they could reach the stove, I doubt they'd ever starve.


----------



## bass player

What do UBI have to do with David Thomson? Other than the fact that you want to take his money in the interest of "fairness"...


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Indeed, this is the pilot I referred to in Dauphin, MB. It was a temporary study, just like the one proposed in Ontario. It was ended early for political reasons. The preliminary results were mostly positive, not that you would be persuaded either way.


And what has happened since? Productivity plummeted? Suicides increased? Great Canadian Novel not been written? Or did these people just get on with their lives without the handout? 5 years of free money and very little changed in their society (you can read the raw data yourself). So, had we not paid them thousands of dollars for 5 years, thing would have been mostly the same.


----------



## Daniel A.

New Zealand had great social programs till the mid eighties when they went broke and the IMF stepped in and forced change.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> And what has happened since? Productivity plummeted? Suicides increased? Great Canadian Novel not been written? Or did these people just get on with their lives without the handout? 5 years of free money and very little changed in their society (you can read the raw data yourself). So, had we not paid them thousands of dollars for 5 years, thing would have been mostly the same.


Straw man. No one has claimed that UBI is a panacea. But the quiet disaster that is welfare persists. You rail against welfare dependency, yet you celebrate it as an alternative to UBI. Welfare traps people. Same with subsidized housing. It creates a huge hole that a person has to claw out of before it makes sense to support themselves on a market income. UBI doesn't work that way, people get to keep a good portion of every dollar they earn, and thus have a much stronger incentive to earn that people on welfare, who can keep nothing unless they can earn quite an amount. I mean, this should be pretty obvious. I don't know why you think poor people are like aliens from another planet who do not respond to incentives the way you do.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Since you are in favour of short term support only, I suppose you agree that OAS, child tax benefit and WITB be eliminated? They are effectively UBI schemes for certain population segments.


Most of those are short term benefits child tax benefits end at 18 (I'd prefer that the money actually be used on the kids, but I've got no ideas how to enforce that I'd suggest the majority $2500/year be put into a resp). Kids shouldn't have to suffer because of their parents, but again I don't have a solution. I also think irresponsible breeding of animals isn't good for the planet. I support spay/neutering of pets... if you can't afford to have children, responsible adults don't have them.

OAS also terminates, usually fairly quickly. Both are small segments of the population.

Not all that familiar with the witb, but I don't really understand why we have it.

I'd also like it if our education system could teach things like other forms of income such as passive income, compound interest, spending controls, wants vs. Needs, that 150+ weekly payments of $10+ for a 48" tv which sells for $398 will cost you over $1500 (if you saved $10 for 40 weeks you could have the same tv)...but I've rarely met a teacher who understands these concepts.


----------



## Moneytoo

RBull said:


> I already read this earlier today.
> 
> Perhaps you misunderstand my statement or perhaps I was not clear. I am referring to not supporting increased handouts from government.
> 
> The answer to your question is too many Canadians have become immune to the danger of taking on a lot of personal debt, perhaps living above their means and this could end badly. It also seems true most people could care less about government debt and deficits.


Just wanted your level-headed opinion on another part of the population who can't be taxed more to help less fortunate and might need to be "saved" themselves in the near future - thank you


----------



## Just a Guy

There you go making up facts again, I don't see anywhere where I've ever posted I like welfare. But you're not one to let reality get in the way of your beliefs are you. I like short term, get your feet back under you then stand up and be an adult type programs.

I don't understand why you think people have to be treated like children their entire lives. When do they need to grow up?


----------



## Just a Guy

Anyone remember Ontario in the 90's under the NDP? People were moving into different areas because they could get better benefits from the government? Ah yes, free money inspired them to become productive memebers of society.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Most of those are short term benefits child tax benefits end at 18 (I'd prefer that the money actually be used on the kids, but I've got no ideas how to enforce that I'd suggest the majority $2500/year be put into a resp). Kids shouldn't have to suffer because of their parents, but again I don't have a solution. I also think irresponsible breeding of animals isn't good for the planet. I support spay/neutering of pets... if you can't afford to have children, responsible adults don't have them.
> 
> OAS also terminates, usually fairly quickly. Both are small segments of the population.
> 
> Not all that familiar with the witb, but I don't really understand why we have it.
> 
> I'd also like it if our education system could teach things like other forms of income such as passive income, compound interest, spending controls, wants vs. Needs, that 150+ weekly payments of $10+ for a 48" tv which sells for $398 will cost you over $1500 (if you saved $10 for 40 weeks you could have the same tv)...but I've rarely met a teacher who understands these concepts.


Betweeb Child Tax Benefit and OAS, people receive UBI-type benefits for about half of human life expectancy. Add in WITB and people are eligible for UBI-type benefits for their entire life. So, we should eliminate them all, right?


----------



## sags

Just a Guy said:


> Anyone remember Ontario in the 90's under the NDP? People were moving into different areas because they could get better benefits from the government? Ah yes, free money inspired them to become productive memebers of society.


No, but I remember the animosity created by "Rae Days" when the government forced public servants to miss days of pay to save the government money. Unions forever severed their long time relationship with the NDP because of the Rae government. It certainly was not a time of "government largesse".

The Rae government was disliked for what they took away....not for what they gave out.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Betweeb Child Tax Benefit and OAS, people receive UBI-type benefits for about half of human life expectancy. Add in WITB and people are eligible for UBI-type benefits for their entire life. So, we should eliminate them all, right?


I would, of course, prefer that people save up enough money that they wouldn't need either benefit. I don't believe they should be automatic. Ad I said before, kids shouldn't have to suffer for the mistakes of their parents though. I also don't see how the paltry child tax benefit compares to th thousands given by UBI. One is a meager amount, not enough to live comfortably, the other is enough to live without worry. You'll note that I said, many times, there should be "pain" involved to encourage people to seek alternatives.

As for OAS, again, people should have saved enough over 65 years that this shouldn't be required. Again, it's not enough to live comfortably. So yea, it supports my ideals somewhat.

I wouldn't make either program automatic, and I'd reduce the people on it to those who truly "need" it if I had my way.

It should be "support", a hand up, not a permanent crutch for the able bodied. I taught my kids to walk on their own, when my daughter broke her leg, she discovered it was actually easier to walk with the cast than it was to use crutches, so she dumped the crutches and got on with her life. You probably think I should have carried her as an adult, never allowing her to walk in the first place, maybe she wouldn't have broken her leg had I done that right?


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> Same straw man as before. Your analogy makes no sense. Grading is an assessment, income is not (unless low income people are deficient failures to be looked down upon). And, using your grading metaphor, a UBI of perhaps $10k per year would be akin to David Thomson getting 100% grade and the vast majority of Canadians getting a grade of ~0.0037% instead of ~0.0033%. Oh the injustice.


Your income is an assessment of your talent and effort. And even if you don't have any talent, Unless you are under age or sick, in today's N America there is no excuse for living on what is taken from your neighbour. You can call it by any name or abbreviation but we are talking about results of their produce being confiscated from the productive members of society to feed the ones who can't be bothered to produce.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> No, but I remember the animosity created by "Rae Days" when the government forced public servants to miss days of pay to save the government money. Unions forever severed their long time relationship with the NDP because of the Rae government.


Those were later days, after the money ran out. Funny, people are bitter about having to take a day off. Imagine the reaction had the government said, "give us a day of free work". Probably would have been a revolution.

Yet, people have no issue with "here's a day of free pay". That's what government is for right?

Sags, I noticed you have talked about your donation amounts? Addicted to OPM eh? It is much better than using your own.

I'm a big fan of OPM, I use it all the time. The difference is, I give back to those I take from. I Use OPM responsibly (by investing) and I get richer. I pay interest on OPM, they get richer (I even help those who would never invest themselves as I borrow their money and use it properly). Win-win, people benefit. 

Your idea is you take OPM, they get poorer. You spend OPM and then ask for more, you are poorer. Lose-lose, but you feel better short term.

Drug addiction is a terrible thing. Proper drug use can cure people, make them healthy. Improper drug use is nearly always destructive.

Of course you're probably from the "ban all drugs" to protect people camp too right? Explains why you're trying to round up all the money and get rid of it.


----------



## Parkuser

*Scarcity mentality*

Scarcity mentality - has this argument been mentioned?

https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_br...er_it_s_a_lack_of_cash/transcript?language=en

And here is a Canadian angle from this TED talk:

This story starts in Dauphin, Canada. In 1974, everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income, ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line. At the start of the experiment, an army of researchers descended on the town. For four years, all went well. But then a new government was voted into power, and the new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment. So when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results, the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 boxes. Twenty-five years went by, and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor, found the records. For three years, she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis, and no matter what she tried, the results were the same every time: the experiment had been a resounding success. Evelyn Forget discovered that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer but also smarter and healthier. The school performance of kids improved substantially. The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent. Domestic violence incidents were down, as were mental health complaints. And people didn't quit their jobs. The only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students — who stayed in school longer. Similar results have since been found in countless other experiments around the globe, from the US to India.


----------



## Just a Guy

The data was actually complided into a database (not a box) and made publically available. You can download it yourself if you google it. It was analyzed by multiple university professors over the years as well, not just one.

You skipped the report notes where the researcher noted that they felt the employment data was skewed because they felt participants knew the program was temporary. I also noticed you left off the actual numbers (all only a low single digit increase in all the "benefits") except the 8.5% reduction in hospital visits, not hospitalization. 

So, for the millions spent we got a slight decrease in healthcare. Again, the question is, what happened to society after? Was that a good use of public funds? Sure the people were upset that they lost their free money, their lives got slightly harder, but did they curl up and die? Did domestic violence increase to higher levels? Dropout rate in schools near 100%? Hospitals become overwhelmed? Or did people just get on with their lives?

Yes, there were benefits, but at massive costs. It's like buying furniture at a rent-to-own place where you can get a tv for only $12/week (the small print says 152 week term), do the math.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Just a Guy said:


> T
> You skipped the report notes where the researcher noted that they felt the employment data was skewed because they felt participants knew the program was temporary.


This seems to be the blatantly obvious point that many are missing. Just like most socialist practices, they always seem like a great idea short term.


----------



## Parkuser

Just a Guy said:


> ...You skipped the report notes where the researcher noted that they felt the employment data was skewed because they felt participants knew the program was temporary. I also noticed you left off the actual numbers (all only a low single digit increase in all the "benefits") except the 8.5% reduction in hospital visits, not hospitalization.
> ...



Well, I haven't read the report, and a good researcher will always bring up factors which may undermine his/her conclusions. (This is why science often sounds wishy-washy.)

This was a quote from the linked TED talk bringing up an interesting idea he calls a _scarcity mentality_: people living in poverty are unable to focus on the non-immediate future thus make dumb decisions; are unable to learn how to break the vicious circle of poverty. (Sometimes one hears about second or third generation living on welfare.) It's like poor people show lower IQ.

Interestingly, you have similar experience but draw a different conclusion than the speaker.



Just a Guy said:


> ...Of the rich friends I know, nothing stopped them either. Of the people I know who aren't rich however, I see one common thread standing in their way...themselves. They are too afraid to even try. They want it handed to them. I've offered to help many people buy a rental, invest in the market, whatever. I post publicly here how I do it, yet in all the years I've done this, I know two people who've taken me up on the offer and the second one only did it last year. The first is a partner of mine now in a different business. ...


Entrepreneurial types do not need much help. But others... You are convinced that they sabotage themselves. The speaker seems to suggest that maybe the lessons are wrong for the _students_. Not too many people are very entrepreneurial, thank God. The question is how to help the least entrepreneurial to dig themselves up from the hole. In my opinion, this is where the basic income idea comes from.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> Your income is an assessment of your talent and effort. And even if you don't have any talent, Unless you are under age or sick, in today's N America there is no excuse for living on what is taken from your neighbour. You can call it by any name or abbreviation but we are talking about results of their produce being confiscated from the productive members of society to feed the ones who can't be bothered to produce.


I suspect the correlation between talent/effort and income is weak, unless you define talent as the component of income that is not explained by effort.


----------



## RBull

Moneytoo said:


> Just wanted your level-headed opinion on another part of the population who can't be taxed more to help less fortunate and might need to be "saved" themselves in the near future - thank you


Anytime. You're welcome.


----------



## sags

Automation is coming quickly and millions of jobs will no longer be performed by humans. 

The CEOs of the companies developing artificial intelligence and robotics say a universal income will be necessary.

People have a choice of who to believe. Those closely involved or those on the periphery who cling to old traditions and the past.

Pierre E. Trudeau's quote is as important now as when he said it decades ago.

_Liberalism is the philosophy for our time, because it does not try to conserve every tradition of the past, because it does not apply to new problems the old doctrinaire solutions, because it is prepared to experiment and innovate and because it knows that the past is less important than the future_.

We know the shape of the future and must prepare for it.


----------



## Mukhang pera

sags said:


> Automation is coming quickly and millions of jobs will no longer be performed by humans.


I recall hearing in the 60s how computers were going to be the death knell of millions of jobs. That does not seem to have occurred. Now millions work in "IT" and such endeavours - jobs that did not exist in the 60s.

Just recently Facebook (something I care to have nothing to do with) announced it was going to hire 3,000 new thought police to add to an existing force of 4,500. That's not a job school guidance counsellors were suggesting in the 60s. I trust we'll soon have robots able to sniff out and snuff out cyberbullies and those Facebook enforcers will go on EI.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> As a Republican Dr. Ben Carson prescribes to the mandatory ideology that welfare benefits are not productive, but admits that his mother would not have been able to raise a family without food stamps, and he would never have received his education without low income grants for school.
> 
> And then there is Oprah Winfrey.........and many others who at one time in their lives relied on social benefits.
> 
> The theory that social benefits discourage people from succeeding in life is misguided.


I agree. I know many people who grew up in a family chronically on welfare, and they are all educated, and working. We shouldn't paint them all as shiftless losers, as it isn't really true. I think it is possible that the % of people on welfare who are lifers is relativly small. Welfare is like a lifeboat and the fact that some stay in the lifeboat doesn't justify getting rid of lifeboats.


----------



## Just a Guy

Parkuser, 

The difference me and Ted talk people, or even most professors is I'm actually exposed to the reality, not the theoretical.

I lived in poverty and now I work closely with others who are in poverty. I see the people collecting government cheques. They certainly don't have any "long term thinking" for the most part, even though they are getting a cheque every month. 

Take the cheque away however and they kick into action. Unfortunately, that action is usually about getting different government support. They know the system quite well, always seem to find a new program. Once they get it, they settle back down and go on with their lives. 

Imagine if they applied that thinking to making money on their own. 

For the record, not everyone on government assistance is like that. I see some people succeed in turning their life around as well but, in my experience, those ones aren't in the majority. Maybe a quarter. I'd say another quarter are completely lost and about half for my know the system scenario I described above. 

I admit I have a love/hate relationship with these types of programs, as do most of the professionals I've met (social workers) for the most part. Most started out idealisticly, but have grown jaded over the years.


----------



## Pluto

^
And speaking of idealism, there is an assumption by some in this thread that "anybody" can become an entrepeneur and millionaire. I think not. Individuals have varying abilities, and some are virtually incapable of taking care of themselves despite apperances to the contrary. Therte are no doubt scammers of this or that system, but we should not paint all of them with that brush. 

I recall a business man I knew who chronically complained about the welfare family in his town. So finally I asked, you are a business man, why don't you hire him and her? They aren't capable he said. Ironically he had the same assessment as the welfare workers. Some people, despite wanting mightily, and trying hard as they can, just can't cut it. They don't have it in them. It isn't right to judge them because they are not a star on Dragon's Den. It is right to accept reality and to help those who need it. 

The reality is for every exceptionally gifted person there is an a person with exceptionally low capabilites. So the assumption that anybody can do almost anything is idealistic. Someone faces tough times and survives, becomes a financial success. That doen't prove anybody can survive the same adversity. All it proves is that particular guy can survive that particular tough time.


----------



## Just a Guy

And how do people know what they are capable of unless they are tested? Without motivation, what's to inspire the lazy? Sure not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, I don't dispute that but there are also a lot of highly unmotivated people, or people who don't have any idea that there is a different way to do things. The latter part of that I'm actually trying to help change personally, but even on this board there are people who don't want to try, so it's a hard battle to fight. FUD is a strong opponent, especially when it's easier to hold your hand out and demand more. 

I've never said cut all safety nets, I've never said go through what I did, I said give support, but make people uncomfortable so that they have to take the motivation to change. I've said, educate them on ways to change. Been pretty consistent in that message I think.

Of course, on the other side I hear give them more money, the rich can pay for it and the speaker is clear that they aren't in the classification of "rich". Most people have no clue as to where he money comes from, nor how it's spent. They've got no idea how effective the outcome is, it's just throw money at the problem until it goes away. Life doesn't work that way. 

As I said, I actually work with the low end on a regular basis. I see those who are capable of doing things and those who aren't. Admitted that right in my last post. No "idealism", no theory, it's hands on experience. Unlike your businessman, I put my money where my mouth is, I don't get it second hand. How many of these "socialists" bother to go out and see the problem firsthand? How many see how the programs are actually working? How many understand what's actually happening? I'm not talking about knowing one or two examples of poor people, or maybe a former drug addict, I'm talking large scale involvement so that they get a real idea of what works and what doesn't. From what I've seen when I'm there, not many and, if they do come down, it's a quick in and out don't let the door hit you on the trip.

But these are the experts who know best.


----------



## mordko

I find it that people who start from humble beginnings and put effort into achieving something tend to be opposed to big nanny state and understand equality in reference to opportunities. 

Meanwhile people who were born into well-off families are often prone to the concept of the state taking care of everyone and understand equality in reference to income. And those who were born into dung and chose to stay there tend to be in this category as well.


----------



## andrewf

Mukhang pera said:


> I recall hearing in the 60s how computers were going to be the death knell of millions of jobs. That does not seem to have occurred. Now millions work in "IT" and such endeavours - jobs that did not exist in the 60s.
> 
> Just recently Facebook (something I care to have nothing to do with) announced it was going to hire 3,000 new thought police to add to an existing force of 4,500. That's not a job school guidance counsellors were suggesting in the 60s. I trust we'll soon have robots able to sniff out and snuff out cyberbullies and those Facebook enforcers will go on EI.


I guess the question is whether there are any mental labours that cannot be ever be automated. There will still be employment, but it will get to the point where many people are basically unemployable, or only employable at below subsistence wages. So, are we going to have a great cull?


----------



## Parkuser

I am not particularly convinced that in the interest of "caring society" of social workers is decrease in the number of their clients. I would rather expect an opposite effect. So I do not see a reason to argue.
On the other hand,


Just a Guy said:


> ... I've never said cut all safety nets, I've never said go through what I did, I said give support, but make people uncomfortable so that they have to take the motivation to change. I've said, educate them on ways to change. Been pretty consistent in that message I think. ...


the proposed solution is so simple, so inexpensive, and so obvious (as well as voiced quite often) that it must have been tried before. Is there an example when cutting off benefits inspired a massive change, invigorating people in their work attitude, and significant decrease in poverty levels? I remember that one of the Reagan's (?) election stories was about a "welfare queen" collecting fraudulently several welfare cheques. The story was, as they say today, fake news but I presume he would have acted on it as a president. Has he? Are there examples of this working as intended?

The only problem I see with such solutions, people can get used to life in pretty (relatively) horrible conditions. And once certain threshold has been breached it is extremely hard to get back on one's feet. Every minor irritation, such as a car breakdown, can lead to a major life disaster, such as a loss of employment. Long time ago I've read a book on this subject, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich. I think I've read similar story by Jan Wong from G&M, going undercover as a cleaning lady; and she is a no-nonsense journalist. (This was before they kicked her out from G&M for "insulting Quebec.") Remember these stories as pretty depressing, and they were not about welfare cheats but about very hard working poor. How day to day survival take all energy you've got.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yeah, that's why I think we need to change the way we educate people. Many well educated people only see paycheques and jobs as the only solution available, so you can imagine what it's like for the lower end. There are other options out there, not all are for everyone, but then again, there are many more options than people think.


----------



## sags

It takes money to survive while people sort out what they can do for themselves. It takes money to start a business while you still have to pay bills. Landlords want to get paid. Kids need to eat.

The shortcomings that I have seen, are that we pay people to do nothing and then do everything possible to keep them doing nothing.........and then complain that they are doing nothing.

We don't provide small amounts of seed capital to the unemployed or welfare recipients to buy a truck and a lawn mower and cut grass, or a van and painting supplies to paint houses.

We don't allow people on welfare to go to school or take training. They have to quit welfare (possibly giving up health care for their kids) and obtain funding somewhere else.

Our landlord hired a guy and his buddy to replace all our eavestroughs on our 8 units of townhomes.

A small business guy, but to do the job he had a truck, an enclosed trailer, about 4 extended safety ladders and a lot of power tools.

He also has to pay his helper wages, pay WSIB, pay CPP, pay EI....because he can't do the work by himself. 

He probably also pays an accountant, pays for liability insurance and pays for advertising.

He said he has lots of work, but has to wait 3 months to be paid for jobs like ours.

It is pretty tough for anyone with no money to start out when they need to acquire all that before they can start earning money.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags, I see a common thread with you...all or nothing. Welfare bad, replace with UBI. Not change welfare policy, get rid of it. Start a company, need everything right away. No start small and build. 

What about doing something to start, say a farmer's market? Can you bake? Cook? Make treats? Heck many farmers market has people selling popcorn (really high margins), and cotton candy (a teaspoon of sugar sold for $3-5). One of my parnter's kids figured this out for a school work project, had to start a company and sell stuff with less than $100. Made several hundred in profit in a couple hours selling at his school. 

Government cheque would even give you the money to rent a machine, and you could easily make up that cost. After you've made some money at a farmer's market, maybe even wisely saved some instead of blowing it all, you could do something bigger. BTW, some of those booths at a farmers market make really good money, several thousand dollars profit in a single day for the well run booths. Of course other don't do as well, and some even lose money. 

Part of my kid's school program is an E&I fair. They have even smaller budgets and are selling to less than 300 kids total (small school) over two lunch hours. They make everything from chocolate covered strawberries, milkshakes, popcorn, suckers, to t-shirts and comic books. They aren't told what to do, but most seem to make profits selling for less than $2 per item. 

A farmers market, around me there are several every day of the week so you could work everyday if you wanted to, can sell anything you can make, back, grow or sew. Some products that come to mind are crafts, knitting, sewing, bath products (really easy to make and good margins), woodworking, repurposing (getting stuff for free and finding a creative way to reuse it), etc. Endless possibilities. Tables usually only cost $10-20. There are also indoor ones in the winter, though I think it drops down to only a couple days a week. 

This is just one cheap way to earn extra money. There are a myriad of other work at home, low skill jobs available if you look around. Sure they aren't glamorous, or fun, but they are there and they are a way to get started. Again, they encourage you to not be complacent, to find something better if you want.

When I was in school, I knew people who were buskers. They travelled the world and paid for their education (full degrees) by doing it. They make several hundred dollars per show, most shows were less than 15 minutes long.

Yes, for people like you life would be pretty tough. One needs to open ones eyes to possibilities, not obstacles. If all you look for is problems, I'm sure you'll find them.

I'm a curious person by nature. When I go to places like farmers markets, or outdoor festivals, I don't just go to buy things, or watch the show. I often try to talk to the people involved to learn about the business they are in, how it works, how much they make, how they got started. You can learn a lot if you ask questions. Where you see a show, I see the opportunity that exists right in front of your face literally, that you are blind to. Imagine a world without such things...they only exist because someone also sees something you can't.

I remember talking to a young girl who was busking. She played the harp. Her goal originally was to earn enough money over the summer to fly to Ireland. Well, she managed to achieve that goal in the first week of working. Instead of quitting however, she used those funds to record a CD of her playing. A few weeks later, she was not only still playing for money (donations), but she also had a CD to sell for $15 (I bought one) a classic upswell opportunity. She never, ever imagined she'd have her own CD. She was trying to decide if she used the money she'd have saved by the end of summer to spend half a year in Ireland or finish her degree completely (she had two years left) and then maybe go.

Imagine, starting with a bit of talent, no money, a goal and having to face such choices after a couple of months...to be fair, she got a spot in a prime tourist location. Had to apply and even try out for the opportunity...oh and pay $10 for a license. 

P.S. anything sold at a farmers market can be made at home, no special permits required.


----------



## Zipper

Maybe you could give us all a break and go start a "Libertarian" site somewhere else??


----------



## bass player

Zipper said:


> Maybe you could give us all a break here and go start a "Libertarian" site somewhere else??


It sounds like someone needs to find a safe space where they can hide from opposing viewpoints...


----------



## Just a Guy

Not that I personally associate with any political party, but I am curious as why, on a board that seems to have strong supporters of everything from every political viewpoint from one side of the spectrum to the other...why, as you label it, a "libertarian attitude" in a single thread, and maybe it's offshoot, would make you want to chase me from the site?

Further, since the one theme that generally comes up on numerous threads and agreed to is the current system isn't working (and the current system seems to bounce between the same several parties we've always had PC, liberal, NDP, social credit, green, block Q (did I miss a major party that's been in power either provincially or federally?). Why you wouldn't be interested in something different?

Personally I don't like the elected dictatorship, I mean "party" system. I also don't like that the opposition always has to vote against, I don't mind being the devil's advocate (I actually enjoy being the devil's advocate and forcing people to think about alternatives) but being allowed to see the validity of the other side I would think is reasonable. 

BTW, I find I tend to argue better when I'm on the side I disagree with. Mainly because, believing in the idea myself, I know where the arguement is strong and where it is weak, so I can attack the weka points and avoid the strong. Learned that about debating. Also, I always question my own belief systems to ensure I'm not going blind to alternatives, or being a lemming. So, don't assume you know what I truly believe from what I say in a debate.

I took a quick look through all your 27 posting, all excellent contributions to my financial education. Maybe you'd be interested in these words of wisdom...



Zipper said:


> You need to lighten up a little.
> 
> You don't sound like you would be much fun to be around.
> 
> My best advice would be to take one day at a time and realize that others have opinions too.


----------



## sags

Hopefully from any debate the best parts of all ideas will be used to formulate a policy that works.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> And how do people know what they are capable of unless they are tested? Without motivation, what's to inspire the lazy? Sure not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, I don't dispute that but there are also a lot of highly unmotivated people, or people who don't have any idea that there is a different way to do things. The latter part of that I'm actually trying to help change personally, but even on this board there are people who don't want to try, so it's a hard battle to fight. FUD is a strong opponent, especially when it's easier to hold your hand out and demand more.
> 
> I've never said cut all safety nets, I've never said go through what I did, I said give support, but make people uncomfortable so that they have to take the motivation to change. I've said, educate them on ways to change. Been pretty consistent in that message I think.
> 
> Of course, on the other side I hear give them more money, the rich can pay for it and the speaker is clear that they aren't in the classification of "rich". Most people have no clue as to where he money comes from, nor how it's spent. They've got no idea how effective the outcome is, it's just throw money at the problem until it goes away. Life doesn't work that way.
> 
> As I said, I actually work with the low end on a regular basis. I see those who are capable of doing things and those who aren't. Admitted that right in my last post. No "idealism", no theory, it's hands on experience. Unlike your businessman, I put my money where my mouth is, I don't get it second hand. How many of these "socialists" bother to go out and see the problem firsthand? How many see how the programs are actually working? How many understand what's actually happening? I'm not talking about knowing one or two examples of poor people, or maybe a former drug addict, I'm talking large scale involvement so that they get a real idea of what works and what doesn't. From what I've seen when I'm there, not many and, if they do come down, it's a quick in and out don't let the door hit you on the trip.
> 
> But these are the experts who know best.


1. Motivation and lazyness: Right now unemployment has been on the decline in Canada and the US because jobs are being created for them, not because the unemployed suddenly became motivated. When the next recession comes along, companies will lay off people. They are not laid off because they are lazy and unmotivated, they are laid off to protect the profits and life of the company. lazyness is another word for depressed. And people who are laid off and are forced to avail themselves of the safety nets often get depressed. But the main point here is, that when jobs are created, people work and that fact undermines the theory that that the problem lies elswhere. 
2. laying people off work to save the company, and then calling the laid off lazy and unmotivated is a rationalization and strategy for blaiming them for everything and take the focus off corporate, central bank, and government decisions. Telling the laid off to get a job when there are not enough to go around is not helpful. 
3. I'm not sure why making people feel uncomfortable will help. When there are not jobs to be had, making them uncomfortabe only heightens their depression. The most effective help is to create jobs and history proves that when jobs are available, people work. Right now I'm imangining the deepression and dustbowl conditions of the thirties. I see in my mind farmers leaving their land because they lost it due to poor crops and not enough income to pay the mortgage. I see you there as they leave the farm calling them lazy and unmotivated. How is that going to help? It isn't going to change the weather, and won't create jobs. 
4. for myself, I'm not sure if I agree with minimum basic income as a solution, I haven't decided. But I do know, when jobs are created, people work. And I know that unemployment is caused by recessions precipitating layoffs to save the companies thereby forcing people to avail themselvs of whatever safety net there is. If business people don't want people unemployed, then business people need to take some responsibility too instead of blaiming the poor and powerless for everything. 
5. But when it comes to telling business people to solve the problem by createing jobs, often they say, "We can't. business conditions aren't right to expand and hire". So they too are limited by circumstances beyond their control. If we then tell business people that they aren't creating jobs because they are lazy, does that sound right? it is the same with the unemployed. they get trapped by circumstances beyond their control.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto, all your points revolve around the same thought, give people jobs. That's barely a step up from give them money. 

I'm suggesting people need to find different solutions. There are many ways to get money that don't involve being given something. 

If people spend half the effort they do in coming up with excuses (no jobs, no government support, no time, no money, etc.) and put it towards thinking of solutions, they may be a lot better off than they are. 

Sags, earlier, said that you needed money to start a business, I gave examples of how to do it cheap. 

Someone in a different thread said investing is complicated, I gave a simple, easy to understand strategy that would probably do okay. 

Someone says you need money to start investing, I've seen people start really small. 

Someone suggested that poor kids couldn't go to post secondary even if they are the brightest, I could show them the catalog sized book of scholarships, many of which are never applied for, or ways to divert the child tax credit to an resp and get the max payout. 

Not all of the ideas will work for everyone, nor are they going to make you rich overnight but, we as a society have to start looking at the world differently. We can just keep handing out money and jobs, the system is broken and can't support that. 

Too many people look for jobs and handouts instead of other solutions. Too many want instant fixes, instead of progressive improvement. 

Our education system only tell you about getting jobs, that needs to change. Heck most people on this board can't even come up with different ideas, that's not a good thing.


----------



## andrewf

UBI takes away a big excuse not to try to improve one's situation. With welfare, in my experience, people are afraid of losing benefits, health insurance, etc. With UBI, every dollar you earn improves one's situation. The idea that people would be happy/content to live on poverty level income when there are no hard barriers penalizing them for earning an income is a bit hard to believe. Maybe a kid living in mom's basement would be content with this, but I don't see people being satisfied with this for life.


----------



## Just a Guy

Going back to the original question...

Where does the money come from?


----------



## Moneytoo

andrewf said:


> UBI takes away a big excuse not to try to improve one's situation. With welfare, in my experience, people are afraid of losing benefits, health insurance, etc. With UBI, every dollar you earn improves one's situation.


Wouldn't it be easier to change welfare rules first than increase and re-brand it?..


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> UBI takes away a big excuse not to try to improve one's situation. With welfare, in my experience, people are afraid of losing benefits, health insurance, etc. With UBI, every dollar you earn improves one's situation. The idea that people would be happy/content to live on poverty level income when there are no hard barriers penalizing them for earning an income is a bit hard to believe. Maybe a kid living in mom's basement would be content with this, but I don't see people being satisfied with this for life.


Ah...so free money with no strings attached will actually DECREASE the amount of people not working?

The fact is that there is a certain percentage of the population that will NEVER work if their needs can be met with welfare. Nothing will change how they think. How do I know this? I have two close friends who work for the welfare department. They see this every single day.


----------



## bass player

Moneytoo said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to change welfare rules first than increase and re-brand it?..


I'm sure the proponents of UBI are against that for some magical reason...


----------



## andrewf

Moneytoo said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to change welfare rules first than increase and re-brand it?..


Changing the welfare rules accordingly would be making it into a UBI scheme.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Ah...so free money with no strings attached will actually DECREASE the amount of people not working?
> 
> The fact is that there is a certain percentage of the population that will NEVER work if their needs can be met with welfare. Nothing will change how they think. How do I know this? I have two close friends who work for the welfare department. They see this every single day.


vs free money with the requirement you don't work? Quite possibly. Welfare requires that you not work. Seems like perverse incentives to me.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Changing the welfare rules accordingly would be making it into a UBI scheme.


Or not.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> vs free money with the requirement you don't work? Quite possibly. Welfare requires that you not work. Seems like perverse incentives to me.


There are no welfare rules that state you can't work. Obviously, benefits are affected if one does work, but that's exactly the point...a person goes to work with the intention of getting off welfare.


----------



## Moneytoo

bass player said:


> There are no welfare rules that state you can't work. Obviously, benefits are affected if one does work, but that's exactly the point...a person goes to work with the intention of getting off welfare.


I think less people would object if the rules were softened - say one needs to work for a year making 20K+ (or whatever number makes sense) before the benefits are decreased or cut? To make sure the recipient is on their feet more or less?


----------



## bass player

Moneytoo said:


> I think less people would object if the rules were softened - say one needs to work for a year making 20K+ (or whatever number makes sense) before the benefits are decreased or cut? To make sure the recipient is on their feet more or less?


I'm okay with the rules being softened slightly if it will help those who want to help themselves.


----------



## Moneytoo

bass player said:


> I'm okay with the rules being softened slightly if it will help those who want to help themselves.


Cool, thanks  Just A Guy, what about you? Theoretically, the extra money won't be needed, as instead of being afraid to work for years (forever?), more people would try? While receiving current amounts of welfare.


----------



## sags

If people have more income and better benefits on welfare than working.......maybe it says something about some employers ?

On the other hand, our landlord just replaced all our light bulbs with LED lights. Some kind of government program going on right now.

The landlord's regular maintenance crew were doing it because the company couldn't find anyone wanting the job of changing light bulbs for $14 an hour. Our landlord has something like 1200 units so it would have been a long temporary job for someone.

Maybe the problem is that when a person quits welfare, they have to go through hoops to reapply again? 

They also lose health benefits for them and kids if they have any.

Taking a close look at the disincentives of welfare might be a good idea as a matter of prudent government.

I suspect there may be some political opposition to eliminating layers of public servants involved in the welfare, disability and other systems.

There is a certain irony to passing judgement on others, while being paid taxpayer money to do it.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> If people have more income and better benefits on welfare than working.......maybe it says something about some employers ?


Roughly half of the population leans left, therefore, there must be a lot of business owners among that group.

So, where are all the left leaning business owners that are paying a decent wage? Or, is it only something they demand of others?


----------



## BigMonkey

I think there are a lot of variables involved. 

I used to be against the universal basic income, but times have changed. There is going to come a time in the near future where the computers and technology will replace 90+% of an entire work force. With better technology, output and efficiency will increase which should result in better quality of life for everyone. Unfortunately with the way corporations are structured, majority of that increased output will really just flow to the selected individuals who own these companies. Yes with time, people affected will realign and cope with the technology resulting in new field of work/industries. But these things don't happen overnight.

While it is easy to just say tax the rich, these rich shareholders can easily just move to another country and can also choose to relocate their head office if they don't like the way they are treated. This will result in less tax revenue overall and having the "middle class" and those who don't have the luxury of relocation picking up the shortfall.

I can see an argument being made for universal basic income. What that amount is, who qualifies, and for how long, is entirely up for debate.


----------



## sags

bass player said:


> Roughly half of the population leans left, therefore, there must be a lot of business owners among that group.
> 
> So, where are all the left leaning business owners that are paying a decent wage? Or, is it only something they demand of others?


LOL...........people change their political allegiance at the drop of a hat when self interest is involved.


----------



## bass player

BigMonkey said:


> I used to be against the universal basic income, but times have changed. There is going to come a time in the near future where the computers and technology will replace 90+% of an entire work force.


We've been hearing that song for years, but it hasn't happened yet, just like a lot of other predictions of future doom and gloom that are conveniently forgotten when they don't happen. There are plenty of existing problems that need fixing today before we waste money trying to fix problems that don't exist, and that may never exist.


----------



## BigMonkey

bass player said:


> We've been hearing that song for years, but it hasn't happened yet, just like a lot of other predictions of future doom and gloom that are conveniently forgotten when they don't happen. There are plenty of existing problems that need fixing today before we waste money trying to fix problems that don't exist, and that may never exist.


Do you think taxi, uber, truck drivers will be around? What if the truck driver was laid off was you or a family member in their 40s?


----------



## bass player

BigMonkey said:


> Do you think taxi, uber, truck drivers will be around? What if the truck driver was laid off was you or a family member in their 40s?


If driverless cars become viable, it will be a long time before they make a dent. They are still years/decades away from being foolproof and safe enough, and the average car now lasts 11 years, so best case scenario is that there is at least 20 years or longer before there are significant changes. Also, it won't happen overnight and there will be plenty of warning.

However, anyone who is driving a cab or truck today that is worried has the option to make a career change now and beat the rush...


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> The fact is that there is a certain percentage of the population that will NEVER work if their needs can be met with welfare. Nothing will change how they think. How do I know this? I have two close friends who work for the welfare department. They see this every single day.


This has the loud ring of truth to it.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Pluto, all your points revolve around the same thought, give people jobs. That's barely a step up from give them money.
> 
> I'm suggesting people need to find different solutions. There are many ways to get money that don't involve being given something.
> 
> If people spend half the effort they do in coming up with excuses (no jobs, no government support, no time, no money, etc.) and put it towards thinking of solutions, they may be a lot better off than they are.
> 
> Sags, earlier, said that you needed money to start a business, I gave examples of how to do it cheap.
> 
> Someone in a different thread said investing is complicated, I gave a simple, easy to understand strategy that would probably do okay.
> 
> Someone says you need money to start investing, I've seen people start really small.
> 
> Someone suggested that poor kids couldn't go to post secondary even if they are the brightest, I could show them the catalog sized book of scholarships, many of which are never applied for, or ways to divert the child tax credit to an resp and get the max payout.
> 
> Not all of the ideas will work for everyone, nor are they going to make you rich overnight but, we as a society have to start looking at the world differently. We can just keep handing out money and jobs, the system is broken and can't support that.
> 
> Too many people look for jobs and handouts instead of other solutions. Too many want instant fixes, instead of progressive improvement.
> 
> Our education system only tell you about getting jobs, that needs to change. Heck most people on this board can't even come up with different ideas, that's not a good thing.


JAG, I do not dismiss you concerns, as I have many of the same sentiments. It seems unfair that while some people sacrifice to save and invest to be independant only to have taxes raised to support others who were foolish with their money and resources. 
However, I accept the fact that Humans have always had the poor and the beggars. It isn't going to change. There is no magic solution to get all people off welfare.


----------



## Nelley

Bass Player: A friend of mine commented that we (the boomers) really are the lucky generation-on the exact day they take our keys away because we can't handle driving we go over and pick up a brand new driverless car-a seamless transition-all the joy of driving, then when it ends a brand new invention to keep us mobile and independent.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> There are no welfare rules that state you can't work. Obviously, benefits are affected if one does work, but that's exactly the point...a person goes to work with the intention of getting off welfare.


The penalty for working is that all your employment income is confiscated until you no longer earn benefits in cash or in kind. If you're curious, read up on the welfare trap.


----------



## bass player

Nelley said:


> Bass Player: A friend of mine commented that we (the boomers) really are the lucky generation-on the exact day they take our keys away because we can't handle driving we go over and pick up a brand new driverless car-a seamless transition-all the joy of driving, then when it ends a brand new invention to keep us mobile and independent.


I'm still a couple decades away from needing a self driving car...hopefully the technology curve will manage to stay a little ahead of my needs 

This could be the last "golden era"...the world is imploding and the future is uncertain. People lucky enough to be born 50 or more years ago in Canada were/are able to enjoy one the best quality of living lifespans that has ever existed in human history.


----------



## andrewf

Moneytoo said:


> I think less people would object if the rules were softened - say one needs to work for a year making 20K+ (or whatever number makes sense) before the benefits are decreased or cut? To make sure the recipient is on their feet more or less?


That could conceivably the case. Take for example a $10k UBI with a 50% clawback/marginal effective tax rate up to $20k in market income. Someone earning a $20k market income effectively pays $0 net tax, which is exactly the same outcome as a $20k basic personal amount (no tax on first $20k in income). Anyone earning more than $20k would not receive any UBI benefits, obviously.

It seems to me that a lot of people are struggling with the math on this.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> If driverless cars become viable, it will be a long time before they make a dent. They are still years/decades away from being foolproof and safe enough, and the average car now lasts 11 years, so best case scenario is that there is at least 20 years or longer before there are significant changes. Also, it won't happen overnight and there will be plenty of warning.
> 
> However, anyone who is driving a cab or truck today that is worried has the option to make a career change now and beat the rush...


Given that one shared-use autonomous car can replace up to 10 privately owned car, I think you might be surprised how quickly the fleet would be replaced. And if a car requires a driver to operate it, that car is going to the scrap heap when driverless cars are competing against it in the marketplace.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> The penalty for working is that all your employment income is confiscated until you no longer earn benefits in cash or in kind. If you're curious, read up on the welfare trap.


I know how it works...I have two close friends that work in the system.

Welfare is not "confiscated". It's a stop gap measure to help a person keep food on the table until they get their feet back on the ground. If you're working, then you have money for food and expenses, and that's why welfare is clawed back. It's not supposed to be a supplemental income.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> The penalty for working is that all your employment income is confiscated until you no longer earn benefits in cash or in kind. If you're curious, read up on the welfare trap.


Sort of like people who work for a living, except their money is given out as welfare to those who don't work. Average Canadian works close to 7 months now for taxes...makes you wonder why they do it.

For those thinking to replace welfare with UBI, the question still remains, where does the money come from. Last I read, we're running a deficit which means we're spending more than we bring in. Shall we tax the remaining 5 months? Then UBI makes sense since no one will be making money, everyone will work and the government will allocate what we can all have.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Given that one shared-use autonomous car can replace up to 10 privately owned car, I think you might be surprised how quickly the fleet would be replaced. And if a car requires a driver to operate it, that car is going to the scrap heap when driverless cars are competing against it in the marketplace.


It's fantasy to think that 10 people can share a car. A family of 3 or 4 has a hard time sharing one car...try sharing one with two of your neighbors for a couple weeks and let me know how it goes. Peak use is ignored in the self driving car fantasy... 

What happens when 20,000 people try to get a self driving car in the same half hour after a concert or football game? What happens in rush hour? Who cleans them? Who does maintenance? What if you don't like the one that shows up in your driveway?

I don't see a magical utopia with self driving cars...I see a massive bureaucracy bloated with additional costs, waste, and all the usual that comes with such things. With my car, I have total control, but with a self driving car, someone else makes all the decisions and approves all the expenses.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> I know how it works...I have two close friends that work in the system.
> 
> Welfare is not "confiscated". It's a stop gap measure to help a person keep food on the table until they get their feet back on the ground. If you're working, then you have money for food and expenses, and that's why welfare is clawed back. It's not supposed to be a supplemental income.


Then there is a penalty for working while on welfare, since you do not get to keep any net new income earned until completely out of welfare. Anything else is just semantics.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> It's fantasy to think that 10 people can share a car. A family of 3 or 4 has a hard time sharing one car...try sharing one with two of your neighbors for a couple weeks and let me know how it goes. Peak use is ignored in the self driving car fantasy...
> 
> What happens when 20,000 people try to get a self driving car in the same half hour after a concert or football game? What happens in rush hour? Who cleans them? Who does maintenance? What if you don't like the one that shows up in your driveway?
> 
> I don't see a magical utopia with self driving cars...I see a massive bureaucracy bloated with additional costs, waste, and all the usual that comes with such things. With my car, I have total control, but with a self driving car, someone else makes all the decisions and approves all the expenses.


Well bass, prepare to be shocked. I know change is scary.

Imagine how popular taxis would be if they cost 70% less and didn't have a driver to deal with. Cars are very expensive to own personally and sit unused 95% of the time, on average. Self driving cars can achieve ~30% utilization in models. It's pretty simple math.


----------



## Nelley

andrewf said:


> Well bass, prepare to be shocked. I know change is scary.
> 
> Imagine how popular taxis would be if they cost 70% less and didn't have a driver to deal with. Cars are very expensive to own personally and sit unused 95% of the time, on average. Self driving cars can achieve ~30% utilization in models. It's pretty simple math.


No need to insult the guy just because you are convinced your crystal ball is infallible-if you cannot see all the hurdles to overcome to get this thing in place then you aren't looking very hard


----------



## olivaw

Nelley said:


> No need to insult the guy just because you are convinced your crystal ball is infallible-if you cannot see all the hurdles to overcome to get this thing in place then you aren't looking very hard


There are those who strive to overcome hurdles to accomplish great things. 

And there are those who can't see past the hurdles. :culpability:


----------



## Nelley

olivaw said:


> There are those who strive to overcome hurdles to accomplish great things.
> 
> And there are those who can't see past the hurdles. :culpability:


Your insults do not change anything.


----------



## olivaw

Nelley said:


> Your insults do not change anything.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Well bass, prepare to be shocked. I know change is scary.
> 
> Imagine how popular taxis would be if they cost 70% less and didn't have a driver to deal with. Cars are very expensive to own personally and sit unused 95% of the time, on average. Self driving cars can achieve ~30% utilization in models. It's pretty simple math.


I know several people who use their car 2 - 4 hours a day. However, even for the cars that are unused 95% of the time, there will be time when too many of that 5% need it at the same time.

Where will all the cars park when no one is using them?
Who cleans them?
Who approves maintenance?

Self driving cars will actually increase traffic. Suppose I need to go somewhere...I get in my car, drive there, drive home. One trip there, one trip home. 

With a self driving car...I wait for a car to drive to my place, it takes me to my destination, then it drives somewhere else, then it or another car drives again to pick me up to take me home. Now instead of out and back, 4 trips and extra miles are needed. That could potentially double the traffic at times as well as increasing costs.


----------



## Just a Guy

I'm pretty sure that comment was directed at the conversation in general, not an individual who's posting. 

Lets get back to the hurdle of finding the money for all these programs that, so far, everyone seems to be ignoring forget about seeing past or not.

As for self-driving cars, that maybe should be a new thread.


----------



## Just a Guy

I was just reading about Alberta. Seems they've got huge rebates right now for LED lighting. Supposed to be a benefit of their carbon tax. Only problem is, the costs of the rebates are much, much higher than the income from the carbon tax. I suppose the money will come from the ever popular "future savings". 

Reminds me of Saskatchewan in the 80's or early 90's where the province gave everyone money to finish their basements. Great idea, they thought, to stimulate the economy and create jobs...many nice basements in older homes there. Of course the province is still saddled with the unpaid debt that program caused. Funny, I hear there are some people still very upset that the replacing government cut the program.


----------



## olivaw

Karl Wilderquist, associate professor at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar, and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth network says:



> My favored model is an unconditional basic income, high enough to cover a person’s basic needs and given to every man, woman, and child as a right of citizenship. There are many good ways to finance it. I favor taxes on resources and rents. Start charging the market rate for the broadcast spectrum instead of giving it away; the Fed should make money off the banks instead of vice versa; land value should be taxed; all forms of pollution should be taxed; and so on. But there are other ways to raise revenue. A wealth tax is a great idea, but you could also finance a basic income with an income tax—even a flat income tax. All of those are workable, good ways to do it, and all of them will effect redistribution from the very wealthy to the middle and lower classes.


conversely:

Kevin Milligan, professor of economics at the Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia says:


> The issues UBI plans to address are important. Lowering bureaucracy, lowering the phase-out rate on benefits to lower-income earners, and giving more money to people who are struggling—those are all great things. But there’s no magic wand that makes the funding challenges go away when you put on the Universal Basic Income label.


https://qz.com/611644/we-talked-to-...to-actually-institute-universal-basic-income/


----------



## Nelley

olivaw said:


> View attachment 14978


Why not try to have an intelligent conversation rather than just constantly insult people? What are you gaining by your behavior? The topic was driverless cars.


----------



## Pluto

here is mark zuckerberg on basic income topic:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark...universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html

Apparently he backs the idea of basic income.


----------



## bass player

Of course Zuckerberg would approve...he's a hard leftist. He also actively approves of censoring conservatives on Fakebook while allowing anti-Jewish pages to remain up, and promotes fake news by selectively ignoring trending stories that don't fit his agenda.


----------



## Pluto

^ Pretty sad.


----------



## mars

olivaw said:


> Karl Wilderquist, associate professor at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar, and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth network says:
> 
> My favored model is an unconditional basic income, high enough to cover a person’s basic needs and given to every man, woman, and child as a right of citizenship. There are many good ways to finance it. I favor taxes on resources and rents. Start charging the market rate for the broadcast spectrum instead of giving it away; the Fed should make money off the banks instead of vice versa; land value should be taxed; all forms of pollution should be taxed; and so on. But there are other ways to raise revenue. A wealth tax is a great idea, but you could also finance a basic income with an income tax—even a flat income tax. All of those are workable, good ways to do it, and all of them will effect redistribution from the very wealthy to the middle and lower classes.
> 
> 
> I wonder how much people really think these things through before they propose the idea? By taxing everything (all forms of pollution), you increase the cost of everything, which means you need to increase the UBI, to pay for the UBI you need to further increase taxes, which increases costs, and so on and so on and so on.
> 
> The discussion in this thread shows how much people disagree on how things should operate and where government should spend money. I remember years ago during one of the federal elections someone set up a table in one of the malls, it might have been in Vaughan, and they had 7 jars for spending and 14 pennies that people could select how they would spend the money government had if they were running the show. I forget what the 7 categories were but I remember one of them was defense spending. I remember that one because everyone who participated put nothing towards defense spending.
> 
> Maybe that should be a thread, asking everyone how they would spend the money if they were running the government. Ask if money came up short would they cut spending and where or would they increase taxes and where.


----------



## bass player

Pluto said:


> ^ Pretty sad.


Zuckerberg lives behind a wall while publicly calling a border wall wrong. He also supports the H1-B program that allows him to hire cheap non-American labour, but he now demands a basic income for those Americans that he won't hire and pay a fair wage to.

He's just another leftist hypocrite demanding that others pay for something that he won't do himself. Why should he be taken seriously?


----------



## BoringInvestor

bass player said:


> Of course Zuckerberg would approve...he's a hard leftist. He also actively approves of censoring conservatives on Fakebook while allowing anti-Jewish pages to remain up, *and promotes fake news by selectively ignoring trending stories that don't fit his agenda.*


The boded part is not an accurate representation of the cirmstances.
The trending news being discussed _were_ the fake news - as in the stories were entirely made up and held no basis in reality.

I'm not talking a matter of subjectively, I literally mean the stories were _entirely _fiction.


----------



## mordko

BoringInvestor said:


> The boded part is not an accurate representation of the cirmstances.
> The trending news being discussed _were_ the fake news - as in the stories were entirely made up and held no basis in reality.
> 
> I'm not talking a matter of subjectively, I literally mean the stories were _entirely _fiction.


I believe BP was referring to this story: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/23/facebook-admits-rogue-employees-may-have-shown-bia/

Facebook discriminated against valid stories rather than fake news. Doubt Zuckerberg had anything to do with it though.


----------



## BoringInvestor

mordko said:


> I believe BP was referring to this story: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/23/facebook-admits-rogue-employees-may-have-shown-bia/
> 
> Facebook discriminated against valid stories rather than fake news. Doubt Zuckerberg had anything to do with it though.


Indeed - I was aware of that story in particular, and didn't highlight that part of his reply.
It was the bolded assertion that I took issue with.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> here is mark zuckerberg on basic income topic:
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark...universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html
> 
> Apparently he backs the idea of basic income.


Zuckerberg raised one excellent point. Those who succeed usually have a fallback plan to survive if their venture fails. UBI (or some form of it) may provide a fallback plan for those who currently lack one. That may increase innovation and efficiency.

It's a unique argument because is suggests that UBI is about both wealth redistribution and wealth creation. Of course, we won't know until we study it.


----------



## Pluto

here is another Silicon Valley businessman, a CEO, President, CTO, on board of direc tors of whatever, who backs basic income:

https://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-income/


----------



## bass player

If a basic income program is so dear to the hearts of some people, no one is stopping them from funding a pilot project on their own. Zuckerberg and others have more than enough to put their money where their mouths are. Why doesn't billionaire Zuckerberg ante up a few million and give it a try?

But, instead, like all progressives, they want the taxpayer to fund their grand vision.

Prove it works and then maybe I'll listen. I've seen too many failed progressive policies to accept it without proof of concept.


----------



## Pluto

well I'm not sure I support it, but I havent rejected it out of hand either. 
At one point way back when, there was severe resistance to univerisal health care. Now most people like it. OAS used to be means tested, but now subject to reisidency requirements, and the clawback everyone gets it. so far these have not ruined Canada.


----------



## mordko

Someone who became a billionaire before graduating isn't all that familiar with the real life. Nor would he be an expert on macroeconomics. Always amazes me how people wheel in all those Hollywood and Silicon Valley stars as if their views have some kind of special legitimacy. In the end the bulk of taxes will be coming from the working people because there aren't enough Zuckerbergs to fund the ever higher handouts. 

Yes, a bunch of really wealthy people and stars expressed support for Stalinist USSR. Does it mean USSR was OK?


----------



## bass player

The left and their celebrity heroes have supported communism for decades...that alone should be enough for most reasonable people to think twice before taking their policy advice seriously.


----------



## Just a Guy

Henry ford, Charles Lindbergh, the king of England, Walt Disney, all supported Hitler's, heck Hugo Boss designed their uniforms.

George Bernard Shaw, Charlie Chaplin (maybe) and a lot of screen writers in Hollywood supported Stalin. 

Should we mention that Stalin supported Hitler at the beginning of the war?

Paris Hilton and Kim kardashien have great opinions too should we follow their lead?

We glorify many sports celebrities as heros, despite a vast majority having criminal records (yes johnny use OJ as your role model, he's famous after all, in fact doubly so now). 

Too many people are lemmings looking for a leader instead of using their own mind.

Has zuckerberg or anyone answered the question of where does the money come from? Trust me, if you could come up with a legitimate way to give me free, unconditional extra money, that doesn't hurt my personal wealth I'd be first in line...

I just keep asking the same inconvenient question which EVERY supporter keeps ignoring.


----------



## bass player

If you took all the wealth in Canada and distributed it equally, in 6 months or a year all those who were successful before would be successful again, and all those who were unsuccessful would have blown the money and been right back in the same position they were before.

UBI won't change how people think about money...all it will do is make it a little easier for some people to line up for the free money. How many people that won't accept $600 or $700 a month in welfare today would willingly accept $1,300 a month (based on suggested $16,000 yearly UBI) if it was introduced??


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> Henry ford, Charles Lindbergh, the king of England, Walt Disney, all supported Hitler's, heck Hugo Boss designed their uniforms.
> 
> George Bernard Shaw, Charlie Chaplin (maybe) and a lot of screen writers in Hollywood supported Stalin.
> 
> Should we mention that Stalin supported Hitler at the beginning of the war?
> 
> Paris Hilton and Kim kardashien have great opinions too should we follow their lead?
> 
> We glorify many sports celebrities as heros, despite a vast majority having criminal records (yes johnny use OJ as your role model, he's famous after all, in fact doubly so now).
> 
> Too many people are lemmings looking for a leader instead of using their own mind.
> 
> Has zuckerberg or anyone answered the question of where does the money come from? Trust me, if you could come up with a legitimate way to give me free, unconditional extra money, that doesn't hurt my personal wealth I'd be first in line...
> 
> I just keep asking the same inconvenient question which EVERY supporter keeps ignoring.


Not one penny is coming from grifter Zuckerberg-that is why the little slimeball loves the idea.


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> Henry ford, Charles Lindbergh, the king of England, Walt Disney, all supported Hitler's, heck Hugo Boss designed their uniforms.
> 
> George Bernard Shaw, Charlie Chaplin (maybe) and a lot of screen writers in Hollywood supported Stalin.
> 
> Should we mention that Stalin supported Hitler at the beginning of the war?
> 
> Paris Hilton and Kim kardashien have great opinions too should we follow their lead?
> 
> We glorify many sports celebrities as heros, despite a vast majority having criminal records (yes johnny use OJ as your role model, he's famous after all, in fact doubly so now).
> 
> Too many people are lemmings looking for a leader instead of using their own mind.
> 
> Has zuckerberg or anyone answered the question of where does the money come from? Trust me, if you could come up with a legitimate way to give me free, unconditional extra money, that doesn't hurt my personal wealth I'd be first in line...
> 
> I just keep asking the same inconvenient question which EVERY supporter keeps ignoring.


So Hugo Boss designed Nazi Uniforms so Zuckerbergs is not allowed to have an opinion about guaranteed annual income. 

OK JAG.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> So Hugo Boss designed Nazi Uniforms so Zuckerbergs is not allowed to have an opinion about guaranteed annual income.
> 
> OK JAG.


No one said Zuckerberg is not allowed to have an opinion. However, people are equally allowed to dismiss his opinion as invalid. Do you agree or disagree, or would you rather twist what people say so you can avoid answering the tough questions?

As I have stated...Zuckerberg is worth billions. Why doesn't he step up and create a small UBI program to see how it works? There are no laws preventing him from funding a small group of people with a guaranteed income for a certain period of time to see if it's viable.

Do you agree or disagree?


----------



## Just a Guy

Never said they could not have their opinions...I was saying just because they are famous doesn't make them right. Heck, I may not be right either.

I'm saying, since you missed it, think for yourself.

P.S. If you look at the history of the founding of Facebook, not the movie version, though it doesn't hide it either, Zuckerberg isn't exactly one who's about sharing his wealth.


----------



## Just a Guy

New thought, if we implemented UBI, does that mean we could do away with minimum wage? Could salaries be cut by say $15/hour? If so, that would be a big step towards finding the money to pay for it. 

Of course, my bet is no one would be willing to support that idea. Well maybe people like zuckerberg wouldn't mind.


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> Never said they could not have their opinions...I was saying just because they are famous doesn't make them right. Heck, I may not be right either.
> 
> I'm saying, since you missed it, think for yourself.


Does a closed mind pass for thinking nowadays? Better to keep an open mind and listen to a variety of opinions. 

If you look back, you will see that I even posted two opposing academic opinions in a single post. 

We have been looking at UBI as a wealth redistribution process. Zuckerberg suggested that a GMI will provides a safety net for more people to create new businesses, products and services. If true, UBI will be a wealth creation mechanism. Interesting angle, worth thinking about.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> New thought, if we implemented UBI, does that mean we could do away with minimum wage? Could salaries be cut by say $15/hour? If so, that would be a big step towards finding the money to pay for it.
> 
> Of course, my bet is no one would be willing to support that idea. Well maybe people like zuckerberg wouldn't mind.


The original premise of UBI is this: pay everyone-rich, poor, middle whatever-a basic amount each year-offset this with a GUTTING of social programs-so the idea is to eliminate 
government programs, government jobs and overhead. It is about efficiency. It makes sense as a way to share the finances of a society. It can never work in Canada because we have people here like Wynne and Selfie-here it just becomes another out of control guv joke.


----------



## Nelley

olivaw said:


> Does a closed mind pass for thinking nowadays? Better to keep an open mind and listen to a variety of opinions.
> 
> If you look back, you will see that I even posted two opposing academic opinions in a single post.
> 
> We have been looking at UBI as a wealth redistribution process. Zuckerberg suggested that a GMI will provides a safety net for more people to create new businesses, products and services. If true, UBI will be a wealth creation mechanism. Interesting angle, worth thinking about.


No offense, but do you ever think at all? Canada could pay everyone just as much money as little slimeball Zucky had when he was a sleazy silver spoon kid at Harvard-lets say everyone in Canada gets a UBI of $80000 a year-then everyone could relax and come up with great ideas.


----------



## Just a Guy

If you look back on this thread, I did the math to see what happens if we gave every Canadian just $1000/month. The cost was almost $100B over the entire ferderal budget. No amount of government cuts will make up for that. 

No matter how great an idea UBI looks on paper, the thing everyone is ignoring is where does the money come from?

Show me an academic paper which answers that question olivaw. Academic papers on the benefits is easy, if I had unlimited funds, what could I do, how would people benefit...easy stuff. Let's get back to reality now, where does the money come from? UBI isn't UBI if you take out the U. Even if you take out the U and double the benefit, or triple, or whatever, that's still more money than we pay out today. We are running a deficit today, which means we don't have the money to support the programs as they stand today, yet you want to spend more...

Wake up now, life doesn't work that way, this isn't a theoretical paper. There's a reason why academia and the real world are two different places, one has theoretical ideas, one has to try an implement them based on the real world. communism, capitalism, any "ism" you'd like all started out as theoretical, academic ideas...All of them looked "perfect" on paper, none of them ever worked out that way in reality. 

I'm sure though that "this time it'll be different".


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> No matter how great an idea UBI looks on paper, the thing everyone is ignoring is where does the money come from?
> 
> Show me an academic paper which answers that question olivaw.


You won't get an answer. Several of us have asked that question repeatedly and those in favour refuse to answer it.

Funding for progressive schemes comes from the Magic Money Tree of unlimited funds...and those who come up with such grand ideas can't be bothered with the inconvenient reality of who will pay for it


----------



## olivaw

JAG and BP, there have been a few academic funding proposals. 

http://basicincome.org/basic-income/frequently-asked-questions/#funding



> The basic income may, but need not, be funded in a specific, ear-marked way.
> 
> If it is not, it is simply funded along with all other government expenditures out of a common pool of revenues from a variety of sources. Among those who advocated ear-marked funding, most are thinking of a specific tax. Some want it funded out of a land tax or a tax on natural resources (see, e.g., Thomas Paine 1796, Raymond Crotty 1987, Marc Davidson 1995, or James Robertson 1999). Others prefer a specific levy on a very broadly defined income base (e.g. Pelzer 1998, 1999) or a massively expanded value-added tax (e.g. Duchatelet 1992, 1998). And some of those who are thinking of a worldwide basic income stress the potential of new tax instruments such as “Tobin taxes” on speculative capital movements (see Bresson 1999) or “bit taxes” on transfers of information (see Soete & Kamp 1996).
> 
> Redistributive taxation need not be the only source of funding for basic income. Alaska’s dividend scheme (O’Brien & Olson 1990, Palmer 1997) is funded out of part of the return on a diversified investment fund which the state built up using the royalties on Alaska’s vast oil fields. In the same vein, James Meade’s (1989, 1993, 1994, 1995) blueprint of a fair and efficient economy comprises a social dividend funded out of the return on publicly owned productive assets. Finally, there has been a whole sequence of proposals to fund a basic income out of money creation, from Major Douglas’s Social Credit movement (see Van Trier 1997) and Jacques and Marie-Louise Duboin’s (1945, 1985) Mouvement français pour l’abondance to the recent writings of Joseph Huber (1998, 1999, 2000 with J. Robertson).


----------



## olivaw

A few more links to funding and philosophical discussions. 

*WHY EVERY HUMAN BEING DESERVES A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME*

*How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Fairly*

*HOW A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME COULD CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY*

*FORBES: Of Course We Can Afford A Universal Basic Income: Do We Want One Though?*

*Big Think: How the Heck We'll Pay for a Universal Basic Income*

*Prof. Frank Stilwell: A discussion paper on Universal Basic Income and shorter working week* (PDF)

*Prof. James K. Boyceand Peter Barnes: How to Pay for Universal Basic Income*

From the last: 


> But universal income is expensive and quickly runs into the stumbling block of how to pay for it. Its wide appeal is checked by an equally wide*spread aver*sion to taxes, especially for the purpose of redistributing income. Fortu*nate*ly there’s another way to pay for it: universal income can come from universal assets, a.k.a. our common wealth.
> 
> The wealth we inherit and create together is worth trillions of dollars, yet we presently derive almost no income from it. Our joint inheritance includes invaluable gifts of nature such as our atmosphere, minerals and fresh water, and socially created assets such as our legal and financial infrastructure, without which private corporations couldn’t exist, much less thrive. If our common assets were better managed, they could pay every American, including children, several hundred dollars a month.
> 
> Consider, for example, the limited capacity of our atmosphere to absorb pollutants that cause climate change. By charging polluters for using that scarce asset, we can both protect our climate and generate dividends for everyone. Other forms of pollution could be similarly priced. And we could charge market prices for extracting resources like minerals and timber from public lands that are now leased to private firms cheaply in sweetheart deals. Making polluters and extractors pay, without abandon*ing regulation, would provide market-based incentives to respect nature.


----------



## bass player

So...higher prices for everything. How exactly does that help the poor??


----------



## mordko

Higher prices => higher profits. Higher profits => higher taxes. Higher taxes => bigger benefits. Bigger benefits => higher prices. And taxes.

It's a win-win-win-win-win.

We just need to pay everyone a guaranteed income of $10k a month and innovation will take off. Actually... Stay with me, because it's maths but if $10K in handouts is going to double innovation then 100K in monthly handouts to everyone will increase innovation by a factor of 20! That will increase pofits and taxes by a factor of 308093483098. Which means we can pay even larger basic income.

Paradise is just around the corner and all it takes is to pay bigger handouts to everyone.


----------



## sags

I wonder if those opposed to a universal basic income feel so outraged about people collecting GIS while owning million dollar assets.

Do they feel outrage that people with money avoid taxes by "sprinkling" their incomes among family with TFSA, RRSP and corporation taxes ?

Somehow I doubt it. Welfare to the rich is somehow okay with them.


----------



## bass player

I'm against GIS if a person owns substantial assets. But, what exactly does that have to do with UBI other than trying to use it as a deflection tactic?

Mordko explained it perfectly so even a rube like me can understand. It's a win win win win!!

When can I expect my first UBI cheque?


----------



## Nelley

sags said:


> I wonder if those opposed to a universal basic income feel so outraged about people collecting GIS while owning million dollar assets.
> 
> Do they feel outrage that people with money avoid taxes by "sprinkling" their incomes among family with TFSA, RRSP and corporation taxes ?
> 
> Somehow I doubt it. Welfare to the rich is somehow okay with them.


You actually believe that the rich-guys like Weston or Suckyberg are going to pay for this scam? The vanishing "middle class" is the target on this one-wipe it out for good is the plan.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Mordko explained it perfectly so even a rube like me can understand. It's a win win win win!!


Yeah, one rube convinced another rube. Okey Dokey. 

I satisfied your demand for academic papers offering solutions to the funding problems. Did they go above your head or did you simply ignore them?


----------



## olivaw

I am undecided about UBI, but it may become a necessary response to AI and automation. To refocus to the discussion about how we might pay for it, two intriguing proposals are: 

An externality is a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that adversely effects other parties without compensating them for the adverse effect. (E.g. A wood preservation plant near downtown Calgary left behind creosote contamination in the soil and groundwater. Taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. Rather than spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize corporations, lets spend them to help individuals. 

Another proposal is to recognize that land ownership is an artificial construct with no basis in economic reality (i.e. private human labour did not build the land) . Rather than encourage land ownership and land inheritance, we could view it as a public resource and charge rent. We'd need to guarantee renter protection, but that hardly seems a challenge. 

IMO, Probably best to let somebody else try it first. Maybe we can see how it works out in Finland and then try it here.


----------



## bass player

Yup...I read some of the solutions and fantasy numbers from the so-called "academics":



> "Currently, those who benefit most from our socially built assets pay almost nothing to use them. But that needn’t always be the case. We could charge for using key compo*nents of our legal and financial infrastructure; for example, modest transaction fees on trades of stocks, bonds and deriva*tives could generate more than $300 billion per year. Such fees would not only generate in*come for everyone; they’d discourage speculation and help stabilize our financial system. Similar fees could be applied to patent and royalty earnings, which are returns not only to inno*va*tion but also to mono*poly rights granted and enforced by society."


We're gonna raise $300 billion a year by imposing "modest" tax on the trading of stocks and bonds? What's modest about a tax that exceeds our entire federal budget?

Please provide a solution based on reality, instead of an unrealistic fantasy from an "academic".


----------



## like_to_retire

bass player said:


> Yup...I read some of the solutions and fantasy numbers from the so-called "academics":
> 
> We're gonna raise $300 billion a year by imposing "modest" tax on the trading of stocks and bonds? What's modest about a tax that exceeds our entire federal budget?
> 
> Please provide a solution based on reality, instead of an unrealistic fantasy from an "academic".



+1

ltr


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> IRather than encourage land ownership and land inheritance, we could view it as a public resource and charge rent. We'd need to guarantee renter protection, but that hardly seems a challenge.


So, the property that everyone bought and paid for with years of hard work and sacrifice will simply be taken away from them and given to the government, and then we'll all have to pay rent to use our own assets? I worked for 3 decades to own my house free and clear and I'm just supposed to simply GIVE IT AWAY so that we can pay other people not to work?

The mind boggling stupidity of that argument is frightening.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Yup...I read some of the solutions and fantasy numbers from the so-called "academics":
> 
> 
> 
> We're gonna raise $300 billion a year by imposing "modest" tax on the trading of stocks and bonds? What's modest about a tax that exceeds our entire federal budget?
> 
> Please provide a solution based on reality, instead of an unrealistic fantasy from an "academic".


Ummm Bass, 300 billion was for the US - it is definitely modest compared to their $3.8 trillion budget. Do try again.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> So, the property that everyone bought and paid for with years of hard work and sacrifice will simply be taken away from them and given to the government, and then we'll all have to pay rent to use our own assets? I worked for 3 decades to own my house free and clear and I'm just supposed to simply GIVE IT AWAY so that we can pay other people not to work?
> 
> The mind boggling stupidity of that argument is frightening.


Of course not. The government will have to buy back the property that it sold, or gave away. probably be in the form of 20 or 30 years of rent forgiveness. 

Try to think outside the box bass.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> Of course not. The government will have to buy back the property that it sold, or gave away. probably be in the form of 20 or 30 years of rent forgiveness.
> 
> Try to think outside the box bass.


I give up. You're suggesting that everyone hand over their home and land to the government. I wonder if you need to seek some professional help for having such delusions?


----------



## like_to_retire

bass player said:


> I give up. You're suggesting that everyone hand over their home and land to the government.


It's mind boggling. Where do ideas like this come from? Central government ownership of all land. Sounds like communism.

ltr


----------



## mordko

So the government would expropriate your home and then "forgive" you the rent on your own home for a few years? 

That is so sweet!!! In fact that is so sweet, that I am happy to chip in for a one-way ticket to take Olivaw to N Korea.


----------



## Just a Guy

Okay, let's look at your examples...

Alaska, small population, large resources to pull from. Iceland, similar. He examples from early America, same. Also the current tax hit is significantly higher. You're asking for $420B of new income at least (that was only for $1000/month). 
That's 1/3 of Canada's GDP. To get to $1500/month is half. No other taxes, no roads, no bidges, no police, no military, no nothing.

Your quote from barns said, if money were better managed we could pay every American a few hundred dollars every month... you want to pay thousands every month, so you're out by an order of magnitude (meaning you need ten times more money than your expert could find). 

Alberta and Saskatchewan could maybe implement a UBI, but I'm sure Quebec and Ontario would then want to take their money...not that Quebec doesn't already. And Justin's dad already tried grabbing alberta's money when he was in charge...left the province in a recession for decades.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Trust me, if you could come up with a legitimate way to give me free, unconditional extra money, that doesn't hurt my personal wealth I'd be first in line...


I'm wondering if you are against universial health care? You see some people/families may use/need health care more than you and if so, you are subsidizing their use, and that hurts your personal wealth. Universial health care seems to be popular despite the fact that some need expensive care more than others. If I remember correctly you had some health problems around the time you commemnced your real estate operations. What if you had to pay for your health care out of pocket? maybe you wouldn't have made it. 

It isn't clear to me that just becasue a program is universial and some might use it more than others, that all is lost. 

Mind you, I don't know if UBI is bad or good. I haven't decided so I pay attention to those who are against it trying to ferret out the best critiques.


----------



## andrewf

For everyone doing facile math of taking a UBI entitlement of x per year and multiplying it by y number of Canadian adults to saying it will cost x*y, you have to think about how such a program would be structured.

Here are the income deciles in Canada:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/150708/t002b-eng.htm

The poorest 10% of Canadians families/individuals earn $17300 after tax. One could create a UBI that pays a certain benefit and claws back that benefit based on employment income such that once an after tax income of 17,300 is reached the benefit is entirely clawed back. Thus, 90% of Canadians would receive 0 net benefit. The lowest decile has an average income of $9200, so they would, on average, only receive about half of the UBI benefit (half of it clawed back). So, the net cost of the program would be equivalent to 5% of adults receiving full benefits. A UBI of $10k each would then cost about $10 billion, in net terms for Canada.

Of course, you can make it more or less generous or play with the clawback rates. It's useful to study the effect of varying those parameters. Regardless, any such scheme would not be exceedingly generous, and likely not impact incentives for the vast majority of working people. People earning after tax incomes of $100k per year are not going to quit and live on $10k in a rooming house eaten ramen noodles.


----------



## gibor365

> People earning after tax incomes of $100k per year are not going to quit and live on $10k in a rooming house eaten ramen noodles.


 Older people earning after tax incomes of $100k per year very likely have paid out house, accummulated enough wealth to live on and easily can quit. Young people , in such situation, just can move to more favoritable location


----------



## andrewf

^ If it's a real concern, a UBI can be asset tested as well as income. Of course, you can't live in a paid-off house for $10k per year, with property tax, utilities, maintenance, insurance.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> ^ If it's a real concern, a UBI can be asset tested as well as income. Of course, you can't live in a paid-off house for $10k per year, with property tax, utilities, maintenance, insurance.


Sure you can, depending on where you live. I have been doing exactly that on well under $10k a year for as long as I remember. Of course, it certainly helps to have solid DIY skills.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> ^ If it's a real concern, a UBI can be asset tested as well as income. Of course, you can't live in a paid-off house for $10k per year, with property tax, utilities, maintenance, insurance.


Why not if you may have 1.5-2M in savings


----------



## andrewf

Budget?

4k property tax
1k insurance
1k hydro
0.5k water
1k heating

leaves $2500 for maintenance and, you know, feeding yourself.


----------



## andrewf

gibor365 said:


> Why not if you may have 1.5-2M in savings


If you have that kind of savings, you almost certainly have max CPP benefits, or $13.4k per person. If OAS still exists you would get 0$.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Budget?
> 
> 4k property tax
> 1k insurance
> 1k hydro
> 0.5k water
> 1k heating
> 
> leaves $2500 for maintenance and, you know, feeding yourself.


$2500 property tax
$1500 hydro and heating
$800 insurance
$500 water
$1000 maintenance (being generous, often far less)

$3700 left over for food...which is more than enough as I cook from scratch 80% of the time.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> If you have that kind of savings, you almost certainly have max CPP benefits, or $13.4k per person. If OAS still exists you would get 0$.


False. We have savings close to 1.5M (exclude home) and our CPP estimations are minimum.... I just called CPP who said that I will be getting $280 , my wife (if retired today) not much more...

in any case why $0? OAS Minimum income threshold clawback is 70K+


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> I'm wondering if you are against universial health care? You see some people/families may use/need health care more than you and if so, you are subsidizing their use, and that hurts your personal wealth. Universial health care seems to be popular despite the fact that some need expensive care more than others. If I remember correctly you had some health problems around the time you commemnced your real estate operations. What if you had to pay for your health care out of pocket? maybe you wouldn't have made it.


Ambulance ride, not covered.
Chiropractor, not covered
Physical therapy, limited coverage
Dental, no coverage
Drugs, not covered

Yes, part of my treatment was covered, but a majority of it wasn't. Did have to pay out of pocket, or avoid certain recommended treatments. Tough choices.

The problem with universal health care is it's not affordable either. Every time the government announces more money, the unions line up for raises. Wait times have increased over the years despite higher budgets. I believe health care is now approaching 40% of the budget. High cost of treatment for a few can totally tip the budget out of whack.

I've got many relatives in the medical field, so I'm pretty familiar with this debate. We have this debate all the time. They are all happy with their huge paycheques while complaining that they can't get the latest equipment or reduce wait times. If they took a pay cut, they could afford to hire more doctors and nurses to reduce their over work...but they don't want to do that.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> For everyone doing facile math of taking a UBI entitlement of x per year and multiplying it by y number of Canadian adults to saying it will cost x*y, you have to think about how such a program would be structured.
> 
> Here are the income deciles in Canada:
> 
> http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/150708/t002b-eng.htm
> 
> The poorest 10% of Canadians families/individuals earn $17300 after tax. One could create a UBI that pays a certain benefit and claws back that benefit based on employment income such that once an after tax income of 17,300 is reached the benefit is entirely clawed back. Thus, 90% of Canadians would receive 0 net benefit. The lowest decile has an average income of $9200, so they would, on average, only receive about half of the UBI benefit (half of it clawed back). So, the net cost of the program would be equivalent to 5% of adults receiving full benefits. A UBI of $10k each would then cost about $10 billion, in net terms for Canada.
> 
> Of course, you can make it more or less generous or play with the clawback rates. It's useful to study the effect of varying those parameters. Regardless, any such scheme would not be exceedingly generous, and likely not impact incentives for the vast majority of working people. People earning after tax incomes of $100k per year are not going to quit and live on $10k in a rooming house eaten ramen noodles.


What you're describing isn't UBI anymore, it's more like something called...welfare. We've been doing it for years. Why give everyone money, then take it back from the majority? There's an expense related to that. Typical government inefficiency. Probably cost $2 for every $1 handed out. 

We could do something like raise the minimum tax level, say the first $25k you earn is tax free, except you'd be expected to go out and actually earn $25k. We provide an environment where you can make $25k, we have means for nearly anyone to do it (from the mentally ill to the severely disabled, I know people who've managed to make money, not always by getting a regular job mind you). 

But that's not good enough. Having the opportunity isn't enough. UBI supporters don't want to force people to get a job, or be creative about making money and being responsible, that's not good enough, not "fair".

It's more "fair" for the "rich" (anyone but them usually) to ensure everyone gets 25k no matter what. It's society's responsibility, not theirs mind you, theirs is to point out the way to get there, don't touch their money, they can't afford it.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> If you look back on this thread, I did the math to see what happens if we gave every Canadian just $1000/month. The cost was almost $100B over the entire ferderal budget. No amount of government cuts will make up for that.
> 
> No matter how great an idea UBI looks on paper, the thing everyone is ignoring is where does the money come from?


Is your example of where every canadian getting 1000 a month real, or just made up? Give me a specific Government proposal that is the equivialnt of your example. I'm not convinced that your example constitutes a valid example. 

My understanding is that people below a specific income would get $ up to a maximum cut off. So everyone wouldn't get it. For example in Denmark the minimum basic was deemed to be 100 per day. So people already earning 100 per day get nothing. So in your example of 1000 per month, people already getting 1000 per month get nothing. since most get nothing, why do you multiply it by the population of Canada?


----------



## Just a Guy

Sorry, this discussion is about universal basic income. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of what you are advocating...

Here is the definition as per Wikipedia.



> A basic income (also called basic income guarantee, Citizen's Income, unconditional basic income, universal basic income, or universal demogrant[2]) is a form of social security[3] in which *all citizens or residents* of a country regularly receive a regular, unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.
> 
> Many basic income supporters believe that it should be enough to meet a person's basic needs. For this reason, an unconditional income transfer of less than the poverty line is sometimes called a partial basic income while one greater than that level is sometimes called a full basic income.


You'll note there is nothing about limiting who gets it. 

Now, that may not be what you want to believe UBI should be, however your personal opinion doesn't change the actual definition. 

The purpose of a definition is to ensure that there is no miscommunication. You're version of UBI isn't the real definition. You are talking about welfare



> Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support *for citizens without current means* to support basic needs. In most developed countries, welfare is largely provided by the government from tax income, and to a lesser extent by charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations.
> 
> The welfare state expands on this concept to include services such as universal healthcare and unemployment insurance.


You'll note this is limited to citizens without current means. 

Many people advocate for things without truly understanding what it means because they make assumptions about the definition instead of actually doing some research. 

You know the joke about what happens when you assume something right? If not, I suggest you look it up.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> Sorry, this discussion is about universal basic income. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of what you are advocating...
> 
> Here is the definition as per Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note there is nothing about limiting who gets it.
> 
> Now, that may not be what you want to believe UBI should be, however your personal opinion doesn't change the actual definition.
> 
> The purpose of a definition is to ensure that there is no miscommunication. You're version of UBI isn't the real definition. You are talking about welfare
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note this is limited to citizens without current means.
> 
> Many people advocate for things without truly understanding what it means because they make assumptions about the definition instead of actually doing some research.
> 
> You know the joke about what happens when you assume something right? If not, I suggest you look it up.


When such a simple concept is so difficult to grasp it somewhat explains why a part time bouncer, part time supply teacher is our Fearless Leader.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Ambulance ride, not covered.
> Chiropractor, not covered
> Physical therapy, limited coverage
> Dental, no coverage
> Drugs, not covered
> 
> Yes, part of my treatment was covered, but a majority of it wasn't. Did have to pay out of pocket, or avoid certain recommended treatments. Tough choices.
> 
> The problem with universal health care is it's not affordable either. Every time the government announces more money, the unions line up for raises. Wait times have increased over the years despite higher budgets. I believe health care is now approaching 40% of the budget. High cost of treatment for a few can totally tip the budget out of whack.
> 
> I've got many relatives in the medical field, so I'm pretty familiar with this debate. We have this debate all the time. They are all happy with their huge paycheques while complaining that they can't get the latest equipment or reduce wait times. If they took a pay cut, they could afford to hire more doctors and nurses to reduce their over work...but they don't want to do that.


1. Well that has the ring of truth to it. (but private health care insurance isn't cheap either.) But my point was that somone hit by an expensive health problem in our system is subsidized by the rest who do not have an expensive health problem. Are you against that? Universial health care has a similiar principle of sharing as UBI. would you have preferred, in your case, to have private coverage and possibly have your premiums go up to a point you couldn't afford it? Or was it OK with you having a low income to to a health problem and getting subsidiezed by others? 
I get your story that you faced adversidty, and survived. but maybe if you didn't have the health care coverage, you might have sunk deeper and not beocme as successful as you did. Since you availed yourself of a free system where you got free health care until you became a taxpayer again that possibly helped you get where your are financially. Right now you as a taxpayer, you are subsidizing others who are suffering with their health and it is eating into your personal wealth. But you got the same. 

Some people might say well what JAG got has got to stop as it is eating into other people personal wealth. But strangely, on balance, people don't say that. I'm wondering if we had UBI, and 5 % got some benifit, if it wouldn't be similiar ie, people might not notice much.


----------



## bass player

^^

Why can't someone be in favour of subsidized medial care, but not in favour of UBI? There is no "all or nothing" rule that has to be followed.

Or, is there?


----------



## Just a Guy

Actually, I always paid into health care, even when injured (I earned passive income and still had to pay tax on it). I also had to pay for the out of pocket expenses. I could never afford private health care coverage, and now I'm excluded from any pre-existing conditions.

As I said before, it was a good motivator to change. 

Again, I'm not against social safety nets. Read my posts and stop making assumptions. 

I don't see people objecting or asking for health care claw backs for the wealthy in Canada, which would make the system more affordable. I also don't understand spending millions on an experimental treatment which will most likely not work just because one Canadian needs it. I also don't like that you can take up a hospital spot with a sniffle because it doesn't cost anything to go "just in case". Can health care use improvement? Is it efficient? Should we just keep pouring more money into it because we always have? Have doctors and nurses pay gone up while the wait times have increased despite having the highest spending on the system ever?

Sorry, I don't think we can sustain UHC if it continues as it is.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> I give up. You're suggesting that everyone hand over their home and land to the government. I wonder if you need to seek some professional help for having such delusions?


No, the proposal was about land, not buildings. a huge portion of land in this country already belongs to the crown and first nations. It was not my proposal, it was one of the proposals in the links that you failed to read. There was no discussion about seizing people's homes. 

But hey, you got your droll dig in, LTR is boggled. mordko got to dive down the communism rabbit hole. It's all good.


----------



## Just a Guy

So, you're suggesting we just move our houses? My house only makes up a portion of the payment I made when I bought it. I also pay thousands of dollars in taxes on it every year, something renters don't do. I suppose you could say that I'm renting the land from the government...since I'll pay taxes (rent) as long as I own the place, or I'm my case places.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> What you're describing isn't UBI anymore, it's more like something called...welfare. We've been doing it for years. Why give everyone money, then take it back from the majority? There's an expense related to that. Typical government inefficiency. Probably cost $2 for every $1 handed out.
> 
> We could do something like raise the minimum tax level, say the first $25k you earn is tax free, except you'd be expected to go out and actually earn $25k. We provide an environment where you can make $25k, we have means for nearly anyone to do it (from the mentally ill to the severely disabled, I know people who've managed to make money, not always by getting a regular job mind you).
> 
> But that's not good enough. Having the opportunity isn't enough. UBI supporters don't want to force people to get a job, or be creative about making money and being responsible, that's not good enough, not "fair".
> 
> It's more "fair" for the "rich" (anyone but them usually) to ensure everyone gets 25k no matter what. It's society's responsibility, not theirs mind you, theirs is to point out the way to get there, don't touch their money, they can't afford it.


I think you're mistaken. This is how all credible UBI schemes would work. You can't give net benefits to rich people in a UBI scheme because obviously someone has to pay for it. The vast majority would not receive net benefits under such a scheme. That's the only way it can realistically work, and that is why I have said it won't be very generous.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> No, the proposal was about land, not buildings. a huge portion of land in this country already belongs to the crown and first nations. It was not my proposal, it was one of the proposals in the links that you failed to read. There was no discussion about seizing people's homes.
> 
> But hey, you got your droll dig in, LTR is boggled. mordko got to dive down the communism rabbit hole. It's all good.


This is called Land Value Tax. It is a favourite of economists.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Sorry, this discussion is about universal basic income. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of what you are advocating...
> 
> Here is the definition as per Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note there is nothing about limiting who gets it.
> 
> Now, that may not be what you want to believe UBI should be, however your personal opinion doesn't change the actual definition.
> 
> The purpose of a definition is to ensure that there is no miscommunication. You're version of UBI isn't the real definition. You are talking about welfare
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note this is limited to citizens without current means.
> 
> Many people advocate for things without truly understanding what it means because they make assumptions about the definition instead of actually doing some research.
> 
> You know the joke about what happens when you assume something right? If not, I suggest you look it up.


If you go a bit further in the wiki definition, you will find this passage:

"Basic income schemes have also been promoted within the context of capitalist systems, where they would be financed through various forms of taxation,[5]"

Every basic income scheme needs to be funded somehow, and in a capitalist system, that means taxes. So part of introducing a UBI would be modifications to taxes to fund it, most obviously changes to personal income taxes. The idea of a basic personal exemption could be phased out (the 0% tax rate on the first X$ of income), with a marginal tax rate of perhaps 50% to act as a clawback of UBI benefits.

Welfare, at least as it has been implemented in most western societies, is essentially a selective benefit with 100% clawback when in kind benefits are considered. The clawback rate and the universality are the key differences between UBI and welfare.


----------



## Just a Guy

You'll notice that you are now talking about a "Basic income scheme" which dropped a key word "universal". When one drops a descriptive word, the word no longer modifies the word. Thus, a basic income stream is different from a universal basic income. They are not the same. 

For example "free lunch" and "lunch", while both being forms of "lunch" can be, but aren't always the same. If you go for lunch, assuming it'll be free, you may be in for a surprise at the end.

Of course a lot of people felt English classes were a waste of time.


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> So, you're suggesting we just move our houses? My house only makes up a portion of the payment I made when I bought it. I also pay thousands of dollars in taxes on it every year, something renters don't do. I suppose you could say that I'm renting the land from the government...since I'll pay taxes (rent) as long as I own the place, or I'm my case places.


Of course not. I own a suburban house and land too. I don't plan to move it.

My neighbour also owns a lakefront vacation cabin on a reserve. He owns the building and leases the land. Seems to work.

Again most land in the country is non residential. 

The land proposal was but one of the many academic proposals to pay for UBI. I was intrigued by it because I am intrigued by First Nations concept of the land. They treat it like the air and the sea. It differs greatly from our European notions of land as a commodity that can be accumulated and speculated.


----------



## Just a Guy

A lot of land in this country isn't generating revenue. The forest industry, oil industry, mineral industry all pay land leases already. So what exactly is your plan to generate more money then? The valuable land is in cities, no one wants miles of muskeg. Should we lease it to foreign countries? Maybe Russia would be interested in leasing some land to set up a military base...could probably get some good revenue from that.

Btw, most of Vancouver is built on leased land...doesn't seem to be solving the budget deficit there either, even though it's native land, they seem to still be broke too.


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> You'll notice that you are now talking about a "Basic income scheme" which dropped a key word "universal". When one drops a descriptive word, the word no longer modifies the word. Thus, a basic income stream is different from a universal basic income. They are not the same.
> 
> For example "free lunch" and "lunch", while both being forms of "lunch" can be, but aren't always the same. If you go for lunch, assuming it'll be free, you may be in for a surprise at the end.
> 
> Of course a lot of people felt English classes were a waste of time.


Universal does not mean free. The income will be taxable. There _may_ be a clawback, just like there is with OAS. That's a detail, not a substantive change to the discussion.


----------



## Just a Guy

Go back a few posts and read the definitions...post 401 and 411 may be of help.


----------



## olivaw

The definition does not preclude taxation of the universal basic income.

Some academics use the term guaranteed minimum income. Same concept but it allows for more implementation flexibility.


----------



## Just a Guy

You are modifying the scheme to suit your definition. You are arguing something different from UBI, at best a basic income stream of some sort. Again are you inviting me for a free lunch, and expecting me to pay? If you are, then you're misusing the act of "inviting" and twisting the intent, not to mention the definition of free lunch.

Your version of UBI fits the definition of welfare more than it does UBI.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> Of course not. I own a suburban house and land too. I don't plan to move it.
> 
> My neighbour also owns a lakefront vacation cabin on a reserve. He owns the building and leases the land. Seems to work.


Your scenario assumes that the government own the leases. What happens if the government changes the rules and nullifies your lease or makes the terms unbearable? What happens to your neighbor? What if it happens to you?

Actually, the real question is: Why are you so willing to give up control of your land? Do you even own property?


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> You are modifying the scheme to suit your definition. You are arguing something different from UBI, at best a basic income stream of some sort. Again are you inviting me for a free lunch, and expecting me to pay? If you are, then you're misusing the act of "inviting" and twisting the intent, not to mention the definition of free lunch.
> 
> Your version of UBI fits the definition of welfare more than it does UBI.


Welfare is a temporary solution. It is subject to a 100% clawback. I have never received a penny of welfare in my life.

Universal basic income is permanent. I would have received it throughout my adult life. 

I would not have minded being taxed on the money. The more generous the benefit, the higher the taxation/clawback rate needs to be. 

Are you saying that UBI is only UBI if it is unfunded? Or untaxed .... or?


----------



## gibor365

> I also don't understand spending millions on an experimental treatment which will most likely not work just because one Canadian needs it. I also don't like that you can take up a hospital spot with a sniffle because it doesn't cost anything to go "just in case". Can health care use improvement? Is it efficient? Should we just keep pouring more money into it because we always have? Have doctors and nurses pay gone up while the wait times have increased despite having the highest spending on the system ever?


 I also don't understand.... , I just understand that health care in Canada is screwed big time


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Your scenario assumes that the government own the leases. What happens if the government changes the rules and nullifies your lease or makes the terms unbearable? What happens to your neighbor? What if it happens to you?
> 
> Actually, the real question is: Why are you so willing to give up control of your land? Do you even own property?


not to get sidetracked but the government already controls my suburban lot. It is zoned single family residence and nothing else. I need a permit to add buildings or make substantive changes. I have to maintain my lawn and buildings to a certain standard.


----------



## gibor365

> Ambulance ride, not covered.
> Chiropractor, not covered
> Physical therapy, limited coverage
> Dental, no coverage
> Drugs, not covered


physiotherapy is partially covered only for seniors, not if you below 65 y.o.
And you forgot about vision! Month and half ago I had lens replacement surgery (not cosmetic laser one, I did it as I was practically 95% bling on one eye). I paid $3,200 , even 1 cent wasn't covered! and this was the first time I needed something serious from OHIP, as usually I visit GP only to renew my meds... another huge waste of taxpayers money.... she (GP) on purpose give me refills only for 3 months, than I will come again and she will charge OHIP... The only question she's asking "Is everything OK?" 

P.S. I just don't understand why family doctors, with their huge salries, not to replace with computer station .... muchcheaper and more effective....


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> not to get sidetracked but the government already controls my suburban lot. It is zoned single family residence and nothing else. I need a permit to add buildings or make substantive changes. I have to maintain my lawn and buildings to a certain standard.


You're nit picking/deflecting/looking for a technicality. Pick one or all of the above. Local bylaws to keep the neighborhood looking nice are not under debate.

You suggested transferring ownership of private land to the government. Defend that. Convince me why I should transfer ownership of my land to the government...take into account that although I do "own" my own land, I'm fully aware that certain govt. actions could put my ownership at risk. 

And...please answer my earlier question: Do you own land?


----------



## olivaw

I did not suggest it. I said I was intrigued by it and, in particular, the Native American notion of land a shared heritage. See http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-to-fund-a-universal-basic-income-fairly/

Similiarly I am intrigued by UBI (or more generally a guaranteed minimum income). I'm undecided but willing to read the arguments. Why aren't you?

I don't see the relevance but you seem intrigued by my financial situation. My wife and I own our home. We've been mortgage free for years. At one time I owned an undeveloped acreage and had planned to build a custom home. My plans changed so I sold it for a modest profit.


----------



## Nelley

gibor365 said:


> physiotherapy is partially covered only for seniors, not if you below 65 y.o.
> And you forgot about vision! Month and half ago I had lens replacement surgery (not cosmetic laser one, I did it as I was practically 95% bling on one eye). I paid $3,200 , even 1 cent wasn't covered! and this was the first time I needed something serious from OHIP, as usually I visit GP only to renew my meds... another huge waste of taxpayers money.... she (GP) on purpose give me refills only for 3 months, than I will come again and she will charge OHIP... The only question she's asking "Is everything OK?"
> 
> P.S. I just don't understand why family doctors, with their huge salries, not to replace with computer station .... muchcheaper and more effective....


Re the prescription writing machines ("medical doctors")-the entire system thrives on inefficiency-don't expect it to improve-ever.


----------



## tygrus

olivaw said:


> not to get sidetracked but the government already controls my suburban lot. It is zoned single family residence and nothing else. I need a permit to add buildings or make substantive changes. I have to maintain my lawn and buildings to a certain standard.


Ditto, govt can control anything with the stroke of a pen. They control my farmland too. They levy taxes on it and decide what can and cannot be developed or done on it. 

The only thing the govt doesnt control is cash but they sure make an effort to devalue it. The day we go digital its all over.

On UBI, I dont thing businesses will tolerate being taxed so people can lay around. If they do, it will be at basic sustenance levels, like OAS/GIS is now. It will pay for your groceries and gas and enough to sit around your apt. But you wont be doing much more than that. Just enough to keep you from rioting. Index it with some bogus CPI and let it ride. 

Dont know what we are tying to bring an extra 300,000 people a year in here. Should be paying people not to have kids now caused there is no future for them.


----------



## Nelley

tygrus said:


> Ditto, govt can control anything with the stroke of a pen. They control my farmland too. They levy taxes on it and decide what can and cannot be developed or done on it.
> 
> The only thing the govt doesnt control is cash but they sure make an effort to devalue it. The day we go digital its all over.
> 
> On UBI, I dont thing businesses will tolerate being taxed so people can lay around. If they do, it will be at basic sustenance levels, like OAS/GIS is now. It will pay for your groceries and gas and enough to sit around your apt. But you wont be doing much more than that. Just enough to keep you from rioting. Index it with some bogus CPI and let it ride.
> 
> Dont know what we are tying to bring an extra 300,000 people a year in here. Should be paying people not to have kids now caused there is no future for them.


I can explain the part about bringing in masses of people while at the same time talking about a future of little in the way of employment/UBI for all-imagine you are Weston (Loblaws)-all you need to make more money is more people-period-where they get their money from to buy your product is totally irrelevant. That huge money crowd has a lot more influence than you realize.


----------



## Nelley

Here is a clear explanation of why slimeball Zuckerberg wants the vanishing middle class to pay for UBI (naturally a guy who has 62 billion dollars is exempt)-don't be afraid-it is from big bad scary Zerohedge snowflakes http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-26/real-reason-zuckerberg-supports-universal-basic-income


----------



## Just a Guy

olivaw said:


> I did not suggest it. I said I was intrigued by it and, in particular, the Native American notion of land a shared heritage. See http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-to-fund-a-universal-basic-income-fairly/
> 
> Similiarly I am intrigued by UBI (or more generally a guaranteed minimum income). I'm undecided but willing to read the arguments. Why aren't you?
> 
> I don't see the relevance but you seem intrigued by my financial situation. My wife and I own our home. We've been mortgage free for years. At one time I owned an undeveloped acreage and had planned to build a custom home. My plans changed so I sold it for a modest profit.


Okay, do you ever understand or think about what you read? Considering the number of times people have to repeat statements to you, I'm thinking you don't really spend much time thinking, just repeating how you think the world "should be". 

Let's look at that article you posted. They have the radically obvious idea to suggest UBI could be funded by repurposing the value of land. Let's the government own all the land, air and resources then manage it and use the profits to support UBI. 

Wow, great idea, why doesn't the government tax the land and rent out the resources and use he money for the public good? Oh wait, they *already do* (not that I posted this fact only a few postings ago). The money already goes into general revenue and is part of the 330B budget which isn't enough to support our already existing programs, let alone the much more expensive UBI. The only way something like this could fund a program like UBI is in a country with a very small population and very high resource revenues (not that I pointed that fact out before either).

So, existing property taxes (which aren't even tied to one's income, are generally though of as being very high already, and governments continue to raise on a yearly basis) and resource rents can't do it. Not to ask the question of where do the revenues come from to fund the projects that these revenues used to fund (property taxes are generally used for municipal funding of roads, Public transit, public utilities oh and that 50% used for education funding). Generally none of those funds are used to support people directly. The resource rents do go into the general revenues for the most part. It's good to know where you're money goes in the various tax schemes, that way you understand the implications of taking money from one (schools and infrastructure) and transferring it to another (UBI) and how that probably won't work.

Don't believe me? It's property tax month, look at your bill you should have gotten, notice that education portion? Notice the other part that gets paid to the municipality not the Feds? Should I repeat myself again? Where will the money come from to replace these needed services? We're not redirecting welfare or OAS here, we're grabbing education and infrastructure money.

However, the article does have a new idea about the Feds becoming the banks and cashing in on the mortgage interest. Imagine a world where the government is in charge of managing mortgages? I can see the slogans now..."everyone deserves to own a home"...wait, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the USA where the president told the banks to loan money to anyone, even people who couldn't afford houses, that led to the financial meltdown of 2007/8. 

Of course, that was the greeedy banks, not government policy, except it wasn't. Banks had restrictions in place for centuries to ensure only people likely to pay money back got loans. It was government policy that forced them into sub prime. Greedy banks weren't willing to risk their profits, but politicians were always willing to buy votes...which group should be in charge of lending?

Still not convinced I'd bet. There's lots of money just sitting there going into greedy shareholders' pocketsthose "elites" benefit while the poor flounder. Except, what's to stop you, the government, or anyone else from going down to the bank and buying shares? In fact, if you have a credit union account, its mandatory to own shares in the company (you buy shares when you open your first account, and can buy more or drip your profits at any time). Personally I own bank shares, make nearly 15% just off the dividend, but then I took the step of actually buying some shares, took three clicks of a mouse I think. Could have done it with borrowed money or cash, no one asked. That's probably too much work to be expected from anyone though. You need to be a greedy elite.

One of the reason a bank can make profits is that they have the infrastructure and experience already set up. There's a lot more that goes into setting up a mortgage than just signing some papers (appraisers, lawyers, underwriters, a mound of paperwork, due diligence, etc.)not to mention the procedures for when things go wrong. This means the government would have to set up an entirely new system in an area where it has no experience...maybe read up on Petro Canada and see how well that works. BTW, any idea what the ROC is for the average bank? Even though they have huge profits, they also have huge costs and huge expenses. Their return is usually only 3% or so. Their margins are actually very small, it costs a lot of money to run a bank, but the media only likes to print the profit numbers as it gets people excited. A billion dollars in profits gets everyone upset, the fact that it cost a trillion to make it (meaning a 1% ROI which is pathetic) is just inconvenient, and gets in the way of "tax them more the greedy bastards".

So, why doesn't the government just buy shares in the big banks and collect the dividend? Oh wait, that was the concept behind OAS (it actually started that way too). The government was supposed to collect the funds and invest it, making the program self funding...only the government saw this large pile of cash and decided that "investing" in their programs was better than "investing" in public companies. So the government grabbed the savings they were responsible for managing and spent it, I mean "invested" it in Canada. Their pensions were insured, my pension has been passed on to my kids to fund. I believe the government then proudly stated they had "balanced the budget" that year. Governments are addicted to spending, they can't save, or even balance their spending, for very long. Not long after we were running a deficit again.

Now, as a final though and repeat of something already said, the GDP of Canada is only 1.5T (that includes the profits from the greedy banks btw)it will cost 420B (roughly a third) to give people $1000/month, which isn't even the bottom level of what you are advocating. The studies you cited, had you read them, only suggested that they could generate hundreds of dollars if they grabbed the money from other programs (which actually turn out to be things like education and infrastructure as well as existing social services). Where does the money come from to replace education and infrastructure?

It also suggest that government get into the mortgage insdustry, which didn't work out to well when they just meddle, let alone when they try to get into new industries.

I figure you're probably just going to ignore all these inconvenient facts and refuse to actually come up with a sensible plan to pay for your free money with no cuts because you're intrigued by the idea which sounds great on paper like every other ism ever publish (another repeated statement which you missed). 

I too would be lined up and intrigued by free money, first in line as it were (another repeat), if I didn't actually use my brain and think out the consequences of the idea first. 

The best idea I've seen to help fund it was getting rid of minimum wage, and cut overall salaries but that'll never fly as people want their cake.


----------



## Just a Guy

Here's a new thought, why do we need the government to set up UBI at all? I look at my lifestyle and I realized that I've already got a personal UBI. Self funded. Ironically, it was started during the time I was dead broke too. I even did it by buying shares in the banks, but that was probably done with profits made from other investments if I went back to look. 

Nothing in this country prevented me from doing it.

Nothing will prevent other from doing it.

Why do we need the government to step in and do it for us? Oh yeah, because others don't want to make the sacrifices required to set it up on their own, easier to take it from someone else.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Sorry, this discussion is about universal basic income. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of what you are advocating...
> 
> Here is the definition as per Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note there is nothing about limiting who gets it.
> 
> Now, that may not be what you want to believe UBI should be, however your personal opinion doesn't change the actual definition.
> 
> The purpose of a definition is to ensure that there is no miscommunication. You're version of UBI isn't the real definition. You are talking about welfare
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note this is limited to citizens without current means.
> 
> Many people advocate for things without truly understanding what it means because they make assumptions about the definition instead of actually doing some research.
> 
> You know the joke about what happens when you assume something right? If not, I suggest you look it up.



Not assuming, just asking questions to clarify the issue for you. So from the article you referred me to,

"Auto-financing of basic income: although basic income is paid to everyone universally, most people whose earnings are above the median income are in fact net contributors to the basic income scheme, mainly through an income tax. In practice this means that the net cost of basic income is much lower than the raw cost calculated as a sum of monthly payments to the whole population."

I believe you are interprting the definition of UBI incorrectly. People with incomes higher than what is deemed basic, are net contributers. 

So the answer to your question in your first post -where does the money come from - was in the same article where you got your definition. 

Again, I'm not advocating UBI, nor dismissing it. Since the article you cited tells where the money comes from, and since universal does not mean everyone is a net reciever of it, your example of everyone in Canada getting 1000 a month is not valid. So I do dismiss your example, as it needs more work to reflect the "net contributers" as per the article you cited. You see in your example you decided to leave out the "net contributers" part which created the mystery of where the money would come from.


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> ^^
> 
> Why can't someone be in favour of subsidized medial care, but not in favour of UBI? There is no "all or nothing" rule that has to be followed.
> 
> Or, is there?


I'm not aware of any all or nothing rule. You can be in favour of one, but not the other. part of his concern is if people get somthing for nothing they automatically become shiftless, lazy, and leach off the system. Part of my questions was does universial health care cause people to be lazy and shifless, or did it help him to actually move on to bigger and better things since he didn't have out of pocket expenses for significant parts of his helath care. If so, isn't it possible that UBI could function the same way? if not, why not?


----------



## Just a Guy

I think you're misunderstanding the taxes. Everyone over a certain level pays taxes, always have, always will.

When someone gets over about 60k in Canada, nearly 50% of every dollar they make over that goes to taxes, so yes, people in the highest tax bracket are net contributors.

However, if we give everyone an extra $20k/year (easy numbers for example purposes) the people earning over 60k would have to pay half of it back, still costing a new $10k. We'd actually push the lower class people up into higher tax brackets. Even if they'd still pocket more money than before, technically they wouldn't benefit as much as they could have. The wealthy, who are already in the highest tax bracket, would also get an extra 10k. No one is earning more, taxes at the lower end may increase a bit, but that mainly comes from the free money they were given.

There is no "new" contribution to the tax base, the rich would still contribute more than the poor but they'd still pocket 10k, the scale just shifts a little, the money amount contributed doesn't change. Not to mention the costs of administration to give 20k then take up to half back.

In theory, I suppose, the idea is that people who aren't working today will suddenly all get jobs and increase the tax base. However, that's a relatively small number compared to the actual workforce (and it's unlikely the elderly will get jobs, so that just leaves the poor to earn enough to pay for all the new money). 

Still doesn't answer where the original money comes from that I can see. Unless we increase taxes on people.

Not sure I explained that well so, in math terms I'm taxed on $X of income (let's just use 50% tax) which comes out to $Y. If we now earn $X + 20k, my taxes will now be $Y + 10K. Where does the other $10k come from? It doesn't come from new tax revenue.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Go back a few posts and read the definitions...post 401 and 411 may be of help.


They are helpful in discovering your selective quote. To be a little less selective,

"Auto-financing of basic income: although basic income is paid to everyone universally, most people whose earnings are above the median income are in fact net contributors to the basic income scheme, mainly through an income tax. In practice this means that the net cost of basic income is much lower than the raw cost calculated as a sum of monthly payments to the whole population."

People above a specific income are "net contributers" according to the article you chose to frame the discussion.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the taxes. Everyone over a certain level pays taxes, always have, always will.
> 
> When someone gets over about 60k in Canada, nearly 50% of every dollar they make over that goes to taxes, so yes, people in the highest tax bracket are net contributors.
> 
> However, if we give everyone an extra $20k/year (easy numbers for example purposes) the people earning over 60k would have to pay half of it back, still costing a new $10k. We'd actually push the lower class people up into higher tax brackets. Even if they'd still pocket more money than before, technically they wouldn't benefit as much as they could have. The wealthy, who are already in the highest tax bracket, would also get an extra 10k. No one is earning more, taxes at the lower end may increase a bit, but that mainly comes from the free money they were given.
> 
> There is no "new" contribution to the tax base, the rich would still contribute more than the poor but they'd still pocket 10k, the scale just shifts a little, the money amount contributed doesn't change. Not to mention the costs of administration to give 20k then take up to half back.
> 
> In theory, I suppose, the idea is that people who aren't working today will suddenly all get jobs and increase the tax base. However, that's a relatively small number compared to the actual workforce (and it's unlikely the elderly will get jobs, so that just leaves the poor to earn enough to pay for all the new money).
> 
> Still doesn't answer where the original money comes from that I can see. Unless we increase taxes on people.
> 
> Not sure I explained that well so, in math terms I'm taxed on $X of income (let's just use 50% tax) which comes out to $Y. If we now earn $X + 20k, my taxes will now be $Y + 10K. Where does the other $10k come from? It doesn't come from new tax revenue.


Originally the premise was that UBI was to be revenue neutral-all the savings from scrapping other forms of welfare/assistance and the scrapping of government jobs/overhead would fund the UBI-it was all about efficiency-naturally now it is floated as just Super Welfare.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the taxes. Everyone over a certain level pays taxes, always have, always will.
> 
> When someone gets over about 60k in Canada, nearly 50% of every dollar they make over that goes to taxes, so yes, people in the highest tax bracket are net contributors.
> 
> However, if we give everyone an extra $20k/year (easy numbers for example purposes) the people earning over 60k would have to pay half of it back, still costing a new $10k. We'd actually push the lower class people up into higher tax brackets. Even if they'd still pocket more money than before, technically they wouldn't benefit as much as they could have. The wealthy, who are already in the highest tax bracket, would also get an extra 10k. No one is earning more, taxes at the lower end may increase a bit, but that mainly comes from the free money they were given.
> 
> There is no "new" contribution to the tax base, the rich would still contribute more than the poor but they'd still pocket 10k, the scale just shifts a little, the money amount contributed doesn't change. Not to mention the costs of administration to give 20k then take up to half back.
> 
> In theory, I suppose, the idea is that people who aren't working today will suddenly all get jobs and increase the tax base. However, that's a relatively small number compared to the actual workforce (and it's unlikely the elderly will get jobs, so that just leaves the poor to earn enough to pay for all the new money).
> 
> Still doesn't answer where the original money comes from that I can see. Unless we increase taxes on people.
> 
> Not sure I explained that well so, in math terms I'm taxed on $X of income (let's just use 50% tax) which comes out to $Y. If we now earn $X + 20k, my taxes will now be $Y + 10K. Where does the other $10k come from? It doesn't come from new tax revenue.


The best I can determine what you are describing is similiar to OAS. Origionally it was means tested and essentially welfare for the elderly in need. Means testing has its administrative costs. At one point it became universial with a clawback that allegedly reduced administrative issues. 

It looks like simply lowering the age limit for OAS, and renaming it to UBI, adjusting the amounts to fit whatever "basic income" is, and retaining a clawbck applied to the well off, is UBI. 

It doesn't seem super complicated. Your underlying issue is your belief that people who are net receivers won't work, and people who are net contributers will have their personal wealth raided to pay for it. I'm not convinced that all net receivers will never work. 

One thing this boils down to is to share or not to share. Such is a personal value. You don't like to share, while others are open to sharing.


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> Okay, do you ever understand or think about what you read? Considering the number of times people have to repeat statements to you, I'm thinking you don't really spend much time thinking, just repeating how you think the world "should be".
> .


Thinking is about more than reading with an eye to taking potshots. It extends beyond than the repetition of banalities and unproven talking points. 

BTW: Your math is wrong. The GDP of Canada is 1.5T USD Your proposal is to pay CAD 1,000 which is 750 USD. There are about 29 million adults . So we're looking at 750 x 12 x 29M ..... 260B or roughly 17% of GDP - far less than existing federal, provincial and other government revenue.


----------



## gibor365

Nelley said:


> Re the prescription writing machines ("medical doctors")-the entire system thrives on inefficiency-don't expect it to improve-ever.


For a long time I expect nothing good from this system, but sometimes need to release steam 

also don't expect nothing positive from Universal basic income, whatever Liberals are doing, it gonna screw up middle class


----------



## bass player

Pluto said:


> One thing this boils down to is to share or not to share. Such is a personal value. You don't like to share, while others are open to sharing.


I don't mind sharing...I do it all the time. The problem is that others want the right to decide who I share my money with.


----------



## Nelley

Pluto said:


> The best I can determine what you are describing is similiar to OAS. Origionally it was means tested and essentially welfare for the elderly in need. Means testing has its administrative costs. At one point it became universial with a clawback that allegedly reduced administrative issues.
> 
> It looks like simply lowering the age limit for OAS, and renaming it to UBI, adjusting the amounts to fit whatever "basic income" is, and retaining a clawbck applied to the well off, is UBI.
> 
> It doesn't seem super complicated. Your underlying issue is your belief that people who are net receivers won't work, and people who are net contributers will have their personal wealth raided to pay for it. I'm not convinced that all net receivers will never work.
> 
> One thing this boils down to is to share or not to share. Such is a personal value. You don't like to share, while others are open to sharing.


Jeez-that is exactly what Suckyberg just said-give till it hurts.


----------



## Nelley

bass player said:


> I don't mind sharing...I do it all the time. The problem is that others want the right to decide who I share my money with.


I propose that all assets should be turned over to the government (obviously with a special exemption/opt out clause for those with a net worth exceeding 100 million)-then a special blue chip committee composed of diverse, eco friendly, non transgenderphobic representatives can decide who gets how much of the loot.


----------



## bass player

Nelley said:


> I propose that all assets should be turned over to the government (obviously with a special exemption/opt out clause for those with a net worth exceeding 100 million)-then a special blue chip committee composed of diverse, eco friendly, non transgenderphobic representatives can decide who gets how much of the loot.


I thought that has been the progressive agenda all along...all money is to be given to the elite who, with their infinite wisdom, will disperse it as they see fit. Anyone who wants to keep some of their money is just greedy and uncaring.


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> Why do we need the government to step in and do it for us? Oh yeah, because others don't want to make the sacrifices required to set it up on their own, easier to take it from someone else.


There is very little to support this talking point. The claim is that those at the bottom of the economic ladder are there because they are unwilling to make the sacrifice required to climb it. It acknowledges apathy as a contributor to poverty. It ignores lack of education, disease, dependency, mental illness, addiction and other contributors. 

UNICEF pegs the percentage of Canadian children living in poverty at 13.3%. According to one study, half of first nations children live in poverty. It is pretty hard to argue that children are too lazy to pull themselves out of poverty. 

UBI or some form of guaranteed minimum income is a potential solution. 

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/10-things-you-might-not-know-about-poverty-in-canada

http://www.cwp-csp.ca/poverty/just-the-facts/

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/poverty/

http://www.salvationarmy.ca/blog/2015/05/14/10-hard-to-believe-facts-about-poverty-in-canada/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/new-report-paints-gloomy-picture-of-childhood-in-canada-1.3164341


----------



## Nelley

olivaw said:


> There is very little to support this talking point. The claim is that those at the bottom of the economic ladder are there because they are unwilling to make the sacrifice required to climb it. It acknowledges apathy as a contributor to poverty, it ignores othercontributors such as the lack of education, disease, dependency, mental illness, and addiction.
> 
> UNICEF pegs the percentage of Canadian children living in poverty at 13.3%. According to one study, half of first nations children live in poverty. It is pretty hard to argue that children live in poverty because they are too lazy to pull themselves out of it.
> 
> UBI or some form of guaranteed minimum income is a potential solution.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/10-things-you-might-not-know-about-poverty-in-canada


They say the rate is 27% in Toronto-so I propose that we strip assets and income from everyone outside TO and ship it to the big smoke. Only fair.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> You are modifying the scheme to suit your definition. You are arguing something different from UBI, at best a basic income stream of some sort. Again are you inviting me for a free lunch, and expecting me to pay? If you are, then you're misusing the act of "inviting" and twisting the intent, not to mention the definition of free lunch.
> 
> Your version of UBI fits the definition of welfare more than it does UBI.


I think this is entirely a fault with your interpretation of the policy. Welfare is non-universal and generally 100% clawback.


----------



## sags

After the PC elected Harper 2.0 it looks like Trudeau will be in office for another decade or so.

That gives the Liberals plenty of time to test and study the UBI. Finance Minister Morneau is an expert in economics and finance, and has the support of a wide range of experts. 

I am sure they will come up with the best plan.


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> I don't mind sharing...I do it all the time. The problem is that others want the right to decide who I share my money with.


Yes. that's an issue. Be forced, or not forced. 

I think some people believe that the rules of society are tilted too much in favour of the accumulation of wealth to the few, and the rule makers were possibly influenced by the already rich. Buffet makes a point when he openly declares that his tax rate is lower than that of his staff. of course that is USA, I know, but it illustrates how the less well off apparently pay a greater % of their income in taxes. Buffet says the playing field is not level, and I think I agree. 

In Canada is the playing field level? If it is level, choosing who you share with makes sense. but what if it isn't level? What if the rules favour us, and not them? And how do we determine if the playing field is level? 

I might sound like I advocate UBI, but I'm still in the assessment stage.


----------



## tygrus

All this UBI talk is just getting the 99% ready to accept their total non participation in the economy and the crumbs they will get from it. The 1% and companies will still be making record profits especially after they have replaced the work force with AI. I dont know how anyone can get excited about getting $1000 per month unless you live in Nigeria or something. Here in canada thats paltry.

and for JAG, he is wrong. Somebody earning $50k in the equities market pays no tax in Canada - zero.

And zuckerburg will eventually have 10 billion users because our population will grow with nothing to do but sit around and look at each others profiles all day and smoke weed.


----------



## Pluto

tygrus said:


> and for JAG, he is wrong. Somebody earning $50k in the equities market pays no tax in Canada - zero.


I think that is pretty close to correct assuming their only income is eligible dividends.


----------



## tygrus

And JAG shouldt be so indignant about UBI. Everyone will be a renter in the future and he will cash in big time. Maybe they will print up the money and let inflation run.

You will sit in your 1 br rental, no spouse or kids because you cant afford them. No job cause there is none. No money for a car or trips or lattes. Just $1000 per month coming in half to rent half to groceries and maybe an uber ride once in a while. Sounds dystopian to me.

However there is another way to fund all this thats probably being considered. Selling off our resources. Lots of money there. Let the chinese dig the ore out of the ground with their workers while we collect a cheque to sit around and watch them.


----------



## Just a Guy

Here's an interesting article from the states...

http://www.siliconvalley.com/2017/0...h-leaders-say-you-should-get-paid-do-nothing/

I'm sure we can just ignore the "The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year — more than three-fourths of the federal budget" part, since it doesn't fit with the ideal.


----------



## bgc_fan

Just a Guy said:


> Here's an interesting article from the states...
> 
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/2017/0...h-leaders-say-you-should-get-paid-do-nothing/
> 
> I'm sure we can just ignore the "The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year — more than three-fourths of the federal budget" part, since it doesn't fit with the ideal.


Well, to be honest, the US is probably already half-way there with social assistance, food stamps, unemployment and similar programs. If you add in veteran benefits you would be around $1.5T. Of course, you are assuming that current taxation regime and all other factors remain the same. In order for something like this to work would require a gradual clawback depending on your income level that makes up for the difference.


----------



## tygrus

Just a Guy said:


> I'm sure we can just ignore the "The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year — more than three-fourths of the federal budget" part, since it doesn't fit with the ideal.


Well if we had a $800 billion sovereign wealth fund like Norway, invested at 3-5% would pay for every canadian to live on way more than $1000 per month. Instead, we owe that much. And with the oil age coming to a close. Good job politicians and whiny voters.


----------



## bass player

I remember back in 1970 we were told peak oil was a reality, yet there are plenty of reserves left and there is enough oil for at least another hundred or more years....and that's just based on the current known reserves and technology to extract it.

I'll apply the same skepticism to the prediction that AI will replace everyone's job by next summer...I'll believe it when it happens.


----------



## Just a Guy

Alberta tried to start a sovereign wealth fund...got a little in savings, then the temptation to spend it overcame any foresight. 

Yet these are the kind of people you want to manage the finances for everyone.

I suppose they could go after the successful people, the ones who take the money and invest it, later to keep funding their addiction. Remember the promise that TFSAs would be tax free? Unless you made too much money with it, then the government changed the rules to collect the cash. Even when you follow the rules, you'll lose.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Alberta tried to start a sovereign wealth fund...got a little in savings, then the temptation to spend it overcame any foresight.
> 
> Yet these are the kind of people you want to manage the finances for everyone.


Some people think ideas like that are wonderful, but they never stop to think about what happens if the party they don't like gets into power and now has access to it or benefits from rule changes that were previously thought to be wonderful.

The Democrats changed the filibuster rule under the arrogant belief that they'd be elected again and could use it to their advantage, but now they're crying in their beer because it helped the Republicans. Yet, at the time they thought it was a great idea.


----------



## Just a Guy

Except, it was the same party in Alberta before and afterward took the money and spent it elsewhere. Same party, different reps.

I'm surprised that the NDP haven't gutted it yet though considering their spending spree. A deficit higher than all the other provinces combined. I hear they are quite popular in he poles. Could buy their way to a second term. They just timed the next union negotiations to the next election.


----------



## m3s

tygrus said:


> Well if we had a $800 billion sovereign wealth fund like Norway, invested at 3-5% would pay for every canadian to live on way more than $1000 per month. Instead, we owe that much. And with the oil age coming to a close. Good job politicians and whiny voters.


Yup. I have been disturbed by this for awhile as someone who manages finances far more responsibly than this.

And when oil crashed I would have shut it down. Leave as much of it in the ground until the prices inevitable skyrocket. It's bound to happen eventually. You know.. sell high.. buy low.. now is the time to hold. But instead we scramble to pipe it all out faster than ever

This country is a 1 trick pony who refuses to diversify or add value to our resources. Pension and sayonara for me


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Here's an interesting article from the states...
> 
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/2017/0...h-leaders-say-you-should-get-paid-do-nothing/
> 
> I'm sure we can just ignore the "The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year — more than three-fourths of the federal budget" part, since it doesn't fit with the ideal.


well at least Zuckerberg wouldn't get any. 

"That means a mother living on the poverty line would get the same amount of free cash as Mark Zuckerberg, Widerquist said. But Zuckerberg’s taxes would go up, canceling out his basic income payment."

Everyone gets it, but not everyone keeps it. I'm assuming that the everyone gets it but the well off get it taken back based on income tax returns is to avoid administrative issues. 

By the way many people working fulltime in silicon valley live in homeless shelters. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/homeless-in-silicon-valley/

One noted that "You need to work five minimum wage jobs to afford to live here..."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...reated-americas-largest-homeless-camp/431739/

I don't have the answers. Also, the kick in the butt and the I made it, so you can too lecture is a traditional response, but it didn't fix things either.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Here's an interesting article from the states...
> 
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/2017/0...h-leaders-say-you-should-get-paid-do-nothing/
> 
> I'm sure we can just ignore the "The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year — more than three-fourths of the federal budget" part, since it doesn't fit with the ideal.


Same facile math of $x * y people. No UBI scheme would/could work this way.


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> Yup. I have been disturbed by this for awhile as someone who manages finances far more responsibly than this.
> 
> And when oil crashed I would have shut it down. Leave as much of it in the ground until the prices inevitable skyrocket. It's bound to happen eventually. You know.. sell high.. buy low.. now is the time to hold. But instead we scramble to pipe it all out faster than ever
> 
> This country is a 1 trick pony who refuses to diversify or add value to our resources. Pension and sayonara for me


The Saudis seem to disagree. They seem to be cashing in on oil while it still has value. Honestly, with shale oil capping prices for the foreseeable future and new renewable/battery technology, it's not obvious to me that oil prices will inevitably return to previous highs.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

m3s said:


> ... when oil crashed I would have shut it down. Leave as much of it in the ground until the prices inevitable skyrocket. It's bound to happen eventually...


Wow, blast from the past. I think the last time I heard a similar naive proposal was late '70s, a bar in San Ignacio, Belize, a drunken Brit (soldier). As I recall, the night didn't end well for him.


----------



## Pluto

Ontario is looking at 17,000 as basic minimum income. 
But that will force employers to increase wages, automate, or outsource. 


https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/17000-good-enough-starting-point-basic-income-113048298.html


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Same facile math of $x * y people. No UBI scheme would/could work this way.


Great, so you admit it won't work in a worst case scenario. You've got some solution in mind that you think will work, so how much will that cost and where does the money come from? How about providing some Real numbers.


----------



## kcowan

Pluto said:


> The best I can determine what you are describing is similiar to OAS. Origionally it was means tested and essentially welfare for the elderly in need. Means testing has its administrative costs. At one point it became universial with a clawback that allegedly reduced administrative issues.
> 
> It looks like simply lowering the age limit for OAS, and renaming it to UBI, adjusting the amounts to fit whatever "basic income" is, and retaining a clawbck applied to the well off, is UBI.
> 
> It doesn't seem super complicated. Your underlying issue is your belief that people who are net receivers won't work, and people who are net contributers will have their personal wealth raided to pay for it. I'm not convinced that all net receivers will never work.
> 
> One thing this boils down to is to share or not to share. Such is a personal value. You don't like to share, while others are open to sharing.


The problem with expanding OAS is that the amount taken away from those currently receiving it has to be clawed back more to fund the new recipients. So while the approach is cost effective to administer, it still leaves the funding question open.


----------



## gibor365

From what I read, the pilot program gonna be at Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay ... Won't it cause for so-called "less-fortunate" to move to those cities, and just "fortunate" to move from them?


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Ontario is looking at 17,000 as basic minimum income.
> But that will force employers to increase wages, automate, or outsource.
> 
> 
> https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/17000-good-enough-starting-point-basic-income-113048298.html


I would be part of the 8% that think $17k is too much. I'm troubled that CPP will be clawed back at 100%. CPP is a contributory pension, not social assistance. The proposed clawback rate is 50%, which I think is about right. However, given that this is a study, they should be varying the parameters to understand impacts. They should be varying benefit levels, clawback rates, etc.


----------



## andrewf

gibor365 said:


> From what I read, the pilot program gonna be at Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay ... Won't it cause for so-called "less-fortunate" to move to those cities, and just "fortunate" to move from them?


For the pilot, they are only selecting 4000 recipients. I doubt people would move to try to win the 'lottery'.


----------



## sags

Eliminate corporate welfare and tax evasion by the wealthy and there will be plenty of money to fund the program.

If given to those who will spend it, the money will all flow back to the government anyways.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> I would be part of the 8% that think $17k is too much. I'm troubled that CPP will be clawed back at 100%. CPP is a contributory pension, not social assistance. The proposed clawback rate is 50%, which I think is about right. However, given that this is a study, they should be varying the parameters to understand impacts. They should be varying benefit levels, clawback rates, etc.


CPP is not to be clawed back, rather, UBI is reduced by the amount of cpp received.


----------



## Pluto

kcowan said:


> The problem with expanding OAS is that the amount taken away from those currently receiving it has to be clawed back more to fund the new recipients. So while the approach is cost effective to administer, it still leaves the funding question open.


It would be funded by taxes on those making more than the basic amount.


----------



## Pluto

Economist says most of Ontario's UBI will go to adult children still living with parents. 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...-grownup-kids-who-still-live-with-mom-and-dad


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> CPP is not to be clawed back, rather, UBI is reduced by the amount of cpp received.


Perhaps a distinction without a difference? CPP should be clawed back from UBI at 50% rate, just like employment income.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> For the pilot, they are only selecting 4000 recipients. I doubt people would move to try to win the 'lottery'.


oic , I thought everyone resides in the cities above . How long gonna be this pilot?


----------



## OptsyEagle

$17,000 a year. WOW. I bet my parents are glad they didn't have that when I was starting out, because I would still be living with them today if they were handing out that kind of candy. It sure would buy a lot of beer and cigarettes. The upside would be that they would have saved a lot of money on post secondary education because, let's face it...why bother.


----------



## gibor365

I didn't read all this BS proposal, but still I'm curious, how Wynne regime wants to treat (regarding to UBI) sponsored seniors , who as per Federal law cannot get any money from govermnent for 10 or 20 years (depends on day of approval)?


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Economist says most of Ontario's UBI will go to adult children still living with parents.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...-grownup-kids-who-still-live-with-mom-and-dad


Interesting analysis.

On the marginal tax rates, with the basic personal amount, the first $11k in income is subject to zero federal tax, so effectively 50% with the UBI clawback. However, between $11k and $17k, earners would be subject to 20% income tax, or effectively 70% with UBI clawback. I think that would be a mistake. Adding CPP and EI to the mix is 4.95% and 1.88%=6.83% marginal tax rate. I think it's important to avoid any overly punitive marginal effective tax rates.

Given that the UBI is reduced per person for couples, it is probably logical to reduce it for adult children living with parents. Fine line to walk between encouraging people to move out unnecessarily vs providing proportionate help to those who cannot live with others to offset living costs.


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> $17,000 a year. WOW. I bet my parents are glad they didn't have that when I was starting out, because I would still be living with them today if they were handing out that kind of candy. It sure would buy a lot of beer and cigarettes. The upside would be that they would have saved a lot of money on post secondary education because, let's face it...why bother.


Don't know about you, but I make a good many multiples of that amount. I would not choose to live on that amount in exchange for not working. It might have made being in school a bit less financially stressful. On the other hand, I am in favour of increasing the proportion of post-secondary costs paid by students. Something like the UK system of low-interest loans from the government repaid as a % of post-graduation income. Students see the full whack of costs borne by society more directly.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Perhaps a distinction without a difference? CPP should be clawed back from UBI at 50% rate, just like employment income.


No. UBI is what should be clawed back. People who pay into CPP for years deserve all of the benefits that they were promised. UBI, on the other hand is just another form of welfare.


----------



## gibor365

I have practical question 
Assume that in several years UBIimple is fully implemented in ON and both , me and my wife, completely retire.
Our estimate income will be:
15K RRIFs
2.2K my CPP
5K HISA/Cash GIC
2K dividends from cash account , both US and CAD.
Also some income from TFSA, but it's not taxable...

Thus, if UBI is implemented, would we get something?


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Perhaps a distinction without a difference?


Yeah, if you get a cheque for CPP, and then see the exact same amount clawed back, it would be hard not to conclude they're taking CPP away. A long line of officals could tell you otherwise, but a rose by any other name.

ltr


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> Interesting analysis.
> 
> On the marginal tax rates, with the basic personal amount, the first $11k in income is subject to zero federal tax, so effectively 50% with the UBI clawback. However, between $11k and $17k, earners would be subject to 20% income tax, or effectively 70% with UBI clawback. I think that would be a mistake. Adding CPP and EI to the mix is 4.95% and 1.88%=6.83% marginal tax rate. I think it's important to avoid any overly punitive marginal effective tax rates.


It can't be done. That is why people will adjust to ensure they don't get taxed that much...or looked at another way, people will strive to ensure they get the most out of this ridiculous program as they can. They might as well. As the economy craters from lost productivity accompanied by increased inflation, more and more people will need everything they can get.

"Give more money to the poor...and you will get more people who are poor".

That is an economic law. I did not make that up. It is the free market working in perfect order and I would love to see an economist prove me wrong. When was the last time money was directed at something and we ended up getting less of it?

Last question: Do we have time to throw Wynne out of office before she bankrupts our province or will she have enough time to do it with her current term? OMG, what an idiot.


----------



## like_to_retire

OptsyEagle said:


> "Give more money to the poor...and you will get more people who are poor". That is an economic law.


hehe, hilarious. So true.



OptsyEagle said:


> Last question: Do we have time to throw Wynne out of office before she bankrupts our province or will she have enough time to do it with her current term? OMG, what an idiot.


Don't be fooled by reasonable thinking. It's a tossup whether Wynne will take another term. Look at the record. Ontario is loathe to vote Conservative, regardless of what Wynne or McGuinty before her did. Did you believe in your wildest dreams that she would win last time - no. They are bound to destroy Ontario.

ltr


----------



## tygrus

The govt and its mismanagement of the economy has stolen anyway for people to create wealth for themselves by taxation and stealth inflation. Now with job losses on the horizon, people have no way to climb out. 

And how will people buy any products on $1000 per month. The corporations need to think this through too. Unless we are going to print it up.


----------



## andrewf

gibor365 said:


> I have practical question
> Assume that in several years UBIimple is fully implemented in ON and both , me and my wife, completely retire.
> Our estimate income will be:
> 15K RRIFs
> 2.2K my CPP
> 5K HISA/Cash GIC
> 2K dividends from cash account , both US and CAD.
> Also some income from TFSA, but it's not taxable...
> 
> Thus, if UBI is implemented, would we get something?


You would also get OAS. And given you indicated 1.5-$2 million in assets, the returns you describe are pretty pitiful.


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> It can't be done. That is why people will adjust to ensure they don't get taxed that much...or looked at another way, people will strive to ensure they get the most out of this ridiculous program as they can. They might as well. As the economy craters from lost productivity accompanied by increased inflation, more and more people will need everything they can get.
> 
> "Give more money to the poor...and you will get more people who are poor".
> 
> That is an economic law. I did not make that up. It is the free market working in perfect order and I would love to see an economist prove me wrong. When was the last time money was directed at something and we ended up getting less of it?
> 
> Last question: Do we have time to throw Wynne out of office before she bankrupts our province or will she have enough time to do it with her current term? OMG, what an idiot.


I think the claims that a modest UBI would crater the economy are less credible than the claims that it would solve all society's ills. Neither are correct, but I doubt a modest UBI would have nearly the deleterious effects you think. It's an open question whether the benefits would outweigh the costs or whether there are other approaches the provide better outcomes at lower cost. At the end of the day, that is what people should care about.


----------



## Nelley

andrewf said:


> I think the claims that a modest UBI would crater the economy are less credible than the claims that it would solve all society's ills. Neither are correct, but I doubt a modest UBI would have nearly the deleterious effects you think. It's an open question whether the benefits would outweigh the costs or whether there are other approaches the provide better outcomes at lower cost. At the end of the day, that is what people should care about.


What would be far more productive and helpful to the low level working class would be to increase the personal tax exemption to say $35000 per year-don't hold your breath for logic to ever happen with Wynne.


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> I think the claims that a modest UBI would crater the economy are less credible than the claims that it would solve all society's ills. Neither are correct, but I doubt a modest UBI would have nearly the deleterious effects you think. It's an open question whether the benefits would outweigh the costs or whether there are other approaches the provide better outcomes at lower cost. At the end of the day, that is what people should care about.


Crater the economy is perhaps an overstatement, but definitely the costs are higher then the benefits when you take into account the inflation and reduced economic productivity. Our economy really cannot afford that. 

Keep in mind, that the poor will always be poor because for the most part we measure poverty as simply one person having less then other people and that doesn't appeal to our sense of fairness, no matter how that difference was created. Since the poor will always spend a little more then they get, they will always suffer from this unfair predicament. God forbid a child is involved, and what if that child doesn't get to play hockey like the other kids and presto, some politician thinks we need a UBI program to fix it. Come on. This is poverty:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/africa_sierra_leone_slum/html/1.stm 

When was the last time you drove by that neighbourhood?


----------



## 5Lgreenback

So middle class wages have been quite stagnant and certainly unable to keep up with inflation (at least according to most articles I've come across), especially in the private sector. So we are going to implement a plan to that most would expect to create rapid inflation. This sounds like a perfect cycle to increase the amount of people living in poverty and start a non stop cycle of trying to fix it by raising UBI.


----------



## sags

What "rapid inflation"? Trillions of dollars have been spent since the recession.............where is the inflation ?


----------



## sags

I am seeing the same arguments on this debate as I saw on raising the minimum wage, moving OAS back to age 65 and expanding the CPP.

Minimum wages have been raised, the OAS was moved back to age 65, and the CPP was expanded and the world didn't fall apart.

I suspect it won't with a UBI either.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

sags said:


> What "rapid inflation"? Trillions of dollars have been spent since the recession.............where is the inflation ?


The printing of money has a few more complexities to it than just handing out free money to people.

That being said, I have seen a substantial increase in my cost of living over the past 10 years and the price of real estate has ballooned like crazy in most Canadian cities.


----------



## m3s

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Wow, blast from the past. I think the last time I heard a similar naive proposal was late '70s, a bar in San Ignacio, Belize, a drunken Brit (soldier). As I recall, the night didn't end well for him.


Oil was worth dollars a barrel in the '70s.. '80s it was 10x more and in the 2000s it was above 100. Some countries have long term plans.. Canada not so much beyond 4 yrs.. other than the strategic reserve of maple syrup for the day maple syrup prices skyrocket


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> You would also get OAS. And given you indicated 1.5-$2 million in assets, the returns you describe are pretty pitiful.


I indicated "close to 1.5M", not 1.5-2M. . A also indicated only taxable income.... at age 60 my minimum RRIF is 0.0333% (from 450K), more than 50% of assets are in HISA/GIC, and my wife LIRA is not included...
I won;t be getting OAS as I will be less than 65.... The question , if we gohha get UBI with such incomes


----------



## Nelley

m3s said:


> Oil was worth dollars a barrel in the '70s.. '80s it was 10x more and in the 2000s it was above 100. Some countries have long term plans.. Canada not so much beyond 4 yrs.. other than the strategic reserve of maple syrup for the day maple syrup prices skyrocket


Yeah but tar sands oil cost of production has steadily increased over the years at a rate that might be unsustainable for the customer base in the long run.


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> Crater the economy is perhaps an overstatement, but definitely the costs are higher then the benefits when you take into account the inflation and reduced economic productivity. Our economy really cannot afford that.
> 
> Keep in mind, that the poor will always be poor because for the most part we measure poverty as simply one person having less then other people and that doesn't appeal to our sense of fairness, no matter how that difference was created. Since the poor will always spend a little more then they get, they will always suffer from this unfair predicament. God forbid a child is involved, and what if that child doesn't get to play hockey like the other kids and presto, some politician thinks we need a UBI program to fix it. Come on. This is poverty:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/africa_sierra_leone_slum/html/1.stm
> 
> When was the last time you drove by that neighbourhood?


I'm not so fussed about hockey, but I do care about children not getting enough to eat and not getting the parental support they need in the first few years of life. This is how you get a class system.


----------



## andrewf

gibor365 said:


> I indicated "close to 1.5M", not 1.5-2M. . A also indicated only taxable income.... at age 60 my minimum RRIF is 0.0333% (from 450K), more than 50% of assets are in HISA/GIC, and my wife LIRA is not included...
> I won;t be getting OAS as I will be less than 65.... The question , if we gohha get UBI with such incomes


Who knows. There is no UBI program proposed. I suspect that some loopholes will be plugged before they scale it up 5000x. I don't think the intent of the program is to subsidize millionaires with tax sheltered income, though I am amused how your tone changed when you thought you might qualify. :greedy_dollars:


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> I'm not so fussed about hockey, but I do care about children not getting enough to eat and not getting the parental support they need in the first few years of life. This is how you get a class system.


But you can't give money to those children without their mothers and fathers getting their hands on it first. That is the children's real problem. Giving money to the parent will not solve it. Teaching the parent to fish might help.

You guys are dreaming. All giving money away to parents will do is make more poor people who now have children. It will also push a middle class parent who is just above the free money cut-off, into a new struggle, as their rent rises and other costs go up after the individuals who were below their income level start to spend their new winfall money. No problem. Just raise the threshold and give them some too. We'll just open that poverty door and welcome them into their new status with open arms.


----------



## andrewf

^It's a bit of a hand-wavy argument, to me. I'd rather get the data and make conclusions from that.


----------



## Nerd Investor

It's why I'd prefer to see more subsidizing of necessities (namely food and shelter) instead of giving people money and expecting them to spend it on the right things. Kind of how you'd treat a child.


----------



## andrewf

Nerd Investor said:


> It's why I'd prefer to see more subsidizing of necessities (namely food and shelter) instead of giving people money and expecting them to spend it on the right things. Kind of how you'd treat a child.


This is often very wasteful in practice. And for most people, they consider nanny statism undesirable.


----------



## Nerd Investor

andrewf said:


> This is often very wasteful in practice. And for most people, they consider nanny statism undesirable.


Agreed, it comes off as extremely patronizing, but then again certain people just cannot handle money properly. Yes, I can see how this could be wasteful, particularly in addressing the food issue.


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> ^It's a bit of a hand-wavy argument, to me. I'd rather get the data and make conclusions from that.


So we just take it away from them, after we confirm that it was more destructive then beneficial. I don't think that is going to go over very well. I think this really needs to be considered more by someone that uses their brains instead of their hearts. The final result is not that difficult to work out, if someone would just stop hugging someone and think it out clearly.


----------



## Nelley

OptsyEagle said:


> But you can't give money to those children without their mothers and fathers getting their hands on it first. That is the children's real problem. Giving money to the parent will not solve it. Teaching the parent to fish might help.
> 
> You guys are dreaming. All giving money away to parents will do is make more poor people who now have children. It will also push a middle class parent who is just above the free money cut-off, into a new struggle, as their rent rises and other costs go up after the individuals who were below their income level start to spend their new winfall money. No problem. Just raise the threshold and give them some too. We'll just open that poverty door and welcome them into their new status with open arms.


That is the plan-that is why guys like Zuckerberg are so keen on this one-the goal is to increase the poverty rate/percentage of the population that is totally dependent.


----------



## bass player

Bring in a basic income to create dependency and earn votes, and then bring in plenty of immigrants from countries where they will tend to vote left in Canada and the US...that's how you rig the system to prevent any party that isn't hard left from being elected.

All you have to do is say that it's for the children or in the interest of "fairness" and that keeps most people from seeing the scam.


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> So we just take it away from them, after we confirm that it was more destructive then beneficial. I don't think that is going to go over very well. I think this really needs to be considered more by someone that uses their brains instead of their hearts. The final result is not that difficult to work out, if someone would just stop hugging someone and think it out clearly.


Pretty unscientific.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Who knows. There is no UBI program proposed. I suspect that some loopholes will be plugged before they scale it up 5000x. I don't think the intent of the program is to subsidize millionaires with tax sheltered income, though I am amused how your tone changed when you thought you might qualify. :greedy_dollars:


My tone didn't change at all.... from the beginning I wrote that I against UBI or anything else that Wynne is planning and doing.... I just want to plan accordingly depends on what other bad thing can be introduced in Ontario.... and if possible to find a loopholes ... Wynne is playing games and I want to know the rules and play by them ...
If Wynne start talking about taxes on wealthor eligibilty of UBI depending on wealth, it would be first sign meaning that money from HISA/GIC should be transfered from banks to under mattress


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> Bring in a basic income to create dependency and earn votes, and then bring in plenty of immigrants from countries where they will tend to vote left in Canada and the US...that's how you rig the system to prevent any party that isn't hard left from being elected.
> 
> All you have to do is say that it's for the children or in the interest of "fairness" and that keeps most people from seeing the scam.


This is exactly what would happen, AFAIK syrian refugees are getting PR right away, so for next election they wiill eligible to vote Liberals.... and I wouldn't be surprised if there will be fast track to grant citizenship, not 4-4.5 years like now, but 3 years + couple of months exact for election....also, considering that a lot of refugees don't know couple of words in English (I talked to some of them in the local gym), the citizenhip test to be simplified and would be available in Arabic


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> Pretty unscientific.


What's wrong with thinking it out clearly. 

That study using 4000 people is not a representative study to indicate what would happen if it was brought out in it's entirety. Since bringing it out entirely and then taking it away when it fails would be a disaster, we have little choice but to work it out theoretically. Use the USSR as your actual study material if you need something tangible and remember, without Stalin the USSR would have crumbled a lot quicker. If there is little incentive to work, you need to force people to work if you want to keep a society afloat. Let's not forget that after the cheques are cashed and the beer is drank, someone eventually has to go to work. Let's keep the monetary incentive program until we come up with another that is not so destructive. UBI will simply remove incentive to work. That is my point.

Anyway, this is all a mute point. Ontario cannot do this alone. First, we do not have enough money to give those kinds of dollars away to everyone who wants to sit on their couch and think about their future, and secondly, it needs to be a federal program. All the sick, poor and unskilled in Manitoba and Quebec and any loser who finally decides to leave whatever province they are in, would certainly pick Ontario to move to. With the reduction in lower skilled jobs that will be lost to the new minimum wage, it would bankrupt Ontario within a decade. Let' just hope these politicians can see the obvious before it's too late. I will assume for now, it is simply talk to hopefully generate votes.


----------



## andrewf

^You're arguing against data, and for intuition. Same reasoning concludes that the world is flat and we should burn people who say otherwise. 

No one is proposing we create the USSR, any more than opponents of UBI are arguing for libertarian utopia Somalia. UBI is explicitly about making a welfare system that has less disincentive to work. Currently welfare is highly punitive for people seeking market income (the income is clawed back at 100%).


----------



## Just a Guy

Andrewf, other than in your own mind, where do you see anywhere where it's posted that UBI will be a rebranded and improved welfare? Of the 4000 test case, who all know going in that this is a temporary experiment, how many are only welfare recipients? How many will have 100% of their UBI clawed back?


----------



## 5Lgreenback

andrewf said:


> Pretty unscientific.




I think its simply a realistic perspective of the nature of government and entitlements. 

Income tax was first formed as a temporary measure in 1917 to help pay for the war. Who could argue with that right? I believe it was 4% on incomes over $2500. Look at the monster this "temporary" measure has turned into 100 years later.


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> No one is proposing we create the USSR


But that is what they are creating. They are taking away the carrot, just like the USSR did, but we don't have Stalin the stick to make up for it...nor do I want him.


----------



## martinv

this from yesterday, NDP/Greens to form government in BC. sorry for the poor copy from pdf file.

One aspect	of the poverty reduction strategy is to design and implement a basic	
income pilot to test whether giving	people a basic income is an effective way to	
reduce poverty, improve health, housing and employment.
(1) This	pilot	should be	funded	in	the	first	provincial	budget	tabled	by	the	BC	New	
Democratic	Government.


----------



## sags

Socialism is alive and thriving in Canada.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Socialism is alive and thriving in Canada.


And that will eventually be our downfall. What some people fail to realize (or willfully choose to ignore), is that a small amount of socialism is sustainable, but the more of it you bring in, the less sustainable it becomes.


----------



## sags

I think that is backwards.

Socialism addresses the needs of society. Capitalism is a means to that end.

Beyond supporting socialism, there is little redemptive value to capitalism. It has the fatal flaw of being based on greed.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Beyond supporting socialism, there is little redemptive value to capitalism. It has the fatal flaw of being based on greed.


Capitalism created modern society...transportation, readily available and inexpensive food, modern medicine...the list goes on and on.

Socialism only creates suffering. The fact that you don't already know this is a reflection of too much progressive brainwashing.


----------



## Just a Guy

There are countries in the world where the average salary is lower than the money earned on welfare. 

Perhaps we should tax everyone who earns more than them to help bring them up to higher levels. We could impose a 100% tax on everything earned over $10K (which would be considered extreme wealth in those countries). Why stop at the Canadian border after all, we should truly be taking care of the less fortunate of the world. A $1.5T GDP could be put to much better use than supporting a mere 35M people. 

Every rich person on this board (I assume that means every member since no here claims an income of less than 10K) should freely hand it all over. Either that, or let's lobby the UN to confiscate it for the greater good and throw these heartless people into jail if they don't comply. 

Tax the rich! Help the poor.


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> But that is what they are creating. They are taking away the carrot, just like the USSR did, but we don't have Stalin the stick to make up for it...nor do I want him.


Is it really, or is that just hyperbole?


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Andrewf, other than in your own mind, where do you see anywhere where it's posted that UBI will be a rebranded and improved welfare? Of the 4000 test case, who all know going in that this is a temporary experiment, how many are only welfare recipients? How many will have 100% of their UBI clawed back?


I can't vouch for the actual design of the pilot. I have some reservations, including those that I have expressed here.


----------



## andrewf

5Lgreenback said:


> I think its simply a realistic perspective of the nature of government and entitlements.
> 
> Income tax was first formed as a temporary measure in 1917 to help pay for the war. Who could argue with that right? I believe it was 4% on incomes over $2500. Look at the monster this "temporary" measure has turned into 100 years later.


Should we go back to funding the state with 50% tariffs?


----------



## Nelley

andrewf said:


> Should we go back to funding the state with 50% tariffs?


Great idea-why don't you run that idea by your owners and see what they think about it-fits in real well with the TPP.


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> Capitalism created modern society...transportation, readily available and inexpensive food, modern medicine...the list goes on and on.
> 
> Socialism only creates suffering. The fact that you don't already know this is a reflection of too much progressive brainwashing.


I was telling it here for ages! Welcome to USSR, here is can be called UCSE (Union of Canadian Socialistic Emerates)


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> Is it really, or is that just hyperbole?


It really is.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

andrewf said:


> Should we go back to funding the state with 50% tariffs?


Missing the point.


----------



## andrewf

5Lgreenback said:


> Missing the point.


You're pretending we didn't have a state before the income tax. What happened was we could get rid of very economically damaging tariffs because we were able to start funding the state via income taxes. Regardless of some claim of it being temporary, they could have lived up to that promise and kept more economically damaging taxes.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

I made no claim there was "no state". I was alluding more to the nature of governments.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I think that is backwards.
> 
> Socialism addresses the needs of society. Capitalism is a means to that end.
> 
> Beyond supporting socialism, there is little redemptive value to capitalism. It has the fatal flaw of being based on greed.


Capitalism has the fatal flaw of being based on consent and free choice.

I can work for you, or not work for you, you can buy my goods/services, or not.

The "problem" is that people want something they didn't create, and they don't want to pay those who did. Now there is a problem, there is something they want, but they can't get it.

The solution, of course, is to use violence or the threat of violence. If you don't give us your stuff, we will come and take it. 
They'll literally send people to physically seize your assets if you don't give them what they want. 

Now there is an argument that this is for the greater good and stuff, but at the end of the day since their argument is lacking, they just use the government and the threat of force to get what they want.
They're really no different than common theives.


----------



## Nelley

MrMatt said:


> Capitalism has the fatal flaw of being based on consent and free choice.
> 
> I can work for you, or not work for you, you can buy my goods/services, or not.
> 
> The "problem" is that people want something they didn't create, and they don't want to pay those who did. Now there is a problem, there is something they want, but they can't get it.
> 
> The solution, of course, is to use violence or the threat of violence. If you don't give us your stuff, we will come and take it.
> They'll literally send people to physically seize your assets if you don't give them what they want.
> 
> Now there is an argument that this is for the greater good and stuff, but at the end of the day since their argument is lacking, they just use the government and the threat of force to get what they want.
> They're really no different than common theives.


What complicates this discussion is the fact that in every country (including Canada) you have megarich using the power of the government to get richer.


----------



## Just a Guy

Nelley said:


> What complicates this discussion is the fact that in every country (including Canada) you have megarich using the power of the government to get richer.


What "laws" or government policies are there that ban anyone from becoming "rich", or even "mega rich"? I can point to numerous laws which mandate taking things from people for less than they'd be willing to sell things for or laws that allow people to get paid more than people would be willing to normally pay, or others who'd we willing to work for less in a supply and demand economy.

People like to "blame the rich", it's easy. No one can "blame the poor", that's not politically correct. Even when they cause issues for themselves with shortsighted ideas.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> What "laws" or government policies are there that ban anyone from becoming "rich", or even "mega rich"? I can point to numerous laws which mandate taking things from people for less than they'd be willing to sell things for or laws that allow people to get paid more than people would be willing to normally pay, or others who'd we willing to work for less in a supply and demand economy.
> 
> People like to "blame the rich", it's easy. No one can "blame the poor", that's not politically correct. Even when they cause issues for themselves with shortsighted ideas.


Facts are facts-eg in the USA the number 1 beneficiary of the massive food stamp program (paid for by taxpayers) is Walmart-and the humans who make the most money each year off this guv handout are the members of the Walton family (billionaires). That is just one example. If you cannot see that the giant governments and guv spending are being actively promoted by the billionaire class you have your eyes closed.


----------



## sags

There is the inconvenient fact that a few people control most of the wealth.

One could hardly claim they haven't been adequately rewarded.


----------



## Nelley

Nelley said:


> Facts are facts-eg in the USA the number 1 beneficiary of the massive food stamp program (paid for by taxpayers) is Walmart-and the humans who make the most money each year off this guv handout are the members of the Walton family (billionaires). That is just one example. If you cannot see that the giant governments and guv spending are being actively promoted by the billionaire class you have your eyes closed.


And this is why they hate Trump so much-he is going against their program of massive government/massive spending-this climate scam just one example.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> There is the inconvenient fact that a few people control most of the wealth.
> 
> One could hardly claim they haven't been adequately rewarded.


And that's where the climate scam comes into play...trillions in wealth will be more tightly controlled by a few people at the top under the "we are saving the planet" lie.


----------



## Nelley

sags said:


> There is the inconvenient fact that a few people control most of the wealth.
> 
> One could hardly claim they haven't been adequately rewarded.


And use the government to take wealth from the middle class.


----------



## Just a Guy

Nelley said:


> Facts are facts-eg in the USA the number 1 beneficiary of the massive food stamp program (paid for by taxpayers) is Walmart-and the humans who make the most money each year off this guv handout are the members of the Walton family (billionaires). That is just one example. If you cannot see that the giant governments and guv spending are being actively promoted by the billionaire class you have your eyes closed.


Umm, I don't remember Sam Walmart demanding that the government had out food stamps. That would have been the poor looking for handouts. 

Blaming the waltons for supplying goods (below the prices charged by competitors for the most part) and lowering the costs of goods is rather silly. They are providing goods and jobs for people. What would prices be like if they didn't?

No one forces the poor to shop at Walmart, there's no law saying you have to shop there, it's free choice. No one is stopping you from opening up a competitive store to Walmart either, in fact there are even some laws to help protect you if you tried. 

These are choices you get to make. Just because you choose not to do something doesn't eliminate your choice, unlike the tax payer who must contribute to paying for food stamps.

The ambitious will always do well in the long run, just like the other end will always complain about it being "unfair", and ask for handouts.


----------



## kcowan

Just a Guy said:


> The ambitious will always do well in the long run, just like the other end will always complain about it being "unfair", and ask for handouts.


It takes more than ambition, although your point is well-taken. Competence is more important than ambition. Incompetent-Ambitious tends to get people to migrate into politics. Competent-Unambitious is what runs most businesses, and many governments. The competent-ambitious people tend into higher level jobs. But competence needs to be carefully defined. Competence in some arenas could be construed as incompetence in others.

I had a partner who was extremely competent a a problem-solver but crappy at communications. He always needed a handler.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> There is the inconvenient fact that a few people control most of the wealth.


Just out of curiosity - you're aware that your signature "Someone planted a tree a long time ago so I can sit in the shade." is a re-worded Warren Buffet's quote, right?


----------



## gibor365

Moneytoo said:


> Just out of curiosity - you're aware that your signature "Someone planted a tree a long time ago so I can sit in the shade." is a re-worded Warren Buffet's quote, right?


I'd advise to sags to read M. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog" (Собачье сердце)or watch a movie , but he won't understand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_a_Dog

His statements reminds me a lot of Mr. Sharikoff's


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor365 said:


> I'd advise to sags to read M. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog" (Собачье сердце)or watch a movie , but he won't understand
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_a_Dog
> 
> His statements reminds me a lot of Mr. Sharikoff's


Yeah I often think "I don't like proletariat" (c) Professor Preobrazhensky when I read this thread, but you can't translate cultural references...


----------



## gibor365

Moneytoo said:


> Yeah I often think "I don't like proletariat" (c) Professor Preobrazhensky when I read this thread, but you can't translate cultural references...


or "To take all wealth and share" (c) Poligraf Sharikoff


----------



## sags

The communism of Russia was far different than the socialism embraced by most Canadians today.

Conservatives are hypocrites. They disparage socialism even as they stand in line to benefit from it in so many ways.

For Conservatives, the cut off line for social benefits starts right after them.


----------



## sags

Moneytoo said:


> Just out of curiosity - you're aware that your signature "Someone planted a tree a long time ago so I can sit in the shade." is a re-worded Warren Buffet's quote, right?


Yes, and Buffet reworded an ancient Greek proverb.

_Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
_
Buffet has also said he favors a system that distributes wealth more fairly than the current system.

His partner, Charlie Munger talks about the "undeserved wealth" of the rich.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

But give some thought to what the wealthy do with their "undeserved wealth". 
The massive philanthropy (think - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) never seems to be mentioned when the "1%" are being discussed. Nor the jobs and industries created. The focus is on the wealth of the individuals while ignoring the rest.
The day a person is a pariah for becoming fabulously wealthy through their own initiative is the day we may as well turn out the lights.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Conservatives are hypocrites. They disparage socialism even as they stand in line to benefit from it in so many ways.


Are you actually suggesting that the majority of people who regularly collect some form of government benefit vote right? :stupid:


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> The communism of Russia was far different than the socialism embraced by most Canadians today.
> 
> Conservatives are hypocrites. They disparage socialism even as they stand in line to benefit from it in so many ways.
> 
> For Conservatives, the cut off line for social benefits starts right after them.


First of all,communism never existed in USSR and this was just remoted target.
Secondly ,this book was written during NEP (New Economoc Policy) that is similar to current western socialists
_The NEP represented a more market-oriented economic policy, deemed necessary after the Russian Civil War of 1917 to 1922, to foster the economy of the country, which was almost ruined. The complete nationalization of industry, established during the period of War Communism, was partially revoked and a system of mixed economy was introduced, which allowed private individuals to own small enterprises,[3] while the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries_


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Conservatives are hypocrites. They disparage socialism even as they stand in line to benefit from it in so many ways.
> 
> For Conservatives, the cut off line for social benefits starts right after them.


I think this statement is a bit hypocritical. As the liberals are standing in line to take social benefits provided by the wealthy. They aren't willing to work to pay for it themselves, they'd rather take it from those who did the work. 

Again, going back to the Walmart example, Walmart is a huge employer of the poor and has done more to lower prices of goods than any liberal government. 

Where will you get all the money when you've taken it from those who made it? Where will the jobs come from when you shut down all the businesses? 

Oh, one final question, why don't you hand over all your money? Will you willingly part with it for "the greater good", or don't you count as being wealthy compared to those below the poverty line?

Many wealthy give their money away, yet the socialist rarely lead by example. I've yet to see any poor socialist leaders.


----------



## Moneytoo

The truth is, if Sags and his son were homeowners, not renters - he probably wouldn't be suggesting the appropriation of private properties... and wouldn't think it's fair that his house should go to somebody else's kid, not his own...


----------



## bass player

Socialists prefer to let others do the hard work and take all the risks...then they demand their "fair share" of the proceeds from the ones who were successful.

In socialism, 4 guys are sitting in a bar and one of them has $100 and the other 3 have no money. The socialists demand that the guy with $100 buy drinks for the other 3 because it's "fair".

With capitalism, the same 4 guys are in the bar and the guy with $100 offers the 3 guys with no money a job the next day so they all can buy their own beer.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> I think this statement is a bit hypocritical. As the liberals are standing in line to take social benefits provided by the wealthy. They aren't willing to work to pay for it themselves, they'd rather take it from those who did the work.
> 
> Again, going back to the Walmart example, Walmart is a huge employer of the poor and has done more to lower prices of goods than any liberal government.
> 
> Where will you get all the money when you've taken it from those who made it? Where will the jobs come from when you shut down all the businesses?
> 
> Oh, one final question, why don't you hand over all your money? Will you willingly part with it for "the greater good", or don't you count as being wealthy compared to those below the poverty line?
> 
> Many wealthy give their money away, yet the socialist rarely lead by example. I've yet to see any poor socialist leaders.



You keep babbling on about Walmart-I just pointed out that the Walton family gets a giant sum of money from the US taxpayer through the food stamp program. Would they be nearly as rich without the money taken by force from the taxpayers? Of course not. You turn this into me as Che Geuvara shutting down all the businesses. Wake up-many of the super wealthy use the power of the state to make more money-this clear Capitalism/Socialism thing they taught you in school was the dumbed down version. How much money do you think Carlos Slim has? You think he made that without using the power of the Mexican government? Jeez.


----------



## kcowan

Nelley said:


> How much money do you think Carlos Slim has? You think he made that without using the power of the Mexican government? Jeez.


He made it and then had it taken away by having a monopoly in cellular for 10 years. So yes he was aided by government when they needed him.


----------



## bgc_fan

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> But give some thought to what the wealthy do with their "undeserved wealth".
> The massive philanthropy (think - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) never seems to be mentioned when the "1%" are being discussed. Nor the jobs and industries created. The focus is on the wealth of the individuals while ignoring the rest.
> The day a person is a pariah for becoming fabulously wealthy through their own initiative is the day we may as well turn out the lights.


I wouldn't use Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as an example. A large portion of the foundation is invested in questionable companies and the works that they do are self-serving. For example, at the start, they concentrated on education and gave grants to schools and whatnot. The hitch? The schools would have to use the funds to buy Microsoft products. Similarly, the Foundation owns significant positions in pharmaceuticals and guess where the drugs that the Foundation come from? Same companies which also fight against generic drug companies to ensure that they maintain high prices and monopolies.

So they have this great press showing how much money they disperse, but most of it comes back to them. Almost like legalized money laundering, taking government subsidized charitable tax breaks and feeding it into commercial companies.

Here's an older article about this issue from the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07-story.html


----------



## Nelley

kcowan said:


> He made it and then had it taken away by having a monopoly in cellular for 10 years. So yes he was aided by government when they needed him.


Mexico is a Narco State-Slim is as dirty as they come http://www.telesurtv.net/english/op...idents-Fear-Talking-About--20151201-0019.html


----------



## Nelley

bgc_fan said:


> I wouldn't use Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as an example. A large portion of the foundation is invested in questionable companies and the works that they do are self-serving. For example, at the start, they concentrated on education and gave grants to schools and whatnot. The hitch? The schools would have to use the funds to buy Microsoft products. Similarly, the Foundation owns significant positions in pharmaceuticals and guess where the drugs that the Foundation come from? Same companies which also fight against generic drug companies to ensure that they maintain high prices and monopolies.
> 
> So they have this great press showing how much money they disperse, but most of it comes back to them. Almost like legalized money laundering, taking government subsidized charitable tax breaks and feeding it into commercial companies.
> 
> Here's an older article about this issue from the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07-story.html


Thanks for the response-I was gonna but it gets tiring sometimes.


----------



## bass player

No matter how much some people give, it's never good enough unless it's done exactly how they want.

Those that don't like the restrictions on how the Gates donate their money are free to give their money away with no strings attached. It's always easier to spend other people's money than it is to spend their own...

bgc_fan...why don't you share what your charitable donations are, and then let us decide if they are appropriate. I'm sure you have no problem being treated the same way you demand of others...


----------



## bgc_fan

Just a Guy said:


> Blaming the waltons for supplying goods (below the prices charged by competitors for the most part) and lowering the costs of goods is rather silly. They are providing goods and *jobs for people*. What would prices be like if they didn't?


I think you misunderstand the criticism. It isn't the fact that they sell cheap goods and attract the poor shoppers. It's the fact they contribute to the problem by NOT providing good jobs for people. Aside from the minimum wages, they had the dirty trick of making it so that they have limit "full-time" employees by ensuring people don't have the opportunity by limiting their work hours just below what is considered "full-time". Doing that means they don't have to pay out benefits that full-time employees would be entitled to have. As a result, the employees turn to food stamps to survive and generally spend them at Walmart because that's where you get the biggest bang for the buck.


----------



## bgc_fan

bass player said:


> No matter how much some people give, it's never good enough unless it's done exactly how they want.
> 
> Those that don't like the restrictions on how the Gates donate their money are free to give their money away with no strings attached. It's always easier to spend other people's money than it is to spend their own...
> 
> bgc_fan...why don't you share what your charitable donations are, and then let us decide if they are appropriate. I'm sure you have no problem being treated the same way you demand of others...


Well, for one, my charitable donations don't end up enriching me, or get fed into companies that I am a shareholder of. You want to compare? Easy, food banks, universities, heart and stroke research. What do you donate to?


----------



## Just a Guy

So, you don't think Walmart tries to lower prices then? They don't strongarm other companies? They aren't a major employer in the USA? Do you think Walmart works with unusually high profit margins or maybe razor thin margins and high volumes?

The liberals, on the other hand, raise taxes and wages, also known as "costs", like the original question of this thread, which everyone still hasn't answered and nicely avoided, where do you think the money comes from?

Let's give you a simple example of a hypothetical small business so you can understand the implications...

I'm running a small company, where I pay two employees $10/hour to work for me. After all is said and done, I take home maybe $100k in profits to support my family of say 4. The government of the day comes along nd decides $10/hour isn't a "living wage", so they mandate a $20/hour minimum wage (remember this is only an example, the number are used for simplicity). 

Where does this extra money come from? 

1) I either fire one employee, freeing up the extra funds, and ask my remaining employee to work twice as hard which likely won't work. Stead of two happy employees, I'd have one overworked one and one more person unemployed to support through higher taxes. 

2) I raise prices to cover the added expense of the second employee. That second employee will cost round $35k just in wages, not to mention all the extra costs I'd need to pay. That would be a significant increase in costs (not a 1-1 ratio because there are costs associated with making $35k in extra profits). Good chance I'd lose customer, revenues, and the company could face hard times.

3) I could give up my "profits", instead of trying to raise my family on $100k, I'd have to try and raise them on $65k.

I suppose that option 3 would be considered the most "fair" in everyone's opinion, after all I'm just a greedy business owner. There's no stress about trying to raise a family, runna company, please clients, employ people...it's just pure greed and exploitation.

Maybe I should just quit and "get a real job". Heck, I could make nearly the same amount without having to run a company.

Now, everyone good liberal likes to bash the big rich companies like Walmart. Look, they make millions in profits for a single family after all. Except it works the same way. Almrt makes a very small profit on a lot of items. These small profits add up, making a fairly large number, a good sound bite number when taken completely out of context.

A while ago, on this same thread, someone said that the wealthiest Canadian had $33B and we should tax that away from them as a method to fund UBI. If you divided it up however, that only equates to less than $1000 *one time payment* to every Canadian. After you take it away, where will the next month's payment come from? 

Walmrt employs hundreds of thousands of employees, what happens when you mandate that they all get paid more? The same thing as what happens in the simple example above. Tough choices have to be made. Sure they have massive profits, but divide it up amount all the employees they have and see just how big an impact dividing it up would have. The profits walmrt makes are minuscule when looked at with the scale of operations involved. The company actually operates on a very thin edge and, given an unexpected economic change, could very easily collapse if mismanaged. Some of those profits are actually used to mitigate the down years (which every good liberal ignores the possibility of happening) and ensure long term employment and supply of cheap goods. 

Contrary to public opinion, there is very little corporate welfare out there when you look at the number of businesses out there, many are left to fail every year. Less than 1 in 3 businesses survive their first 3 years, the numbers drop even more to survive their first 10. It's very hard to plan for government legislation when you are starting a business, and it plays a major role in the downfall of a lot of companies I know. 

As for what Bill and Melinda decide to do with their money, why can't they use it for personal benefit and to support charities they would be helped by? The more money they make, the more they can give away. It's called sustainability. Something liberals don't seem to understand or appreciate. Bill and Melinda have answered the question of where the money will come from to sustain their foundation for years to come. I'm still curious as to where the rich socialists give their money? Where is he Stalin foundation? The Mao? How about the Castro? 

Too extreme? 

Where can I apply for a Tredeau grant...oh wait, that would be the government, not his money of course. 

There's no law that bans any Walmart employee from buying shares in the company and profiting from the company's success, especially if they think being a greedy shareholder is so easy and lucrative.

I find many people can't understand a different perspective until they've experienced it. My inlaw, as I said earlier, was a big union supporter until she went into management and saw the other side of the coin. It's probably the same here, most people are employees and have never run a company themselves. They look at the numbers completely out of context and make assumptions based on no actual knowledge. Renters and even homeowners look at landlord and don't understand the work involved, the expenses, the stress...cut the tenant a break, they're poorer than you. Not understanding the fine balancing act of rent paying for mortgage, taxes, maintenance...rent doesn't equal profits. Profits earned by Walmart is not per employee. The rich don't sit on a pile of gold. Try looking at life from the other side of the coin.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> So, you don't think Walmart tries to lower prices then? They don't strongarm other companies? They aren't a major employer in the USA? Do you think Walmart works with unusually high profit margins or maybe razor thin margins and high volumes?
> 
> The liberals, on the other hand, raise taxes and wages, also known as "costs", like the original question of this thread, which everyone still hasn't answered and nicely avoided, where do you think the money comes from?
> 
> Let's give you a simple example of a hypothetical small business so you can understand the implications...
> 
> I'm running a small company, where I pay two employees $10/hour to work for me. After all is said and done, I take home maybe $100k in profits to support my family of say 4. The government of the day comes along nd decides $10/hour isn't a "living wage", so they mandate a $20/hour minimum wage (remember this is only an example, the number are used for simplicity).
> 
> Where does this extra money come from?
> 
> 1) I either fire one employee, freeing up the extra funds, and ask my remaining employee to work twice as hard which likely won't work. Stead of two happy employees, I'd have one overworked one and one more person unemployed to support through higher taxes.
> 
> 2) I raise prices to cover the added expense of the second employee. That second employee will cost round $35k just in wages, not to mention all the extra costs I'd need to pay. That would be a significant increase in costs (not a 1-1 ratio because there are costs associated with making $35k in extra profits). Good chance I'd lose customer, revenues, and the company could face hard times.
> 
> 3) I could give up my "profits", instead of trying to raise my family on $100k, I'd have to try and raise them on $65k.
> 
> I suppose that option 3 would be considered the most "fair" in everyone's opinion, after all I'm just a greedy business owner. There's no stress about trying to raise a family, runna company, please clients, employ people...it's just pure greed and exploitation.
> 
> Maybe I should just quit and "get a real job". Heck, I could make nearly the same amount without having to run a company.
> 
> Now, everyone good liberal likes to bash the big rich companies like Walmart. Look, they make millions in profits for a single family after all. Except it works the same way. Almrt makes a very small profit on a lot of items. These small profits add up, making a fairly large number, a good sound bite number when taken completely out of context.
> 
> A while ago, on this same thread, someone said that the wealthiest Canadian had $33B and we should tax that away from them as a method to fund UBI. If you divided it up however, that only equates to less than $1000 *one time payment* to every Canadian. After you take it away, where will the next month's payment come from?
> 
> Walmrt employs hundreds of thousands of employees, what happens when you mandate that they all get paid more? The same thing as what happens in the simple example above. Tough choices have to be made. Sure they have massive profits, but divide it up amount all the employees they have and see just how big an impact dividing it up would have. The profits walmrt makes are minuscule when looked at with the scale of operations involved. The company actually operates on a very thin edge and, given an unexpected economic change, could very easily collapse if mismanaged. Some of those profits are actually used to mitigate the down years (which every good liberal ignores the possibility of happening) and ensure long term employment and supply of cheap goods.
> 
> Contrary to public opinion, there is very little corporate welfare out there when you look at the number of businesses out there, many are left to fail every year. Less than 1 in 3 businesses survive their first 3 years, the numbers drop even more to survive their first 10. It's very hard to plan for government legislation when you are starting a business, and it plays a major role in the downfall of a lot of companies I know.
> 
> As for what Bill and Melinda decide to do with their money, why can't they use it for personal benefit and to support charities they would be helped by? The more money they make, the more they can give away. It's called sustainability. Something liberals don't seem to understand or appreciate. Bill and Melinda have answered the question of where the money will come from to sustain their foundation for years to come. I'm still curious as to where the rich socialists give their money? Where is he Stalin foundation? The Mao? How about the Castro?
> 
> Too extreme?
> 
> Where can I apply for a Tredeau grant...oh wait, that would be the government, not his money of course.
> 
> There's no law that bans any Walmart employee from buying shares in the company and profiting from the company's success, especially if they think being a greedy shareholder is so easy and lucrative.
> 
> I find many people can't understand a different perspective until they've experienced it. My inlaw, as I said earlier, was a big union supporter until she went into management and saw the other side of the coin. It's probably the same here, most people are employees and have never run a company themselves. They look at the numbers completely out of context and make assumptions based on no actual knowledge. Renters and even homeowners look at landlord and don't understand the work involved, the expenses, the stress...cut the tenant a break, they're poorer than you. Not understanding the fine balancing act of rent paying for mortgage, taxes, maintenance...rent doesn't equal profits. Profits earned by Walmart is not per employee. The rich don't sit on a pile of gold. Try looking at life from the other side of the coin.


You totally miss the point with your diatribe-massive fortunes have been made through government corruption and crime-that is simply reality-nobody is claiming that the average "rich" person is in a position to do this or even attempts to do this. Life isn't like they taught you in kindygarten.


----------



## Just a Guy

bgc_fan said:


> I think you misunderstand the criticism. It isn't the fact that they sell cheap goods and attract the poor shoppers. It's the fact they contribute to the problem by NOT providing good jobs for people. Aside from the minimum wages, they had the dirty trick of making it so that they have limit "full-time" employees by ensuring people don't have the opportunity by limiting their work hours just below what is considered "full-time". Doing that means they don't have to pay out benefits that full-time employees would be entitled to have. As a result, the employees turn to food stamps to survive and generally spend them at Walmart because that's where you get the biggest bang for the buck.


Umm, first off, you're assuming that everyone is capable of working equally. There are many people who work at Walmart who'd never find employment elsewhere. No education, bad attitude, no skills, unreliable, etc. Ever try to run a company when your employees don't show up with no warning? Happens a lot in these types of companies. Why they get paid even a minimum wage is sometimes mind boggling. 

Sure, there are good employees, and companies generally recognize this and work hard to retain them, but there is also a lot of deadwood out there. You sort through them the same way, go for volume and look for the wheat left amount the chaff. Trust me, as a business owner, you don't really want to encourage the chaff to stick around for long, but these days it's almost illegal to fire people. 

You want good jobs for people, start by providing good people for jobs.


----------



## bass player

Nelley said:


> You totally miss the point with your diatribe-massive fortunes have been made through government corruption and crime-that is simply reality-nobody is claiming that the average "rich" person is in a position to do this or even attempts to do this. Life isn't like they taught you in kindygarten.


The Clintons come to mind when talking about corruption...public servants with a net worth far in excess of a hundred million. By the way...the Clinton's favourite charity was The Clinton Foundation.

But, people instead choose to dump on Gates and Walmart as if they are the ones who did something wrong. How many people did Gates or Walmart employ? How many did the Clintons employ?


----------



## Nelley

bass player said:


> The Clintons come to mind when talking about corruption...public servants with a net worth far in excess of a hundred million. By the way...the Clinton's favourite charity was The Clinton Foundation.
> 
> But, people instead choose to dump on Gates and Walmart as if they are the ones who did something wrong. How many people did Gates or Walmart employ? How many did the Clintons employ?


I am not dumping on Walmart-I was just pointing out that the billionaire class is the biggest promoter of massive government spending-which is directly paid for and hurts the middle class the most by far. The Clintons should be in prison-Gates not so much but he is still a very sleazy character.


----------



## Just a Guy

Nelley said:


> Life isn't like they taught you in kindygarten.


Sorry nelley, what exactly is your background of worldly education? 

Personally, I went to the school of hard knocks, I've actually started and run several businesses, I've been beyond dead broke, I've taught myself investing and made myself well off. I've been disabled, I've raised kids on no money and wealth. I work daily with the unemployed, poor, addicted people. I've come from a divorced family, raised by a single mother, alcoholic step father, etc. I've also been a supplier of services to every level of government from municipal all the way up to the UN, even have contracts with foreign governments.

So, what vast repetoire of knowledge and experience do you draw upon? How many companies did you start or run? How many employees do you have? What was life like being poor? How many years did you spend working for governments at all levels? Please enlighten me as my experience is so misguided compared to your higher education.

You're right though, government is corrupt and those who take the time to learn the system can profit by it. However, the politicians are the first in line at the trough, you want to get rich, easiest way is to go into politics, a minor way would be to look at the system and try to jump through the hoops. 

Of course the way I was taught to make money is to look for a need that needs to be met and fill it. Walmart did the same thing, people needed cheap goods because there are a lot more poor people, so he started a company to sell to the poor at low prices...the greedy *******.

P.S. To be fair, you're statement was right. Life wasn't like what they taught me in kindergarten.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> Sorry nelley, what exactly is your background of worldly education?
> 
> Personally, I went to the school of hard knocks, I've actually started and run several businesses, I've been beyond dead broke, I've taught myself investing and made myself well off. I've been disabled, I've raised kids on no money and wealth. I work daily with the unemployed, poor, addicted people. I've come from a divorced family, raised by a single mother, alcoholic step father, etc. I've also been a supplier of services to every level of government from municipal all the way up to the UN, even have contracts with foreign governments.
> 
> So, what vast repetoire of knowledge and experience do you draw upon? How many companies did you start or run? How many employees do you have? What was life like being poor? How many years did you spend working for governments at all levels? Please enlighten me as my experience is so misguided compared to your higher education.
> 
> You're right though, government is corrupt and those who take the time to learn the system can profit by it. However, the politicians are the first in line at the trough, you want to get rich, easiest way is to go into politics, a minor way would be to look at the system and try to jump through the hoops.
> 
> Of course the way I was taught to make money is to look for a need that needs to be met and fill it. Walmart did the same thing, people needed cheap goods because there are a lot more poor people, so he started a company to sell to the poor at low prices...the greedy *******.


I have no way to confirm if anything you just wrote is factual-you could be typing all this from Millhaven Prison for all I know-that is the first point-the second point is that simply feeding your narcissism doesn't convince me of anything or mean anything. Maybe you have a great history-maybe now you are a drunk with Alzheimers-whatever-none of that proves anything.


----------



## Just a Guy

Nelley said:


> I have no way to confirm if anything you just wrote is factual-you could be typing all this from Millhaven Prison for all I know-that is the first point-the second point is that simply feeding your narcissism doesn't convince me of anything or mean anything. Maybe you have a great history-maybe now you are a drunk with Alzheimers-whatever-none of that proves anything.


I hope you remember that when you make postings of your own. 

I believe the difference between my posts and many others is the fact that I tend to explain my position, give examples and maybe references, and let others decide for themselves if they agree or not...as opposed to just saying that someone is wrong, ingnorant, or calling them names.

Btw, anyone who has actually experienced something can often recognize the truth in a situation when they read it. Unlike people which no experience who only go by their assumptions of what life would be like. I can tell a business owner from an employee within 5 minutes of a conversation usually. Same as an investor vs. a non investor., someone who's gone to post secondary vs. Someone who didn't, someone who reads books regularly vs. Someone who doesn't, etc.

But, then again, I'm probably just making that up to feed my narcissistic needs.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Try looking at life from the other side of the coin.


One part of the other side of the coin is why you can't hire more people. Isn't that one reason why some get left out and end up on wefare? Another part of this side of the coin is, you have an employee who is apparently happy with 35,000 but you need 100K to raise a family. Since your employee is happy with 35K and you are happy with them getting 35K what's stopping you being happy with 35K? If you opnly try, anybody can be happy with 35K. But I guess you are not ambitious enough to try.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Umm, first off, you're assuming that everyone is capable of working equally. There are many people who work at Walmart who'd never find employment elsewhere. No education, bad attitude, no skills, unreliable, etc. Ever try to run a company when your employees don't show up with no warning? Happens a lot in these types of companies. Why they get paid even a minimum wage is sometimes mind boggling.
> 
> Sure, there are good employees, and companies generally recognize this and work hard to retain them, but there is also a lot of deadwood out there. You sort through them the same way, go for volume and look for the wheat left amount the chaff. Trust me, as a business owner, you don't really want to encourage the chaff to stick around for long, but these days it's almost illegal to fire people.
> 
> You want good jobs for people, start by providing good people for jobs.


on the one hand you say anybody can be rich, now you say some are not capable. The latter is more realistic. Then you want someone else to provide good people, implying your dependance on whoever that someone is, all the while you claim independance. Anyone can create good people, so why don't you? Not ambitious enough?

Your underlying justification for compalining about the poor is "anyone can do it". But you are part of anyone, and "it" is providing jobs and good people. So do it then.


----------



## Moneytoo

Pluto said:


> Since your employee is happy with 35K and you are happy with them getting 35K what's stopping you being happy with 35K? If you opnly try, anybody can be happy with 35K. But I guess you are not ambitious enough to try.


I owned a business once, giving up after 3.5 years. First 9 months my only employee was the only one making money (so, basically, I was paying her from my line of credit - as the business wasn't profitable) After she back-stabbed me and I let her go, she went ahead and opened a competing agency, taking half of the clients with her. My fault of course because I was nice enough not to have her sign non-competitive agreement when purchasing the business, as my accountant advised. Thinking, oh no, what a poor girl will do if I let her go? 

Anyways, made me realize I'm not cut out to run a business - so now happy making $120K+ working "for somebody else"...


----------



## bgc_fan

Just a Guy said:


> So, you don't think Walmart tries to lower prices then? They don't strongarm other companies? They aren't a major employer in the USA? Do you think Walmart works with unusually high profit margins or maybe razor thin margins and high volumes?


Here's the thing. It isn't so much that Walmart isn't a business and not a charity. The thing is, it isn't a good example of a champion of the poor, and actually feeds off of it. 

You say that some people are unemployable and Walmart gives them the chance. In reality, I'm sure that there are a number of people who have the skills/training to do other jobs, but at a specific time in life, they were not able to find a job that fit their training and resort to Walmart (or any low paying service/retail job) as a stopgap. After all, lots of people on this forum use that as the argument that these people shouldn't be paid living wages because this jobs are meant for temporary solutions and not a career. But everyone's situation is different. The usual example that the left will present is the single mother with 2 kids trying to make ends meet while working at Walmart. You can argue that she made her choices and deserves her fate. Fine. But when she is working at Walmart as much as possible, but not able to work enough to have full-time benefits, she will be trapped in the poverty trap and there is no way out. Sure, Walmart is under no obligation to help as it is a for-profit corporation and not a charity, but DON'T say that Walmart employs poor people as an example of what a good corporate citizen it is while it perpetuates the poverty cycle and is dependent on it as part of its business plan.



Just a Guy said:


> The liberals, on the other hand, raise taxes and wages, also known as "costs", like the original question of this thread, which everyone still hasn't answered and nicely avoided, where do you think the money comes from?


Actually, it has been answered a few times, you seemed to ignore the answers. Through replacement of current social programs and progressive clawbacks depending on income level.



Just a Guy said:


> Let's give you a simple example of a hypothetical small business so you can understand the implications...


You don't need to bring out this example, I'm sure everyone is aware of the choices and implications of increased wage. Most would accept that businesses would simply let people go; however, the optics are that it is a one way street. Proponents of trickle down economics keep saying things like reduce corporate taxes, or taxes on the 1% as that will create jobs. When corporate taxes have been cut, do we see more hiring? Or do we see companies hiring when they start making large profits? No, because there's no need to hire more people just because you have more money. The only time you hire is because there is a demand, which is why when it comes to tax cuts, it's more effective when they benefit the poor because it will increase demand, i.e. they have the opportunity to buy more than the mere basics. OTOH, people are quick to fire people when there is talk of raising wages or corporate taxes. We don't even need either things to happen, you do remember the uproar when banks were announcing record profits and then simultaneously laying off thousands of workers?




Just a Guy said:


> As for what Bill and Melinda decide to do with their money, why can't they use it for personal benefit and to support charities they would be helped by? The more money they make, the more they can give away. It's called sustainability. Something liberals don't seem to understand or appreciate. Bill and Melinda have answered the question of where the money will come from to sustain their foundation for years to come. I'm still curious as to where the rich socialists give their money? Where is he Stalin foundation? The Mao? How about the Castro?


Again, it's up to them. My argument was/is that don't use them as an example of selfless giving when a lot of what goes out comes back. Is it really charitable giving if someone were to give $10, gets a tax credit for 26% and another 50% (for example) back through their business? So when someone flashes a big novelty check for $1M donation, shouldn't the real out of pocket cost of $240k be the one that gets publicized (in this example). Sustainability is a red-herring, you may recall the Norwegian wealth fund is fairly sizeable and they do have screening criteria to avoid certain businesses, so just because you want to push a health agenda by distributing medication, doesn't mean you have to invest in those pharmaceuticals. I'm sure you can find other companies.

Again, this example isn't as blatant as the Microsoft example where they were leveraging the Foundation to get Microsoft products into schools because they couldn't compete with the offerings by Apple. 



Just a Guy said:


> There's no law that bans any Walmart employee from buying shares in the company and profiting from the company's success, especially if they think being a greedy shareholder is so easy and lucrative.


Other than the law of reality? If we're talking about people just scraping by and existing on a Walmart salary, I doubt very much they have the disposable income to purchase sufficient shares to get them out of their situation.



Just a Guy said:


> I find many people can't understand a different perspective until they've experienced it. My inlaw, as I said earlier, was a big union supporter until she went into management and saw the other side of the coin. It's probably the same here, most people are employees and have never run a company themselves. They look at the numbers completely out of context and make assumptions based on no actual knowledge. Renters and even homeowners look at landlord and don't understand the work involved, the expenses, the stress...cut the tenant a break, they're poorer than you. Not understanding the fine balancing act of rent paying for mortgage, taxes, maintenance...rent doesn't equal profits. Profits earned by Walmart is not per employee. The rich don't sit on a pile of gold. Try looking at life from the other side of the coin.


Circumstances differ, but we have a number of examples of rich sitting on a figurative pile of gold: Hiltons, Waltons, members of middle eastern royalties. Take a look at http://richkidsofinstagram.com/ to get an idea where some of the blowback towards the wealthy is coming from.


----------



## bass player

Pluto said:


> One part of the other side of the coin is why you can't hire more people. Isn't that one reason why some get left out and end up on wefare? Another part of this side of the coin is, you have an employee who is apparently happy with 35,000 but you need 100K to raise a family. Since your employee is happy with 35K and you are happy with them getting 35K what's stopping you being happy with 35K? If you opnly try, anybody can be happy with 35K. But I guess you are not ambitious enough to try.


Some people want both sides of the coin...they want someone to open a business, take all the risk, and then pay them a great wage. They also want the government to provide money to those who don't work.

It's always what someone else can do, but never what they can do.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...


----------



## Just a Guy

In the example, one could assume the employee was single, supporting just themselves. I, as the business owner was supporting a family of 4. 100k/4 is $25k/person. Technically my family takes home less than the employee.

They are , of course, free to quit and fine a better paying job if they wanted to. If they demanded more money, and I didn't agree, I'd have to find someone who was willing to work for $35k or raise my pay. I'm betting I could find someone who was willing to work for $35k. I need to balance what I can pay with what I can charge, as dictated by supply and demand. Same rule applies, or should apply to employees. Except the government steps in and changes the rules, now I have a rate that doesn't follow supply and demand, and a customer who is paying my income based on that rule. That kind of imbalance ruins the system. 

As for why I'm "entitled" to the 100k over the employee, one reason would be because I need that money to support my family. I chose to start the business and I'd continue to run it as long as it meets my needs. I'm the one taking the risk, I'm the one committed to paying the employee even if there is no income being generated (remember some companies have slow periods where they don't generate enough income to cover expenses). If my employee works slow, steals office supplies, takes a lot of sick days, etc. I take the hit. I have to either absorb the losses, or fix the problem. If they are contracted out, and I can't find a customer, I still have to pay them. 

Of course, just because I feel I deserve $100k doesn't mean I'm going to get it. If I can't find employees or customers, my business will go under...unlike welfare or UBI. I only get paid if I succeed in balancing, there is incentive for me to get it right. 

Again, my employee is free to start their own company as well and make the $100k, but most never will. It takes a different skill set, knowledge level, risk tolerance, etc.

I'm not sure I understand your first part, the reason I, or others, can hire more people is, again, the basis of this thread, where does the money come from? I can only sell my goods or services to what the market will support. That income dictates how many employees I can afford to pay. I can't afford to pay more people than my business will support.


----------



## Nelley

bgc_fan said:


> Here's the thing. It isn't so much that Walmart isn't a business and not a charity. The thing is, it isn't a good example of a champion of the poor, and actually feeds off of it.
> 
> You say that some people are unemployable and Walmart gives them the chance. In reality, I'm sure that there are a number of people who have the skills/training to do other jobs, but at a specific time in life, they were not able to find a job that fit their training and resort to Walmart (or any low paying service/retail job) as a stopgap. After all, lots of people on this forum use that as the argument that these people shouldn't be paid living wages because this jobs are meant for temporary solutions and not a career. But everyone's situation is different. The usual example that the left will present is the single mother with 2 kids trying to make ends meet while working at Walmart. You can argue that she made her choices and deserves her fate. Fine. But when she is working at Walmart as much as possible, but not able to work enough to have full-time benefits, she will be trapped in the poverty trap and there is no way out. Sure, Walmart is under no obligation to help as it is a for-profit corporation and not a charity, but DON'T say that Walmart employs poor people as an example of what a good corporate citizen it is while it perpetuates the poverty cycle and is dependent on it as part of its business plan.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it has been answered a few times, you seemed to ignore the answers. Through replacement of current social programs and progressive clawbacks depending on income level.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to bring out this example, I'm sure everyone is aware of the choices and implications of increased wage. Most would accept that businesses would simply let people go; however, the optics are that it is a one way street. Proponents of trickle down economics keep saying things like reduce corporate taxes, or taxes on the 1% as that will create jobs. When corporate taxes have been cut, do we see more hiring? Or do we see companies hiring when they start making large profits? No, because there's no need to hire more people just because you have more money. The only time you hire is because there is a demand, which is why when it comes to tax cuts, it's more effective when they benefit the poor because it will increase demand, i.e. they have the opportunity to buy more than the mere basics. OTOH, people are quick to fire people when there is talk of raising wages or corporate taxes. We don't even need either things to happen, you do remember the uproar when banks were announcing record profits and then simultaneously laying off thousands of workers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's up to them. My argument was/is that don't use them as an example of selfless giving when a lot of what goes out comes back. Is it really charitable giving if someone were to give $10, gets a tax credit for 26% and another 50% (for example) back through their business? So when someone flashes a big novelty check for $1M donation, shouldn't the real out of pocket cost of $240k be the one that gets publicized (in this example). Sustainability is a red-herring, you may recall the Norwegian wealth fund is fairly sizeable and they do have screening criteria to avoid certain businesses, so just because you want to push a health agenda by distributing medication, doesn't mean you have to invest in those pharmaceuticals. I'm sure you can find other companies.
> 
> Again, this example isn't as blatant as the Microsoft example where they were leveraging the Foundation to get Microsoft products into schools because they couldn't compete with the offerings by Apple.
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the law of reality? If we're talking about people just scraping by and existing on a Walmart salary, I doubt very much they have the disposable income to purchase sufficient shares to get them out of their situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Circumstances differ, but we have a number of examples of rich sitting on a figurative pile of gold: Hiltons, Waltons, members of middle eastern royalties. Take a look at http://richkidsofinstagram.com/ to get an idea where some of the blowback towards the wealthy is coming from.


I don't even begrudge the rich sitting on piles of gold but I do get bugged when the MSM has garbage like Zuckerberg saying-what we should do is take every last penny from those that aren't poor right now and give it to the poor (while I don't pay a penny).


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> on the one hand you say anybody can be rich, now you say some are not capable. The latter is more realistic. Then you want someone else to provide good people, implying your dependance on whoever that someone is, all the while you claim independance. Anyone can create good people, so why don't you? Not ambitious enough?
> 
> Your underlying justification for compalining about the poor is "anyone can do it". But you are part of anyone, and "it" is providing jobs and good people. So do it then.


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. 

Yes, I believe anyone has the opportunity to be rich, I can't force them to do what is required. 

Anyone has the opportunity to be a good employee, I can't force them to do what is required. 

As for providing good jobs for good people, I am doing that. I also provide good housing for good people at the lower end of the spectrum. I also try to help the people at the low end of the spectrum by volunteering. I can't change these people, I can only try and show them where the water is.

The one thing I don't agree on is "anyone can create good people", the only peoson who can control anyone is themselves.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> In the example, one could assume the employee was single, supporting just themselves. I, as the business owner was supporting a family of 4. 100k/4 is $25k/person. Technically my family takes home less than the employee.
> 
> They are , of course, free to quit and fine a better paying job if they wanted to. If they demanded more money, and I didn't agree, I'd have to find someone who was willing to work for $35k or raise my pay. I'm betting I could find someone who was willing to work for $35k. I need to balance what I can pay with what I can charge, as dictated by supply and demand. Same rule applies, or should apply to employees. Except the government steps in and changes the rules, now I have a rate that doesn't follow supply and demand, and a customer who is paying my income based on that rule. That kind of imbalance ruins the system.
> 
> As for why I'm "entitled" to the 100k over the employee, one reason would be because I need that money to support my family. I chose to start the business and I'd continue to run it as long as it meets my needs. I'm the one taking the risk, I'm the one committed to paying the employee even if there is no income being generated (remember some companies have slow periods where they don't generate enough income to cover expenses). If my employee works slow, steals office supplies, takes a lot of sick days, etc. I take the hit. I have to either absorb the losses, or fix the problem. If they are contracted out, and I can't find a customer, I still have to pay them.
> 
> Of course, just because I feel I deserve $100k doesn't mean I'm going to get it. If I can't find employees or customers, my business will go under...unlike welfare or UBI. I only get paid if I succeed in balancing, there is incentive for me to get it right.
> 
> Again, my employee is free to start their own company as well and make the $100k, but most never will. It takes a different skill set, knowledge level, risk tolerance, etc.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your first part, the reason I, or others, can hire more people is, again, the basis of this thread, where does the money come from? I can only sell my goods or services to what the market will support. That income dictates how many employees I can afford to pay. I can't afford to pay more people than my business will support.


The good part is that you see supply and demand forces. unemployment happens when supply of labour is greater than demand for labour. When it comes to explaining your circumstances, you avaol your self of supply and demand forces. However, when it comes to the poor, you say it is lack of ambition, not an over supply of labour. That apparently justifies your lack of empathy for them.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> The one thing I don't agree on is "anyone can create good people", the only peoson who can control anyone is themselves.


You just lack ambition. If you weren't lazy, you could do it. If only you controled yourself, you could create good people and jobs. But you just lack the ambition to do that. 

You excuse yourself for your limitations, but you decline to excuse the poor for their limitations.


----------



## Just a Guy

bgc_fan said:


> You say that some people are unemployable and Walmart gives them the chance. In reality, I'm sure that there are a number of people who have the skills/training to do other jobs, but at a specific time in life, they were not able to find a job that fit their training and resort to Walmart (or any low paying service/retail job) as a stopgap. After all, lots of people on this forum use that as the argument that these people shouldn't be paid living wages because this jobs are meant for temporary solutions and not a career. But everyone's situation is different. The usual example that the left will present is the single mother with 2 kids trying to make ends meet while working at Walmart. You can argue that she made her choices and deserves her fate. Fine. But when she is working at Walmart as much as possible, but not able to work enough to have full-time benefits, she will be trapped in the poverty trap and there is no way out. Sure, Walmart is under no obligation to help as it is a for-profit corporation and not a charity, but DON'T say that Walmart employs poor people as an example of what a good corporate citizen it is while it perpetuates the poverty cycle and is dependent on it as part of its business plan.


Okay, personally I don't understand this arguement. What law says this woman has to continue working at Walmart? What is preventing her from seeking higher paying income? I actually had a friend who worked for Zellers, then Target after the takeover. Complained all the time about the low wages. I once asked her why she didn't try applying at Costco, same basic skill set and job duties, significantly higher pay, great benefits and good upward mobility (my niece was an employee there for years and eventually moved into management). Her answer was it was too much work to change.

Earlier in this thread, I gave examples of how you can start your own company if you wanted to with nearly no money. Sure, you wouldn't be pulling in $100k/year to start, but you could grow it into something much bigger if you wanted to, no special education or equipment required. 

The opportunity is there if people wanted o look for it, the problem is people don't want the bother of having to look. Hand it to me please. 

You wouldn't believe how many people have asked me to buy them a property and manage it for them just so they can collect the money. These are people I've offered to help find a place, and give them all the support they needed to get started...not good enough though, they just want the money not the work. 



> Actually, it has been answered a few times, you seemed to ignore the answers. Through replacement of current social programs and progressive clawbacks depending on income level.


Any you seem to have ignored the math. Unless you have a progressive clawback that goes beyond 100%, it can't make up the funds required. 



> You don't need to bring out this example, I'm sure everyone is aware of the choices and implications of increased wage. Most would accept that businesses would simply let people go; however, the optics are that it is a one way street. Proponents of trickle down economics keep saying things like reduce corporate taxes, or taxes on the 1% as that will create jobs. When corporate taxes have been cut, do we see more hiring? Or do we see companies hiring when they start making large profits? No, because there's no need to hire more people just because you have more money. The only time you hire is because there is a demand, which is why when it comes to tax cuts, it's more effective when they benefit the poor because it will increase demand, i.e. they have the opportunity to buy more than the mere basics. OTOH, people are quick to fire people when there is talk of raising wages or corporate taxes. We don't even need either things to happen, you do remember the uproar when banks were announcing record profits and then simultaneously laying off thousands of workers?


Have you ever run a business or are you just quoting sound bites? Do you know what the ROI is on a bank? It's about 3%. Do you understand how math works? If I have 100k in assets and make 3% profit, I make 3K in profits. If I increase my assets to $200k, I now make "record profits" of $6k, but it's still only a 3% ROI. Heck, if I made $4k on 200k I'm still making "record profits", but my ROI has dropped to 2%. 

No business is going to just absorb corporate taxes, the cost will be passed down to the eventual end user, along with handling fees to administer these costs. In the end, there is only one person who pays all the money, the end user. Taxing the middle man doesn't generate "new money". 



> Again, it's up to them. My argument was/is that don't use them as an example of selfless giving when a lot of what goes out comes back. Is it really charitable giving if someone were to give $10, gets a tax credit for 26% and another 50% (for example) back through their business? So when someone flashes a big novelty check for $1M donation, shouldn't the real out of pocket cost of $240k be the one that gets publicized (in this example). Sustainability is a red-herring, you may recall the Norwegian wealth fund is fairly sizeable and they do have screening criteria to avoid certain businesses, so just because you want to push a health agenda by distributing medication, doesn't mean you have to invest in those pharmaceuticals. I'm sure you can find other companies.
> 
> Again, this example isn't as blatant as the Microsoft example where they were leveraging the Foundation to get Microsoft products into schools because they couldn't compete with the offerings by Apple.


They are still giving away their money, maybe not as fast as you'd like, or the way you'd like, but I'm bettering even that $240k is more than you'll *ever* give away. Do I agree with what or how they are doing it? It's not my money, they earned it, so my opinion doesn't matter. I'm not *entitled* to it. 



> Other than the law of reality? If we're talking about people just scraping by and existing on a Walmart salary, I doubt very much they have the disposable income to purchase sufficient shares to get them out of their situation.


Where, in the law of reality, is it written that this is all they can achieve? See the example about aboutmy Zeller's friend. Also, if you are frugal, as I personally discovered, and can deal with short term pain of sacrifice, you are able to come up with a little bit extra. With discipline, it can grow. Of course, you should also read my previous post about leading a horse to water. 



> Circumstances differ, but we have a number of examples of rich sitting on a figurative pile of gold: Hiltons, Waltons, members of middle eastern royalties. Take a look at http://richkidsofinstagram.com/ to get an idea where some of the blowback towards the wealthy is coming from.


Sure, if we want to pull international examples, let's look at *real* poverty then. Not this, I can't be expected to live off minimum wage and government handouts crap we have in Canada. 

Let's stick with the reality that we live in a country where, if you wanted to, you are free to change jobs, invest money and improve your life...heck, you can even sit on your butt and do nothing without fear of starving. Last time I checked, we didn't have intergenerational royalty hand me downs. Most of the rich in Canada made their money themselves.


----------



## Moneytoo

Pluto said:


> You just lack ambition. If you weren't lazy, you could do it. If only you controled yourself, you could create good people and jobs. But you just lack the ambition to do that.
> 
> You excuse yourself for your limitations, but you decline to excuse the poor for their limitations.


Pluto, why are you doing this? You don't agree that people with brains and/or special talents (including entrepreneurship) should be making more money than those without? And as for the rest, it's unfair if hardworking people are making the same as the flaky ones? Or you just want to show JaG the flaws in his logic, ignoring the true matter at hand - the entitlement to decide how to re-distribute somebody else's money?


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> You just lack ambition. If you weren't lazy, you could do it. If only you controled yourself, you could create good people and jobs. But you just lack the ambition to do that.
> 
> You excuse yourself for your limitations, but you decline to excuse the poor for their limitations.


I see you selectively edited the part where I said I do create jobs and good people unlike, I suspect you. I suppose I could, if I chose, create even more jobs but I live in Canada where we are allowed to make our own choices. Instead of job creation, I've chosen to focus on providing affordable housing to people, again something I suspect you don't do. Do I profit from this? I sure do, it allows me to provide even more affordable housing to people. Of course, this does employ property managers and contractors as well. 

I'm already raising 4 children of my own on top of all I do. I choose not to raise everyone else in Canada as well, time for people to grow up and become adults. 

Of course you probably don't see me doing enough, and I should contribute even more...should I perhaps follow your example?


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> I see you selectively edited the part where I said I do create jobs and good people unlike, I suspect you. I suppose I could, if I chose, create even more jobs but I live in Canada where we are allowed to make our own choices. Instead of job creation, I've chosen to focus on providing affordable housing to people, again something I suspect you don't do. Do I profit from this? I sure do, it allows me to provide even more affordable housing to people. Of course, this does employ property managers and contractors as well.
> 
> I'm already raising 4 children of my own on top of all I do. I choose not to raise everyone else in Canada as well, time for people to grow up and become adults.
> 
> Of course you probably don't see me doing enough, and I should contribute even more...should I perhaps follow your example?


You just used the word "I" or "I've" 15 TIMES in one short post-the world doesn't revolve around your needs.


----------



## bass player

I'm still waiting for all those who demand that businesses pay their employees a wonderful wage to get off their asses and do it first. Prove how easy it is and then maybe your argument might have some merit.


----------



## Just a Guy

Nelley said:


> You just used the word "I" or "I've" 15 TIMES in one short post-the world doesn't revolve around your needs.


I'll return to my normal way of using the royal "we" and "one" if you prefer. 

In this case the statement was directed at me, you were probably too busy counting to actually read the post, so I responded in the personal tone. You probably missed the 11 times Pluto used "you" and "yourself" in the quote I posted in my response.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The communism of Russia was far different than the socialism embraced by most Canadians today.
> 
> Conservatives are hypocrites. They disparage socialism even as they stand in line to benefit from it in so many ways.
> 
> For Conservatives, the cut off line for social benefits starts right after them.



Socialism does offer benefits, and I think all people should benefit from them, well all pay the costs, why shouldn't we get the limited benefits.

My opposition to socialism isn't that I don't like the benefits it offers to people, it's all the harm that socialism does to society. 
Since the damage done by socialism is so much worse than the benefit, we shouldn't be proceeding down that path.

I wish people actually understood the harm their socialist policies do, particularly to those they want to help. If they actually understood, they wouldn't be so eager to embrace them.
Instead they sit there with greedy eyes looking at "the rich".


----------



## bass player

MrMatt said:


> I wish people actually understood the harm their socialist policies do, particularly to those they want to help. If they actually understood, they wouldn't be so eager to embrace them.
> Instead they sit there with greedy eyes looking at "the rich".


That won't change until the school system stops brainwashing children. By the time they get to university, they are full fledged social justice warriors. And, it won't stop until there is at least an even amount of right leaning and left leaning teachers.

Children are exposed to 12 years of socialist teaching in school and 95% left leaning media...virtually their entire life when they are open to learning is immersed in liberal ideology, and still the best the left can do is indoctrinate a little over half of the kids. 

If half the media and half of the teachers leaned right, socialism would have no chance.


----------



## Moneytoo

bass player said:


> That won't change until the school system stops brainwashing children. By the time they get to university, they are full fledged social justice warriors. And, it won't stop until there is at least an even amount of right leaning and left leaning teachers.


But how would it change if next generation of teachers will come from already left leaning children?..


----------



## gibor365

> Children are exposed to 12 years of socialist teaching in school and 95% left leaning media...virtually their entire life when they are open to learning is immersed in liberal ideology, and still the best the left can do is indoctrinate a little over half of the kids.


Indeed! This is ridiculous how teachers brainwash kids with ideas of socialism, liberalism and political corectness! I;m so pissed when mykids telling me what is going on in school.


----------



## Just a Guy

Not sure why you blame the teachers, my kids are exposed to the same things, but we have discussions about it all the time, I don't shield them from business, investing, or life in any way. When we watch the news, we discuss how things are being twisted by the various reporters. We look for people who are finding the facts versus those regurgitating sound bites.

I spend a lot of time teaching my children, I also made sure they were put into programs where they were taught to think and question. My kids have their own ideas, not just mine or the teacher's, they are certainly different than the majority of their peers.

If you abdicate responsibility for your child's education why are you complaining with what they've learned?


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy: 

I fully understand that parents can teach their children to think...but just many other skills they need in life, many of them don't.

Perhaps, just like how some claim that a basic income is needed for those who can't or won't take care of themselves, some right of centre education is needed to balance the overwhelming left of centre education for the children that are not being taught to think for themselves.


----------



## Just a Guy

Why think when you can demand and be given? They blame millennials for this attitude, I blame parents. 

When the millennials grow older and realize the debt they're left with, they'll probably blame their parents too. 

Of course that won't solve the problem, I wonder who they'll take from.


----------



## mrPPincer

Problem remains, though, when trained to analyze and think critically, people tend to trend left, so perhaps the best solution is to incorporate a mandatory amount of 'flat earth' and 'intelligent design' and 'trickle down', just to make sure.

Better safe than sorry right?

Or rather, as you people that can't spell or make change w/o a machine to tell what, would say, 

better safe then sorry.


----------



## mrPPincer

^Sorry that may have been a bit harsh, just a little disillusioned with the educational system atm.

Anecdote.
Brought a young family that didn't have their own vehicle to the movie theatre the other day.
Bought myself some popcorn.
The girl at the counter shortchanged me for a toonie.
I said you you owe me two.
(I thought she was ripping me off, but I thought if she needs it, keep it).
I told her don't worry about it, keep it.
Came back later dry, bought a soda drink.
Paid with a twenty. 

She didn't know how many fives to give me back, asked the other girl.
That's when I realized, she wasn't ripping me off, she was devoid of skills that come naturally to people properly educated.
The educational system is failing them.


----------



## Moneytoo

JaG, you start reminding me this guy :


----------



## Moneytoo

mrPPincer said:


> Problem remains, though, when trained to analyze and think critically, people tend to trend left


Oh I thought it's the opposite: left = heart, right = brains: If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain


----------



## mrPPincer

Yeah that's an oldie meme alright, and statistically maybe it's somewhat accurate, left leaning when young, right leaning when older, dunno, people do love to jump on that one though.

It's 2017 though go-dammit can't we let centuries-old memes go by the wayside in favour of actual science?>? 

I think it's a good thing we're looking into it, time will tell.


----------



## MrMatt

mrPPincer said:


> Problem remains, though, when trained to analyze and think critically, people tend to trend left, so perhaps the best solution is to incorporate a mandatory amount of 'flat earth' and 'intelligent design' and 'trickle down', just to make sure.
> 
> Better safe than sorry right?
> 
> Or rather, as you people that can't spell or make change w/o a machine to tell what, would say,
> 
> better safe then sorry.


When you think it through you actually start to lean a bit more right.
Take a typical left policy, ie high minimum wage, sounds good, everyone is for it.
When you investigate you find that high minimum wages have a LOT of downsides for those at the bottom end of the wage scale.

Sorry, flat earth isn't taken seriously by anyone.
intelligent design is primarily a religious argument, not really a right leaning political argument.
Trickle down? That's really just a gross (and incorrect) interpretation of the Laffer curve.

On the left they are arguing things like the gender pay gap, often phrased as something like 70 cents on the dollar.
When the reality is, correcting for job, education, experience and hours worked women earn more than men.

The left seems to get people riled up and emotional, but the actual science and thought is a bit lacking. 
Most of the headline policies seem downright destructive.
Proportional representation, socialism, restricting speech and debate. These are just horrible horrible ideas, you don't even have to think them through very long to see how they're going to hurt society.


----------



## sags

The meandering conservative claptrap is on full display in this thread.


----------



## Just a Guy

Moneytoo said:


> JaG, you start reminding me this guy :


As I said before, I tend to argue best on things I don't truly believe in, since I can see the holes in the arguement.

my kids do go to school, they play sports, and I encourage them to follow their interests. I do however look at schools before sending them to it, actually meet the teachers and figure out their teaching styles and philosophies. I don't pull my kids from classes I don't agree with, or teachers they don't like (life doesn't work that way). I tell them they must find a way to get along, or at least play the game the teacher's way. I did I still in them a love of learning, and I take time to explain to them how some subjects, usually thought useless or boring like say math, social studies and English are actually useful and practical when you put them in the proper context. 

Since I've developed my own personal UBI (I do, of course, work, but I can take time off almost whenever I want to) I have the option to volunteer with the class. As my personal interests are varied, my kids get exposed to more things than most kids. Their interests are still on doing things rather than playing video games or watching tv (not that they don't do both occasionally, but my son, for example, prefers to build a remote controlled car from an old weed wacker and scrap metal I had lying around. He taught himself small engine repair first, since the machine was broken and I didn't know how to fix it.

You'll also note, I actually support some social safety nets, never denied it. I just don't think they should be permanent and that we need a realistic way of paying for them. I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what I did. Of course I recognize the difference between a helping hand and having to carry someone their entire life. 

Working with the poor on a regular basis will probably change even the most liberally minded person. Yes, there are some people who need a lot more help than others, and there are some success stories that make your time feel worthwhile, but they are, ironically, in the minority. Of course, the liberally minded people don't usually like to go down into the trenches, just like they don't want people to take their money...they just have the solutions we should all follow.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> The meandering conservative claptrap is on full display in this thread.


Unlike the meandering liberal claptrap of course...


----------



## gibor365

Just a Guy said:


> Not sure why you blame the teachers, my kids are exposed to the same things, but we have discussions about it all the time, I don't shield them from business, investing, or life in any way. When we watch the news, we discuss how things are being twisted by the various reporters. We look for people who are finding the facts versus those regurgitating sound bites.
> 
> I spend a lot of time teaching my children, I also made sure they were put into programs where they were taught to think and question. My kids have their own ideas, not just mine or the teacher's, they are certainly different than the majority of their peers.
> 
> If you abdicate responsibility for your child's education why are you complaining with what they've learned?


We're doing exactlythe same, but not many do...


> they are certainly different than the majority of their peers.


 this is the point, hence majority will decide when our country is going


----------



## Moneytoo

*Gardening Tools*



Just a Guy said:


> As I said before, I tend to argue best on things I don't truly believe in, since I can see the holes in the arguement.


I meant my comment in a good way, as I like a "giver" attitude (someone who plants a tree so someone else can sit in the shade) more _than_ a "taker" one (someone who believes that someone planted a tree so he can sit in the shade - and someone else should plant some more trees)


----------



## MrMatt

Moneytoo said:


> I meant my comment in a good way, as I like a "giver" attitude (someone who plants a tree so someone else can sit in the shade) more _than_ a "taker" one (someone who believes that someone planted a tree so he can sit in the shade - and someone else should plant some more trees)


Great point, Eric Barker has a great chapter on givers and takers in his new book (Barking up the wrong tree), it's chapter 2.
I think this plays into it a bit.

The left often see themselves as givers (of other peoples money), but in reality they're takers.
That's not to say they don't give, I know many people across the spectrum who voluntarily give quite a bit. Generous people are more enjoyable to be around.

But a lot of the left today is about more taking, hike taxes, force others to "give" in any way they can. But filling the world with takers isn't a good thing.


As I think about this further, and how the left frames tax cuts as "giving to the rich", really shows how important the framing is.
Of course you're going to be opposed to giving even more to those takers. 
I guess I can understand the logic, but I don't agree with it. I think that's part of the fundamental problem, both sides see have build up a framework where they see the other side as greedy takers, who just won't admit it.

I think it comes from the view that the economy is a zero sum game, and that if someone is rich, they MUST have gotten it from taking from others.

I think this ignores the basic economic fact that wealth is constantly created. When you build something from something else, you've created more wealth. 
Often the rich are rich because they manage (through a variety of means) to create more wealth faster. If a person can make more value, they can get more benefits, and there is more wealth in the world.

I understand both sides, but since I don't see economics as a zero sum game, I don't automatically jump to the perspective that the rich are stealing from me. I chose to buy my iPad, sure Steve Jobs got a little bit richer, but many other people got paid too, and I got an iPad. There really weren't any losers in that transaction.
Didn't society benefit from Steve Jobs being mega-rich and being able to guide Apple down that path?
Don't we want more wealth creators? Is the world really worse off because Elon Musk is making electric cars and reusable rockets? Is the side effect that he got incredibly rich doing so really a problem? It isn't like he's stealing from us, most of his money was freely given. (One can debate the Evironmental subsidies for Tesla, but I think they're beside the point)


----------



## Nelley

MrMatt said:


> Great point, Eric Barker has a great chapter on givers and takers in his new book (Barking up the wrong tree), it's chapter 2.
> I think this plays into it a bit.
> 
> The left often see themselves as givers (of other peoples money), but in reality they're takers.
> That's not to say they don't give, I know many people across the spectrum who voluntarily give quite a bit. Generous people are more enjoyable to be around.
> 
> But a lot of the left today is about more taking, hike taxes, force others to "give" in any way they can. But filling the world with takers isn't a good thing.
> 
> 
> As I think about this further, and how the left frames tax cuts as "giving to the rich", really shows how important the framing is.
> Of course you're going to be opposed to giving even more to those takers.
> I guess I can understand the logic, but I don't agree with it. I think that's part of the fundamental problem, both sides see have build up a framework where they see the other side as greedy takers, who just won't admit it.
> 
> I think it comes from the view that the economy is a zero sum game, and that if someone is rich, they MUST have gotten it from taking from others.
> 
> I think this ignores the basic economic fact that wealth is constantly created. When you build something from something else, you've created more wealth.
> Often the rich are rich because they manage (through a variety of means) to create more wealth faster. If a person can make more value, they can get more benefits, and there is more wealth in the world.
> 
> I understand both sides, but since I don't see economics as a zero sum game, I don't automatically jump to the perspective that the rich are stealing from me. I chose to buy my iPad, sure Steve Jobs got a little bit richer, but many other people got paid too, and I got an iPad. There really weren't any losers in that transaction.
> Didn't society benefit from Steve Jobs being mega-rich and being able to guide Apple down that path?
> Don't we want more wealth creators? Is the world really worse off because Elon Musk is making electric cars and reusable rockets? Is the side effect that he got incredibly rich doing so really a problem? It isn't like he's stealing from us, most of his money was freely given. (One can debate the Evironmental subsidies for Tesla, but I think they're beside the point)


Sorry to burst your little bubble but the Billionaire Class IS the Left-they are not fighting Trump because they dislike the guy personally-he is being violently opposed by 95% of global billionaires because of his policies (anti-leftist). Giant governments and giant government spending is the agenda of the left and the billionaires (i.e. super rich).


----------



## Pluto

Moneytoo said:


> Pluto, why are you doing this? You don't agree that people with brains and/or special talents (including entrepreneurship) should be making more money than those without? And as for the rest, it's unfair if hardworking people are making the same as the flaky ones? Or you just want to show JaG the flaws in his logic, ignoring the true matter at hand - the entitlement to decide how to re-distribute somebody else's money?



1. Yes I do believe that people with brains and special talents should make more money. I believe in capitalism, but not unfettered capitalism. Unfettered capitalism is as big a mistake as communism. 


I don't know if the playing field is level. For example, Buffet has noted that his tax rates are less than that of his staff. JAG's implicit explanation is that Buffet's staff are just lazy and unambitious. Buffet's explanation is that the people who make the playing field rules are responsible for tilting things in favour of the wealthy. Buffet's explanation is more satisfying to me than the lack of ambition theory. 


Isn't it possible that if the rule makers tilt things in favour of the wealthy, then some of their gains are unfairlry accumulated? Is the playing field level in Canada? I believe some time should be spent assessing that. If the playing field is tilted in favour of the well off, why is it assumed that it is all their money?


----------



## Nelley

Pluto said:


> 1. Yes I do believe that people with brains and special talents should make more money. I believe in capitalism, but not unfettered capitalism. Unfettered capitalism is as big a mistake as communism.
> 
> 
> I don't know if the playing field is level. For example, Buffet has noted that his tax rates are less than that of his staff. JAG's implicit explanation is that Buffet's staff are just lazy and unambitious. Buffet's explanation is that the people who make the playing field rules are responsible for tilting things in favour of the wealthy. Buffet's explanation is more satisfying to me than the lack of ambition theory.
> 
> 
> Isn't it possible that if the rule makers tilt things in favour of the wealthy, then some of their gains are unfairlry accumulated? Is the playing field level in Canada? I believe some time should be spent assessing that. If the playing field is tilted in favour of the well off, why is it assumed that it is all their money?


Yes-political contributions (including the massive amounts under the table) are not given out of charity-the politician receiving the loot has to give back to the super rich. Look at the USA-Trump's base is small business owners, middle class workers (non government) and partly upper middle class (say 5 million net worth). The vast majority of the super rich-those that actually influence government policy- are against Trump.


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> Some people want both sides of the coin...they want someone to open a business, take all the risk, and then pay them a great wage. They also want the government to provide money to those who don't work.
> 
> It's always what someone else can do, but never what they can do.
> 
> Gimme, gimme, gimme...


yeah, well it is invariabley the poor and largly incapable who get blamed for gimmie gimme gimmie. That reminds me of the Bronfman's reportedly getting 2 billion ot of the country tax free, while others are subject to the exit tax which in their case would have been 700 - 800 million. 

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/reststory/bronfmanevade.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bronfman-tax-case-back-in-federal-court-1.298637

Is the playing field in Canada level? if it isn't then some money accumulated by the well off is unfairly gained. It it is unfairly gained, why is it "their money"? some of the well off are busy at the gimmie gimmie gimme game too, and when they are successful they reap a lot more than the poor.


----------



## Nelley

Pluto said:


> yeah, well it is invariabley the poor and largly incapable who get blamed for gimmie gimme gimmie. That reminds me of the Bronfman's reportedly getting 2 billion ot of the country tax free, while others are subject to the exit tax which in their case would have been 700 - 800 million.
> 
> http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/reststory/bronfmanevade.html
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bronfman-tax-case-back-in-federal-court-1.298637
> 
> Is the playing field in Canada level? if it isn't then some money accumulated by the well off is unfairly gained. It it is unfairly gained, why is it "their money"? some of the well off are busy at the gimmie gimmie gimme game too, and when they are successful they reap a lot more than the poor.


The Bronfman situation is commonplace for the super rich. What is funny is that the massive bailout was only 8 years ago and it might as well have been 800 years ago-nobody even remembers.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> I see you selectively edited the part where I said I do create jobs and good people unlike, I suspect you. I suppose I could, if I chose, create even more jobs but I live in Canada where we are allowed to make our own choices. Instead of job creation, I've chosen to focus on providing affordable housing to people, again something I suspect you don't do. Do I profit from this? I sure do, it allows me to provide even more affordable housing to people. Of course, this does employ property managers and contractors as well.
> 
> I'm already raising 4 children of my own on top of all I do. I choose not to raise everyone else in Canada as well, time for people to grow up and become adults.
> 
> Of course you probably don't see me doing enough, and I should contribute even more...should I perhaps follow your example?


1. You miss the point. So I'll try again. 
You constantly talk as if the poor have unlimited capabilities, and therefore it is justified to blame them entirely for their sorry state. 
But you recognize that there are limitaitions on you and that excuses you from any blame/responsibility for things you do not achieve. 

2. by the way, I previously asked what do you mean by "dead broke". that question arose because during the time you were "dead broke" you said you were paying taxes. If you answered the question, I missed it. 

3. Blaming the poor by calling them lazy or lacking in ambition has been around for thousands of years, and since we still have the poor, it obviously hasn't worked. What makes you pick an assessment and tactic that hasn't worked as your path to a soulution? Lazy or lacking ambition is another way of saying they are depressed, self loathing, and feel hopeless. Despite the fact you claim to have been "dead broke", I'm not convinced you faced the overwhelming hardship many of them have.


----------



## Pluto

Nelley said:


> The Bronfman situation is commonplace for the super rich. What is funny is that the massive bailout was only 8 years ago and it might as well have been 800 years ago-nobody even remembers.


Thank you for your acknowledgement of that special treatment of the well off. 
The main theme of this thread is how the well off are victimized by the poor, while never looking into the question, "is the playing field level"?


----------



## Nelley

IMO rather than a universal income, the basic personal income tax exemption should be raised to at least $40000-if you aren't making 40 grand IMO you shouldn't have to pay income tax-period. You will notice that NONE of the leftists or Wynne/Selfie crowd agree with this-it is all about bigger guv forever.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> You'll also note, I actually support some social safety nets, never denied it. I just don't think they should be permanent and that we need a realistic way of paying for them. I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what I did. Of course I recognize the difference between a helping hand and having to carry someone their entire life.
> 
> Working with the poor on a regular basis will probably change even the most liberally minded person. Yes, there are some people who need a lot more help than others, and there are some success stories that make your time feel worthwhile, but they are, ironically, in the minority. Of course, the liberally minded people don't usually like to go down into the trenches, just like they don't want people to take their money...they just have the solutions we should all follow.


1. "Some people need more help that others". That's a step in the right direction. Now you are individualizing instead of relying on dubious gross generalizations. 
2. "Success stories are ironically in the minority." That's an implicit admission you don't have all the answers. Very humble of you, and a step in the right direction. Its only ironic for those who don't know what they are talking about. More time in the trenches might cure you of your grandiose assessments.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> 1. Yes I do believe that people with brains and special talents should make more money. I believe in capitalism, but not unfettered capitalism. Unfettered capitalism is as big a mistake as communism.
> 
> 
> I don't know if the playing field is level. For example, Buffet has noted that his tax rates are less than that of his staff. JAG's implicit explanation is that Buffet's staff are just lazy and unambitious. Buffet's explanation is that the people who make the playing field rules are responsible for tilting things in favour of the wealthy. Buffet's explanation is more satisfying to me than the lack of ambition theory.
> 
> 
> Isn't it possible that if the rule makers tilt things in favour of the wealthy, then some of their gains are unfairlry accumulated? Is the playing field level in Canada? I believe some time should be spent assessing that. If the playing field is tilted in favour of the well off, why is it assumed that it is all their money?


1) Unfettered anything is usually bad, so is extreme anything.

2) you love finding examples outside of Canada and then claiming it justifies your arguement, yet when I used the example of the poor outside Canada, you probably just ignored the comment as extremely rediculous. 

But, looking at your example, why don't Buffet's staff members try something else? Why do they choose to stay employees? Are they disabled? Depressed? Legislated to do so? Physically tied to the desk? Does Buffet routinely threaten the lives of them and their families?

If not, why do I need to suddenly have to support them? Are you the type of parent who lets their children live in the basement rent free, doing their cooking, cleaning, and laundry for them all the time? Perhaps you feed them their meals in bed too so they don't need to get up. Doesn't really matter to you that they may be approaching retirement age either I suppose, you're doing them a favour, helping out, I'm sure they developed into normal, productive adults...oh wait, they're you died and now someone else has to take over the care of your precious child who needs his breakfast in bed.

3) I love your last comment...you write "isn't it possible that...", while completely ignoring all the rules that are written in favour of the poor (how many of the wealthy benefit from welfare, minimum wage, subsidized housing, etc). 

Of course, I don't support the silly liberal government which keeps giving Bombardier money (something the conservatives stopped doing), but then I don't support most government spending either (another fact you seem to ignore). The government invariably uses money to buy votes and stay in power. People keep blaming the rich or poor for influencing government when, as I see it, the problem is the government. 

I find it rediculous that, despite their track record at every level and in nearly every country, people still want governments to solve the problems.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> 1. "Some people need more help that others". That's a step in the right direction. Now you are individualizing instead of relying on dubious gross generalizations.
> 2. "Success stories are ironically in the minority." That's an implicit admission you don't have all the answers. Very humble of you, and a step in the right direction. Its only ironic for those who don't know what they are talking about. More time in the trenches might cure you of your grandiose assessments.


1) I always find the "gross generalization" arguement to be a sign of close mindedness. If you can't figure out that, when talking about vast subjects, that you have to generalize and that the person making such generalizations knows that there are always exceptions to the rule, then you're not very intelligent or so unsure of your position that you need to grasp at this kind of straw.

Would you prefer I give a list of all 35M Canadians each time I make a point, each neatly grouped into their proper category? What should I do with the ones who may fit into several?

2) if you look at past postings, I have actually stated that "I could be wrong", I also have repeatedly said "I don't truly believe everything I'm saying" do I need to find the exact post in his thread for you where it is, seeing as you obviously missed it, or maybe you're one who are facing "overwhelming hardships" and need some assistance?

You do understand the point of a debate right? Are your ideals so perfect that you're scared to look at the other side of the coin?


----------



## MrMatt

It isn't that the poor are lazy or anything like that. Some of it is internal and some is external, lots of research, but the left and right don't talk to each other.

The playing field isn't level, which is the problem. Unfortunately the "solution" is for the government to interfere, make it less level, and chop the legs off the table. It's insane.


As for the rich and mega rich, it isn't an even distribution for a number of reasons.
One that I like is personality types.
You can be very rich being incredibly smart, driven hard working, detail oriented. 
Managing large businesses, lawyers etc, lots of these people tend to be right leaning. These types of people make up a lot of the higher income strata.

There are also the entertainers or mega rich innovators, who are more art/creative types, and those new ideas and breaking molds, and they tend to be left leaning. 
They also have the convenience of not having to worry about economic theory or management and stuff like that, pretty much any big name entertainer is in the .001% or better, and most of them don't even think about economics in any serious manner. Some give to charity, but only a relatively small amount of their net worth, it isn't like they're living a middle class life.


As far as the government, my basic beef with socialism is that they're already taking half my paycheck, and they're spending it.
They're literally giving it away to people "just because", and they're suggesting I'm greedy to want them to be a bit more responsible.

That being said, I think the minimum income in some way is a decent idea, but they aren't paying enough attention to the cost and risks of such a policy.

There are those with big eyes imagining even more government spending, but the money simply isn't there. Today if you work minimum wage, for 20 hours a week, they're already taxing you, you're not even close to a living wage and they're taking money away.

You can't tax your way to prosperity.

What you can do is empower people to make their own wealth, get more people working and creating. 


As for the popular claim that Buffet has a lower tax rate than his staff, sure that's a problem. But to solve it you'd have to get rid of all those special cases.
The US is insane with them, but Canada is pretty crazy too. This is why some people want a flat tax with no loopholes.

My current pet peeve tax loophole, if you have one wheat issue (celiac) you can claim some food costs, but if you have other issues (ie allergies) regarding wheat you can't. There is no scientific reason for this, one special interest group just has better advocates than the other.
FWIW I know celiacs and people with wheat allergies, a reaction in some cases can be far worse than celiac impacts.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> 1. You miss the point. So I'll try again.
> You constantly talk as if the poor have unlimited capabilities, and therefore it is justified to blame them entirely for their sorry state.
> But you recognize that there are limitaitions on you and that excuses you from any blame/responsibility for things you do not achieve.
> 
> 2. by the way, I previously asked what do you mean by "dead broke". that question arose because during the time you were "dead broke" you said you were paying taxes. If you answered the question, I missed it.
> 
> 3. Blaming the poor by calling them lazy or lacking in ambition has been around for thousands of years, and since we still have the poor, it obviously hasn't worked. What makes you pick an assessment and tactic that hasn't worked as your path to a soulution? Lazy or lacking ambition is another way of saying they are depressed, self loathing, and feel hopeless. Despite the fact you claim to have been "dead broke", I'm not convinced you faced the overwhelming hardship many of them have.


1) you seem to have missed my point, so let me repeat. I said I "chose" not to create any more jobs, not that I was "incapable", big difference. I have stated repeatedly that the poor don't choose to change their lot, or maybe don't even know how (heck, I even stated many well off people like sags didn't know how to change) to and need to be educated on ways rather than being handed free money that comes from the "wealthy". Just like I suggest you kick your kids out of the basement, or at least have them take care of themselves at age appropriate levels. 

2) yes, I was dead broke, living off credit card, diagnosed as depressed, in chronic pain, classified as disabled. Doesn't mean you get out of taxes as it turns out. First off, taxes are calculated on the past year. Being self employed, you often don't have deductions during the year, or not as many as employees. As long as you pay in full before the deadline, you're fine. I don't believe in giving the government a tax free loan, then celebrating they "free money" tax return.

When you run a business, especially a young one, there is a huge balancing act when it comes to money. You usually put as much to work as possible, so taxes usually get paid out of the cash flow the following year for the taxes due the prior year. The problem arises when the taxes are due for the previous year, but there is no cash flow in the current year.

Next you'll note, from my obviously fake narcissistic story, that I often credit my success from real estate investing. Real estate investing comes with something called "property taxes". True, property taxes are municipal and provincial taxes, not federal income taxes, however it's also not income based. If I make less than $20k or I make more than $1M, the government still wants its full amount that it determines is "fair". Since I owned multiple properties, I paid several thousand dollars in taxes despite not making enough to be taxes on income. Since you don't like "gross generalizations", I'd be amiss if I failed to mention all the other taxes I also paid (gst, HST, pst, gas taxes, rate riders, municipal access fees, garbage collection, I'm sure a lot more). You'll note that some of these taxes are not applicable to everyone who is poor either. If utilities are included in the rent, then all those associated taxes are paid by the landlord. Oh, and if you say the rent covers that, what happens during vacancies? Also, as one of my limited income streams, it's still a tax that is way more unfair than any federal income tax taking about 10-20% off the top (not the profits either). 

3) can you give me an example where a country has provided small "helping hand" social safety nets, then encouraged people to either start small and build, or if they are unhappy apply for something else? You say it's failed for thousands of years...should be easy. As a student of history, I haven't read about such a "common occurance" even once. I've seen bastardized versions of communism, socialism, capitalism, despotism, benign rule, feudalism, etc.

Of course, I don't expect my suggestion to work either. It works in my family on a small scale. My kids know how to cook and clean, they do it not because they are told, but because it's part of life. They don't see that they are incapable of doing anything, rather that they may have to modify heir approach and it may not work out exactly the way they wanted to, but they can still achieve anything they want to, if not exactly how expected (key caviet that's why it was repeated). 

There will always be those parents out there who need to server breakfast in bed to little johnny or Jane, so they'll ensure the system doesn't work.

Any system is usually a good idea (I even like communism in theory) until you put people into the equation.


----------



## MrMatt

Nelley said:


> IMO rather than a universal income, the basic personal income tax exemption should be raised to at least $40000-if you aren't making 40 grand IMO you shouldn't have to pay income tax-period. You will notice that NONE of the leftists or Wynne/Selfie crowd agree with this-it is all about bigger guv forever.


Of course they can't afford that, they're opposed to raising the basic deduction to $15k as "extremists" like Bernier proposed.

I think the top marginal tax rate should be locked at 50%, and you shouldn't pay tax until you hit the "living wage". Premised on a reasonable definition of "living wage".
I'd suggest hiking the basic deduction by $10k or so would be a huge boost to those with lower incomes. Think about it at a 20% tax rate, that $10k bump is $2000, or $1/hr for a full time worker.

That's money right in the workers hand, and it won't hurt businesses at all. Unfortunately it would mean a big tax cut for the people paying taxes, and the middle class would reap most of the benefit.
Which means it's politically untenable.

As it is, we have this $15 minimum wage coming, could you imagine what a 30% price hike in any item would have?

What happens if cable TV, Electricity, gas or Car insurance were to jump by 30%, people would be outraged.

I'll tell you what will happen, people will cut those services as much as we can. The whole "time of use" price hike for Ontario was to discourage consumption of electricity. Well massive wage hikes are going to result in a lot of cut shifts. Don't worry the politically connected will still keep their tax funded jobs, only the poor working guys and small businesses will get screwed by this.


----------



## olivaw

*Brookings: Three reasons for universal basic income*

1. Efficient use of natural-resource rents. 
2. Improving the welfare of the poor.
3. Adjusting to labor-saving technologies.


----------



## bgc_fan

Just a Guy said:


> Okay, personally I don't understand this arguement. What law says this woman has to continue working at Walmart? What is preventing her from seeking higher paying income? I actually had a friend who worked for Zellers, then Target after the takeover. Complained all the time about the low wages. I once asked her why she didn't try applying at Costco, same basic skill set and job duties, significantly higher pay, great benefits and good upward mobility (my niece was an employee there for years and eventually moved into management). Her answer was it was too much work to change.


Some people get in a rut, but lateral changes doesn't necessarily help the situation. But in fairness, the turnover rate is about 70% for first year employees, so apparently it happens. Other possible reasons can be access. Costcos tend to be out of the way and not near convenient public transportation, whereas Walmarts tend to be in near public transit hubs to try to catch the increase in foot traffic. The other consideration is there are a limited number of positions in retail outside of Walmarts as you have pointed out. Zellers/Target are no longer around in Canada (aside from one Zellers store in Ottawa) which is one of the issues of Walmart establishing a base and then undercutting local competition until they are the only choice around.



Just a Guy said:


> Earlier in this thread, I gave examples of how you can start your own company if you wanted to with nearly no money. Sure, you wouldn't be pulling in $100k/year to start, but you could grow it into something much bigger if you wanted to, no special education or equipment required.
> 
> The opportunity is there if people wanted o look for it, the problem is people don't want the bother of having to look. Hand it to me please.


Except there are certain circumstances where the opportunity is a combination of timing/connections/resources and luck. As an example, I have a close relative who ended up purchasing a store because the owner was retiring, not making much money, but surviving; however, there were quite a few circumstances that helped out here:
1. The retiring owner didn't want to sell to a "big box store" chain, but to a local owner;
2. Funds were available as she was saving for a house downpayment, and the in-laws were able to help out financially;
3. The in-laws were also shopowners and knew the business and market, so they were able to pass over some experience to get started; and
4. Because the retiring owner wanted to sell to a local owner, he was flexible on payments.

So there are a number of factors that allowed this to happen. To imply that everyone has the same opportunity to take this particular case is not true. You can't say that a cashier at Walmart would be able to take advantage of this opportunity if he/she didn't have the same resources to draw upon.
[/quote]



Just a Guy said:


> Any you seem to have ignored the math. Unless you have a progressive clawback that goes beyond 100%, it can't make up the funds required.


So, here is my math, using numbers from the Federal budget. There will be some assumptions made simply because I don't have all the numbers.

Let's say only people older than 18 can receive it, that is approximately 29.2M. Total cost of $292.1B @ $10k/person.
From the Federal Budget, we have $82.9B in personal transfers (GIS, OAS, EI, Child Benefits).
From the Budget, there is another line item for $13B in social transfers. I will make the assumption that this will fund things like welfare, and other programs that the provinces pay out due to people with low/no income, so the provinces have another share to it, so I make the assumption of a total of $26B being diverted to pay for the Guaranteed Income.
Clawback, I would say starting from $20k, of 75%. The stats for salaries are here, but I would have to make the best guess on the portion on people making $20-35k, but essentially everyone above that threshold will be returning the $10k. This leads to $146.7B.

Added up together we get a $36.5B shortfall. Not insignificant, but it is a starting point with which to tweak.

Options to make this go down? One would be reducing the basic exemption amount to $10k. This would be approximately $5.9B.

So a $10k program would have a $30.6B shortfall.

When I looked at this report, it had an interesting graph that most people on welfare receive less than $8k in benefits outside of Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. Well if we were to use $8k as the benchmark, the numbers actually come out to a $3B surplus. 

I mean there are a number of other factors, but this was just a back of the envelope calculation to point out that if the goal is simply to replace the benefits that people on welfare/unemployed receive, then this is viable. 



Just a Guy said:


> They are still giving away their money, maybe not as fast as you'd like, or the way you'd like, but I'm bettering even that $240k is more than you'll *ever* give away. Do I agree with what or how they are doing it? It's not my money, they earned it, so my opinion doesn't matter. I'm not *entitled* to it.


Ad hominem attack already? All I'm pointing out is that in this particular instance it's not exactly people giving out money out of the goodness of their heart, but they have other reasons to do so, i.e. inflate sale numbers for companies that they own, and using a charity to help increase their wealth. With your strident defence of the Gates Foundation, I assume you were just as vocal defending the Clinton Foundation right? I mean they were doing good in Africa.



Just a Guy said:


> Let's stick with the reality that we live in a country where, if you wanted to, you are free to change jobs, invest money and improve your life...heck, you can even sit on your butt and do nothing without fear of starving. Last time I checked, we didn't have intergenerational royalty hand me downs. Most of the rich in Canada made their money themselves.


While true to some degree, if you take a look at the top ten wealthiest Canadians, you'll see only 3 who you can attribute their wealth to their own work. The others either inherited family firms, or had some financial help provided by family wealth/connections. While there may be some minor changes in the past decade, most of those generational wealth Canadians are generally at the top of the food chain.


----------



## bass player

bgc_fan:

So, you just gave away my future OAS to support UBI?

Screw you. I paid taxes for 35 years and was promised OAS and I expect that promise to be fulfilled.


----------



## MrMatt

olivaw said:


> *Brookings: Three reasons for universal basic income*
> 
> 1. Efficient use of natural-resource rents.
> 2. Improving the welfare of the poor.
> 3. Adjusting to labor-saving technologies.


They sound like nice ideas, I'd like to offer counter points.

1. We have resource royalties, we could reasonably redistribute them per a minimum income, or resource dividend to all citizens, or simply use it to run the government. I'm okay with all those options. This isn't really an argument for basic income, just that we should have royalties on resources, which we do.

2. This is nice, but there are a few points.
a. Is there enough money (there isn't), and will there be enough in the future as they demand it increases. We can't afford a massive social welfare state. We're already facing significant problems as retirees increase and the ratio of workers to non-workers drops.
b. I'd like to see the poor do something of value for 2 reasons. First it's good for their own health to know they're being productive, even if we heavily subsidize most of their lifestyle I want to make sure we don't create a poverty trap. Secondly, paying people to be idle, instead of creating more wealth is a waste of human resources, I think most if not all people have value and something to offer. 
c. I don't think people have a moral right to the work of another. If I work, I should get the fruits of my labour. Simply taking my money because you want it is morally wrong. Even if you think you have a good reason it's wrong. I spend a lot of time away from my family and friends to get what I need, then the government takes half of it, and gives a lot of it to others.

3. This is a pessimistic view on technology and humanity. You suggess that technology is going to destroy jobs and people will be unable to do anything useful. We've been through this many time, agriculture is an easy example. IN the past he vast majority of the work was done to grow food. Now a small minority of the population grows the food. The rest of us have all moved on to other things. I'm not so much of a pessimist to think that just because they have automated vehicles the truckers are all going to be suddenly useless and unemployable. Yes there will be an adaptation period, but adaptation will happen. Many people today do jobs that were utterly inconceivable a few decades ago.


----------



## Pluto

Nelley said:


> IMO rather than a universal income, the basic personal income tax exemption should be raised to at least $40000-if you aren't making 40 grand IMO you shouldn't have to pay income tax-period. You will notice that NONE of the leftists or Wynne/Selfie crowd agree with this-it is all about bigger guv forever.


I think I could back somthing like that. When one considers sales tax and all the hidden taxes and fees they apparently pay a huge % in tax. 
I suspend judgement on UBI. Haven't decided.


----------



## Just a Guy

First off bgc_fan, I commend you for actually being the first to do some actual number crunching. I will point out he fact that the budget is already in deficit, and your plan would increase that deficit by another $30B, so it'll take a lot more "tweaking" than you imply. As to your surplus, $8k is not a "living wage", nor does your "surplus" (which is achieved by stealing money from OAS/EI/etc. which pays out more to people who actually made their own contributions) even dent the federal deficit. Also, how do you explain to seniors that they suddenly make too much and now only get $8k/year to be more "fair"?

Further, what you are suggesting is not, by any definition UBI but I can respect that you are rejigging welfare and other social programs. Be clear though, this is not UBI. 

Finally, if you put half the effort you (and this actually applies to most people even though I used the word "you") do in looking for "problems" and poking holes in arguement by taking thing as the literal truth, into looking for "solutions" instead (like the only alternative to Walmart is Costco, did you seriously think that's what I meant? Or that you have to buy a business? Go back and read about suggestions about farmer's markets), the world may actually become a better place. 

You talk about the lateral rut some people get stuck in, but I can't believe what a thinking rut so many people are in. Give me jobs or money, nothing else is possible...in a country full of opportunities it's shocking to see. Stop focusing on the problems, look for solutions. You may not get to do exactly what you want, the way you want but, if you look for solutions to the obstacles, you may get pretty close.

I remember watching a CBC story about a seasonal worker in the maritime Vs. New England. In canada, the seasonal worker fished for a part of the year and then went on welfare. In New England, only a few miles away really, a seasonal worker fished for part of the year, sold Xmas tree, shovelled snow, did lawn maintenance and then went back to fishing the next year. The Canadian fishermen they interviewed couldn't even imagine doing anything other than fishing. Pretty sad.

My point about the foundations was it's their money, why complain how or why they give it away? Everyone has an agenda when it comes to giving away money, the government is no different, they generally give it away to buy votes does that make them better? I never criticized any foundation Clinton (that was someone else) or otherwise, but thank you for trying to put words in my mouth, I pointed out that individuals who seem to want to give out or control other people's money don't really do much donating of their own.


----------



## Just a Guy

olivaw said:


> *Brookings: Three reasons for universal basic income*
> 
> 1. Efficient use of natural-resource rents.
> 2. Improving the welfare of the poor.
> 3. Adjusting to labor-saving technologies.


1) as Mr. Matt pointed out, we already have natural-resource rents, what he forgot to point out is that the money goes into general revenues, not the top wealthiest canadian's pockets and gets spent in the various federal and provincial budgets, most of which are currently running a deficit. 

For thos who don't seem to understand the word "deficit", it means they spend more money than they take in, including the money they take in from natural resources. 

Taking the money from natural resources and using it to fund UBI would leave an even bigger deficit as I'm sure not all natural resource revenue is 100% used for social programs alone. Even if it was, it's not enough since we're running a deficit. 

2) lovely idea, how does giving them money change their lifestyle? Will they suddenly come out of poverty? Will they suddenly all become more productive? Or will they basically continue doing the same thing as they have been because they don't know any better and it's actually become easier to continue as the financial pressures have lessened thanks to UBI

3) great, I understand that with automation jobs may become scarcer. However, they said the same thing about the industrial revolution and the computer revolution and were wrong both times. History shows that while whole industries may disappear thanks to technology, new never before imagined jobs tend to arise to fill the void. For the sake of arguement however, let's say they're right this time, it still doesn't answer the question...

Where does the money come from? 

With even more people being unemployed, and therefore net "takers" of UBI, the tax role will be even smaller and the demand for free money even higher.

Again, show me a sustainable way to pay for UBI and I'll be the first in line to collect a cheque every month.


----------



## Nelley

MrMatt said:


> Of course they can't afford that, they're opposed to raising the basic deduction to $15k as "extremists" like Bernier proposed.
> 
> I think the top marginal tax rate should be locked at 50%, and you shouldn't pay tax until you hit the "living wage". Premised on a reasonable definition of "living wage".
> I'd suggest hiking the basic deduction by $10k or so would be a huge boost to those with lower incomes. Think about it at a 20% tax rate, that $10k bump is $2000, or $1/hr for a full time worker.
> 
> That's money right in the workers hand, and it won't hurt businesses at all. Unfortunately it would mean a big tax cut for the people paying taxes, and the middle class would reap most of the benefit.
> Which means it's politically untenable.
> 
> As it is, we have this $15 minimum wage coming, could you imagine what a 30% price hike in any item would have?
> 
> What happens if cable TV, Electricity, gas or Car insurance were to jump by 30%, people would be outraged.
> 
> I'll tell you what will happen, people will cut those services as much as we can. The whole "time of use" price hike for Ontario was to discourage consumption of electricity. Well massive wage hikes are going to result in a lot of cut shifts. Don't worry the politically connected will still keep their tax funded jobs, only the poor working guys and small businesses will get screwed by this.


Good summary.


----------



## Just a Guy

A while back I posted that they estimated it would take 1.5T to implement UBI in the states, over half their federal budget. What people failed to notice is the USA doesn't have public health care on top of that (about 40% of the Canadian budgets), next I'm sure people would want universal drug coverage (not sure how big a chunk of the budget that will take) and, of course there's talk of universal child care (a large chunk of the Quebec budget). Then we should expand universal education to post secondary (up to a PhD or several). 

We haven't even talked about the real reason government was set up (large infrastructure projects for example). 

Then, I'm sure we should look at universal housing, universal car ownership, universal pet walking and grooming...

When do we wake up and say enough?

By the way, I can probably come up with at least three good reasons why governments should fund any/all of these programs and more (universal kite flying grants perhaps?).


----------



## bgc_fan

bass player said:


> bgc_fan:
> 
> So, you just gave away my future OAS to support UBI?
> 
> Screw you. I paid taxes for 35 years and was promised OAS and I expect that promise to be fulfilled.


You realize full OAS is $570.52 a month or $6846.24 for the year right?


----------



## bass player

bgc_fan said:


> You realize full OAS is $570.52 a month or $6846.24 for the year right?



Yes, I'm fully aware of the amount. Why do you want it take it away from me but let others collect UBI?


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> A while back I posted that they estimated it would take 1.5T to implement UBI in the states, over half their federal budget. What people failed to notice is the USA doesn't have public health care on top of that (about 40% of the Canadian budgets), next I'm sure people would want universal drug coverage (not sure how big a chunk of the budget that will take) and, of course there's talk of universal child care (a large chunk of the Quebec budget). Then we should expand universal education to post secondary (up to a PhD or several).
> 
> We haven't even talked about the real reason government was set up (large infrastructure projects for example).
> 
> Then, I'm sure we should look at universal housing, universal car ownership, universal pet walking and grooming...
> 
> When do we wake up and say enough?
> 
> By the way, I can probably come up with at least three good reasons why governments should fund any/all of these programs and more (universal kite flying grants perhaps?).


I am surprised Weston hasn't told his puppets to make all groceries FREE (food is a human right)-the government can just pay the billions directly to Weston.


----------



## Just a Guy

I'm betting there is no wealthy families, as you like to imply, behind any social programs. The reason? To use your example of food, there are other big companies who want to compete in supplying goods to those benefiting from the "free" programs. How do they cash in on these programs? By lowering their prices to attract the dollars. 

If Weston were to lobby for it, the owners of Sobey's , overweightia and other food giants (including your favourite Walmart) would object I'm sure, same as big pharma, there are multiple competitors all trying to cash in. Competition keeps your scenarios from happening, unlike most government programs which mandate certain suppliers (like some drug programs that broke the system).


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> 1) Unfettered anything is usually bad, so is extreme anything.
> 
> 2) you love finding examples outside of Canada and then claiming it justifies your arguement,


What arguement did I claim was justified? That was a leadup to a question, not a conclusion. The question was, is the playing field in Canada level? 
Also in one or another post a wealthy family in Canada got special tax treatment to move their billions out of Canada tax free. It is an example of how the well off have better access to the rule makers. And it implies the question, "is the playing field level"? that is not a rethorical question. It is not a concluion. It is a question.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> I'm betting there is no wealthy families, as you like to imply, behind any social programs. The reason? To use your example of food, there are other big companies who want to compete in supplying goods to those benefiting from the "free" programs. How do they cash in on these programs? By lowering their prices to attract the dollars.
> 
> If Weston were to lobby for it, the owners of Sobey's , overweightia and other food giants (including your favourite Walmart) would object I'm sure, same as big pharma, there are multiple competitors all trying to cash in. Competition keeps your scenarios from happening, unlike most government programs which mandate certain suppliers (like some drug programs that broke the system).


You haven't thought this one through-nobody is an expert on every subject-not even you.


----------



## bgc_fan

Just a Guy said:


> First off bgc_fan, I commend you for actually being the first to do some actual number crunching. I will point out he fact that the budget is already in deficit, and your plan would increase that deficit by another $30B, so it'll take a lot more "tweaking" than you imply. As to your surplus, $8k is not a "living wage", nor does your "surplus" (which is achieved by stealing money from OAS/EI/etc. which pays out more to people who actually made their own contributions) even dent the federal deficit. Also, how do you explain to seniors that they suddenly make too much and now only get $8k/year to be more "fair"?


So, yes, there will be some losers in the way I've proposed, notably child care credits/payouts, and seniors who collect both GIS and OAS. Like I said, there are a number of other variables; however, as a way to start off as a baseline, it would start at determine what is actually paid out in these type of programs and figure it out that way. You'll note I didn't talk about CPP which should be off-limits. We have to use something as a starting point and can't just throw up our hands and say it's too difficult, so let's not even try. Likewise, we shouldn't jump into it without knowing the consequences.



Just a Guy said:


> Further, what you are suggesting is not, by any definition UBI but I can respect that you are rejigging welfare and other social programs. Be clear though, this is not UBI.


So, the definition of UBI is what then? Isn't it simply defined as "a form of social security[3] in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive a regular, unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere"? You can quibble about the amount of $8k being too low, but in reality less than that is being paid out to people on welfare and we expect them to survive and find jobs on that. Yes, welfare is a temporary measure, but the point isn't that UBI is supposed to provide a comfortable living. Can people survive on it? Possibly if they have the right circumstances (cheap rent in certain cities, meaning living in the big cities is out of the question), and if they really want to just live on $8k/year. Personally, I couldn't imagine doing so.



Just a Guy said:


> Finally, if you put half the effort you (and this actually applies to most people even though I used the word "you") do in looking for "problems" and poking holes in arguement by taking thing as the literal truth, into looking for "solutions" instead (like the only alternative to Walmart is Costco, did you seriously think that's what I meant? Or that you have to buy a business? Go back and read about suggestions about farmer's markets), the world may actually become a better place.


No, what I meant was that you have already established that people who work at Walmart are incapable of being employable in any other job, so a comparison what they could find would be a lateral move to another, similar job. With most alternatives disappearing, that leaves Walmart as the main choice. I used buying a business as an example where specific set circumstances allows one to capitalize on an opportunity, but the fact is, not everyone can do so. You seem to imply that opportunities are there for the taking, but individual circumstances can limit their choice. 



Just a Guy said:


> I remember watching a CBC story about a seasonal worker in the maritime Vs. New England. In canada, the seasonal worker fished for a part of the year and then went on welfare. In New England, only a few miles away really, a seasonal worker fished for part of the year, sold Xmas tree, shovelled snow, did lawn maintenance and then went back to fishing the next year. The Canadian fishermen they interviewed couldn't even imagine doing anything other than fishing. Pretty sad.


Honestly, I'm not going to defend that, and I've never understood the philosophy of seasonal workers going on welfare. Their jobs are tough and they get paid handsomely for the work. I would believe that with UBI replacing welfare and other such programs, he would get any benefits clawed back. IIRC, depending on the type of fishing, the workers can make high 5 figures, low 6 figures. Honestly, there would have to be some financial education so that seasonal workers learn to budget correctly, but that is another issue.



Just a Guy said:


> My point about the foundations was it's their money, why complain how or why they give it away? Everyone has an agenda when it comes to giving away money, the government is no different, they generally give it away to buy votes does that make them better? I never criticized any foundation Clinton (that was someone else) or otherwise, but thank you for trying to put words in my mouth, I pointed out that individuals who seem to want to give out or control other people's money don't really do much donating of their own.


Who is putting words in whose mouth? I only asked if you defended the Clinton Foundation, not that you criticized it.


----------



## bgc_fan

bass player said:


> Yes, I'm fully aware of the amount. Why do you want it take it away from me but let others collect UBI?


I'm not going to presume your finances, but it would only be completely clawed back if you are making more than $35k a year, under my back of the envelope calculations.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> When do we wake up and say enough?


When you convince them the playing field is level, that's when. 

If you have a family and one is say a nurse, and the other is a teacher, the family income is, according to stats can, already in the top 20%. yet from time to time teachers go on strike, and from time to time medical people go on strike to get even better wages. What are they thinking? If they are already in the top 20% what is their problem? 

Now what power do the poor have to improve their lot. And what power do the elderly have? 

I'm not convinced the playing field is level due to the fact that some people have more power to improve their lot in life, while other people don't have similiar power.


----------



## Just a Guy

Where in world is the playing field level? 

Gee, the teacher and the nurse have to give 50% of their increased wages (being in the top tax bracket) to the government so they can give it to people who aren't even working. I'd also point out that both those professions are public employees allowing them to get the higher wages in the first place. I've got several nurses in my family, the few that have had private employment were paid significantly less than when they went into the public sector. 

What about the teachers or nurses themselves? Why do they all get paid equally? Some may have had 100% average in school, other may have scraped by by the skin of their teeth. Some may be good at their jobs when put into practice (regardless of their marks) and others are downright terrible if not harmful, yet they all get treated the same...

Not exactly a level playing field by any stretch, more geared to protect the incompetent.

As to what the poor can do to improve their lot, I gave a couple of suggestions already, but many won't even try those. Should they get more money as a reward for not trying? What would happen if there were no rewards for not trying to change and a reward (say payment) for actually trying (maybe some free education on how to produce good for sale in a farmers market, how there are better paying jobs with different companies, how unskilled labour isn't just in construction and can earn more than minimum wage, etc.). 

How does giving them money change their lot? I work with the poor daily, handing them more money isn't going to change the lot of most of them, they don't know how to manage it for the most part, let alone come up with creative ways to earn it, or even figure out that Costco pays 50% more than Walmart for the same work. Heck, a lot of people on this board can't even figure that out. we won't even get into teaching people to invest, I may as well be suggesting people move to mars.


----------



## sags

Inconvenient fact..........

For every $1 the government gives away in benefits, there is a $1 or more economic benefit in GDP.

A recent study of every historical raise of the minimum wage provided an offset in economic GDP that was equal to or more than the increase.

The rhetoric of lost jobs was proven wrong in every instance. A UBI would have the same results.

If conservatives want to test their theory.....lay off all the public employees to save money and see what happens to the economy.


----------



## sags

People talking about the Greek proverb of planting trees miss the point entirely.

It isn't about how many trees people plant. It is about someone having the vision to do something they will never benefit from.


----------



## sags

Higher income earners don't "give 50%" of their earnings to taxes.

They are subject to the same personal deductions and progressive tax schedules as everyone else.


----------



## Just a Guy

Inconvenient fact, for ever dollar the government collects, it spends more than a $1 to hand out. That's why we have deficits. 

Even if your economic benefit is greater than $1, there's also something called government debt which costs us millions in interest (despite record low interest rates) every year and will continue to do so for generations.

No questionable opinions from researchers who are paid to conduct studies, just facts.


----------



## Moneytoo

Sags, if you left the proverb in its original form - I wouldn't have questioned it. Yet it does seem that you re-worded it in accordance with your attitude (that the tree was planted for your personal benefit) 

Sorry if I'm wrong


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Higher income earners don't "give 50%" of their earnings to taxes.
> 
> They are subject to the same personal deductions and progressive tax schedules as everyone else.


In the top bracket, every dollar earned over the top amount is subject to he highest tax amount so, as I said, 50% of their raise, not salary, is taxed. 

As for having he vision and not benefitting from it, I think you've got it backwards when it comes to UBI where the current generation benefits from it and future generations are stuck with the bill...


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Inconvenient fact..........
> 
> For every $1 the government gives away in benefits, there is a $1 or more economic benefit in GDP.
> 
> A recent study of every historical raise of the minimum wage provided an offset in economic GDP that was equal to or more than the increase.
> 
> The rhetoric of lost jobs was proven wrong in every instance. A UBI would have the same results.
> 
> If conservatives want to test their theory.....lay off all the public employees to save money and see what happens to the economy.


I'd like to see a source for that stat.
I'd like to suggest that for every dollar the government doesn't take out of the hands of it's citizens, there is a $1 or more benefit in GDP.

Think about it, if I have a dollar I spend it and the person I give it to can spend it. I've just created a dollar or more in GDP.
If the government takes it and spends it, the same darn thing happens, but instead of the person who earned the money benefiting from their own work, the person the government decided to give it to benefits.

I'd be okay with testing the theory, in a controlled manner to a limited extent. 
Now lets argue the opposite, if government central control is better, why don't we just nationalize every single business in the country. Do you think that would be good or bad?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Higher income earners don't "give 50%" of their earnings to taxes.
> 
> They are subject to the same personal deductions and progressive tax schedules as everyone else.


Well admittedly most people are "only" paying 40% of their income in taxes, there are many who pay 50% or more.
For most of us, 40% is nearly half and worth complaining about.

See page 10.
At approximately the 85th percentile the total tax paid is 50%
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Tax-Freedom-Day-2016.pdf


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Inconvenient fact..........
> 
> For every $1 the government gives away in benefits, there is a $1 or more economic benefit in GDP.


That same argument is applied to the benefits of a sports team..."the team will bring millions in economic activity to the city". No, what a sports team does is divert the already existing entertainment dollars from one activity to another. Sure, a small amount of economic benefit is created, but it's never a 100% gain....any gain is likely in the single digits and always at the expense of other existing entertainment choices.


----------



## Nelley

bass player said:


> That same argument is applied to the benefits of a sports team..."the team will bring millions in economic activity to the city". No, what a sports team does is divert the already existing entertainment dollars from one activity to another. Sure, a small amount of economic benefit is created, but it's never a 100% gain....any gain is likely in the single digits and always at the expense of other existing entertainment choices.


Nah Sags is right-they should hand out a billion to each one of us-which would boom the economy-next year we get 2 billion each-maybe 3 billion each in year 3-that is what they call "economics" in school these days.


----------



## sags

There are volumes of studies, reports and facts on wealth and income inequality, the self entitlement of the rich, and the economic benefits of a healthy distribution of income through layers of society. 

People can educate themselves.............or not.


----------



## sags

I am curious what people think is going to happen if the status quo continues.

Will personal debt continue to increase ? 

Will the middle class continue to become poorer while the wealthy get richer ?

Will increasing numbers of people retire with no money ?


----------



## Just a Guy

Well, how many of your "studies" are about the USA? Completely different system...

When has "the system" ever remained static?

If we continue to increase taxes, run deficit budgets, and hand out money like candy on hallowe'en then yes to most of your questions...

Maybe you can get someone like Bernie sanders to run the country, then everyone will have money.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> I am curious what people think is going to happen if the status quo continues.
> 
> Will personal debt continue to increase ?
> 
> Will the middle class continue to become poorer while the wealthy get richer ?
> 
> Will increasing numbers of people retire with no money ?


Yep, yep & yep. But you read Garth Turner's blog, right? Our house is almost 20 years old - and our kitchen still has the builder's laminate countertops. We can afford granite easily, I just don't think it's a "must have". Yet our friends just upgraded their kitchen (in the newer home), borrowing from the HELOC. 

Why is it that the rich guy with the yacht that he can afford should be responsible for a granite countertop of someone who can't afford it? And why the over-spenders think it's rich guy's responsibility to care about the poor, but not theirs?


----------



## sags

Lower taxes and eliminate deficits ?

Good luck lowering deficits with less revenue. I believe that was the Harper plan.


----------



## sags

Moneytoo said:


> Yep, yep & yep. But you read Garth Turner's blog, right? Our house is almost 20 years old - and our kitchen still has the builder's laminate countertops. We can afford granite easily, I just don't think it's a "must have". Yet our friends just upgraded their kitchen (in the newer home), borrowing from the HELOC.
> 
> Why is it that the rich guy with the yacht that he can afford should be responsible for a granite countertop of someone who can't afford it? And why the over-spenders think it's rich guy's responsibility to care about the poor, but not theirs?


The rich guy has the same choice they have always had.

He can share a little of his riches with his poor, dumb neighbors (as he used to do) or he can wait until they take everything he has.

Has there ever been a time in history when the wealthy paid such low amounts of their income in taxes ?

The wealthy gain more and contribute less than they ever have.

Can't blame the wealthy though. They are paying good money to the politicians to set it all up for them.


----------



## Just a Guy

much better to spend more money we don't have and increase the national debt. After all, the more we spend the more we make according to you. We give out $20k to everyone, prices will go up with standard inflation, so we'll give them more next year. The rich will pay for it of course, studies have shown this will all work out in the end...

Just like the studies that said communism would work, or capitalism, or despotism, fudalism, or any other "ism" you care to name, not to mention any other hair brained idealistic system dreamed up by professors who never deal with the real world and hide in academia.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> Has there ever been a time in history when the wealthy paid such low amounts of their income in taxes ?
> 
> The wealthy gain more and contribute less than they ever have.


When you say "the wealthy" - you mean top 10 people in the country? Or top 0.1%? Top 1%? How do you define them? Want to make sure we're talking about the same people


----------



## Just a Guy

He means anyone making more than him from the sounds of it. He's never suggested giving more of his own money, just those greedy rich people...who have more than him. They should hand it over.

According to CBC in 2015

High net worth: Those with US$1 million to US$5 million of investable assets – not including the primary residence and other hard assets like cars or jewelry. Canada has roughly 298,000 individuals in this category – a little less than one per cent of the population.

Mid-tier millionaires: Those with US$5 million to US$30 million of investable assets. Canada has roughly 30,000 in this category – a little less than 0.1 per cent of the population.

Ultra-high net worth: Those with over US$30 million of investable assets. Canada has roughly 3,300 in this category – about .01 per cent of the population.

Not much money to go after when you look at the big picture. Hard to cover the debt he wants to incur even if we took everything.

On the bright side, it doesn't take much to be a 1%er in Canada.


----------



## Moneytoo

Just a Guy said:


> He means anyone making more than him from the sounds of it. He's never suggested giving more of his own money, just those greedy rich people...who have more than him. They should hand it over.


Well, he got me thinking.. so I'm changing jobs now, moving to a more senior position, which means more responsibilities and headaches. I thought 8K more in yearly salary is a good increase, but just did the math - in my tax bracket, I'll only be making $377 a month more than now after tax. Instead of just keep sitting on my *** and waiting for the package (that should be around 45K, plus 32K retention bonus that I'm forfeiting if quitting on my own) 77K - think it's more than the average Canadian family makes in a year - and I'm eager to leave it because I'm bored out of my mind at my current job and excited to "start fresh"...

Oh and the new job is farther away (and less convenient to get there - I use public transportation) - maybe Walmart workers are right when they don't apply to Costco


----------



## Just a Guy

Maybe you should petition the government to put in a bus line just for you. Not only would it get you to your job, maintaining employment, but it would also create a new job for the bus driver, maintenance crew and stimulate the economy by purchasing the bus, gas, replacement parts...I'm sure the economic spinoffs would more than pay for costs. 

For the thousands of dollars they spend to send you to work, they could get back...well I can't even imagine the revenues.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> There are volumes of studies, reports and facts on wealth and income inequality, the self entitlement of the rich, and the economic benefits of a healthy distribution of income through layers of society.
> 
> People can educate themselves.............or not.


High amounts of income inequality isn't good, but the real issue is perceived lack of ability to improve their situation.
If people feel stuck and don't have a way forward, you get BIG problems.
The current "victim" mentality sweeping the globe is a monsterous issue. 
We currently have massive protests about how things are unfair, women make more than men for the same work, but they complain about the "wage gap"

I do think we will have problems if personal debt continues to climb and people don't save for retirement, but I'm not sure how to resolve those problems.
They are almost entirely the result of bad choices, to be fair humans are horrible at long term planning.
When even the poor insist on new cars and big screen TV's, and vast amounts are living paycheck to paycheck, irrespective of their actual income, yes there is a problem.

How can you force people to make better decisions? I don't know.
We DO know that if the government takes over and runs everything for you it ends badly.

I do see the left/right divide and inability to discuss the issues and work on solutions is a huge part of the problem.
The problem is complex, but also ideological viewpoints are dramatically different.

First the left sees inequality of outcome as a serious problem in itself. They think that any inequality in outcome is clearly the result of some sort of societal unfairness that should be corrected.
The right sees ensuring equality of opportunity as the goal, and believes that there will be inequality in outcome because people are different and do make different choices.

To be fair there are merits to both arguments, but the very solutions that each is proposing are a problem.

Without getting into details, I've made a lot of choices to end up in a better economic position, I know people who started in similar situations who made worse choices who ended up in a worse economic position. I even conveniently grew up with twins, one made good choices, one made bad choices.
My experience is clearly that individual choice matters and contributes in a huge way to your path in life, as it should in a free country.

I do want to work on the social/structural issues, but I want to see the data that there is actually a problem to be solved.
When people raise issues like the wage gap as evidence of sexism, it really turns me off.
The data is pretty clear, for the same work, women make more, the "problem" is that boys and girls are different and tend to make different choices in their lives.
This is obvious to most kids in grade school.

So yes, I'm clearly right leaning, I think most of the problems are due to choice, because that's what a lot of the data shows, and that's what my experience shows.
I also see that there is some unfairness, I'm not sure how to fix it, but before we try to do it, lets understand where it is coming from.

So go ahead, make a suggestion, I'd be glad to discuss policy where the benefits clearly outweigh the costs, and it respects a persons right to choose.

But bring the data.


----------



## Nelley

sags said:


> There are volumes of studies, reports and facts on wealth and income inequality, the self entitlement of the rich, and the economic benefits of a healthy distribution of income through layers of society.
> 
> People can educate themselves.............or not.


Wealth inequality is greatly increased by your scheme of robbing the middle to placate the poor (while boosting the super rich even higher)-you are just repeating what your owners put in your head.


----------



## Nelley

Moneytoo said:


> Yep, yep & yep. But you read Garth Turner's blog, right? Our house is almost 20 years old - and our kitchen still has the builder's laminate countertops. We can afford granite easily, I just don't think it's a "must have". Yet our friends just upgraded their kitchen (in the newer home), borrowing from the HELOC.
> 
> Why is it that the rich guy with the yacht that he can afford should be responsible for a granite countertop of someone who can't afford it? And why the over-spenders think it's rich guy's responsibility to care about the poor, but not theirs?


Everybody throws around this term "rich"-to a lot of Canadians you are rich if you have a net worth of 1 million (which is literally nothing to the owners of the country).


----------



## Nelley

Moneytoo said:


> When you say "the wealthy" - you mean top 10 people in the country? Or top 0.1%? Top 1%? How do you define them? Want to make sure we're talking about the same people


You or me must be psychic-I was scrolling down the posts and I just said the same thing to you.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> He means anyone making more than him from the sounds of it. He's never suggested giving more of his own money, just those greedy rich people...who have more than him. They should hand it over.
> 
> According to CBC in 2015
> 
> High net worth: Those with US$1 million to US$5 million of investable assets – not including the primary residence and other hard assets like cars or jewelry. Canada has roughly 298,000 individuals in this category – a little less than one per cent of the population.
> 
> Mid-tier millionaires: Those with US$5 million to US$30 million of investable assets. Canada has roughly 30,000 in this category – a little less than 0.1 per cent of the population.
> 
> Ultra-high net worth: Those with over US$30 million of investable assets. Canada has roughly 3,300 in this category – about .01 per cent of the population.
> 
> Not much money to go after when you look at the big picture. Hard to cover the debt he wants to incur even if we took everything.
> 
> On the bright side, it doesn't take much to be a 1%er in Canada.


Notice how the CBC sets the bar REALLY LOW (1 million) then their first category makes it seem like having 1 million in financial assets is even in the same ballpark as having 5 million (it aint).


----------



## Nelley

Moneytoo said:


> Well, he got me thinking.. so I'm changing jobs now, moving to a more senior position, which means more responsibilities and headaches. I thought 8K more in yearly salary is a good increase, but just did the math - in my tax bracket, I'll only be making $377 a month more than now after tax. Instead of just keep sitting on my *** and waiting for the package (that should be around 45K, plus 32K retention bonus that I'm forfeiting if quitting on my own) 77K - think it's more than the average Canadian family makes in a year - and I'm eager to leave it because I'm bored out of my mind at my current job and excited to "start fresh"...
> 
> Oh and the new job is farther away (and less convenient to get there - I use public transportation) - maybe Walmart workers are right when they don't apply to Costco


You should read the 4 Hour Workweek (Tim Ferris).


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> Maybe you should petition the government to put in a bus line just for you. Not only would it get you to your job, maintaining employment, but it would also create a new job for the bus driver, maintenance crew and stimulate the economy by purchasing the bus, gas, replacement parts...I'm sure the economic spinoffs would more than pay for costs.
> 
> For the thousands of dollars they spend to send you to work, they could get back...well I can't even imagine the revenues.


Even better if it was electric-totally green-even if it cost millions it would be worth it-we would be setting an example of a future where all citizens no matter how diverse can contribute and share in an inclusive, eco friendly, sustainable society with equity for all stakeholders large and small.


----------



## Moneytoo

Nelley said:


> You should read the 4 Hour Workweek (Tim Ferris).


That's how my workweek looks now lol - and it's really, really boring..


----------



## Just a Guy

Nelley said:


> Notice how the CBC sets the bar REALLY LOW (1 million) then their first category makes it seem like having 1 million in financial assets is even in the same ballpark as having 5 million (it aint).


I think you missed the inconvenient fact that CBC didn't set the bar really low, they just took the census data and figured out what it would take to be in the 1%. In Canada, unlike say the USA which everyone seems to take as the world standard, to be in the 1% of the wealthiest citizens, the bar is very low.

The "wealth gap" that people like Sags love to complain about with his "many studies", just doesn't really exist to the same extent that he assumes (mainly because he's reading US data, not Canadian). The supporting Canadian data, like finding a source of money to pay for universal breakfast in bed (just think, we'll ensure every Canadian gets the most important meal of the day and productivity will go up, there are many studies that show people who eat a good breakfast are more productive and students learn better) doesn't really exist. 

Btw, what happens to people like me who can't really eat breakfast? I find it upsets my stomach to eat too early in the day. Would I be classified as a deadbeat because I go against the "many studies"? Maybe they'd hire thugs to force feed me to ensure I'm not a drag on society. 

Of course, this is probably all a conspiracy thought up by "big coffee" and the poultry, pig and waffle industry as a way to increase profits. There's no way people would willingly go out and buy coffee, bacon, eggs and waffles if it wasn't for governments...and that's not even mentioning the syrup industry...those quebecers are a crafty lot, got Trudeau in their back pockets. You just wait, mandatory universal maple syrup is coming folks, you read it here first.


----------



## Just a Guy

Moneytoo said:


> That's how my workweek looks now lol - and it's really, really boring..


You're kids are obviously grown then...I was looking forward to taking some time off.


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> I think you missed the inconvenient fact that CBC didn't set the bar really low, they just took the census data and figured out what it would take to be in the 1%. In Canada, unlike say the USA which everyone seems to take as the world standard, to be in the 1% of the wealthiest citizens, the bar is very low.
> 
> The "wealth gap" that people like Sags love to complain about with his "many studies", just doesn't really exist to the same extent that he assumes (mainly because he's reading US data, not Canadian). The supporting Canadian data, like finding a source of money to pay for universal breakfast in bed (just think, we'll ensure every Canadian gets the most important meal of the day and productivity will go up, there are many studies that show people who eat a good breakfast are more productive and students learn better) doesn't really exist.
> 
> Btw, what happens to people like me who can't really eat breakfast? I find it upsets my stomach to eat too early in the day. Would I be classified as a deadbeat because I go against the "many studies"? Maybe they'd hire thugs to force feed me to ensure I'm not a drag on society.
> 
> Of course, this is probably all a conspiracy thought up by "big coffee" and the poultry, pig and waffle industry as a way to increase profits. There's no way people would willingly go out and buy coffee, bacon, eggs and waffles if it wasn't for governments...and that's not even mentioning the syrup industry...those quebecers are a crafty lot, got Trudeau in their back pockets. You just wait, mandatory universal maple syrup is coming folks, you read it here first.


NO-you miss the point entirely-their first category could have been 1-2 million in financial assets. I million aint close to 5 million at all. Why not just make the first category 1 million to 100 million-almost the same thing.


----------



## Moneytoo

Just a Guy said:


> Moneytoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how my workweek looks now lol - and it's really, really boring..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're kids are obviously grown then...I was looking forward to taking some time off.
Click to expand...

Yeah my daughter just moved out on June 1st (almost half of my monthly paycheque will go to cover her "independent living" till she's done with med school in 2 years) 

First I helped her find a place, then the furniture, but when I started sending her links for "cool table lamps" - she pleaded, "Mom, either find a new job or something else to keep busy!" lol


----------



## Just a Guy

Technically the 1% ers in Canada ARE anyone with over $1M, if we over $5M your an order of magnitude higher, if you're over $30M you're two orders of magnitude higher. The numbers were chosen because they represented each step. Each higher group is actually included in the lower ones as well...no conspiracy.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Where in world is the playing field level?
> 
> Gee, the teacher and the nurse have to give 50% of their increased wages (being in the top tax bracket) to the government so they can give it to people who aren't even working. I'd also point out that both those professions are public employees allowing them to get the higher wages in the first place. I've got several nurses in my family, the few that have had private employment were paid significantly less than when they went into the public sector.
> 
> What about the teachers or nurses themselves? Why do they all get paid equally? Some may have had 100% average in school, other may have scraped by by the skin of their teeth. Some may be good at their jobs when put into practice (regardless of their marks) and others are downright terrible if not harmful, yet they all get treated the same...
> 
> Not exactly a level playing field by any stretch, more geared to protect the incompetent.
> 
> As to what the poor can do to improve their lot, I gave a couple of suggestions already, but many won't even try those. Should they get more money as a reward for not trying? What would happen if there were no rewards for not trying to change and a reward (say payment) for actually trying (maybe some free education on how to produce good for sale in a farmers market, how there are better paying jobs with different companies, how unskilled labour isn't just in construction and can earn more than minimum wage, etc.).
> 
> How does giving them money change their lot? I work with the poor daily, handing them more money isn't going to change the lot of most of them, they don't know how to manage it for the most part, let alone come up with creative ways to earn it, or even figure out that Costco pays 50% more than Walmart for the same work. Heck, a lot of people on this board can't even figure that out. we won't even get into teaching people to invest, I may as well be suggesting people move to mars.


1. So implicitly you don't care if the playing field is level. After all, where is it level? And mor of your taxes go to health budgets and education than to welfare budgets, I suspect, but you don't complain about those in the 20% highest going on strike for more. And you don't complain about the Bronfman's getting special treatment to the tune of 700 million. This tends to ratify my thoughts that this thread is really about how the well off are victimized by the poor. 

2. As to what the poor can do to improve their lot: - I'm not convinced you have the experience and the education to assess what they are capable of. However, you say you work with them and that is commendable. Too you notice that some need more help that others. Good observation. Individualizing, in lieu of over generalizing is a good move. Now if you can learn to assess their individual capabilites in a deeper way, that would be even better. 

In the meantime I think your theory that they can all be business people like you is an unrealistic assumption.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Btw, what happens to people like me who can't really eat breakfast? I find it upsets my stomach to eat too early in the day. Would I be classified as a deadbeat because I go against the "many studies"? Maybe they'd hire thugs to force feed me to ensure I'm not a drag on society.
> 
> .


Here you identify what it would be like for you to be subjected to an over generalization. So don't over generalize about them, because then you become the thug that tries to force them to do things they are not capable of.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> 1. So implicitly you don't care if the playing field is level. After all, where is it level? And mor of your taxes go to health budgets and education than to welfare budgets, I suspect, but you don't complain about those in the 20% highest going on strike for more. And you don't complain about the Bronfman's getting special treatment to the tune of 700 million. This tends to ratify my thoughts that this thread is really about how the well off are victimized by the poor.
> 
> 2. As to what the poor can do to improve their lot: - I'm not convinced you have the experience and the education to assess what they are capable of. However, you say you work with them and that is commendable. Too you notice that some need more help that others. Good observation. Individualizing, in lieu of over generalizing is a good move. Now if you can learn to assess their individual capabilites in a deeper way, that would be even better.
> 
> In the meantime I think your theory that they can all be business people like you is an unrealistic assumption.


1) I was taught to worry about the things you can control, not the things you can't. I can't control the amount of money the government takes from me, but I can learn the tax code and figure out ways to minimize the damage. 

I don't like it when governments raise the taxes, and waste the money anymore than I like it when unions go on strike, but I don't sit in a corner and shut down because it happens either. 

You sound like the person who is walking along a path and suddenly encounters a wall. I guess, since you can proceed, you may as well lie down and die. Heaven forbid you went over, under or around, maybe look for a door or window...nope there's a wall so we can't proceed anymore, at least not without help. 

You know scientists do studies with animals where they change the maze every time, the animals don't give up, but we're breeding humans who will because we won't challenge them. Society to the rescue!

2) I don't think you have any real experience with the poor, other than theory at best from your posting. You have no idea what they are capable of and your posts are relatively condescending about their abilities. You seem to generalize that they are all incapable and need to be cared for, not pushed out of their comfort zones. 

3) I agree not everyone can be a business person like me. In fact, I can usually tell after about a 5 minute conversation if someone has the potential. You seem to have missed the fact that I also proposed other options such as looking at different companies, unskilled labour jobs in areas other than what you would normally look at, etc.

The world is full of opportunities for people who look. The problem is, we're not taught to look and people like you want to rescue those who encounter a wall...not with your resources of course, but you've got the idea on how to save them so that's your contribution.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> Here you identify what it would be like for you to be subjected to an over generalization. So don't over generalize about them, because then you become the thug that tries to force them to do things they are not capable of.


Here I was pointing out how rediculous it is to be providing breakfasts in the first place, but I guess you missed that point and probably feel strongly about having universal breakfasts implemented. 

I'm of the school of thought where we don't provide breakfasts. If you're hungry, you'll find food if you're not hungry you won't. If you can't easily find food yourself, you may be motivated to either learn how to find food, ask someone to teach you how to find food, or find someway to pay for food. 

You, of course, would prefer to steal my food and give it to everyone else, so they don't turn into criminals and steal food on their own or have to learn any of the above skills. 

I'd bet that if I asked you "where does food come from?", you're first response would be "the store". It's how the majority of people are taught to think. Guess what though, it's the wrong answer no food comes from a store. 

I know how proud my kids are when they go outside and find all the wildberries and mushrooms on our property, not to mention the garden harvest, planting fruit trees, raising animals, bees and the like. 

Then there are those people who have to use food banks, they tend to be embarrassed and have low self esteem, but they must be better off.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> 1)
> 
> 3) I agree not everyone can be a business person like me.


1. I don't know how many times I read you claiming anyone can do what you did. Now you are switching on me. 
2. I haven't made any recomendations about how to save them. 
3. 5 minutes is not enough time for an assessment. However, I'll bite. Describe you methods for an assessment.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Here I was pointing out how rediculous it is to be providing breakfasts in the first place, but I guess you missed that point and probably feel strongly about having universal breakfasts implemented.
> 
> .


yes, but you inadvertantly talked about how terrible it would be to be forced based on some general study that didn't apply to your individual circumstances. Then you insist that your personal generalizations should be forced on people with nary a thought that your generalization might not apply to some individuals.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> 1)
> I don't like it when governments raise the taxes, and waste the money anymore than I like it when unions go on strike, but I don't sit in a corner and shut down because it happens either.


I don't like it when governments wast e money either. 
Most of the time I don't like it when unions go on strike either. Although there is good reason why they originated - Utterly greedy owners of compaines who could do any damn thing they pleased to the workers. these days with labour laws unions are not so necessary and in many cases have acted as abusive as the crappy owners and managements they sought to correct. 

I'm kind of puzzled by your accepting the fact that other groups have leverage to get more- unions and management assoications etc. How do you know you can't control it. there are opportunities to influence it if you would only look. You just lie down and take it, while blaming the people with no leverage.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> 1. I don't know how many times I read you claiming anyone can do what you did. Now you are switching on me.
> 2. I haven't made any recomendations about how to save them.
> 3. 5 minutes is not enough time for an assessment. However, I'll bite. Describe you methods for an assessment.


1) I claim people have the opportunity, as for will or ability, that's something else.

3) well, for one thing, you need to be able to overcome obstacles, not see them as impenetrable barriers.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> yes, but you inadvertantly talked about how terrible it would be to be forced based on some general study that didn't apply to your individual circumstances. Then you insist that your personal generalizations should be forced on people with nary a thought that your generalization might not apply to some individuals.


So twice now you choose to ignore the point I said to leave people alone, not force anything on them and twist it around to me forcing my ideals on others...not sure I see how leave people alone is forcing my ideals, but then you don't really care about what others are saying, only how you can twist it into what you believe they should be saying.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> How do you know you can't control it. there are opportunities to influence it if you would only look. You just lie down and take it, while blaming the people with no leverage.


You seem to keep twisting back to this point, as if it's some gotcha moment of triumph. I'm not trying to control the world, I'm not saying we should control the poor. I'm saying we should leave people alone to grow up and be adults. Adults that have to overcome adversity. 

Your constant jabs don't undermine my beliefs, in fact they reinforce them. The reason I don't try to change unions, the government, or whatever isn't because I'm lazy, unable to, or whatever word you want to use to try and twist it into some weak link to the poor collecting free money. The reason I don't go after those is because they don't bother me much. In my life I've found ways to minimize any discomfort they give me. If, on the other hand, the government decided to try and confiscate my possessions in order to give them to the poor, you can bet I wouldn't just sit back and take it. 

This is exactly my point when it comes to the poor. If life is too comfortable, or maybe that's better phrased as not uncomfortable enough, there is no incentive to change. It's not laziness (not something I ever called the poor, but you keep trying to imply I did), it's a lack of motivation.

When I was poor, there were no safety nets, I fell through the cracks. Did I curl up and whine about it? Did I blame the rich? No, I got off my butt (figuratively) and used what resources I had to change my life. I was motivated, and was forced to be creative. I'd never really done investing before, I didn't know much about passive income, but I learned pretty quick. I also scrimped, started small, built, reinvested, and reevaluated constantly. I don't do the same things today as I did back them, I evolved into more efficient methods.

I wasn't taught how to do any of this, I was actually shunned by family too. I battled depression (still do to this day), but I couldn't give into it because that meant the end and I had a family to support as well. I was thrown in the deep end with weights being tossed at me constantly. Sink or swim, it was a choice. Survival is a basic instinct, it kicks in for most people at that stage.

I don't blame anyone for what I went through, I don't wish others to have to go through what I did, however I also believe that without discomfort, there isn't a lot of motivation for change. 

If you complain to me that working at zellers doesn't pay you enough, but you're unwilling to even apply at Costco, why do you deserve sympathy, or a raise? (Side note, this is also a sign that you could never be a business person). If no one is willing to work at zellers for the wages they offer, they'd be forced to raise their wages. You, and everyone else would have to give up your "comfort and security" and take a bit of a risk. If you're unwilling to do it, then the job isn't uncomfortable enough to inspire a change in lifestyle.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll just twist this in some strange manner to make yourself feel like your "winning" some arguement by finding weird "flaws" where I'm actually saying I want to control everything even though I'm advocating less control. So, I'll try not to take the bait anymore for a while. 

As I said, I'm not one to waste my time on futile efforts. I worry about the things I can control, like my statements, not the things I can't, like your twisted interpretations. I can't force you to try and understand what I'm saying, no amount of me repeating things seems to help, so I'll try to avoid your baiting for a while.

While it's annoying, it doesn't inspire me to want to deal with it.


----------



## kcowan

Just a Guy said:


> I wasn't taught how to do any of this, I was actually shunned by family too. I battled depression (still do to this day), but I couldn't give into it because that meant the end and I had a family to support as well. I was thrown in the deep end with weights being tossed at me constantly. Sink or swim, it was a choice. Survival is a basic instinct, it kicks in for most people at that stage.
> 
> I don't blame anyone for what I went through, I don't wish others to have to go through what I did, however I also believe that without discomfort, there isn't a lot of motivation for your wages.


Well expressed! I think you have captured the essence of this thread!


----------



## bass player

Well, what do you know...mandatory work requirements in Alabama for able bodied adults with no kids has led to a massive reduction in recipients.:

"More than half of food stamp recipients who are required to participate in a work activity in 21 Georgia counties have been dropped from the program after the state instituted work requirements.

State figures released this week revealed that 11,779 people considered able-bodied without children were required to find work by April 1 to continue receiving food stamps, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported (http://bit.ly/2qYFi8Q). Sixty-two percent were dropped after the deadline, whittling the number of recipients to 4,528.

State officials began enforcing the work mandate in 2016, and plan to expand work requirements to all 159 counties by 2019. About 1.6 million Georgia residents use food stamps, which are funded with federal dollars managed by the state Department of Family and Children Services. The number of food stamp recipients deemed able-bodied and without children in Georgia has dropped from 111,000 to 89,500 in a year, a drop that state officials believe is attributed to a statewide review of the population.

*"It does show that if you give people an incentive to help themselves, they can become productive citizens," Dodd said.*

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ts-drop-thousands-in-georgia-from-food-stamps

All UBI will do is reduce the incentive for many, as Just A Guy has pointed out.


----------



## sags

So people who can't find a job are dropped off the food stamp program ?

What a brilliant idea. Why didn't someone else think of that before 2017. That should solve all their problems.


----------



## sags




----------



## bass player

sags said:


> So people who can't find a job are dropped off the food stamp program ?
> 
> What a brilliant idea. Why didn't someone else think of that before 2017. That should solve all their problems.


I guess you didn't bother to read the story before making that comment. Are you suggesting that able bodied adults with no disabilities or children that REFUSE to look for work should be given food stamps?:

"DCFS spokeswoman Mary Beth Lukich said the department, which has a $505,706 contract with Goodwill of North Georgia for employment assistance services, has offered help with job search and training to affected recipients.

"The agency has many services to offer (them), but many have chosen not to respond to multiple notices," Lukich said."


----------



## sags

I am saying that if people work they shouldn't have to rely on food stamps.

_Benita Dodd, the vice president of the fiscally conservative Georgia Public Policy Foundation, said the work mandate pushes people into jobs._

_"It does show that if you give people an incentive to help themselves, they can become productive citizens_," Dodd said.

Sure.....work for companies that don't pay enough to avoid being on food stamps. 

Taxpayers subsidizing crappy businesses is what it actually is.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> I am saying that if people work they shouldn't have to rely on food stamps.


You dodged the question...that's a typical tactic you fall back on when you are forced to give an answer that to a simple question that points out the failings of your world view 

Should able bodied people without kids who refuse to look for work or take offered job training courses be given food stamps. 

Yes or no?


----------



## sags

Yes, people should be able to refuse jobs that don't pay a living wage.

It isn't societies function to procure cheap labor for business.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Yes, people should be able to refuse jobs that don't pay a living wage.
> 
> It isn't societies function to procure cheap labor for business.


How do you know those jobs don't provide a living wage? You don't.


----------



## sags

From your own post..........

_State figures released this week revealed that 11,779 people considered able-bodied without children *were required to find work by April 1* *to continue receiving food stamps*_


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> From your own post..........
> 
> _State figures released this week revealed that 11,779 people considered able-bodied without children *were required to find work by April 1* *to continue receiving food stamps*_


I know what I wrote. That's why I wrote it. Able bodied people are now being held accountable and expected to work for a living like most other people.

The horror!!


----------



## Just a Guy

No mention that the jobs they got didn't pay a living wage, maybe the food stamps were like UBI, to give them an even bigger bonus.

Even still, I don't see legislation banning them from applying to jobs with living wages...minimal discomfort, minimal effort. Has the death rate from starvation increased markedly since the masses were cut off food stamps, or did people find a different solution?

With he sheer numbers involved, you'd think you'd see some increase, I don't hear about to many starvation deaths in Canada, unlike Ethiopia, or the USA. With thousands being cut off, if something had happened, the media would be all over it I'd think.

I also liked the editorial, it was from a US newspaper wasn't it? I like how many of his supporting documents and multiple studies are based on other countries. Yet, when I suggested we use the poor from other countries to compare to our standard of living and wages, I was completely ignored...strange double standard some people have...


----------



## olivaw

This thread started as a discussion about funding UBI. It has morphed into a treatise on why those who are less fortunate deserve their lot in life. 

_The man in the silk suit hurries by
As he catches the poor old lady's eyes
Just for fun he says, "Get a job."_


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Yes, people should be able to refuse jobs that don't pay a living wage.
> 
> It isn't societies function to procure cheap labor for business.


Can I refuse the job of paying to support your choice not to work?

I'm okay giving a helping hand, but meet me half way and at least put in _some_ effort.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> This thread started as a discussion about funding UBI. It has morphed into a treatise on why those who are less fortunate deserve their lot in life. [/URL][/I]


No one ever said that. Like sags, you simply twist what people say to fit your agenda rather than having a mature discussion. Sags clearly said that able bodied people don't have to work if they don't feel like it, but the rest of us have a responsibility to give them money. Those people are less fortunate by choice, not circumstance,

That's exactly why some people are opposed to UBI.


----------



## Just a Guy

olivaw said:


> This thread started as a discussion about funding UBI. It has morphed into a treatise on why those who are less fortunate deserve their lot in life.
> 
> _The man in the silk suit hurries by
> As he catches the poor old lady's eyes
> Just for fun he says, "Get a job."_


A tenant decides to skip paying the rent, thinks to themselves it's fine, he landlord is rich, I'm poor, they can handle it.

Does that abosolve the landlord of having to pay the mortgage, insurance, property tax, strata fees, possibly the utilities, etc?

After all, the banks, insurance companies, government, condo association and utility companies are all "richer" than the landlord. He should be allowed to keep his place for "free" because the tenant can't afford to pay for it.

The banks, insurance companies, government, condo association an utility companies can just get the money from tax payers since they are collectively "richer" than any of those groups.

Problem solve, free universal housing for all! The collective "rich" will pay!

The banks can never forclose, insurance will never be dropped, no more tax seizures, no more caveats, no more property liens, it's only fair, the tenant can't afford it.

Oh, and before you think that there's probably a good reason why the tenant can't pay, remember there are people who just play the system with no intention of ever paying rent...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-powerless-as-tenants-get-free-ride-1.1307443

Oh, and I know landlords who actually had that exact person apply to their places. He's tried it in multiple provinces.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> Can I refuse the job of paying to support your choice not to work?
> 
> I'm okay giving a helping hand, but meet me half way and at least put in _some_ effort.


What is the point of forcing people to accept jobs that don't pay enough to get them off food stamp program ?

Where is the savings to the taxpayer in that idea ? (which was the original purpose......wasn't it?)

It saves the employer from having to pay a decent wage but why should taxpayers subsidize employers?

The problem with adopting bad ideas is they clutter things up and keep good ideas out.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> This thread started as a discussion about funding UBI. It has morphed into a treatise on why those who are less fortunate deserve their lot in life.
> 
> _The man in the silk suit hurries by
> As he catches the poor old lady's eyes
> Just for fun he says, "Get a job."_


Poor people are morally deficient.


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> A tenant decides to skip paying the rent, thinks to themselves it's fine, he landlord is rich, I'm poor, they can handle it.


Scammers exist at all socioeconomic levels. The poor didn't choose to be poor and many of them are trying to escape the cycle of poverty ... *B.C.'s working poor: Meet the people whose jobs don't pay the bills*



> More than half a million people in B.C. live in poverty, nearly a quarter of them children whose families struggle every day to provide the basics of life: nutritious food, warm clothing and safe shelter.


JAG, doesn't it disturb you that Andrew can sum up the apparent theme of your thread in five words? 


andrewf said:


> Poor people are morally deficient.


.


----------



## Just a Guy

How many people die each year from starvation, exposure, etc?

Since you like to campare to other places in the world, how many die in Ethiopia by comparison?

Our poor are wealthy by comparison. As for living in BC, Saskatchewan is a lot cheaper or, if they wanted to stay, how about sharing an apartment (one bedroom costs what $1000/month, a three bedroom goes for $1500). Two roommates could drop your rent in half. 

Having been a student, it's amazing how cheap pasta, rice, beans and ramen is, not name brand, but filling. Of course people don't always like that and prefer steak and chicken once In a while...

I think Canadians have issues in knowing he difference between wants and needs.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> What is the point of forcing people to accept jobs that don't pay enough to get them off food stamp program ?
> 
> Where is the savings to the taxpayer in that idea ? (which was the original purpose......wasn't it?)
> 
> It saves the employer from having to pay a decent wage but why should taxpayers subsidize employers?
> 
> The problem with adopting bad ideas is they clutter things up and keep good ideas out.


Exactly, you seem attached to this idea that we should give people a lot of money, no matter if they earn it or not.

What is the point of creating a policy of handouts that is bad for the recipients and bad for society as a whole?

I don't know the details of the food stamps plan, I don't think taxpayers should subsidize employers.


----------



## tygrus

As long as we have an economy designed around artificial inflation instead of true supply and demand, there are going to be huge swaths of people who fall out of the economy. Only those owning assets that ride the inflation wave will last.

Labour is not inflation friendly and whens thats all you have to offer the world, you are usually left behind because you cant keep up fast enough.

They are talking the next generation will have to retrain like every 7 years and have like 20 different jobs. Who can keep up with that or afford it.


----------



## sags

Without a universal basic income the economy will shrink and crumble.

A factory owner calls the union guy and invites him to the car factory.

There is nothing in the factory but robots working furiously away building cars.

The owner says to the union guy..........." I would like to see you get union dues from them" and laughed.

The union guy turns and says..........."and I would like to see you sell them one of your cars."

Our economy is a consumer driven economy. If consumers lose jobs and have no income, the economy soon falls apart.


----------



## sags

It really doesn't matter if people like it or don't like it, or if they deserve it or not..........a universal income is inevitable.

_"I think we'll end up doing universal basic income," Musk told the crowd at the World Government Summit in Dubai, according to Fast Company. "It's going to be necessary."

The economic forecasts for the next several decades don't bode well for the American worker. In March, President Barack Obama warned Congress about the looming threat of job loss, based on several reports that found that as much as *50% of jobs could be replaced by robots by 2030*.

The downside of that projection is that millions of people would wind up out of a job — a possibility Musk discussed at the summit.

"There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better," he said. "I want to be clear. These are not things I wish will happen; these are things I think probably will happen."_

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2


----------



## Nelley

sags said:


> Without a universal basic income the economy will shrink and crumble.
> 
> A factory owner calls the union guy and invites him to the car factory.
> 
> There is nothing in the factory but robots working furiously away building cars.
> 
> The owner says to the union guy..........." I would like to see you get union dues from them" and laughed.
> 
> The union guy turns and says..........."and I would like to see you sell them one of your cars."
> 
> Our economy is a consumer driven economy. If consumers lose jobs and have no income, the economy soon falls apart.


Not in the medium term-in the medium term mass robotics takes out the need for slave labour building products in China to sell to the customers in North America-you can set up your automated factory near your customer base.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Without a universal basic income the economy will shrink and crumble.
> 
> A factory owner calls the union guy and invites him to the car factory.
> 
> There is nothing in the factory but robots working furiously away building cars.
> 
> The owner says to the union guy..........." I would like to see you get union dues from them" and laughed.
> 
> The union guy turns and says..........."and I would like to see you sell them one of your cars."
> 
> Our economy is a consumer driven economy. If consumers lose jobs and have no income, the economy soon falls apart.


I'd like to see you get the money to pay for universal income from any of these people in your joke.

You seem really keen on handing out money, even justify it with your doom and gloom automated society prediction, but still miss the point of actually finding a way to pay for it. If no one is working, or buying stuff, it makes my question of where does the money come from even more poignant.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> It really doesn't matter if people like it or don't like it, or if they deserve it or not..........a universal income is inevitable.
> 
> _"In March, President Barack Obama warned Congress about the looming threat of job loss, based on several reports that found that as much as *50% of jobs could be replaced by robots by 2030*."_
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2


Well then - Population and Sustainability: Can We Avoid Limiting the Number of People? 

Back in 2009:

"With President Obama in the White House and Democrats dominant in Congress, the signs are good that the U.S. will support the kind of development abroad and reproductive health at home most likely to encourage slower population growth. Like almost all politicians, however, Obama never mentions population or the way it bridges problems from health and education all the way to food, energy security and climate change."


----------



## bass player

If the jobs are really running out, then why the rush to bring more people in?


----------



## Nelley

Just a Guy said:


> I'd like to see you get the money to pay for universal income from any of these people in your joke.
> 
> You seem really keen on handing out money, even justify it with your doom and gloom automated society prediction, but still miss the point of actually finding a way to pay for it. If no one is working, or buying stuff, it makes my question of where does the money come from even more poignant.


Elon Musk is a major B/S artist-a lot of today's jobs didn't even exist 40 years ago.


----------



## Nelley

bass player said:


> If the jobs are really running out, then why the rush to bring more people in?


Because the owners of the country do not care if you are working or just being supported by your neighbour-as long as the money given to you flows to them everything is perfect. If you ask Weston how many people would be a correct number to bring into Canada each year he might say maybe 6 million sounds nice-the CEO of Royal Bank would probably say yeah that would be sweet. These guys are totally insulated from all the problems they cause.


----------



## Just a Guy

Maybe because they are willing to work for the jobs considered to low in pay for us Canadians...as I said, I've got immigrant tenants (whole family, not a single guy either) who work the jobs deemed to not pay a living wage who not only live in Canada, but travel home every year or two. Probably send money there too.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> It really doesn't matter if people like it or don't like it, or if they deserve it or not..........a universal income is inevitable.
> 
> _"I think we'll end up doing universal basic income," Musk told the crowd at the World Government Summit in Dubai, according to Fast Company. "It's going to be necessary."
> 
> The economic forecasts for the next several decades don't bode well for the American worker. In March, President Barack Obama warned Congress about the looming threat of job loss, based on several reports that found that as much as *50% of jobs could be replaced by robots by 2030*.
> 
> The downside of that projection is that millions of people would wind up out of a job — a possibility Musk discussed at the summit.
> 
> "There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better," he said. "I want to be clear. These are not things I wish will happen; these are things I think probably will happen."_
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2


In many ways Elon is a visionary, but he like others has blind spots.
Charles H. Duell was a bit premature when he claimed everything had been invented, and just as Elon is about his dire warnings for the future.

You're such a pessimist, we've been through this before, it used to be that we all worked our lives just trying to survive, agriculture used to use much of the available manpower.
Today many people work at jobs that didn't even exist a few years ago. 
David Autor is one of the leaders in this area.
https://economics.mit.edu/files/11563

So what, some jobs will get mostly automated, we'll do something else, and we'll all benefit.
What if through automation the cost of a car gets cut in half, will everyone just buy a car then sit there with the money and say "well I've got what I want, all done!"
No, they'll find something else to spend there money on.

Do you really think at some point, there won't be a single useful task for a person to do?
As long as people continue to work and find something useful to do that someone else will pay for.

I don't think there will ever be a day where there will be nothing left to strive for, and as long as there is something left to want, there will be an opportunity for someone to provide it.
My fear is that many people will decide they're useless, and will stop creating wealth for the world, the day we stop finding a way to be useful is the day it all falls apart.

In 50 years lets see how many people are working at jobs that don't even really exist today.


----------



## sags

Technological advancement isn't going to reach a plateau and stop.

At the time when robots perform most of the jobs, they would also be able to perform any new jobs that are created.

Humans won't be needed to fix robots. Robots will fix robots.


----------



## Moneytoo

Amen: There will come soft rains


----------



## Nelley

sags said:


> Technological advancement isn't going to reach a plateau and stop.
> 
> At the time when robots perform most of the jobs, they would also be able to perform any new jobs that are created.
> 
> Humans won't be needed to fix robots. Robots will fix robots.


Don't worry-ManBearPig and his little boy Dicaprio say it will be Waterworld by that point-if you can't grow gills and breathe underwater, the robots can't help you.


----------



## Moneytoo

Nelley said:


> Don't worry-ManBearPig and his little boy Dicaprio say it will be Waterworld by that point-if you can't grow gills and breathe underwater, the robots can't help you.


Oh keep forgetting to ask you - who's ManBearPig?  I keep thinking No money no honey lol


----------



## Nelley

Moneytoo said:


> Oh keep forgetting to ask you - who's ManBearPig?  I keep thinking No money no honey lol


He is the dirty grifter frontman for the Planet Saving Gang (Climate Mafia).


----------



## Just a Guy

MrMatt said:


> In many ways Elon is a visionary, but he like others has blind spots.
> Charles H. Duell was a bit premature when he claimed everything had been invented, and just as Elon is about his dire warnings for the future.
> 
> You're such a pessimist, we've been through this before, it used to be that we all worked our lives just trying to survive, agriculture used to use much of the available manpower.
> Today many people work at jobs that didn't even exist a few years ago.
> David Autor is one of the leaders in this area.
> https://economics.mit.edu/files/11563
> 
> So what, some jobs will get mostly automated, we'll do something else, and we'll all benefit.
> What if through automation the cost of a car gets cut in half, will everyone just buy a car then sit there with the money and say "well I've got what I want, all done!"
> No, they'll find something else to spend there money on.
> 
> Do you really think at some point, there won't be a single useful task for a person to do?
> As long as people continue to work and find something useful to do that someone else will pay for.
> 
> I don't think there will ever be a day where there will be nothing left to strive for, and as long as there is something left to want, there will be an opportunity for someone to provide it.
> My fear is that many people will decide they're useless, and will stop creating wealth for the world, the day we stop finding a way to be useful is the day it all falls apart.
> 
> In 50 years lets see how many people are working at jobs that don't even really exist today.


And, of course, that's not even touching on all the new colonization that could be taking place. Elon himself is working on making that possible. Remember, he's working on sending humans to colonize mars, not robots. There will be the whole science of terra forming to figure out, new genetics to figure out how to grow earth plants on a foreign planet, etc.

Then there is outer space mining, going back to the moon, figuring out how to get out of the solar system...but then again people still think digital watches are a pretty cool thing. 

Computers are really good at figuring out answers to questions based on data. Coming up with the right questions and the figuring out the right data to analyze still takes human beings.

In the old days, when horses were used a lot, they wore blinders which only allowed them to see what was right in front of them. People seem to have been bred with natural blinder. Time to take them off and look around a bit I think.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Maybe because they are willing to work for the jobs considered to low in pay for us Canadians...as I said, I've got immigrant tenants (whole family, not a single guy either) who work the jobs deemed to not pay a living wage who not only live in Canada, but travel home every year or two. Probably send money there too.


If businesses no longer have immigrants to pay low wages to, then one must assume that they will have to pay higher wages to their own citizens.

So, rather than enact UBI, why not first limit who can work in Canada and then the wages for our own citizens will increase naturally. Simple supply and demand. That makes far more sense than simply giving up and handing people money.


----------



## tygrus

Lets use an example. Farms are highly automated now and employ a fraction of the people they used to. Huge acreages can be covered by a few people and a lot of equipment. I can tell you that margins got tighter, not larger, less money was available and less people employed. The consumer may enjoy reasonably priced food, but there is no extra to go to some UBI scheme. I suspect the same will happen with every industry that automates. Extra wealth will not be accrued, just tighter margins, more displacement. 

This fantasy that more automation will disperse more wealth down the line is just another trickle down economics lie.


----------



## Just a Guy

bass player said:


> If businesses can no longer pay low wages to immigrants, then one must assume that they will have to pay a higher wage to their own citizens.
> 
> So, rather than enact UBI, why not first limit who can work in Canada and then the wages for our own citizens will increase naturally. Simple supply and demand. That makes far more sense than simply giving up and handing people money.


Technically, you're again legislating one portion of supply and demand by limiting the supply and demand of workers, while wanting the benefits provided by supply and demand. People also want their goods and services at a lower price, but they legislate rules which ensure prices need to rise...then they need more money to pay for goods, demand raises, prices go up...

Rinse and repeat.

Not saying supply and demand will work in the real world, I'm just explaining why it won't work for sure when you put restrictions on a portion of it.

Solutions aren't easy fixes. Throwing money at a problem rarely solves it, especially when you have no idea where the money is coming from.

The purpose of most of my threads isn't to find the solution, it's to open people's eyes to other possibilities or why simplistic solutions aren't the answer.


----------



## Moneytoo

Just a Guy said:


> Solutions aren't easy fixes. Throwing money at a problem rarely solves it, especially when you have no idea where the money is coming from.
> 
> The purpose of most of my threads isn't to find the solution, it's to open people's eyes to other possibilities or why simplistic solutions aren't the answer.


And? Did it stop Sags from trolling your threads?  

I looked at my last paystub, for May 31st. I paid 19K in taxes YTD. I don't know if it's a lot or not - but I'm sure as hell it's more than some UBI proponents pay in a year... Yet I'm "the bad guy" if I'm against it - and they're the only ones who really care about the poor, dreaming up a mythical rich guy who'd pay for everything 

Anyways, I promised to myself to not take any of it seriously - and personally...


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> And, of course, that's not even touching on all the new colonization that could be taking place. Elon himself is working on making that possible. Remember, he's working on sending humans to colonize mars, not robots. There will be the whole science of terra forming to figure out, new genetics to figure out how to grow earth plants on a foreign planet, etc.
> 
> Then there is outer space mining, going back to the moon, figuring out how to get out of the solar system...but then again people still think digital watches are a pretty cool thing.
> 
> Computers are really good at figuring out answers to questions based on data. Coming up with the right questions and the figuring out the right data to analyze still takes human beings.
> 
> In the old days, when horses were used a lot, they wore blinders which only allowed them to see what was right in front of them. People seem to have been bred with natural blinder. Time to take them off and look around a bit I think.


If you take as given that there is nothing happening in our heads that can't, with sufficiently advanced algorithms and enough processing power, be replicated in a computer, your assertion that there are cognitive labours that only humans can perform becomes a matter of when and not if.

People used to say that computers may beat humans at chess, but they'll never beat us at Go. To me, there are two outcomes: we create machine intelligence capable of replacing most any human cognitive labour, or human civilization is snuffed out before it gets the chance. You may think this is 100 years from now. I would remind you that 100 years ago we had barely figured out radio or knew what atoms were made of.


----------



## andrewf

Moneytoo said:


> And? Did it stop Sags from trolling your threads?
> 
> I looked at my last paystub, for May 31st. I paid 19K in taxes YTD. I don't know if it's a lot or not - but I'm sure as hell it's more than some UBI proponents pay in a year... Yet I'm "the bad guy" if I'm against it - and they're the only ones who really care about the poor, dreaming up a mythical rich guy who'd pay for everything
> 
> Anyways, I promised to myself to not take any of it seriously - and personally...


What if some UBI proponents pay more in tax in a year than you can dream of earning in your lifetime. Does that invalidate your point?


----------



## andrewf

Nelley said:


> Don't worry-ManBearPig and his little boy Dicaprio say it will be Waterworld by that point-if you can't grow gills and breathe underwater, the robots can't help you.


South Park fan? You also like their send-up of the circus clown named Donald Trump aka Giant Douche?


----------



## Moneytoo

andrewf said:


> What if some UBI proponents pay more in tax in a year than you can dream of earning in your lifetime. Does that invalidate your point?


Yes if they're not on this forum, posting sappy songs


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> What if some UBI proponents pay more in tax in a year than you can dream of earning in your lifetime. Does that invalidate your point?


No it doesn't, because the left think money magically appears in the hands of the rich.


----------



## Nelley

Moneytoo said:


> And? Did it stop Sags from trolling your threads?
> 
> I looked at my last paystub, for May 31st. I paid 19K in taxes YTD. I don't know if it's a lot or not - but I'm sure as hell it's more than some UBI proponents pay in a year... Yet I'm "the bad guy" if I'm against it - and they're the only ones who really care about the poor, dreaming up a mythical rich guy who'd pay for everything
> 
> Anyways, I promised to myself to not take any of it seriously - and personally...


I gotta laugh when everybody talks about how much they make by quoting the gross revenue (you said 120 for yourself)-if current trends continue, eventually the real net income from 120 might be 40 when you factor in all the various taxation schemes.


----------



## Nelley

andrewf said:


> If you take as given that there is nothing happening in our heads that can't, with sufficiently advanced algorithms and enough processing power, be replicated in a computer, your assertion that there are cognitive labours that only humans can perform becomes a matter of when and not if.
> 
> People used to say that computers may beat humans at chess, but they'll never beat us at Go. To me, there are two outcomes: we create machine intelligence capable of replacing most any human cognitive labour, or human civilization is snuffed out before it gets the chance. You may think this is 100 years from now. I would remind you that 100 years ago we had barely figured out radio or knew what atoms were made of.


All this Elon Musk fantasy stuff shows an ignorance of basic reality. Not by that guy-he is really smart and knows exactly when he is just talking B/S-but by the little puppies swallowing his nonsense. We live on planet Earth-over the last 100 years you speak of humans have been gradually spending down the natural capital of this planet-and when this one is pretty well totally sucked dry there will be real world consequences-there will not be first class tickets to a terra firmed Mars that looks just like Maui.


----------



## Nelley

andrewf said:


> South Park fan? You also like their send-up of the circus clown named Donald Trump aka Giant Douche?


I am not into cartoons-I was using the nickname for Al Gore before I realized it came from South Park-the funny part is I originally thought the name was based on Al Gore's appearance.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> If you take as given that there is nothing happening in our heads that can't, with sufficiently advanced algorithms and enough processing power, be replicated in a computer, your assertion that there are cognitive labours that only humans can perform becomes a matter of when and not if.
> 
> People used to say that computers may beat humans at chess, but they'll never beat us at Go. To me, there are two outcomes: we create machine intelligence capable of replacing most any human cognitive labour, or human civilization is snuffed out before it gets the chance. You may think this is 100 years from now. I would remind you that 100 years ago we had barely figured out radio or knew what atoms were made of.


Do you understand how computers beat people at chess and go? They don't "think", they use brute force. They analyze each move, then compare it to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of game moves that were played before, looking for the best outcome. The average human only compares maybe 100 moves/games.

Not only that, but those programs were designed by humans. The computer didn't initially program itself.

True, they are working on computer learning as we speak but, so far it still basically boils down to analyzing vast amounts of data very quickly and taking the best solution. 

Computers aren't very good at being intuitive at all, human programmers haven't figured out how to do that part yet. Sure, brute force does tend to look like computers are smarter than humans, but that is just an illusion. Computers don't "wonder" about new problems, they don't come up with new ideas, it still takes humans to point them in the right direction, figure out how to simulate a new environment, and get the program working on the calculations...

Could that change in the future? Who knows, but they've been working on AI for a long time, always thought they were getting close, but always seem to hit the same stumbling block. Computers can appear intelligent, but in reality hey are still just brute force number crunchers. Humans haven't figured out how to get them to be anything else yet.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> What if some UBI proponents pay more in tax in a year than you can dream of earning in your lifetime. Does that invalidate your point?


I'd be interested if those "some" contributed enough to make it sustainable. I think people fail to grasp the magnitude of costs associated with all these lovely ideas. They also don't seem to ever be satisfied. After we get UBI, we'll need a universal drug plan, universal housing, free universal higher education, eventually getting to my universal breakfast in bed hopefully.


----------



## andrewf

Nelley said:


> All this Elon Musk fantasy stuff shows an ignorance of basic reality. Not by that guy-he is really smart and knows exactly when he is just talking B/S-but by the little puppies swallowing his nonsense. We live on planet Earth-over the last 100 years you speak of humans have been gradually spending down the natural capital of this planet-and when this one is pretty well totally sucked dry there will be real world consequences-there will not be first class tickets to a terra firmed Mars that looks just like Maui.


Who said anything about Mars? Or Musk for that matter?

Computational power over time is not a function of resource input. We are getting many orders of magnitude more compute power for only a somewhat larger investment in material input.

So, I think I would chalk you up as a 'collapse of civilization' believer.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Do you understand how computers beat people at chess and go? They don't "think", they use brute force. They analyze each move, then compare it to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of game moves that were played before, looking for the best outcome. The average human only compares maybe 100 moves/games.
> 
> Not only that, but those programs were designed by humans. The computer didn't initially program itself.
> 
> True, they are working on computer learning as we speak but, so far it still basically boils down to analyzing vast amounts of data very quickly and taking the best solution.
> 
> Computers aren't very good at being intuitive at all, human programmers haven't figured out how to do that part yet. Sure, brute force does tend to look like computers are smarter than humans, but that is just an illusion. Computers don't "wonder" about new problems, they don't come up with new ideas, it still takes humans to point them in the right direction, figure out how to simulate a new environment, and get the program working on the calculations...
> 
> Could that change in the future? Who knows, but they've been working on AI for a long time, always thought they were getting close, but always seem to hit the same stumbling block. Computers can appear intelligent, but in reality hey are still just brute force number crunchers. Humans haven't figured out how to get them to be anything else yet.


I do understand (I have a computer science degree). No, computers don't "think" in the way humans do. That doesn't stop them from being better than humans at an ever growing list of cognitive tasks. They are better at classifying images, interpreting diagnostic tests, translating between languages, detecting fraud, legal research/discovery, etc. It doesn't matter whether they 'think' in the way humans do. Computers don't need to be 'conscious' to be useful. If anything, consciousness would probably be a liability. Regardless, if the list of cognitive tasks that computers can perform better than humans is ever increasing, the island of human dominance will keep shrinking.

I'm not sure how much you have read about how Alpha Go works (the program that defeated the top human go player). To say it is merely brute force is not quite accurate. And it employed techniques that no human programmed into it and are novel to human players. One could call that creativity. Improved algorithms and techniques can cause step changes in performance. Deep learning revolutionized AI in just the last couple years. That is why voice recognition went from pretty poor/laughable to near/better than human capability in just a couple years.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> I'd be interested if those "some" contributed enough to make it sustainable. I think people fail to grasp the magnitude of costs associated with all these lovely ideas. They also don't seem to ever be satisfied. After we get UBI, we'll need a universal drug plan, universal housing, free universal higher education, eventually getting to my universal breakfast in bed hopefully.


Slippery slope fallacy?


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> Well, what do you know...mandatory work requirements in Alabama for able bodied adults with no kids has led to a massive reduction in recipients.:
> 
> "More than half of food stamp recipients who are required to participate in a work activity in 21 Georgia counties have been dropped from the program after the state instituted work requirements.
> 
> State figures released this week revealed that 11,779 people considered able-bodied without children were required to find work by April 1 to continue receiving food stamps, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported (http://bit.ly/2qYFi8Q). Sixty-two percent were dropped after the deadline, whittling the number of recipients to 4,528.
> 
> State officials began enforcing the work mandate in 2016, and plan to expand work requirements to all 159 counties by 2019. About 1.6 million Georgia residents use food stamps, which are funded with federal dollars managed by the state Department of Family and Children Services. The number of food stamp recipients deemed able-bodied and without children in Georgia has dropped from 111,000 to 89,500 in a year, a drop that state officials believe is attributed to a statewide review of the population.
> 
> *"It does show that if you give people an incentive to help themselves, they can become productive citizens," Dodd said.*
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ts-drop-thousands-in-georgia-from-food-stamps
> 
> All UBI will do is reduce the incentive for many, as Just A Guy has pointed out.


A welfare administrator in an Ontario city used a version of this. some recipients without children were required to prove they were looking for work to get benifits. It didn't last long as business owners were overwhelmed with applicants, but had no jobs for them. The business owners complained to the city that they had to hire staff just to process applicants and asked the city to stop this requirement. 

I believe it is true that some people require some negative incentive, while others are internally motivated. But neither negative incentives or internal motivation is guarenteed to create jobs. 

Another strategy attempted was to requrie welfare recipients to work and one job, for example, was picking up litter in public parks. The welfare recipients were more than willing. What stopped the program was unions and human rights people. The unions argued it was taking away union jobs, and the human rights people claimed it was under paying workers therefore abusing thier rights, or somthing like that. The essemce was what they got on welfare was too little compensation compare to what city workers got for the same work. 

However, time will tell how well the Georgia program works in the long run. the issue is not a simple as some portray it.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Technically, you're again legislating one portion of supply and demand by limiting the supply and demand of workers, while wanting the benefits provided by supply and demand. People also want their goods and services at a lower price, but they legislate rules which ensure prices need to rise...then they need more money to pay for goods, demand raises, prices go up...
> 
> Rinse and repeat.
> 
> Not saying supply and demand will work in the real world, I'm just explaining why it won't work for sure when you put restrictions on a portion of it.
> 
> Solutions aren't easy fixes. Throwing money at a problem rarely solves it, especially when you have no idea where the money is coming from.
> 
> The purpose of most of my threads isn't to find the solution, it's to open people's eyes to other possibilities or why simplistic solutions aren't the answer.


Limiting non-citizens who will work for low, unsustainable wages has the effect of raising the value of labour for our own citizens. To me, this is a better solution than allowing low paid foreign labour and then giving out of work Canadians free money not to work.

UBI is a simplistic solution to a problem partially created by allowing the low paid labour in the first place.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Slippery slope fallacy?


Sarcasm.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> I do understand (I have a computer science degree). No, computers don't "think" in the way humans do. That doesn't stop them from being better than humans at an ever growing list of cognitive tasks. They are better at classifying images, interpreting diagnostic tests, translating between languages, detecting fraud, legal research/discovery, etc. It doesn't matter whether they 'think' in the way humans do. Computers don't need to be 'conscious' to be useful. If anything, consciousness would probably be a liability. Regardless, if the list of cognitive tasks that computers can perform better than humans is ever increasing, the island of human dominance will keep shrinking.
> 
> I'm not sure how much you have read about how Alpha Go works (the program that defeated the top human go player). To say it is merely brute force is not quite accurate. And it employed techniques that no human programmed into it and are novel to human players. One could call that creativity. Improved algorithms and techniques can cause step changes in performance. Deep learning revolutionized AI in just the last couple years. That is why voice recognition went from pretty poor/laughable to near/better than human capability in just a couple years.


You do realize that it took a human to program the computer to do all these things right? You sit a computer in from of a chess board and it's not going to learn chess on its own, nor is it going to program itself to beat the best human players, it's just going to sit there.

Computers don't see problems, they don't solve problems, they need to not only be told there is a problem, but also how to solve the problem. That takes humans. 

Even if you get programs that can learn, or even modify their own code, they need to be told to find new problems and probably helped to figure out how to solve the problem. Computers are just tools, like a hammer, and they'll just sit there without humans, they won't build houses on their own.


----------



## olivaw

Just a Guy said:


> You do realize that it took a human to program the computer to do all these things right? You sit a computer in from of a chess board and it's not going to learn chess on its own, nor is it going to program itself to beat the best human players, it's just going to sit there.
> 
> Computers don't see problems, they don't solve problems, they need to not only be told there is a problem, but also how to solve the problem. That takes humans.
> 
> Even if you get programs that can learn, or even modify their own code, they need to be told to find new problems and probably helped to figure out how to solve the problem. Computers are just tools, like a hammer, and they'll just sit there without humans, they won't build houses on their own.


MIT disagrees.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/


----------



## Nelley

olivaw said:


> MIT disagrees.
> 
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/


I think you are a bot-if you have ever posted an original thought I missed it.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> You do realize that it took a human to program the computer to do all these things right? You sit a computer in from of a chess board and it's not going to learn chess on its own, nor is it going to program itself to beat the best human players, it's just going to sit there.
> 
> Computers don't see problems, they don't solve problems, they need to not only be told there is a problem, but also how to solve the problem. That takes humans.
> 
> Even if you get programs that can learn, or even modify their own code, they need to be told to find new problems and probably helped to figure out how to solve the problem. Computers are just tools, like a hammer, and they'll just sit there without humans, they won't build houses on their own.


Frankly, you're not an expert in AI, and you're not in a position to definitively say what is not possible. Even still, you seem to be arguing that we will need just as many human AI-wranglers as are displaced by AI. That is just wrong.


----------



## Just a Guy

Never said anything of the sort, I said AI still needs people. The same as when the steam engine replaced a lot of manual labour, the same as when computers originally replaced the human "computers" (mostly women who spent their days doing calculations if you know the origin of the word). 

Humans used to be adaptive, when faced with being replaced by tools, they found new things to do and explore. I don't think thousands of years of evolution has led to the final generation who can only come up with holding their hand out as their only option.


----------



## james4beach

Ontario's conservative government has cancelled the basic income pilot project, breaking their election promise to keep the program. It was supposed to be a 3 year experiment.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/...ancelled-by-minister-lisa-macleod_a_23493366/
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...t-limits-welfare-increase-to-15-per-cent.html

I'm disappointed about this. It was a pilot project, an experiment, that would have given useful results to analyze. With the dramatically changing economy (a big challenge for all of us going forward) I was pretty excited to see research into new methods.


----------



## bass player

I'm sure it wasn't canceled because it was widely successful, so perhaps your disappointment is misplaced.

Working hard has very close to a 100% success rate, but unfortunately, it never appeals the left who think everything should be free.


----------



## james4beach

It's not an issue of success or failure, which can't even be evaluated so early. This was meant to be an experiment (pilot program). It started in April 2017, so the experiment was 1.3 years into the 3 year experiment -- that's 43% completed. Finishing the remaining 1.7 years would not have had a material cost. The whole program had a limited timeframe in any case.

Because the experiment was aborted, it cannot be properly evaluated or analyzed.


----------



## Just a Guy

Funny, the government says things like...

MacLeod said Tuesday that the project was expensive, and "clearly not the answer for Ontario families."

Or 

"It's unsustainable"

The counter argument is, those getting the free money are doing better...

So, as long as we give more free money to people they'll do better...what a shock.

For those of us who invest, start businesses, think of new ways to increase our incomes, guess what we find? We do better...no burden on the taxpayer. 

Look what we can learn in less than three years of wasted money on a study. The study may have shown people are better off if they are given more money, but it certainly would never have answered the real, important question of...

Where does the money come from? You know, the question every supporter of UBI ignores, or says some stupid comment like "tax the rich". People have no clue as to how much money is involved, and no plan on how to obtain it. 

My money isn't handed to me, I'm not doing anything special. I didn't go back to school for retraining, I didn't have a job with a steady paycheque, I didn't inherit a lot of money and I'm living with injuries which make me technically disabled. The big difference, I don't consider myself a victim, I looked for solutions to my problems.

As an example, I just closed on a new property yesterday, showed it to a tenant today and have it rented. I make money, the tenant is provided affordable housing and it's a win-win situation.


----------



## gardner

james4beach said:


> I'm disappointed about this.


Likewise, but not remotely surprised. Despite that they promised to see it through, the conservatives have too easy a target in resenting poor people. They just can't help themselves.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Just a Guy said:


> Funny, the government says things like...
> 
> MacLeod said Tuesday that the project was expensive, and "clearly not the answer for Ontario families."
> 
> Or
> 
> "It's unsustainable"
> 
> The counter argument is, those getting the free money are doing better...
> 
> So, as long as we give more free money to people they'll do better...what a shock.
> 
> For those of us who invest, start businesses, think of new ways to increase our incomes, guess what we find? We do better...no burden on the taxpayer.
> 
> Look what we can learn in less than three years of wasted money on a study. The study may have shown people are better off if they are given more money, but it certainly would never have answered the real, important question of...
> 
> Where does the money come from? You know, the question every supporter of UBI ignores, or says some stupid comment like "tax the rich". People have no clue as to how much money is involved, and no plan on how to obtain it.
> 
> My money isn't handed to me, I'm not doing anything special. I didn't go back to school for retraining, I didn't have a job with a steady paycheque, I didn't inherit a lot of money and I'm living with injuries which make me technically disabled. The big difference, I don't consider myself a victim, I looked for solutions to my problems.
> 
> As an example, I just closed on a new property yesterday, showed it to a tenant today and have it rented. I make money, the tenant is provided affordable housing and it's a win-win situation.


Not only that-the amount of money given to the lucky 4000 could never be rolled out province or country wide-the whole thing is a farce.


----------



## like_to_retire

Just a Guy said:


> The counter argument is, those getting the free money are doing better...
> 
> So, as long as we give more free money to people they'll do better...what a shock.


I know they use all sorts of measuring sticks to evaluate a program like this, but I have to think that if we give couples $24,000 a year with no strings attached and then ask them if it was a positive experience, the answer would be 100% yes. 

Then to ensure that they don't have a big incentive to find any work, we'll cut $0.50 from their $24,000 for every dollar they make.

There has to be a better way.

ltr


----------



## BoringInvestor

The Universal Basic Income test was exactly the type of program the Province should be investigating to see if:
- it reduced the overall social assistance provided to recipients
- it sufficiently provides the bare-bones basics of a living standard
- it improves the quality of life by allowing participants to go after further education or create new businesses with a secure income


As similar tests have proven successful in accomplishing these objectives, I see little reason why it wouldn't work here, and we don't know without the data to support it.

Among the host of PC election promises that I disliked, this was the one promise made that I was hoping they'd keep.

Extremely disappointing.


----------



## Just a Guy

Boring, 

I notice you too avoided the basic question, where does the money come from? Add up the amount of money being handed out times the number of people in Canada...it's a HUGE number. It's can't be funded by "existing programs", it can't be funded by "taxing the rich" or "from corporations". 

It has nothing to do with "hating the poor" it has to do with that inconvenient thing called...

Reality.

If anyone can come up with a sustainable plan on how to fund UBI, I'll be the first one in line, behind sags of course who's already in line, to receive the "free" cash. I'll be its biggest supporter. Unfortunately, it's a dream world. Until then, I'll keep working on my Personal plan which provides me with a sustainable passive income while benefiting society...one anyone could probably duplicate since I started implementing it when I was dead broke and couldn't work due to injuries.


----------



## BoringInvestor

Hi Just a Guy,

Among the goals of the pilot was to determine if the current amount paid out in social programs would be less under a Universal Basic Income pilot.

The idea being among the patchwork of social and health programs we have today, if that cost would be reduced under a simplified, guaranteed-income model. The measure is if the societal benefits (from a financial perspective from direct payments and savings in health care costs) would be positive at an individual level and in aggregate.


----------



## Pluto

Eventhough they cancelled the experiment, one can always study Denmark and similiar countries with UBI. Apaprently in Denmark, people are still motivated to work.


----------



## Just a Guy

Boring,

It doesn't take a study to realize that social programs which currently pay out less than the UBI benefits, to less people, cannot fund giving more money to more people. Heck, it probably can't even find the money required to conduct the "government funded study" since those typically waste several million dollars all on their own. 

Personally I volunteer with the poor all the time, I'm very familiar with the various social programs and what they cost, how much individuals get and the hoops they have to jump through to get them. I also see what happens to most of this money, but I won't get into that. 

Take a look at the federal, provincial and civic budgets, it's quite easy to determine how much money is being provided for social programs (it's usually a line item). It's not that much in a budget that's already spending MORE than it brings in (that's part of the definition of unsustainable by the way). Next, go to stats Canada, pull up the latest population estimates. Then take the amount of money you want to hand out for free, multiply it by the Canadian population and maybe then you'll realize why it doesn't work. 

On, and if you're going to clawback the benefits, why pay government employees to hand out and take back money (that costs a lot of money in itself for no benefit).


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto

https://[email protected]?s=wcsddnk&v=201804111541v

Looks like Denmark has been running a deficit for the past ten years almost every year...that would be that inconvenient thing called unsustainable


----------



## BoringInvestor

Just a Guy said:


> Boring,
> 
> It doesn't take a study to realize that social programs which currently pay out less than the UBI benefits, to less people, cannot fund giving more money to more people. Heck, it probably can't even find the money required to conduct the "government funded study" since those typically waste several million dollars all on their own.
> 
> Personally I volunteer with the poor all the time, I'm very familiar with the various social programs and what they cost, how much individuals get and the hoops they have to jump through to get them. I also see what happens to most of this money, but I won't get into that.
> 
> Take a look at the federal, provincial and civic budgets, it's quite easy to determine how much money is being provided for social programs (it's usually a line item). It's not that much in a budget that's already spending MORE than it brings in (that's part of the definition of unsustainable by the way). Next, go to stats Canada, pull up the latest population estimates. Then take the amount of money you want to hand out for free, multiply it by the Canadian population and maybe then you'll realize why it doesn't work.
> 
> On, and if you're going to clawback the benefits, why pay government employees to hand out and take back money (that costs a lot of money in itself for no benefit).


I see two parts to this:
1. What is the impact of this limited pilot.
2. What is the applicability of expanding the program across the entire country.

I have no opinions on #2 right now.

For #1, as there are multiple payments and cost savings to consider, I was looking forward to seeing the data so that we can make a more informed decision in the best interests of Canadian society.


----------



## Koogie

Yet another great decision from Dougie. Doing what needs to be done in spite of howls from the bleeding hearts and wastrels.

Look at this Global News video about the cancellation. Check out the parasite they interview beginning at 0:45 

Millenial snowflake with an Apple laptop at a beautiful "coworking" location who fears now that his free money is getting cut off that he won't be able to be the "entrepreneur" he wants to be. It is to laugh.


https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/1290256963967/?jwsource=cl


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Pluto
> 
> https://[email protected]?s=wcsddnk&v=201804111541v
> 
> Looks like Denmark has been running a deficit for the past ten years almost every year...that would be that inconvenient thing called unsustainable


Apparently Denmarks debt as a % of GDP is significantly lower than Canada's.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Koogie said:


> Yet another great decision from Dougie. Doing what needs to be done in spite of howls from the bleeding hearts and wastrels.
> 
> Look at this Global News video about the cancellation. Check out the parasite they interview beginning at 0:45
> 
> Millenial snowflake with an Apple laptop at a beautiful "coworking" location who fears now that his free money is getting cut off that he won't be able to be the "entrepreneur" he wants to be. It is to laugh.
> 
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/1290256963967/?jwsource=cl


The study was trying to determine if people enjoy life more with more money-that is really difficult to determine-we need more experts on this one.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Poorly considered.

The pilot was paying ~$1400/mo to a single person, presumably able to work, but disinclined to because of the clawback. That isn't enough $ to cover extra health costs, retraining, etc., without drawing on other programs as well. Yet it was advertised as a program that would simplify and reduce those other programs and costs.

For those unable to work, ODSP already exists and pays ~$1300/month (means tested), and includes health benefits on top of that.

The challenges are already known, this pilot wasn't solving them. 

Read some of the profiles of those who were part of the pilot. People with a mortgage, now able to buy smoothies, several who were (rightfully) on ODSP, who can afford a car now, have multiple (unsupportvie?) children and grandchildren, etc.

I speak with some experience, I support someone who is hopelessly inept at handling the little income they have. They 'fall through the cracks' in terms of any social support. So it is left to family to look after them.


----------



## FI40

I think the study would have been useful to see the impact on reduced costs elsewhere, like less use of the healthcare system, smaller govt workforce to support it, etc. The reduced costs elsewhere are a huge reason it might make financial sense to do it.

Personally I think it could be cheaper than the current system financially, it just depends on the amount of the benefit. Love the idea of not making people jump through hoops to get it though. It should be available for anyone and should be enough to barely live on in a low to medium cost of living city. Supporting people enough to live comfortably in downtown TO? Nope. So certainly way less than 20k/year for a single person as a maximum benefit (my wife and I lived extremely comfortably and took international vacations when spending only 40k/year). The vast majority of people should want to earn more than whatever the base amount is. The ones that don't, well, it might keep them from turning to crime.


----------



## OptsyEagle

I imagine the study might provide some interesting thoughts and perhaps studying Denmark might be time usefully spent but I fall upon a couple simple laws of our humanity:

1) If you lower the incentive for someone to earn money (by giving it to them) you will lower their ability to produce it themselves by reducing their willingness to earn it.

2) If you give a basic minimum amount of money to a society, then a company would be required to compete with that free money in order to give enough incentive to work for it. Therefore a companies payroll would need to increase and therefore their competitiveness in that society would decrease and the end result would be less jobs and more money needed for social assistance.

3) Individuals start out in life with the idea of wondering what they would enjoy doing for a living. This is basically what a teenager thinks about when someone asks what they would like to do when they get out of school. As they age, usually around age 25, they expand their definition to something like what would I like to do for a living that actually pays a living wage where I could buy a house and take a trip etc. This is exactly why many of us eventually move away from what we took in post secondary school to earn our living. We find that a lesser enjoyable job that pays 3 times as much provides a happier life then a very enjoyable job that one cannot really live off of. The basic income will just expand that awakening age from around 25, to something much older. That would be a detrimental waste of their time.

A study to prove those laws are laws might be interesting but way too expensive if you ask me.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> I'm sure it wasn't canceled because it was widely successful, so perhaps your disappointment is misplaced.
> 
> Working hard has very close to a 100% success rate, but unfortunately, it never appeals the left who think everything should be free.


It was cancelled for ideological reasons. It can't be based on results, as those have not been published. Probably the biggest reason to cancel it is due to fear it will have been shown to be effective. Better to keep people in the welfare trap, right?


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> Apparently Denmarks debt as a % of GDP is significantly lower than Canada's.


Does this change the fact that they spend more than they bring in? gee, they are unsustainable in a slower manner than Canada.


----------



## Just a Guy

BoringInvestor said:


> I see two parts to this:
> 1. What is the impact of this limited pilot.
> 2. What is the applicability of expanding the program across the entire country.
> 
> I have no opinions on #2 right now.
> 
> For #1, as there are multiple payments and cost savings to consider, I was looking forward to seeing the data so that we can make a more informed decision in the best interests of Canadian society.


Name a single government "replacement" program that has cost less than the program it replaced?


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> I know they use all sorts of measuring sticks to evaluate a program like this, but I have to think that if we give couples $24,000 a year with no strings attached and then ask them if it was a positive experience, the answer would be 100% yes.
> 
> Then to ensure that they don't have a big incentive to find any work, we'll cut $0.50 from their $24,000 for every dollar they make.
> 
> There has to be a better way.
> 
> ltr


Criteria was never going to be subjective questions like how the recipients felt about it. The study was on impacts to outcomes (how much less did they work, how much more/less policing/health care/other services did they consume. Changes in health outcomes, etc.

If you think a 50% clawback is a strong disincentive to work, imagine what it is like in the welfare trap, where effective tax rates can run upwards of 100% or more.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Boring,
> 
> I notice you too avoided the basic question, where does the money come from? Add up the amount of money being handed out times the number of people in Canada...it's a HUGE number. It's can't be funded by "existing programs", it can't be funded by "taxing the rich" or "from corporations".
> 
> It has nothing to do with "hating the poor" it has to do with that inconvenient thing called...
> 
> Reality.
> 
> If anyone can come up with a sustainable plan on how to fund UBI, I'll be the first one in line, behind sags of course who's already in line, to receive the "free" cash. I'll be its biggest supporter. Unfortunately, it's a dream world. Until then, I'll keep working on my Personal plan which provides me with a sustainable passive income while benefiting society...one anyone could probably duplicate since I started implementing it when I was dead broke and couldn't work due to injuries.


These are arguments to be had if there were a proposal to deploy UBI broadly. These are not arguments to cancel a 4000 participant 3 year pilot program. I am sympathetic to the former. The latter is just dumb/disingenuous.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Eventhough they cancelled the experiment, one can always study Denmark and similiar countries with UBI. Apaprently in Denmark, people are still motivated to work.


Of course, the right will argue that even if it works in Denmark, Canadians are totally different.


----------



## Just a Guy

FI40 said:


> Personally I think it could be cheaper than the current system financially, it just depends on the amount of the benefit. Love the idea of not making people jump through hoops to get it though. It should be available for anyone and should be enough to barely live on in a low to medium cost of living city. Supporting people enough to live comfortably in downtown TO? Nope. So certainly way less than 20k/year for a single person as a maximum benefit (my wife and I lived extremely comfortably and took international vacations when spending only 40k/year). The vast majority of people should want to earn more than whatever the base amount is. The ones that don't, well, it might keep them from turning to crime.


Umm, are you forgetting that the current system is unsustainable? That's what it's called when the government runs deficits. 

As for not giving people a living wage to live in Toronto, how can you draw that line??? Why can't they be given enough to live there, how is that any different...people deserve to live wherever they want. 

As for jumping through hoops, I'm of mixed feelings. Why make it easy to get free money. If it's easier to get a job, maybe people would do that instead. I do a lot of work with the poor, they don't place any value on the stuff they get for free for the most part. They trash their housing they buy crap food, etc. They are trapped looking for low end work. 

They'd probably benefit more from being educated than handed free money. They don't know how to use it. It's like handing them some foreign tool and telling them to fix a device they've never seen before. Yet we're surprised when they continue to screw up.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Boring,
> 
> It doesn't take a study to realize that social programs which currently pay out less than the UBI benefits, to less people, cannot fund giving more money to more people. Heck, it probably can't even find the money required to conduct the "government funded study" since those typically waste several million dollars all on their own.
> 
> Personally I volunteer with the poor all the time, I'm very familiar with the various social programs and what they cost, how much individuals get and the hoops they have to jump through to get them. I also see what happens to most of this money, but I won't get into that.
> 
> Take a look at the federal, provincial and civic budgets, it's quite easy to determine how much money is being provided for social programs (it's usually a line item). It's not that much in a budget that's already spending MORE than it brings in (that's part of the definition of unsustainable by the way). Next, go to stats Canada, pull up the latest population estimates. Then take the amount of money you want to hand out for free, multiply it by the Canadian population and maybe then you'll realize why it doesn't work.
> 
> On, and if you're going to clawback the benefits, why pay government employees to hand out and take back money (that costs a lot of money in itself for no benefit).


You know how mental health funding dried up in the 1980s and 1990s as a cost savings measure? As it turns out, it seems to have ended up as a false economy, as many of the people who would formerly have been institutionalized ended up homeless, with frequent hospitalization and incarceration, ultimately costing a lot more (some studies have shown that these types of homeless can cost society upwards of $1 million/year).


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> These are arguments to be had if there were a proposal to deploy UBI broadly. These are not arguments to cancel a 4000 participant 3 year pilot program. I am sympathetic to the former. The latter is just dumb/disingenuous.


Why waste money on a study or 4000 people (why do they benefit over say any other 4000 people) when anyone with a brain would know the outcome. Yes people will do better given thousands of dollars, no there is no way to pay for it if you actually tried to implement it broadly. Wow, I just saved millions.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> You know how mental health funding dried up in the 1980s and 1990s as a cost savings measure? As it turns out, it seems to have ended up as a false economy, as many of the people who would formerly have been institutionalized ended up homeless, with frequent hospitalization and incarceration, ultimately costing a lot more (some studies have shown that these types of homeless can cost society upwards of $1 million/year).


That has nothing to do with UBI. UBI wouldn't solve the mental health issue, nor their treatment.

Of course, if there was endless money, we could probably solve every issue...the problem is, there isn't enough money to fund everything, but people still want their cake and eat it too.


----------



## fatcat

will one of you guys in favour of a basic universal income explain the basic premise behind its value / usefulness ...


----------



## andrewf

Why do any science? We should just operate on our preconceived notions about vapours and humours, right?


----------



## james4beach

America does one better on mental health (and healthcare) and doesn't provide any of it to the poor, along with minimal welfare. Imagine the cost savings!

And my daily walk to/from work is like navigating through an asylum. The streets are littered with people, and it's getting increasingly dangerous out there for the rest of us.

The reality is that some people, due to various circumstances, just need help from the rest of us. They are *not* in positions to become real estate tycoons like Just a Guy. Welfare and universal basic income are good attempts at addressing an important problem. The reason for the pilot was to experiment with new and possibly better methods.



andrewf said:


> Why do any science? We should just operate on our preconceived notions about vapours and humours, right?


I've heard that if you just beat a poor person long enough, they will pull themselves up from their bootstraps. Before you know it they will own several rental properties.


----------



## james4beach

fatcat said:


> will one of you guys in favour of a basic universal income explain the basic premise behind its value / usefulness ...


The basic premise is that some people just need assistance from the state because for various reasons (health, family circumstances, poor luck) they cannot make ends meet. The core belief is that we, as a society, are all better off by helping the less fortunate instead of abandoning them. Next it becomes a question of which method of assistance (welfare) works the best. Universal Basic Income is a candidate methodology. It's being experimented with around the world to see if it does a better job of meeting welfare goals than current methods.


----------



## Just a Guy

James, you realize I started to buy real estate when I was basically poor and about to become disabled. I didn't qualify for any social programs that I could find. I battled depression, chronic pain, etc. I also had kids and a family to support. Would I want others to go through that? No.

I basically only had my brains to make money with, and not many of those. Being uncomfortable with my situation is what drove me to succeed. Failure wasn't an option, I couldn't invest money and lose it, I also had to make short term sacrifices for long term benefit. I didn't become a real estate "tycoon" overnight, it took years. Years involving tough choices. The real estate actually grew out of my stock investments which started small and grew enough to provide collateral for the real estate. Not cashing in those investments while being in debt was a tough decision. 

I'm not against social programs, what I'm against is spending money we don't have. Our debt is already more than the next generation could pay off assuming they didn't spend as much as we already are (which means they'd have less benefits that our generation is cashing in on). I'm not willing to spend our grandchildren's income as well just so that our generation doesn't have to face the fact that we can't afford to have everything given to them.


----------



## Just a Guy

james4beach said:


> The basic premise is that some people just need assistance from the state because for various reasons (health, family circumstances, poor luck) they cannot make ends meet. The core belief is that we, as a society, are all better off by helping the less fortunate instead of abandoning them. Next it becomes a question of which method of assistance (welfare) works the best. Universal Basic Income is a candidate methodology. It's being experimented with around the world to see if it does a better job of meeting welfare goals than current methods.


Nice twisting of reality. Universal basic income, by definition is EVERYONE (hence the universal) gets a base amount of money regardless of need. UBI isn't defined as a replacement of other programs (though it would replace them), it isn't clawed back, or any of the other things UBI people seem to think. 

Now, if you want to replace welfare and other social programs with something more efficient and cost effective, for those in need, that is a different topic, but it's not UBI. Many people in the pilot program didn't require the money, but they benefitted from it. Heck, I'm sure I could find a way to benefit from another $1400/month which would make my life better too.


----------



## fatcat

Just a Guy said:


> Nice twisting of reality. Universal basic income, by definition is EVERYONE (hence the universal) gets a base amount of money regardless of need. UBI isn't defined as a replacement of other programs (though it would replace them), it isn't clawed back, or any of the other things UBI people seem to think.
> 
> Now, if you want to replace welfare and other social programs with something more efficient and cost effective, for those in need, that is a different topic, but it's not UBI. Many people in the pilot program didn't require the money, but they benefitted from it. Heck, I'm sure I could find a way to benefit from another $1400/month which would make my life better too.


^ this .... 

why not just improve social assistance programs to make them more effcient and use better methods of evaluating and tracking need ? ... 

why give a basic income to millionaires and we merely end up circulating tax dollars and add to a bureaucracy ? ... even if you deduct it back based on income, it is still a bureaucrats wet-dream and yet another tax form item of which there are too many already

however you label it, it is merely welfare by another name ... what am i missing here ?


----------



## gardner

Just a Guy said:


> it isn't clawed back, or any of the other things UBI people seem to think


It's like the GIS where other sources of income cut into eligibility on a scale where, if you earn enough (and not all that much) other income, the UBI is zero. You can look it as everyone being in the program, but most folks earn enough that the benefit is zero.



> I'm sure I could find a way to benefit from another $1400/month


We all could. Even the richest would pick up $1,400 if it were blowing around in the street. But this is the point at which you are just resenting the poor, which I don't feel to be a useful sentiment.

The way in which UBI is more efficient than other social programs is that it SHOULD cost less to administrate. It doesn't require armies of social workers and as complex an infrastructure. It also frees the state from moralizing over the beneficiaries and interfering with their choices and freedoms. For a given amount of money spent on "the system" it delivers more benefit to the users and less to the bureaucracy that administrates it. The purpose of the experiment was to SEE IF the efficiency goals were practical. Now it seems we will not find out, at least in Ontario.


----------



## OptsyEagle

Has anyone tried giving these people a swift kick in the...oh that's right we replaced it with a hug. By the way, how did that turn out. lol. I guess we just need to hug them harder.

Sorry, I am sure the right answer is somewhere in between but if I had to choose between UBI and that swift kick, I think the swift kick has a better chance of success.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Of course, the right will argue that even if it works in Denmark, Canadians are totally different.


And the left likes to argue that although socialism has a proven 100% failure rate and has resulted in the deaths of untold millions, it will work next time because their socialists are "different".

Until the left accepts that well known and proven reality, they have no credibility comparing 1 isolated program in 2 completely different countries.


----------



## gardner

bass player said:


> socialism has a proven 100% failure rate and has resulted in the deaths of untold millions


Socialism is not a yes/no black/white type of idea. There's a spectrum, and the communist dictatorships are way at one end. Maybe some laissez-faire policy like Dickensian England might be on the other end, and I'm not sure even that. But being further on the scale than Ontario is, maybe like Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland is not a one way trip to a Stalinist gulag wrapped in a Cultural Revolution.

The "proven reality" is that Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, whatever their faults, are actually decent places to live, have been for years and have every chance of remaining so.


----------



## Big Kahuna

gardner said:


> Socialism is not a yes/no black/white type of idea. There's a spectrum, and the communist dictatorships are way at one end. Maybe some laissez-faire policy like Dickensian England might be on the other end, and I'm not sure even that. But being further on the scale than Ontario is, maybe like Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland is not a one way trip to a Stalinist gulag wrapped in a Cultural Revolution.
> 
> The "proven reality" is that Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, whatever their faults, are actually decent places to live, have been for years and have every chance of remaining so.


Not Sweden-the trajectory for Sweden is very negative at this point. The math doesn't lie.


----------



## fatcat

gardner said:


> It's like the GIS where other sources of income cut into eligibility on a scale where, if you earn enough (and not all that much) other income, the UBI is zero. You can look it as everyone being in the program, but most folks earn enough that the benefit is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> We all could. Even the richest would pick up $1,400 if it were blowing around in the street. But this is the point at which you are just resenting the poor, which I don't feel to be a useful sentiment.
> 
> *The way in which UBI is more efficient than other social programs is that it SHOULD cost less to administrate. It doesn't require armies of social workers and as complex an infrastructure. It also frees the state from moralizing over the beneficiaries and interfering with their choices and freedoms. For a given amount of money spent on "the system" it delivers more benefit to the users and less to the bureaucracy that administrates it. The purpose of the experiment was to SEE IF the efficiency goals were practical. Now it seems we will not find out, at least in Ontario.*


but the state does moralize every day by the choices it makes in who to reward and who to not reward or punish and the state will always interfere with all of our choices and freedoms 

this strike me as the mere circulation of tax dollars

we will always have people in genuine need of assistance, i would rather see the state work on developing better methods of evaluating and supporting that need ...

i would rather see more experimentation in better ways to deliver social assistance


----------



## FI40

Just a Guy said:


> Umm, are you forgetting that the current system is unsustainable? That's what it's called when the government runs deficits.
> 
> As for not giving people a living wage to live in Toronto, how can you draw that line??? Why can't they be given enough to live there, how is that any different...people deserve to live wherever they want.
> 
> As for jumping through hoops, I'm of mixed feelings. Why make it easy to get free money. If it's easier to get a job, maybe people would do that instead. I do a lot of work with the poor, they don't place any value on the stuff they get for free for the most part. They trash their housing they buy crap food, etc. They are trapped looking for low end work.
> 
> They'd probably benefit more from being educated than handed free money. They don't know how to use it. It's like handing them some foreign tool and telling them to fix a device they've never seen before. Yet we're surprised when they continue to screw up.


People don't deserve to live wherever they want. They deserve the same opportunity as anyone else at buying or renting it, but that's it. They need to pay for it. Let me put it this way - the benefit should be a sustainable amount that current tax rates would cover. I doubt that would be enough to live in downtown Toronto. I think it might be enough to live in London for instance. My argument is that giving people a handout this way may well be more efficient due to lower administrative costs and reduced healthcare and other costs. So while the line item for handouts will be a bit larger the cost of other items comes down appropriately so that the net cost is similar or less.

Regarding your next paragraph: I mean if they are going to squander current benefits then they'll squander whatever else you gave them too. Some people are beyond any policy to address and basically you just want to make sure they don't turn to crime or harm themselves, costing the rest of us more money. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think the majority of people will look to better their lot in life and would use this to get a leg up...maybe naive of me.

You may be on to something about education but I'll call that a separate issue from this, which in my mind is meeting basic living costs to avoid various bad outcomes for people in the near term.


----------



## Just a Guy

gardner said:


> It's like the GIS where other sources of income cut into eligibility on a scale where, if you earn enough (and not all that much) other income, the UBI is zero. You can look it as everyone being in the program, but most folks earn enough that the benefit is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> We all could. Even the richest would pick up $1,400 if it were blowing around in the street. But this is the point at which you are just resenting the poor, which I don't feel to be a useful sentiment.
> 
> The way in which UBI is more efficient than other social programs is that it SHOULD cost less to administrate. It doesn't require armies of social workers and as complex an infrastructure. It also frees the state from moralizing over the beneficiaries and interfering with their choices and freedoms. For a given amount of money spent on "the system" it delivers more benefit to the users and less to the bureaucracy that administrates it. The purpose of the experiment was to SEE IF the efficiency goals were practical. Now it seems we will not find out, at least in Ontario.


Why hand out money then claw it back? How is that more efficient by any definition? And that's still a corruption of what UBI really was defined as being. Look up UBI for a definition instead of imposing what you THINK UBI means. 

It's not about resenting the poor, it's about having a sustainable program. People keep wanting the government to give them more, more, more...pharmacare is another program we can't afford but people want and would benefit from...but there is no money to keep providing it. 

In your household do you buy everything you want, or do you make compromises or do without? The government has to learn to say no. 

As for never knowing the results, this isn't the first program to test it. Not even the first in Canada. One of the tests have ever shown anything about sustainability or that people didn't benefit from it.


----------



## FI40

Just a Guy said:


> I basically only had my brains to make money with, and not many of those.


That's ridiculous. I don't know you, but you write well, so you're way above average intelligence based on that alone. What would life be like in the lowest 10th percentile of IQ? Do those folks realistically have any chance of being as successful as someone with even just average IQ?


----------



## BoringInvestor

Just a Guy said:


> Name a single government "replacement" program that has cost less than the program it replaced?


I can't speak with any authority on the question.
But I can say confidently we won't know if the UBI does so because the testing, along with the completed measurement and analysis, has been cancelled.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

As far as I can tell, of these 6 people, five were on ODSP. It appears that they continue to get it plus the basic income. So about $2700/month. I think it is a no-brainer to know that living on $1300/month ODSP (per post #759) is going to be a challenge. So why wasn't that program revisited rather than layering on a new program?

Gardener, the problem with providing support and then not "interfering with their choices and freedoms" is that many people needing such support have made bad choices in the past. They don't necessarily have the life skills and best choices in spending money. 
I'm not judging, it was in helping out a nephew/girlfriend/2children (yet another family member), that we realized it wasn't by 'choice', it was a lack of skills and growing up in a dysfunctional/non-supportive setting that kept them from getting ahead.


----------



## Just a Guy

gardner said:


> The "proven reality" is that Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, whatever their faults, are actually decent places to live, have been for years and have every chance of remaining so.


At least until they go bankrupt because they are running deficits to pay for it. You can't spend your way out of debt.


----------



## like_to_retire

OptsyEagle said:


> I imagine the study might provide some interesting thoughts and perhaps studying Denmark might be time usefully spent but I fall upon a couple simple laws of our humanity:
> 
> 1) If you lower the incentive for someone to earn money (by giving it to them) you will lower their ability to produce it themselves by reducing their willingness to earn it.
> ...........
> A study to prove those laws are laws might be interesting but way too expensive if you ask me.


OptsyEagle, as always, your points are well taken. Incentive is the key to failure of most socialist, and for sure the communist system. Universal Income, socialism, communism always works so well on paper, and sounds so fair and reasonable at the outset. But it eventually fails as it provides no incentive to get ahead. Nobody will work harder when there is no incentive or point in doing so. 

If you give me free money with no strings attached and no incentive to work to make things better, why would I bother? Unfortunately, the left continues to be drawn in by any system that appears to be workable on paper such as UBI.



andrewf said:


> Criteria was never going to be subjective questions like how the recipients felt about it. The study was on impacts to outcomes (how much less did they work, how much more/less policing/health care/other services did they consume. Changes in health outcomes, etc.


Well, I obviously read the study before I originally commented on this thread as I'm sure you did, and it seems to me they were quite concerned about _"how the recipients felt about it"_. 

The measuring yardsticks were: food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, employment and labour market participation.

So they were pretty darn concerned about stress, anxiety and mental health. Are these not subjective questions to the recipients?

ltr


----------



## gardner

fatcat said:


> we will always have people in genuine need of assistance, i would rather see the state work on developing better methods of evaluating and supporting that need


Agreed. But the UBI was not some lefty communist scheme. It is an approach thought up and promoted by right wing conservatives like Milton Friedman.

From what I see all we have is bitching about the cost of helping out poor folks, with no particular principle about how or even whether it's done. And that is just resenting poor people. "there just need to be better methods" is a cop-out. UBI is a conservative-endorsed "better method" and it's not getting any love here either.


----------



## Just a Guy

FI40 said:


> People don't deserve to live wherever they want. They deserve the same opportunity as anyone else at buying or renting it, but that's it. They need to pay for it. Let me put it this way - the benefit should be a sustainable amount that current tax rates would cover. I doubt that would be enough to live in downtown Toronto. I think it might be enough to live in London for instance. My argument is that giving people a handout this way may well be more efficient due to lower administrative costs and reduced healthcare and other costs. So while the line item for handouts will be a bit larger the cost of other items comes down appropriately so that the net cost is similar or less.
> 
> Regarding your next paragraph: I mean if they are going to squander current benefits then they'll squander whatever else you gave them too. Some people are beyond any policy to address and basically you just want to make sure they don't turn to crime or harm themselves, costing the rest of us more money. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think the majority of people will look to better their lot in life and would use this to get a leg up...maybe naive of me.
> 
> You may be on to something about education but I'll call that a separate issue from this, which in my mind is meeting basic living costs to avoid various bad outcomes for people in the near term.


The socialists will argue that people should be given the same opportunities to live in Toronto. 

Last time I looked, there were no laws restricting people from getting ahead in Canada. They have the same opportunities that I have to get rich. They may not have the drive to get rich, or the knowledge, or the desire to learn, but they aren't prevented from doing anything. It usually boils down to a personal choice not to. It may have the excuse they can't do it, but that's because they don't know how which is different. 

As for people wanting to better themselves, maybe try going down and volunteering with some social programs for a while...reality may be interesting to you.

I find it ironic that all these people with solutions have rarely even taken the time to go and see the situation for themselves. You've got your ideal vision of how you think things are, but are unwilling to go out and see if it's even true. 

Having been broke, I actually felt compelled to try and help those who are going through a similar situation. That means actually working with the poor, not throwing money at them. Having done this, I've found that throwing money at the problem is probably the worst possible solution to the problem.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> That has nothing to do with UBI. UBI wouldn't solve the mental health issue, nor their treatment.
> 
> Of course, if there was endless money, we could probably solve every issue...the problem is, there isn't enough money to fund everything, but people still want their cake and eat it too.


The point is to illustrate how social spending can result in unexpected economies elsewhere. Reduced crime, better health outcomes, higher educational attainment.


----------



## Just a Guy

Personally, from experience, I found he pain of being broke was the inspiration to change my situation. Had I been given support, I wouldn't be as successful as I am today. I may have gotten a job and been productive, albeit unhappy, but I certainly wouldn't have been as driven to find a successful solution. 

As I said, working with the poor really opens your eyes to the problem. There are those who would fail, even if life is really uncomfortable, they'd just shut down instead of changing, but many of the people I see are just comfortable enough that they don't see a need to change as the effort to do so isn't worth it to them. For those people we need to make live just uncomfortable enough that they need to change in order to get comfortable.

Ironically, getting injured was probably one of the best things to happen to me...but I would have preferred not having to live with the chronic pain and other issues related to it.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Well, I obviously read the study before I originally commented on this thread as I'm sure you did, and it seems to me they were quite concerned about _"how the recipients felt about it"_.
> 
> The measuring yardsticks were: food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, employment and labour market participation.
> 
> So they were pretty darn concerned about stress, anxiety and mental health. Are these not subjective questions to the recipients?
> 
> ltr


Not the same as asking their opinion on the merit of their policy (that is, what they think about it). The question may be asked, but I don't think anyone thinks that is an important policy outcome. Asking participants to rate stress levels (or could be measured by blood cortisol) and comparing to a control group is not asking their opinion of the policy.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Personally, from experience, I found he pain of being broke was the inspiration to change my situation. Had I been given support, I wouldn't be as successful as I am today. I may have gotten a job and been productive, albeit unhappy, but I certainly wouldn't have been as driven to find a successful solution.
> 
> As I said, working with the poor really opens your eyes to the problem. There are those who would fail, even if life is really uncomfortable, they'd just shut down instead of changing, but many of the people I see are just comfortable enough that they don't see a need to change as the effort to do so isn't worth it to them. For those people we need to make live just uncomfortable enough that they need to change in order to get comfortable.


So the solution is to keep the existing welfare system, which traps the poor with confiscatory marginal effective tax rates?


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Not the same as asking their opinion on the merit of their policy (that is, what they think about it). The question may be asked, but I don't think anyone thinks that is an important policy outcome. Asking participants to rate stress levels (or could be measured by blood cortisol) and comparing to a control group is not asking their opinion of the policy.


Huh?

ltr


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> The point is to illustrate how social spending can result in unexpected economies elsewhere. Reduced crime, better health outcomes, higher educational attainment.


I don't disagree, however, I see where the money from the current social programs go (and the current social programs are very generous in some cases.) but it doesn't stop the drug abuse, crime, or get their kids into higher education today. 

I'm not against social programs, but the rich throwing money at the poor isn't going to fix the problem. These people generally don't know how to use the money effectively. My big issue is we can't afford the current programs (until a government can balance a budget and prove me wrong) so we certainly can't afford to be even more generous. Here is no money. We need to cut spending in all areas, including the ones like health care, roads, schools, etc. Or find a way to reduce costs. Since we can't afford to pay for it all.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> So the solution is to keep the existing welfare system, which traps the poor with confiscatory marginal effective tax rates?


The poor are trapped because they have no clue or incentive as to how to change. Throwing money at them, when they don't know how to manage it isn't going to change anything. That's why I volunteer with the poor and try to show them what their possibilities are. 

Most people, and I'm not talking poor here, would love to buy and own real estate like I do...I'll teach anyone my technique and even help them find properties and talk to the bank...do you know how many people actually follow through and do it though? I've had two in all the years. Most people want me to do it for them so they can just collect the money.

These are people who have no issues and are wanting to change. Yet few actually have the guts to actually do something. Now imagine what the poor, who can't even imagine investing as a possibility let alone working for more than minimum wage.


----------



## Just a Guy

FI40 said:


> That's ridiculous. I don't know you, but you write well, so you're way above average intelligence based on that alone. What would life be like in the lowest 10th percentile of IQ? Do those folks realistically have any chance of being as successful as someone with even just average IQ?


Actually I know quite a few below average intelligence people who’ve been quite successful in life. I also know many articulate people without great intelligence. In fact, I’d argue that many low intelligence people who are successful are quite articulate and that helped greatly in their success.


----------



## james4beach

fatcat said:


> however you label it, it is merely welfare by another name ... what am i missing here ?


Yes it's welfare, it's supposed to be welfare. See gardner's reply in #779 for a description of what the program aims to do, and why it might be better (more efficient) than existing welfare.

The pilot program was an effort to experiment with new methods to improve our society, actually to save money and make government (and welfare) work better. Hard working taxpayers should support these kind of efforts.

Here's another way to look at it: we are definitely going to have welfare of some form. Every civilized nation has welfare of some form, so it's not going to disappear. We obviously want an efficient welfare system. UBI has been suggested by economists as a potential better way to do this. Even Nixon took steps towards attempting basic income.

The purpose of the pilot program is to see how it works in practice. Ontario had a pilot program, and the results would have been useful: it's possible that it _might_ have showed that this was a more efficient method of delivering welfare. All taxpayers would have benefitted. If the experiment showed failure, then we'd have data to look at so we could understand which parts of it were a failure. This would help us go back to the drawing board and think of different paths to improve welfare.

Personally I think some people's opposition to this is ideological, and also based on jealousy that some people get "free money". But this misses the point completely. It's very possible that a system which gives universal basic income _might_ actually cost less than our current welfare system -- i.e. better for everyone. _Might_.


----------



## james4beach

OptsyEagle said:


> Has anyone tried giving these people a swift kick in the...oh that's right we replaced it with a hug. By the way, how did that turn out. lol. I guess we just need to hug them harder.


No, I'm sorry, but beating up the poor does not solve any problems. It certainly does not solve any of their underlying problems and often random chance misfortunes that lead to their situations.


----------



## Big Kahuna

james4beach said:


> No, I'm sorry, but beating up the poor does not solve any problems. It certainly does not solve any of their underlying problems and often random chance misfortunes that lead to their situations.


Importing more and more poor people every year to compete with these poor people doesn't solve any problems either.


----------



## james4beach

Here's an interesting article that actually talks about the (now terminated) Canadian pilots:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611418/basic-income-could-work-if-you-do-it-canada-style/



> The trial is expected to cost $50 million a year in Canadian dollars; expanding it to all of Canada would cost an estimated $43 billion annually. But Hugh Segal, the *conservative* former senator who designed the test, thinks it could save the government money in the long run. He expects it to streamline the benefits system, remove rules that discourage people from working, and reduce crime, bad health, and other costly problems that stem from poverty. Such improvements occurred during a basic-income test in Manitoba in the 1970s.





> The Canadians are testing it as an efficient antipoverty mechanism, a way to give a relatively small segment of the population more flexibility to find work and to strengthen other strands of the safety net.


----------



## bass player

There's no law that says few well off UBI fans can't find some worthy recipients and fund them for a few years. Or, maybe a few thousand UBI fans of average income can chip in a hundred bucks a year to fund some worthy recipients.

After all, if it's as great as you all say it is, then you should be more than willing to put your money where your mouth is to prove your concept. If it can been proven to actually work, then maybe the rest of the country and the government will get on board.

But that will never happen, because all leftist dreams are never self funded. They must always be funded by others...regardless of proof of concept.


----------



## fatcat

> _The trial is expected to cost $50 million a year in Canadian dollars; expanding it to all of Canada would cost an estimated $43 billion annually. But Hugh Segal, the _*conservative former senator who designed the test, thinks it could save the government money in the long run. He expects it to streamline the benefits system, remove rules that discourage people from working, and reduce crime, bad health, and other costly problems that stem from poverty. Such improvements occurred during a basic-income test in Manitoba in the 1970s.*


maybe but i'm skeptical ...

as just a guy has pointed out, it is not merely the lack of money that keeps many trapped at the lowest socioeconomic level (though lack of money is a requirement), it is often a complete and total lack of life skills in addition to a host of other problems like mental health, addiction and so on

a certain cohort of citizens are going to need help with housing, healthcare, job training and even life training skills and i would rather work on testing how we can evaluate and help them best

just giving a basic income (which in no way, at the numbers i see talked about, will be enough to survive decently on) and walking away likely will perpetuate the problem since these people will still be an isolated underclass



> Personally I think some people's opposition to this is ideological, and also based on jealousy that some people get "free money".


 i don't think it's jealousy james ... rather its that the non-basic-income drawing people think that they are paying for it ... which they are


----------



## james4beach

fatcat said:


> i don't think it's jealousy james ... rather its that the non-basic-income drawing people think that they are paying for it ... which they are


But you're also paying for the current welfare system. You're paying for all the govt workers, accountants, social workers needed to make the current machine work. And when there are failures (peoples lives deteriorate) you PAY for that too -- in healthcare costs or effects such as broken families, children who suffer, increases in crime, drug use, social problems.

I'm not sold on the UBI concept either. I'm just saying the experiment was worth a shot, and I hate seeing experiments killed like this.

Big picture, nobody knows the solution to the economic turmoil we're in. We don't have many good quality stable jobs, and there are many people who no longer participate in the workforce. Automation is going to keep taking away jobs. This is not going to get any better in the foreseeable future... we have to start adapting and finding new solutions. I have no idea what the solution might be. At least some people have some ideas, and this Ontario pilot idea from conservative senator Hugh Segal was one of them.


----------



## bass player

james4beach said:


> I'm not sold on the UBI concept either. I'm just saying the experiment was worth a shot, and I hate seeing experiments killed like this.


Gather a few thousand UBI fans and collect a small amount from each of them. Experiment with your own money. If it's such a great idea, there should be no shortage of people willing to be part of such a groundbreaking study.


----------



## Just a Guy

James, do a bit of research if you want study results. The Ontario experiment wasn't the first one In Canada, it was just the latest and I doubt the last. There have been at least three experiment I know of, all of which lasted for at least 5 years conducted in Canada. You act as if we missed an opportunity when in reality we're doing the same thing over again hoping for a different result. 

Another grand experiment you may be interested in is the original concept for social credit. The only place it ever really tried to exist was Alberta was deemed illegal by the federal government.

You, and many others, should brush up on history more so you realize that these aren't "new" ideas or "new" experiments, they are just rehashing things because no one remembers what's already been done. 

youd be surprised at how many people try to make a living trolling old patent databases and then trying to pass off things they find as "new" to investors. It's a well known scam, as the "inventor collects the money and disappears while the "investors" get stuck with the lawsuits for patent violations.


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> But you're also paying for the current welfare system. You're paying for all the govt workers, accountants, social workers needed to make the current machine work. And when there are failures (peoples lives deteriorate) you PAY for that too -- in healthcare costs or effects such as broken families, children who suffer, increases in crime, drug use, social problems.
> 
> I'm not sold on the UBI concept either. I'm just saying the experiment was worth a shot, and I hate seeing experiments killed like this.
> 
> Big picture, nobody knows the solution to the economic turmoil we're in. We don't have many good quality stable jobs, and there are many people who no longer participate in the workforce. Automation is going to keep taking away jobs. This is not going to get any better in the foreseeable future... we have to start adapting and finding new solutions. I have no idea what the solution might be. At least some people have some ideas, and this Ontario pilot idea from conservative senator Hugh Segal was one of them.


all good points ... we are paying for people on social assistance already ... trumpistas and the Libertarian right notwithstanding, as a society we are more aware of the pain and suffering of others and i don’t think we are going to turn our back on people ... the question of how best to accomplish social welfare is an open one ... i would like to see more experiments of all kinds done ...


----------



## sags

The futurists, the CEOs of big tech companies, many of the very wealthy..........are all telling us that a UBI is going to be mandatory due to changes in the workplace.

Resistance is futile. There is no big wave of other jobs coming. Many people will be paid to do nothing.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yeah, like they have the vaguest clue as to what being poor is like. Then again they are also pushing for government to pay for the programs so they can automate their processes, quit hiring expensive labour and still have a ready market available to purchase their disposable junk. They are just like you saga, as long as someone else pays for it they’re all in.


----------



## Just a Guy

fatcat said:


> all good points ... we are paying for people on social assistance already ... trumpistas and the Libertarian right notwithstanding, as a society we are more aware of the pain and suffering of others and i don’t think we are going to turn our back on people ... the question of how best to accomplish social welfare is an open one ... i would like to see more experiments of all kinds done ...


The problem is UBI is expanding the “support” to people who don’t need it either but could benefit from it as well. Heck, if I’d lived in the right neighbourhood I’d have been getting an exrtra $1400/month while homeless got less for an experiment to make you fell better about “supporting” the poor when you don’t even understand the problem.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> James, do a bit of research if you want study results. The Ontario experiment wasn't the first one In Canada, it was just the latest and I doubt the last. There have been at least three experiment I know of, all of which lasted for at least 5 years conducted in Canada. You act as if we missed an opportunity when in reality we're doing the same thing over again hoping for a different result.
> 
> Another grand experiment you may be interested in is the original concept for social credit. The only place it ever really tried to exist was Alberta was deemed illegal by the federal government.
> 
> You, and many others, should brush up on history more so you realize that these aren't "new" ideas or "new" experiments, they are just rehashing things because no one remembers what's already been done.
> 
> youd be surprised at how many people try to make a living trolling old patent databases and then trying to pass off things they find as "new" to investors. It's a well known scam, as the "inventor collects the money and disappears while the "investors" get stuck with the lawsuits for patent violations.


Are you referring to Dauphin? That study was also cancelled while in progress and much of the data was destroyed. Some was recovered but not all.

Let's all be honest, all that will have been accomplished here is to guarantee that the resources invested so far into the pilot will have been wasted as no meaningful results will be obtained. Once the wheel turns again and the Liberals are back in power, it would hardly be shocking to see this tried again.


----------



## Just a Guy

That was one, another government waste of money. It was cancelled because it was supposed to go on Indefinitely originally. The only way to end it was to cancel it, no conspiracy to be found.


----------



## fatcat

Just a Guy said:


> The problem is UBI is expanding the “support” to people who don’t need it either but could benefit from it as well. Heck, if I’d lived in the right neighbourhood I’d have been getting an exrtra $1400/month while homeless got less for an experiment to make you fell better about “supporting” the poor when you don’t even understand the problem.


i don’t have a clue what you are saying here ... can you clarify ?


----------



## Big Kahuna

james4beach said:


> But you're also paying for the current welfare system. You're paying for all the govt workers, accountants, social workers needed to make the current machine work. And when there are failures (peoples lives deteriorate) you PAY for that too -- in healthcare costs or effects such as broken families, children who suffer, increases in crime, drug use, social problems.
> 
> I'm not sold on the UBI concept either. I'm just saying the experiment was worth a shot, and I hate seeing experiments killed like this.
> 
> Big picture, nobody knows the solution to the economic turmoil we're in. We don't have many good quality stable jobs, and there are many people who no longer participate in the workforce. Automation is going to keep taking away jobs. This is not going to get any better in the foreseeable future... we have to start adapting and finding new solutions. I have no idea what the solution might be. At least some people have some ideas, and this Ontario pilot idea from conservative senator Hugh Segal was one of them.


There is no magic bullet-just common sense and logic. We have no shortage of poor, dependent people in Canada who cannot take care of themselves. We all agree on this. Therefore, until this changes a logical approach would be a freeze on importation of more poor, dependent people who will never be able to help carry the load financially-period.


----------



## Just a Guy

fatcat said:


> i don’t have a clue what you are saying here ... can you clarify ?


Had I been living in the area selected for the pilot project in Ontario, which wasn't a particularly bad neighbourhood filled with poor people, I would have been getting the $1400/month no questions asked. Actually I would have gotten a lot more since I'm married with children. It shows a fundamental flaw with the program since I obviously would have benefitted from it, but I certainly don't need to be on the program by any means.


----------



## Just a Guy

Big Kahuna said:


> There is no magic bullet-just common sense and logic. We have no shortage of poor, dependent people in Canada who cannot take care of themselves. We all agree on this. Therefore, until this changes a logical approach would be a freeze on importation of more poor, dependent people who will never be able to help carry the load financially-period.


The UBI program would be expanded to many people not currently on social services, then wed have to hire people to calculate who shouldn't be on the program, then monitor and inform them, claw back based on some obscure calculation, enforce it, etc. Yeah, I'm sure it'll save a ton of money now that we have to monitor 35 million people instead of a relative handful.


----------



## redsgomarching

The problem is giving free money is never a good idea. You give a man some bread and he will be hungry the next day, you teach the man how to make bread, and he can fill his belly everyday. 

Invest in making these people useful, I understand some absolutely cant, but the problem is weeding out those who are taking advantage and squandering the funds by shooting it up their arms, ***, nose vs the ones who actually need it. 

Secondly, our governments are notorious for $$ wasting. Pheonix payroll.....the gas plants....billions of tax payer money gone, but guess what! the executives and government officials involved all got their fat pay days. There is too much corruption with the current systems of politicians and governments. As somebody who defined as a millennial, i really hope to rally my peers to start making a difference in politics. I am tired of the older generation (who has money and experienced the most prosperous years of our lifetimes) getting us to foot the bill.


----------



## FI40

Just a Guy said:


> The socialists will argue that people should be given the same opportunities to live in Toronto.
> 
> Last time I looked, there were no laws restricting people from getting ahead in Canada. They have the same opportunities that I have to get rich. They may not have the drive to get rich, or the knowledge, or the desire to learn, but they aren't prevented from doing anything. It usually boils down to a personal choice not to. It may have the excuse they can't do it, but that's because they don't know how which is different.
> 
> As for people wanting to better themselves, maybe try going down and volunteering with some social programs for a while...reality may be interesting to you.
> 
> I find it ironic that all these people with solutions have rarely even taken the time to go and see the situation for themselves. You've got your ideal vision of how you think things are, but are unwilling to go out and see if it's even true.
> 
> Having been broke, I actually felt compelled to try and help those who are going through a similar situation. That means actually working with the poor, not throwing money at them. Having done this, I've found that throwing money at the problem is probably the worst possible solution to the problem.


Agreed on the first part. And on the second part I have done some of that and I don't think I've gleaned enough information about their personal financial lives to determine much, it is true though I should do more if I'm going to have an opinion here. I am somewhat guilty (as I'm sure several others are too on this thread) of ivory tower ideology I'll grant you that. Doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong though.

I also agree with your other point about making people just uncomfortable enough that they should want to change. I do not think any UBI would be that much money, just that a very frugal person could live on it in some places in Canada and that's fine. I mean look at this guy: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-year.html


----------



## FI40

Just a Guy said:


> Actually I know quite a few below average intelligence people who’ve been quite successful in life. I also know many articulate people without great intelligence. In fact, I’d argue that many low intelligence people who are successful are quite articulate and that helped greatly in their success.


I don't think so. Articulate people would score highly on verbal portions of an IQ test. If you care, here's a link to a meta analysis of papers that look at the correlation between socioeconomic success and IQ - http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-...-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf - it's no surprise the correlation is positive.

Also my former primary school classmates with low intelligence have mostly not been very successful. There will always be outliers but on average what I'm saying is true.


----------



## Just a Guy

The wealthy aren't average, even in highly intelligent people, why would you insist on it for lower iq. They aren't called one percenters because they are average. Most successful people are usually considered in the top 5%.

I've also got a buddy who specializes in social housing. In his experience, these people aren't stupid at all, they know every way possible to milk the system. They know grants to get money, they know places to get free (to them) food, clothing, shelter, etc. They know all the landlord/tenant rules and how to abuse them, etc. The only issue seems they don't want to acquire the same knowledge when it comes to sustaining themselves.

As for your opinion not being wrong, let's just say my experience in working with the poor suggests you may want to get your feet dirty.


----------



## FI40

Just a Guy said:


> The wealthy aren't average, even in highly intelligent people, why would you insist on it for lower iq. They aren't called one percenters because they are average. Most successful people are usually considered in the top 5%.
> 
> I've also got a buddy who specializes in social housing. In his experience, these people aren't stupid at all, they know every way possible to milk the system. They know grants to get money, they know places to get free (to them) food, clothing, shelter, etc. They know all the landlord/tenant rules and how to abuse them, etc. The only issue seems they don't want to acquire the same knowledge when it comes to sustaining themselves.
> 
> As for your opinion not being wrong, let's just say my experience in working with the poor suggests you may want to get your feet dirty.


I don't know what you are saying in the first bit. I never said anybody was average, I'm saying that on average, lower IQ people have way less chance of being successful.

If your buddy is right, then I would think a simpler system like UBI would not favour these people. Give them a staple amount and make it impossible for them to get more by cleverly getting around the welfare/disability rules.

I have already conceded this point that the amount of charity work I do is less than I would like. I certainly plan to do more when I do not have two young kids and a full time job taking up the majority of my time. Until then I am admittedly another jackass on the internet with an opinion. I do try to listen as well as argue.


----------



## ian

I have no firm opinion either way simply because I do not know the costs and benefits-monetary or social. Sometimes the outcomes are pleasantly surprising as the Quebec childcare program discovered.

It seems a shame though that the Ontario pilot is being wound it. No doubt there were many jurisdictions following this to see what the final outcome was in terms of dollars and in terms of social programs. Many claim that it saves money. Others that it stifles the desire to work.

My guess is that lazy people who do not want to work will always find a way to end up on assistance. That leaves those who for various reasons have no real choice and those the fight their way out of the social assistance trap to become successful.

My sympathy has always been for what I refer to as the working poor. Minimum wage jobs, no benefits, and just scraping by.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Had I been living in the area selected for the pilot project in Ontario, which wasn't a particularly bad neighbourhood filled with poor people, I would have been getting the $1400/month no questions asked. Actually I would have gotten a lot more since I'm married with children. It shows a fundamental flaw with the program since I obviously would have benefitted from it, but I certainly don't need to be on the program by any means.


Were you in the income threshold?
https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot#section-2



> How participants were chosen
> Participants are:
> 
> 18 to 64 years old for the duration of the pilot.
> living in one of the selected test regions for the past at least 12 months or longer (and still live there):
> Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County
> Thunder Bay, along with the Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge, Township of Shuniah, Municipality of Neebing, Township of Conmee, Township of O’Connor, Township of Gillies
> Lindsay
> *living on a low income (under $34,000 per year if you're single or under $48,000 per year if a couple)*


With the clawback rate of 50%, you would receive $0 if you earned more than $48k. I can tell you that if I lived in the 'right neighbourhood', I would have received exactly $0 from the program.

Honestly it seems like the critics didn't even understand how the program works.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> The UBI program would be expanded to many people not currently on social services, then wed have to hire people to calculate who shouldn't be on the program, then monitor and inform them, claw back based on some obscure calculation, enforce it, etc. Yeah, I'm sure it'll save a ton of money now that we have to monitor 35 million people instead of a relative handful.


You mean, like the existing income tax infrastructure? The horror...


----------



## Just a Guy

Being self employed, with several companies, I could probably adjust my taxable income to fall within the threshold if required. I know plenty of people who do just that.


----------



## Just a Guy

FI40 said:


> I don't know what you are saying in the first bit. I never said anybody was average, I'm saying that on average, lower IQ people have way less chance of being successful.


I’m agreeing with you, getting rich/being successful isn’t common. However that doesn’t mean that poorer IQ people can’t be successful. I know some who are, you didn’t believe me. They are rare, but so are the people who have normal or above average IQs at being successful. That was my point. Our society is designed to produce employees not wealthy people. Being creative in your thinking and be willing to take risks has more to do with success than IQ.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> The wealthy aren't average, even in highly intelligent people, why would you insist on it for lower iq. They aren't called one percenters because they are average. Most successful people are usually considered in the top 5%.
> 
> I've also got a buddy who specializes in social housing. In his experience, these people aren't stupid at all, they know every way possible to milk the system. They know grants to get money, they know places to get free (to them) food, clothing, shelter, etc. They know all the landlord/tenant rules and how to abuse them, etc. The only issue seems they don't want to acquire the same knowledge when it comes to sustaining themselves.
> 
> As for your opinion not being wrong, let's just say my experience in working with the poor suggests you may want to get your feet dirty.


I'm curious about your success rate in getting the poor motivated to get off assistance? If you did your own study of your methods, perhaps you could be more pursuasive.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Being self employed, with several companies, I could probably adjust my taxable income to fall within the threshold if required. I know plenty of people who do just that.


Fall within? Or at $0? Because you don't get $24k for being just inside the window. You have to have $0 income for a couple to collect $24k. And do you think many people would structure their affairs to take advantage of this? Colour me skeptical, as it would mean shifting taxation to other years when you face a higher marginal tax rate (the first $20k income only faces a marginal tax rate of 20% and an average of even less with the basic exemptions).


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> I'm curious about your success rate in getting the poor motivated to get off assistance? If you did your own study of your methods, perhaps you could be more pursuasive.


He's already said only 2 people in all his years have followed his advice. So, on the evidence, his approach doesn't seem very effective.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> I’m agreeing with you, getting rich/being successful isn’t common. However that doesn’t mean that poorer IQ people can’t be successful. I know some who are, you didn’t believe me. They are rare, but so are the people who have normal or above average IQs at being successful. That was my point. Our society is designed to produce employees not wealthy people. Being creative in your thinking and be willing to take risks has more to do with success than IQ.


You are arguing from anecdote. It doesn't matter than there are some low IQ people who are successful. What is relevant is that all else equal, lower intelligence people have worse socioeconomic outcomes. Some people are born with natural endowments that others are not, and gain unearned advantage from it. Just like tall people earning more. They didn't do anything to achieve their height, yet they benefit from it.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> You are arguing from anecdote. It doesn't matter than there are some low IQ people who are successful. What is relevant is that all else equal, lower intelligence people have worse socioeconomic outcomes. Some people are born with natural endowments that others are not, and gain unearned advantage from it. Just like tall people earning more. They didn't do anything to achieve their height, yet they benefit from it.


You forgot to mention white privilege in your rant... :biggrin:

And, please tell us...who gets to decide who has been "wronged" more than the next person and how they should be compensated?


----------



## FI40

bass player said:


> You forgot to mention white privilege in your rant... :biggrin:
> 
> And, please tell us...who gets to decide who has been "wronged" more than the next person and how they should be compensated?


I think the point is that you don't need to compensate those who have been "wronged" by circumstances outside of anyone's control in any moral sense necessarily, but from a practical perspective, as a society you'll spend less on policing, caring in hospital for, paying for prison costs, etc. if you actually dole out some cash to the highly disadvantaged (or just to everyone according to UBI theory). At least, that's one component of it. So we all decide by way of our democracy how much we want to spend on this kind of program.


----------



## james4beach

There's a big element of random chance in all this, too. People who are well off tend to downplay the role that random chance played, and tend to attribute more of their success to their own hard work or intelligence. Being born to a well-off family or parents who are skilled at raising children is also random chance.

Another example, if you had the misfortune of having a serious injury (making you unable to work for a while) and then got hooked on pain pills, you're going to have a rough time. This can happen to any of us. Accidents and health problems can happen to anyone, any time.

I used to think that my success had more to do with my intelligence and work ethic, but as time goes on, I see that much of my success has been luck -- factors which I had no control over.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> He's already said only 2 people in all his years have followed his advice. So, on the evidence, his approach doesn't seem very effective.


Your confusing who I’m talking about. There is a different group of people who ask about real estate investing and dealing with the poor. I’m not stupid enough to start trying to convert a homeless guy into a real estate investor.

That being said, I can point out jobs, and give referrals to jobs that pay more than minimum wage that don’t require special education. I can help them find housing (as I know people who specialize in social housing. I can explain how going to a rent to own place will cost a lot more than saving up and buying. I can teach how money works. I can talk to them about being broke/depressed/in chronic pain/etc. I’m also right there to see how successful or not the various programs are amoung the different types of poor, and there are a lot of different types of poor out there which all get lumped into a few different support programs. 

In these areas I consider myself to be quite successful.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Fall within? Or at $0? Because you don't get $24k for being just inside the window. You have to have $0 income for a couple to collect $24k. And do you think many people would structure their affairs to take advantage of this? Colour me skeptical, as it would mean shifting taxation to other years when you face a higher marginal tax rate (the first $20k income only faces a marginal tax rate of 20% and an average of even less with the basic exemptions).


It’s not difficult at all. You just keep he money in companies, many things can be expensed when you own real estate and companies. Then you could operate things like real estate at a paper loss. A good accountant can make money do just about anything you need. I can tell by your skepticism that you neither own a company nor have an accountant.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> You are arguing from anecdote. It doesn't matter than there are some low IQ people who are successful. What is relevant is that all else equal, lower intelligence people have worse socioeconomic outcomes. Some people are born with natural endowments that others are not, and gain unearned advantage from it. Just like tall people earning more. They didn't do anything to achieve their height, yet they benefit from it.


Same could be said of anyone is my point. Your bias, which you dont really have any support for is unfounded in my opinion based on real life people I know.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Your confusing who I’m talking about. There is a different group of people who ask about real estate investing and dealing with the poor. I’m not stupid enough to start trying to convert a homeless guy into a real estate investor.
> 
> That being said, I can point out jobs, and give referrals to jobs that pay more than minimum wage that don’t require special education. I can help them find housing (as I know people who specialize in social housing. I can explain how going to a rent to own place will cost a lot more than saving up and buying. I can teach how money works. I can talk to them about being broke/depressed/in chronic pain/etc. I’m also right there to see how successful or not the various programs are amoung the different types of poor, and there are a lot of different types of poor out there which all get lumped into a few different support programs.
> 
> In these areas I consider myself to be quite successful.


there is nothing unique about that. People have been doing that since long before you were born.
Previously your approach seemed to be don't give anything, not even a job, and kick butt.


----------



## Just a Guy

Never claimed it was unique. I said it appears to be more effective than throwing money at the problem. I’d also point out that I’m the only one doing this in my area, I can’t change the whole system by myself. Maybe if a few more successful people tried my approach instead of claiming money is the solution, just go away then we’d see something significant. 

I’d bet I’m the only one on this board to be involved with the poor. I’d bet few have ever even met a truly poor person.


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> I’d bet I’m the only one on this board to be involved with the poor. I’d bet few have ever even met a truly poor person.


Wrong. I've dated a few women who were definitely poor. One lived in a mobile camper vehicle and another one ended up on welfare. And several of my past girlfriends have lived on incomes under 30K.

You're not the only person who has interacted with the poor. Frankly I would have thought you'd have more sympathy and understanding of the circumstances of the poor. For example the woman I dated who lived in a mobile home, was in that situation because she had an abusive ex husband who she was afraid of. She wanted to stay mobile to protect herself and her son. What else is she supposed to do? *Unlucky* circumstances often land people in tough situations.

The other woman I dated who ended up on welfare: she had a well paying job, but her family members (mom, siblings) had many needs. She was always helping them pay their bills and wasn't able to retain any money herself. She was very generous in assisting her family. When she eventually lost her job, she was suffering from some health issues that kept her from landing another job very easily. As she didn't have much savings, she descended into poverty. That's how she ended up on welfare. Was she supposed to not help her mom, and instead, see her mom go into poverty?

Additionally, many people who work still cannot afford food and shelter and need assistance like food banks and food stamps (EBT in the US).

Just a Guy, I'm glad that you were able to pull yourself out of your bad situation, but it's a huge leap to think that your method -- or anything like it -- can work for others. This isn't always a matter of willpower or self control. There are many factors beyond that.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> It’s not difficult at all. You just keep he money in companies, many things can be expensed when you own real estate and companies. Then you could operate things like real estate at a paper loss. A good accountant can make money do just about anything you need. I can tell by your skepticism that you neither own a company nor have an accountant.


If you're paying personal expenses out of a corporation, that's called tax avoidance. There are some things one can do to shall we say bend the rules and hope CRA turns a blind eye. I think having your corp 100% fund your lifestyle is plainly within fraud territory. Many things become possible once you are unconcerned for legal consequences.

I guess to put a finer point on this, nothing about UBI would induce someone willing to use aggressive tax planning to be any more aggressive.


----------



## Just a Guy

I’m not all that familiar with the process but, as I said I know people who do it all the time. Of course, if you don’t have a lot of personal debt, it doesn’t take much to live off of if you don’t have a mortgage, you drive a company car, your computers are corporately owned, etc. I can imagine many ways you can do it without going into fraud, and I’m not even an accountant. 

Almost every, check that, every business guy I know has been audited by CRA and none have faced fraud charges. I think the highest penalty or adjustments I’ve heard anyone have to make was less than $10k. My audits have never resulted in issues so far at all, but I told my accountant not to do anything even remotely grey when it comes to taxes.


----------



## Just a Guy

James, I don’t try to make others follow my methods, I try to find solutions for them. One of the things I hate the most however, even with my kids, is when they start going down the “I’m a victim” route. I could basically go down that path with almost any of the most common excuses (cultural, divorce, alcoholic relatives, injuries, no family support, financial, etc). Life sucks sometimes, you can’t dwell on the problems, you have to find solutions that work for you. My basic method is to try to get people to start thinking for themselves, coming up with ways to deal with the problems and move on. 

Yes, I know theee are bad situations out there, that’s why I said there are many different types of poor, they can’t be treated the same way. 

BTW, what did you do to help these women change their situation if I might ask? I’m always looking for new ideas.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Never claimed it was unique. I said it appears to be more effective than throwing money at the problem. I’d also point out that I’m the only one doing this in my area, I can’t change the whole system by myself. Maybe if a few more successful people tried my approach instead of claiming money is the solution, just go away then we’d see something significant.


Social housing doesn't sound like it is free of tax subsidy. 
I know someone who worked at a shelter in Edomonton, and you are not the only one doing such things.


----------



## Mukhang pera

Just a Guy said:


> I’d bet few have ever even met a truly poor person.


You won't find a truly poor person in Canada. We have a "social safety net". It may appear to leave some impoverished, but that is relative. In Canada, a poor person can always get some form of welfare, they will be treated at a hospital if they show up needing treatment. They can always find something to eat and a place to sleep.

I spent several years living in SE Asia. That was my first time to encounter poor. There, in many places, a hospital or a clinic will simply refuse to admit you unless you show the money first. There is no welfare, no workers compensation, no millions if you get struck down by a motor vehicle, etc.

James refers to a gf who lived in a camper. There are places in the world where that would be the lap of luxury. An income of less than $30k? For some, even $3k would be great wealth. My wife grew up poor in a third world country. She was born at home - a tent in an urban area - with no medical assistance of any kind. There was no record of her birth until long after the fact. I know, because it was a real adventure getting her a passport. Even as a child, she had to scrounge and do what she could, just to survive. That meant eating from dumpsters. The best meals were to be had by loitering outside restaurants, particularly the fast food kind. She would patiently watch through the windows and, if she saw a family get up and leave, leaving a few scraps of food on the table, perhaps a handful of fries, or part of a bun, she would run in and grab it. 

One day, at about age 16, my wife was walking along the roadside with a few companions. A car passed too close and an outside rearview mirror struck her left arm and she was knocked to the pavement. The car kept going. My wife's friends took her to a clinic. They treated and bandaged her arm, at a cost of about $1 the girls were able to put together. The doctor told her the arm was probably broken and it should be x-rayed and set properly. But that would have cost about another $5. Might as well have been $5,000. No way she could pay that sum, so it went untreated. So, her broken humerus healed all right, but with some deformity that exists to this day, along with occasional pain in the area of the break. Now that's an example of a poor person.

No doubt there are some in Canada who display characteristics of some of the third world poor. Often, that's a matter of choice. Perhaps a choice driven by mental illness in some cases. While the resources available to those types may at times appear meagre, it's a high standard of meagre compared to the kind of poor of which I speak.


----------



## Pluto

Mukhang pera said:


> You won't find a truly poor person in Canada. We have a "social safety net". It may appear to leave some impoverished, but that is relative. In Canada, a poor person can always get some form of welfare, they will be treated at a hospital if they show up needing treatment. They can always find something to eat and a place to sleep.
> 
> I spent several years living in SE Asia. That was my first time to encounter poor. There, in many places, a hospital or a clinic will simply refuse to admit you unless you show the money first. There is no welfare, no workers compensation, no millions if you get struck down by a motor vehicle, etc.
> 
> James refers to a gf who lived in a camper. There are places in the world where that would be the lap of luxury. An income of less than $30k? For some, even $3k would be great wealth. My wife grew up poor in a third world country. She was born at home - a tent in an urban area - with no medical assistance of any kind. There was no record of her birth until long after the fact. I know, because it was a real adventure getting her a passport. Even as a child, she had to scrounge and do what she could, just to survive. That meant eating from dumpsters. The best meals were to be had by loitering outside restaurants, particularly the fast food kinds. She would patiently watch through the windows and, if she saw a family get up and leave, leaving a few scraps of food on the table, perhaps a handful of fries, or part of a bun, she would run in and grab it.
> 
> One day, at about age 16, my wife was walking along the roadside with a few companions. A car passed too close and an outside rearview mirror struck her left arm and she was knocked to the pavement. The car kept going. My wife's friends took her to a clinic. They treated and bandaged her arm, at a cost of about $1 the girls were able to put together. The doctor told her the arm was probably broken and it should be x-rayed and set properly. But that would have cost about another $5. Might as well have been $5,000. No way she could pay that sum, so it went untreated. So, her broken humerus healed all right, but with some deformity that exists to this day, along with occasional pain in the area of the break. Now that's an example of a poor person.
> 
> No doubt there are some in Canada who display characteristics of some of the third world poor. Often, that's a matter of choice. Perhaps a choice driven by mental illness in some cases. While the resources available to those types may at times appear meagre, it's a high standard of meagre compared to the kind of poor of which I speak.


this story has the loud ring of truth to it. 
JAG's perspective, if I understand it correctly, is to make Canada the same as the circumstances your wife came from. That way, the poor will all beocme entrepeneurs, or work for entrepeneurs, and his taxes will go down. In my view, that's a naive and self interested perspective.


----------



## sags

The wealthy are fleeing Brazil because society has broken down and the unemployed and poor are in full revolt.

The police have become targets and there is no safe haven, so people are leaving the country.

This...........is what happens when income and wealth disparity creates social chaos.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> The wealthy are fleeing Brazil because society has broken down and the unemployed and poor are in full revolt.
> 
> The police have become targets and there is no safe haven, so people are leaving the country.
> 
> This...........is what happens when income and wealth disparity creates social chaos.


No, that's what happens when socialism takes over. Socialism has a 100% proven failure rate, regardless of what the left claims. Socialism can only exist in small doses in a capitalist society.


----------



## sags

Brazil has a capitalist economy, and is the 9th largest economy in the world.


----------



## Big Kahuna

sags said:


> Brazil has a capitalist economy, and is the 9th largest economy in the world.


It has a big population-what is your point? India has a bigger economy and something like one toilet for every forty people.


----------



## Mukhang pera

Pluto said:


> this story has the loud ring of truth to it.


Well, I hope so. It was a bit difficult to write. It's not something my wife cares to remember.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Brazil has a capitalist economy, and is the 9th largest economy in the world.


Brazil isn't having problems because of too much capitalism.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> this story has the loud ring of truth to it.
> JAG's perspective, if I understand it correctly, is to make Canada the same as the circumstances your wife came from. That way, the poor will all beocme entrepeneurs, or work for entrepeneurs, and his taxes will go down. In my view, that's a naive and self interested perspective.


You certainly don’t understand my perspective. I’ve never said to get rid of the social safety net. I’ve said it makes people too comfortable, I’ve said more money wouldn’t solve it, I’ve said we need to teach people how to change their lives and use money properly...I’ve repeated it several times, but I guess that doesn’t fit with what you want me to be saying. 

I agree that we don’t have real poverty here. I too have been to Asia where real proverty exists. What was more disconcerting there was the level of disparity. You had rich and you had dead poor, not a lot in between. I’m surprised they haven’t had a revolution agin, because the poor really outnumber the rich.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> Social housing doesn't sound like it is free of tax subsidy.
> I know someone who worked at a shelter in Edomonton, and you are not the only one doing such things.


I don’t claim to be he only one doing this, I claim that there arent many and I doubted anyone else on this forum doing it. Please see my footer as you seem to not actually be reading my posts.


----------



## sags

Right.........people are fleeing Brazil because poverty is down and everyone is happy happy.


----------



## sags

bass player said:


> Brazil isn't having problems because of too much capitalism.


No kingdom has ever survived severe wealth disparity. Eventually the people say.............off with their heads.


----------



## james4beach

I pruned some posts out of this thread and moved them to Hot Button. Let's try to keep the discussion in this thread purely about universal basic income / social assistance.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> No kingdom has ever survived severe wealth disparity. Eventually the people say.............off with their heads.


Yes, that happens in socialist and communist countries because the most severe wealth disparity that exists is in those countries. A very few people are massively rich and the rest of them are dirt poor. That doesn't happen in capitalist societies because no one is truly poor. Every single person has access to food, shelter, and medical care.


----------



## humble_pie

bass player said:


> Yes, that happens in socialist and communist countries because the most severe wealth disparity that exists is in those countries. A very few people are massively rich and the rest of them are dirt poor. That doesn't happen in capitalist societies because no one is truly poor. Every single person has access to food, shelter, and medical care.




sorry, offhand i can't think of a single socialist country where "A very few people are massively rich and the rest of them are dirt poor."

this doesn't describe norway, sweden, denmark, finland. Neither does it describe their economies, which are hybrid social support/capitalist encouragement.

nor can i, offhand, think of a single communist state functioning anywhere on the planet today. There are a lot of army-controlled and/or dictator-ruled states & statelets, the world even boasts the odd hereditary king here or there. But afaik authentic card-carrying communist gummints have joined the dodo in extinction.


----------



## Just a Guy

I must say 90%+ of the poor I deal with all have cell phones, they have access to free housing if they choose (even get to pick and complain about locations), have access to free food if they’d bother to go down to the food bank, have access to free transit, have access to free dental/health care, have free access to books and the internet at the library, many cities give free access to liesure centres and city attractions, have free access to support workers and back to school training, plus get money on top of that each month. 

Then there are those who have plenty of time to hold their hands out asking for more because they are”suffering” like in Brazil or Asia. I really do see the correlation...


----------



## sags

Meanwhile back to the real world, Ontario will provide Sears retirees with a guarantee for their pensions. Sears retirees in other Provinces will take a 30% deduction.

The Ontario Pension Benefit Guaranty was a Liberal idea forced upon a minority PC government. Too bad the UBI got cancelled. It would have proven worthwhile in the future.

The problem with the conservatives is they are always riding the horse facing backwards. They are always looking at where they been instead of where they are going.


----------



## Just a Guy

Where does the money come from? Ontario is already spending more than it brings in (deficit budget). Fiscal conservatives tend to realize you can’t spend more than you bring in and you can’t spend your way out of debt. Unlike the liberals who’ll spend their grandchildren’s money for their own benefit. True forward looking if I ever saw it. I’d just hate to be the forward generation stuck with the bill and the poverty they’ll face from it.


----------



## sags

I think the long term plan is to implement an inheritance tax and let the rich pay off the debt..............since they have all the money.


----------



## Just a Guy

We’ve already proven, much as you like to ignore it, if you add up all the wealth of the top 5% in Canada, it’s wont pay UBI for more than 2 months. This isn’t America, there is no vast pool of hidden money controlled by a few. 

You want to solve the problem pull your snout away from the trough and start paying for what you use instead of what you want and can’t afford. Fiscal socialism is living off he income of future generations, they are unwilling to carry their own weight. There is no way to deny that reality until you have no deficits or debt. 

When you reach that point, let’s talk about social programs.

Who are the real trolls, those who live within their means or those living off the incomes of future generations and the incomes of others?


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> You certainly don’t understand my perspective. I’ve never said to get rid of the social safety net. I’ve said it makes people too comfortable, I’ve said more money wouldn’t solve it, I’ve said we need to teach people how to change their lives and use money properly...I’ve repeated it several times, but I guess that doesn’t fit with what you want me to be saying.
> 
> I agree that we don’t have real poverty here. I too have been to Asia where real proverty exists. What was more disconcerting there was the level of disparity. You had rich and you had dead poor, not a lot in between. I’m surprised they haven’t had a revolution agin, because the poor really outnumber the rich.


Well I guess you are evolving in your perspective as previously you insisted the way to go was don't give them anything, not even a job. Now you seem to be transitioning to teaching, a pleasant change. 

An underlying, implicit theme of yours is as follows: the poor are comfortably living of the system for free, therefore taxpayers are being victimized by the poor. Once you establish that victim status in your head, lots of destructive acts are rationalized. Believe me, you are not a victim of the poor. For example, some greedy and dishonest wall street types did way more damage to the word economy back in 2008 - 9 than the poor could ever do. One Wall street guy invovled got fired from his job with a 70 million dollar severance package, and nobody was prosecuted. 
The enemy isn't the poor, the enemy is love of money or, greed.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto, please quote where I ever said anything like you stated about not giving them jobs. I’ve never been against a limited social safety net, I’ve also stated that I wouldn’t want anyone else to go through what I did. I think you’re confusing my posts with others. 

As for being victims, it’s a very common attitude amoung the poor, it’s one of the reasons they are trapped in their situations, they keep focusing on their problems, they can offload personal responsibility by being a victim and don’t have to bother looking for solutions because someone will bail them out. 

Again, there is no point trying to confuse the issue with Wall Street. The two topics are completely unrelated. I’m not saying they aren’t a problem, but they are a different problem and has no correlation to this topic. Wall Street didn’t force people to buy houses hey couldn’t afford, or then use those houses as an ATM at 110% financing so they could get cars, boats and toys. The banks may have given people the tools hat lead to their destruction, but is it their fault they misused the tools?

I have access to huge amounts of credit, but I use the tool properly and have been very successful, now the laws and rules have changed, making it harder for responsible people like me to make more taxi or income to support those who misused the tools. 

Wall Street was trapped by the same problem. When presented with credit default swaps, they didn’t understand them and got burned by them. 

You can’t legislate away stupidity, the people will still get into trouble because they don’t know how use the tools available to them.


----------



## sags

JAG...............You worry way too much about the rich and not nearly enough about everyone else.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Pluto, please quote where I ever said anything like you stated about not giving them jobs. I’ve never been against a limited social safety net, I’ve also stated that I wouldn’t want anyone else to go through what I did. I think you’re confusing my posts with others.


"Pluto, all your points revolve around the same thought, give people jobs. That's barely a step up from give them money. 

I'm suggesting people need to find different solutions. There are many ways to get money that don't involve being given something. "
Post 303

Seems to mean don't give people jobs, (or anything,) after all there are many ways for the poor and homless to get money without involving being given something.


----------



## Just a Guy

Wow, you really had to go far back to dig that one up and then you took it completely out of context. The point of that comment wasn’t to say “don’t employ three poor” it was about companies laying off people and you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to. I gather you felt companies should be mandated to keep employing people even when it’s not in the best interest of the company. 

I was pointing out that it’s not the company’s responsibility to employ people, it’s their job to produce whatever goods or services they need. It’s up to individuals to figure out a way to support themselves. If they can’t find a job in the traditional sense, I pointed out that there are many other ways to make money. If they were educated to think outside of the only way to make money is to get a job ideology. 

Work for welfare though isn’t really much better than welfare. During the depression the government hired people to build a wall and then tear it down the next day, just to provide “employment”. To me that’s a waste.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> JAG...............You worry way too much about the rich and not nearly enough about everyone else.


Sags, I’m worried about my grandchildren’s money in case you can’t read. Money which people like you are already spending just to make your life easier since you feel so hard done by. I have no problem taking care of the poor if we can pay for it in today’s money, it’s called fiscal responsibility.

Personally I don’t worry about the rich at all, they tend to be the people who’ll always land on their feet in any situation, since they don’t give up and wait for others to bail them out.

Even in your socialist ideal, the cream will always rise to the top.


----------



## gardner

Just a Guy said:


> Where does the money come from?


https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/consultations/pension/pbgf_fullreport.html



> The PBGF is intended to be self-financing. Premiums are levied on an annual basis. The current fee structure has been in place since 1993 and includes a per-member fee plus a risk-based fee. The per-member fee is currently set at a nominal $1 per Ontario member. The risk-based fee is levied on underfunded plans, based on a sliding scale depending on the level of underfunding


----------



## Just a Guy

Good intent...did you read the "current funding" section?

"These projections estimate that more than 73% of the plan universe was in a deficit position on a solvency basis. The total deficit for plans in a deficit position was $9.6 billion and their average funding level was 87%. Plans with 10,000+ members accounted for $4.6 billion of the $9.6 billion deficit. The highest concentration is in the manufacturing sector, contributing $6.1 billion to the deficit.

The 52 main plans had an average funding level of 96% and a total deficit for plans in a deficit position of $5.7 billion, representing 59% of the total deficit. Projecting the main plans to January 1, 2010 showed a dramatic worsening of their funded status – the total deficit for plans in a deficit position increased to $7.9 billion and the average funding level dropped to 90%."

That funny deficit word just keeps creeping in...means it's not working.

If it worked, I have no problem with it.


----------



## sags

That is old data that appears to be around the last recession. Most pension plans have recovered and some are funded over 100%.

The plan was a good one and it works. Sears retirees in other Provinces are asking why they don't have a similar plan.

_In its 2018 budget, the Ontario government increased the insured monthly amount from $1,000 to $1,500 and made it retroactive to May 2017, to include Sears pensioners._

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sears-bc-pension-cuts-1.4718774


----------



## Just a Guy

And Ontario is running a deficit budget...

Again where does the money come from? That would be your grandkids.

Taking money from the public purse that doesn't exist is not self funding.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Wow, you really had to go far back to dig that one up and then you took it completely out of context. The point of that comment wasn’t to say “don’t employ three poor” it was about companies laying off people and you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to. I gather you felt companies should be mandated to keep employing people even when it’s not in the best interest of the company.
> 
> I was pointing out that it’s not the company’s responsibility to employ people, it’s their job to produce whatever goods or services they need. It’s up to individuals to figure out a way to support themselves. If they can’t find a job in the traditional sense, I pointed out that there are many other ways to make money. If they were educated to think outside of the only way to make money is to get a job ideology.
> 
> Work for welfare though isn’t really much better than welfare. During the depression the government hired people to build a wall and then tear it down the next day, just to provide “employment”. To me that’s a waste.


Huh? Its not my view that companies shouldn't be alowed to lay off people and never said that. 
You are way too individualistic for me, and your individualism is what gets's you going around in irrational circles. for example, we are not responsible to help the poor, after all, its up to individuals to figure out a way - give them nothing - but the social safety net is OK, so give them something. You want it both ways. 

If you accept the social safety net, you have to temper your individualism, otherwise you contradict yourself. Besides, humanity is not an aggregate of indivudals, humans are social animals.


----------



## Just a Guy

Read the thread again, I've never been against a social safety net, never said don't give them anything (I have said don't make it too comfortable however). Im against spending money we don't have to do it though. Im a fiscal conservative, you have to be able to pay for whatever programs you want to dish out. You can't have everything, choices have to be made, sometimes hard choices. 

People want free health care, free pharmacare, free money, retirement benefits, low cost of living, cars, toys, vacations, cell phones, etc. Well fine, just find the money to do it, without taking from the next generation or "taxing the rich" just because they are successful. Something has to give or should we try to emulate Greece?

I have no problem contributing a fair share, I also work to try and mitigate the problem right in the trenches. I also believe in some personal responsibility on behalf of everyone...you can't just sit there taking and taking, demanding more just because you think you've had a tough life. Life isn't easy, you can't just give up and mooch sorry. 

I think, if you actually read what I've been saying instead of skimming it, you'll see that Im fairly consistent on what I've been saying, but you have a democratic right to be wrong in this country if you want to keep telling me what I think. I'm saying you're misunderstanding it. 

Getting back on topic, there is no way to fund UBI, it's impossible by the definition of UBI because there is not enough money to do it. You can't just want to "give" everyone money when there is no source of money to give. You can't increase money to the poor, when you run a deficit, there is no money to give. Now, if you want to cut health care funding and increase social safety nets, that would be a conversation to have. If you want to cut OAS and give it to the poor, that is a conversation, if you want to donate your own money to the poor, there is a solution...but giving away our grandchildren's money today so they can have a better life at their expense is not acceptable in my mind sorry. 

This generation, and I'm not talking just the poor here, has been spending the future generation's money for their own benefit at their expense. While we're all living comfortably, we're starting the next two generations in debt...and we're still not satisfied, we want more, more, more. I'm not looking as an individual, I'm looking at the consequences to the future, something I find few people tend to do.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Pluto said:


> Huh? Its not my view that companies shouldn't be alowed to lay off people and never said that.
> You are way too individualistic for me, and your individualism is what gets's you going around in irrational circles. for example, we are not responsible to help the poor, after all, its up to individuals to figure out a way - give them nothing - but the social safety net is OK, so give them something. You want it both ways.
> 
> If you accept the social safety net, you have to temper your individualism, otherwise you contradict yourself. Besides, humanity is not an aggregate of indivudals, humans are social animals.


Look-I will say it again-If you actually cared about the poor in this country you would be strongly in favor of restricting the importation of more poor people competing for the same finite handouts. Only a child thinks there is no limit to the amount of money we should pay out.


----------



## sags

Seriously, you think a few poor people could bankrupt Canada..........LOL.


----------



## sags

Ford eliminates the Universal Basic Income pilot and initiates a "buck a beer" program.

It is all about priorities............LOL.


----------



## Pluto

Big Kahuna said:


> Look-I will say it again-If you actually cared about the poor in this country


I care about the poor globally.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Seriously, you think a few poor people could bankrupt Canada..........LOL.


It's not the poor bankrupting the country, it's the fiscal liberals handing out non-existent money like it was water. Add up all the federal, provincial, and civic debts and see what the number comes out to. Then divide that by 35M for every man, woman and child in he country. Finally, ask where that money is coming from.

It's simple math. 

As a bonus, add up all the federal, provincial and civic deficits and see how that number is GROWING each year, with not even an intention of slowing it down.

Wait, I've finally figured out your plan sags. Your intention is to make EVERYONE poor by spending all the money until there isn't any...then everyone will be he same.

Unfortunately for your cunning plan, as I said before, the cream will rise to the top.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> I care about the poor globally.


And what exactly do you do? Just say "I care"? I'm sure you make a huge difference.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> I think, if you actually read what I've been saying instead of skimming it, you'll see that Im fairly consistent on what I've been saying, but you have a democratic right to be wrong in this country if you want to keep telling me what I think. I'm saying you're misunderstanding it.
> 
> 
> .


I'm saying you misunderstand yourself. 
We have different perspectives. Your view is the only form of responsibility is individual responsibility. I'm saying there are two forms of responsibility, individual and social. Other people, like sags, for instance, tend to imply that responsibility is all social, and no individual responsibility.


----------



## My Own Advisor

sags said:


> Ford eliminates the Universal Basic Income pilot and initiates a "buck a beer" program.
> 
> It is all about priorities............LOL.


What. An. Idiot. And Ontario voted for this. Pathetic.

Our priority in this province is focusing on buck-a-beer. How old are we? 19? Again, Ontario voted for this as a majority. Our provincial future is going to be a mess.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> I'm saying you misunderstand yourself.
> We have different perspectives. Your view is the only form of responsibility is individual responsibility. I'm saying there are two forms of responsibility, individual and social. Other people, like sags, for instance, tend to imply that responsibility is all social, and no individual responsibility.


Again, I'm amazed that you know my mind so much better than I do. 

I guess statements like "I believe in a social safety net", "I wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through the hardship I had to", stated multiple times on here by me, supports your argument that I'm all for only individual responsibility. Or maybe it was the , "we can't just throw money, we need to teach them how to use it" (emphasis on "we"). 

I'm so glad people like you are here to clear up my thinking. As I said before, try reading my footer.


----------



## sags

Living on $700 a month welfare or $1000 a month CPP disability is hardly a wonderful way to live. I doubt many people make a "choice" to live that way.


----------



## Koogie

My Own Advisor said:


> What. An. Idiot. And Ontario voted for this. Pathetic.
> Our priority in this province is focusing on buck-a-beer. How old are we? 19? Again, Ontario voted for this as a majority. Our provincial future is going to be a mess.


What is actually pathetic is people who think 4 more years of the McGuinty/Wynne Liberal wastrels and thieves would have been a better alternative.
Do you think Dougie can solve the damage caused by Liberal mismanagement overnight ? If you do, you'll always be a naive Liberal voter.
Buck a beer is a harmless divergence.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Pluto said:


> I care about the poor globally.


Then no offense but you are a child-you shouldn't even think about investing-Canada does not have the resources to help the global poor situation (probably about 3 billion people right now)-all we can do is what we are doing-increase the number of poor living in Canada every year and increase the % of the Canadian population living in poverty. It is called the Billionaire Strategy and no it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.


----------



## Mukhang pera

My Own Advisor said:


> What. An. Idiot. And Ontario voted for this. Pathetic.
> 
> Our priority in this province is focusing on buck-a-beer. How old are we? 19? Again, Ontario voted for this as a majority. Our provincial future is going to be a mess.


The old buck-a-beer election ploy triumphs once again. Ford borrowed a page from Bill Vander Zalm's book. Got him elected in BC in 1986.

I suppose Ford deserves greater credit. A buck back in 1986 was worth a lot more.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Living on $700 a month welfare or $1000 a month CPP disability is hardly a wonderful way to live. I doubt many people make a "choice" to live that way.


So what will they do about it? Hold out their hand? For me, when I didn't get either benefit, and had kids and a family to support, I was inspired to change. I would have loved to have had any money for doing nothing.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Again, I'm amazed that you know my mind so much better than I do.
> 
> I guess statements like "I believe in a social safety net", "I wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through the hardship I had to", stated multiple times on here by me...
> I'm so glad people like you are here to clear up my thinking. As I said before, try reading my footer.


Let me clarify: You had hardship just like the homeless. You had no home. no money in the bank. no transportation of your own. no assets to speak of. Dead broke just like the homeless. Then you started buying doors. YOu can do it, so they can do it. Is that your story?


----------



## Just a Guy

No it's not...let me repeat it one more, and final, time read everything I wrote, don't skim it and quit trying to tell me what I think. When I say things like "we can't try to treat people as if they are all the same", "there is no single solution", "not everyone can do what I did", "there are options", "there are unlimited ways to make money", etc. All of which you seem to miss. 

Anyways, if you don't get the fact that you're missing a huge part of what I've said by now, you're never going to get it so this part of the thread is going nowhere so I won't be wasting other people's time by further feeding your assumptions. 

Remember what they say about what happens when you assume...you're proving the point very well if we continue this.


----------



## james4beach

Forget universal basic income and enhancements to our social safety net... I want my Buck-a-Beer !!

Unbelievable!



> Speaking at a brewery in Picton, Ford said “the day you’ve been waiting for is finally here. We’re bringing back buck-a-beer to Ontario,” as promised during the election campaign.


----------



## new dog

Seeing the picture of Ford it looks like an add for a new movie comedy. 

I am sure however that companies will go for this for a short time to get the promotions and appear like the fun beer.

Also he did say it was an election promise so you can check that off the list.


----------



## bass player

I guess some are against low income people being able to afford a cold beer on a hot day.


----------



## Koogie

It sure seems like the Libtard elitists on this forum have something against beer.

Probably prefer champagne at their socialist gatherings.


----------



## kcowan

DW was saying that Ontario must have a bunch of beer drinkers. She wondered what he would do for the red/white wine drinkers?


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> No it's not...let me repeat it one more, and final, time read everything I wrote, don't skim it and quit trying to tell me what I think. When I say things like "we can't try to treat people as if they are all the same", "there is no single solution", "not everyone can do what I did", "there are options", "there are unlimited ways to make money", etc. All of which you seem to miss.
> 
> Anyways, if you don't get the fact that you're missing a huge part of what I've said by now, you're never going to get it so this part of the thread is going nowhere so I won't be wasting other people's time by further feeding your assumptions.
> 
> Remember what they say about what happens when you assume...you're proving the point very well if we continue this.


Well that's why I'm clarifying - so I don't have to assume. Its never really been clear to me what "dead broke" means in your context. You make it sould like you had no assets, no family income, no money in the bank, and then some institution loaned you money for your first door.


----------



## Just a Guy

Does it matter how I lived? Does it have any bearing on UBI or any topic at hand? My personal story is just as different as everyone else's. 

I know one guy who I met in rehab, who started selling things at a farmers market. Got free sugar and nuts from the food bank and turned it into candy which he sold for $40/kg every weekend. Made at upwards of $1000/day. No real skills, no real expenses. Had to figure out transportation. 

He didn't go on to become a real estate baron, or even a candy guy, but turned his life around. He's employed today and doing fine. 

The farmers market is full of simple ways to make money, baking, crafts, popcorn, all low barriers to entry. 

I know another person who's a paraplegic after an accident, applied for work with a group called employabilities (places handicapped people in real world jobs). The trick there was going down to the group. 

As I pointed out before, I often try to place people in entry level jobs that aren't the Walmart type (labour, reception, etc.) I've got a lot of contacts in business and I can partially screen people I work with for the companies...many won't even apply for the job. 

Once again, we're getting off topic. Social safety nets should be nets to catch you when you fall, not pillars and foundations for your continued existence. Society can't afford to support people indefinitely in most cases.


----------



## KaeJS

UBI will never work.
Buck a beer makes people happy.

What's the problem?

For me, it's a win-win. I don't need UBI and I don't think it's even a possibility. I also like beer and it costs too much as it is.

I have no complaints. I love Doug.


----------



## andrewf

The real question is why we need to regulate a minimum price for beer. But maybe in more of a free marketer than the Ford fans.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Social safety nets should be nets to catch you when you fall, not pillars and foundations for your continued existence. Society can't afford to support people indefinitely in most cases.


That about sums it up. Anyone who can understand that, probably can't understand most things.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Social safety nets should be nets to catch you when you fall, not pillars and foundations for your continued existence. Society can't afford to support people indefinitely in most cases.


That about sums it up. Anyone who can't understand that, probably has difficulty understanding most things.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Does it matter how I lived? Does it have any bearing on UBI or any topic at hand? My personal story is just as different as everyone else's.
> 
> I know one guy who I met in rehab, who started selling things at a farmers market. Got free sugar and nuts from the food bank and turned it into candy which he sold for $40/kg every weekend. Made at upwards of $1000/day. No real skills, no real expenses. Had to figure out transportation.
> 
> He didn't go on to become a real estate baron, or even a candy guy, but turned his life around. He's employed today and doing fine.
> 
> The farmers market is full of simple ways to make money, baking, crafts, popcorn, all low barriers to entry.
> 
> I know another person who's a paraplegic after an accident, applied for work with a group called employabilities (places handicapped people in real world jobs). The trick there was going down to the group.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I often try to place people in entry level jobs that aren't the Walmart type (labour, reception, etc.) I've got a lot of contacts in business and I can partially screen people I work with for the companies...many won't even apply for the job.
> 
> Once again, we're getting off topic. Social safety nets should be nets to catch you when you fall, not pillars and foundations for your continued existence. Society can't afford to support people indefinitely in most cases.


Thanks for the clarification. As you may have gathered by now, considering your work with the homelss and poor, some are chronically poor. Some don't have a history of higher functioning to work back to. So based on your clarification post, your model is formerly high funcioning people who hit a crisis of some sort, ususally a physical injury, and who end up functioning at a high level again. I'm not sure that model is applicable to chronically poor and homeless - those who never functioned at a high level. 
I know, and know of lots of people who fundtioned at a high level the hit problems. One guy owned his own business in Toronto Yorkville area. He ended up in the homeless shelters, his business bankrupt by that time. But he persevered and got another business going again. Successful guy. I know of antoher guy who was a teacher at a high school in Leaside To. Around age 40 or so, he quit, drank, lived on the streets & in shelters, and eventually died homeless. That's one who didn't rebound. Then again, there are the always poor and chronically poor - folks who have always functioned at a low level. Some higher functioing people rebound, but it is rare for the chronically poor, especially if they aree older, to gain higher functioning. 

Society has supported the chronically poor indefinitly. Society has always had the poor. I wish you the best of luck with your middle class rebound model to the chronically poor.


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> That about sums it up. Anyone who can't understand that, probably has difficulty understanding most things.


Yes, that 's a middled class model that more or less works with a middle class person who experiences misfortune. many reach their former level of functioning. 
Many of the chronically poor are different. They never had a higher level to fall from, and have no higher level to work back to. Society has always had poor people who rely on others to survive. I can be afforded. And there is no guarenteed method to fix it.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto I'll nominate you for the most selective reader award. It'll be some tough competition with a few others, but you'll have my vote. 

Most of the people I work with are below average IQ, have mental disabilities, are substance abusers, etc. They aren't middle class by any means, and middle class solutions won't work for them. However, there are many non-middle class solutions out there, and providing an education to the lower end on how things like money works (something UBI supporters can't even seem to understand) is probably one of the better solutions. Teaching them how a $20 payday loan on $200 is 120% annual interest for example (and impossible to pay off technically if not done right away). How buying based on "affordable payments" will probably cost a fortune, how delayed gratification and sacrifice can pay out huge dividends, etc. 

Oh well, you continue to prove you only see what you want to see in the form of text at least. You may be even more difficult to educate then the people I deal with the poor. At least with some of them, they seem to get it and are thrilled someone actually took the time to explain things to them.


----------



## sags

People need money. You offer free advice on how to prudently spend the money they don't have.................LOL.


----------



## sags

How basic economics will pay for a Universal Basic Income.

_As Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former senior vice president of the World Bank, explains:_ 

_When the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times.

The result of that is that the economy grows by a multiple of the initial spending, and public finances turn out to be stronger: as the economy grows, fiscal revenues increase, and demands for the government to pay unemployment benefits, or fund social programs to help the poor and needy, go down. As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government’s fiscal position strengthens.
_
This is known as the "velocity of money" which on average is taxed 7 times as it flows through the economy....to butcher to baker to candle stick maker.
The government would receive $1.83 back for every $1.00 invested if it were not for leakage due to tax loopholes etc. Money given to those who will spend it is the most productive kind of government spending. Giving money to banks, corporations or individuals who will not spend the money are the worst investments for the government.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ithout-increasing_us_59d7c73ae4b0705dc79aa775


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Pluto I'll nominate you for the most selective reader award. It'll be some tough competition with a few others, but you'll have my vote.
> 
> Most of the people I work with are below average IQ, have mental disabilities, are substance abusers, etc. They aren't middle class by any means, and middle class solutions won't work for them. However, there are many non-middle class solutions out there, and providing an education to the lower end on how things like money works (something UBI supporters can't even seem to understand) is probably one of the better solutions. Teaching them how a $20 payday loan on $200 is 120% annual interest for example (and impossible to pay off technically if not done right away). How buying based on "affordable payments" will probably cost a fortune, how delayed gratification and sacrifice can pay out huge dividends, etc.
> 
> Oh well, you continue to prove you only see what you want to see in the form of text at least. You may be even more difficult to educate then the people I deal with the poor. At least with some of them, they seem to get it and are thrilled someone actually took the time to explain things to them.


Your educational efforts are commendable. Its not new. I know people who were doing that decades ago. Its a worthy endeavor, but you seem to be implying that this education will result in no more poor in Edmonton. I think you expectations are idealistic.


----------



## Just a Guy

What a bunch of BS. If any of that fantasy math were true, explain why government spending has ALWAYS resulted in bigger debts and deficits?

The government has been spending billions more than it takes in for decades, yet the nation debt keeps GROWING. Where's the $1.83? It doesn't exist, it's not eaten by tax loopholes, it's a basic fact (sags you can try this yourself and prove it if you want)...

You can't spend your way out of debt. Money doesn't work that way. Try it, spend more than you make and see if you wind up wealthy. 

Like most good theories (communism for example, looks gray on paper, leaves millions dead) when tried in the REAL WORLD, it tends to break down and not work.

Maybe the millions who died under implementing communism could be blamed on "leakage"...


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> Your educational efforts are commendable. Its not new. I know people who were doing that decades ago. Its a worthy endeavor, but you seem to be implying that this education will result in no more poor in Edmonton. I think you expectations are idealistic.


Man, you keep adding your own spin to what I say, will it never stop. We'll never be rid of the poor. Even if we give everyone money, some will wind up with more and many will wind up with less. The ones with less will feel slighted and resentful to the ones with more. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at the system, people like sags will always want more and be unwilling to do anything to get it but complain. 

As someone pointed out (as well as myself) Canada doesn't have ANY poor when compared to some parts of the world. Our country can't even contemplate real poverty. 

You also seem to think I'm trying to come up with something novel. I've never suggested any of my ideas are new, I've actually said I've found things that are more effective than throwing ones at people who don't know what to do with it (sags' ultimate solution), but never claimed it's a new idea. I said it's effective. 

Also not sure how I'm supposed to help Edmonton...not really my backyard. 

But keep adding to what's actually being said...someday you may actually read what's written and be educated yourself. Slim hope, but I'm an optimist


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> As someone pointed out (as well as myself) Canada doesn't have ANY poor when compared to some parts of the world. Our country can't even contemplate real poverty.


But it's all relative. We have a very high standard of living in Canada. Having people in our country living at 3rd world poverty levels is absolutely unacceptable to most of us. Additionally, the basic, absolute minimum cost of living in Canada is dramatically higher than in these poorer countries.

You can't survive in Canada on less than 15K-20K a year depending on the city -- I'm talking bare necessities to stay alive and healthy with a roof over your head. And it's significantly higher for anyone who has a child. CPP + OAS at maximums pays about 20K pre tax, which is about right for meeting the poverty level income a Canadian needs to survive *at the standard of living relevant to Canada*.

It's irrelevant that people in Vietnam can survive on 4K a year. _Nobody_ in Canada can even stay alive on just 4K a year.


----------



## Just a Guy

Nobody who's poor in Vietnam probably owns a cell phone either. Some of the "necessities" we have are being confused with "luxuries". The food we have here compared to what the poor eat is also higher quality and quantity. Many "poor" eat more expensive takeout because they don't want to cook or don't know how. We won't even talk about what fast food does to your health. In Vietnam hey get a lot of rice and veggies (a relatively healthy diet) in Canada they deserve meat (which is relatively unhealthy). Funny thing is, we eat more like kings (unhealthy diet) than peasants (healthy diet by most studies when we look at the actual food groups, not quantity). 

I suppose it's not PC to point out that people shouldn't be having kids they can't afford...I know people who have kids because it means more money to them (and they aren't using the money to support the kids either). 

There are also jobs here in Canada...I still see help wanted signs everywhere...but still people sit on social services. Getting housing, food, and more...they run into trouble when they spend the money they need on things they don't however. Who needs power when cigarettes are low (I could probably have also said drugs in a lot of cases). Besides, social services have an emergency program if you can't pay for power with the money hey already gave you. 

Yes, everything is relative, in Canada t poor have it "relatively" easy. 

Again, I'm not against social programs, but there are a hell of a lot of ungrateful people on it who don't know just how bad things really could be.

Let's not even get into how many trash the few things they are given...something that completely blows my mind. Even today I truly appreciate everything I have because of the time where I didn't have anything.


----------



## sags

_The government has been spending billions more than it takes in for decades, yet the nation debt keeps GROWING._

You don't seem to realize that a financial ledger has two sides. One is for debt and the other for assets.

Add up all the debt and then add up all of Canada's assets, and you will see that Canada is in very good financial shape.

At today's values, all the assets built by Canada over the past easily dwarf the outstanding debt.


----------



## sags

With technology replacing jobs in the future, a Universal Basic Income is going to be a necessity we must have rather than a luxury we can't afford.


----------



## new dog

sags said:


> _The government has been spending billions more than it takes in for decades, yet the nation debt keeps GROWING._
> 
> You don't seem to realize that a financial ledger has two sides. One is for debt and the other for assets.
> 
> Add up all the debt and then add up all of Canada's assets, and you will see that Canada is in very good financial shape.
> 
> At today's values, all the assets built by Canada over the past easily dwarf the outstanding debt.



I really don't get this at all. Canada has many assets, but the debt build up I don't think added assets that are worth as much as you may think.


----------



## new dog

sags said:


> With technology replacing jobs in the future, a Universal Basic Income is going to be a necessity we must have rather than a luxury we can't afford.


I think we need to clean up the country first, meaning deal with drugs and crime in a meaningful way. Also as in my other thread we need to award the people who are clean and care about their community and living spaces and lump those that don't into the undesirable places. 

For people with mental issues we need to properly take care of them.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> _The government has been spending billions more than it takes in for decades, yet the nation debt keeps GROWING._
> 
> You don't seem to realize that a financial ledger has two sides. One is for debt and the other for assets.


Yeah, I think JAG and everyone else realizes that the federal debt is the difference between total liabilities and total assets.

So, if I look at the latest Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada for Fiscal Years 2016–2017, we see that the Federal Debt or Accumulated Deficit increased from $616 billion to $631 billion.

Of note in that report I see:
_
The Government posted a budgetary deficit of $17.8 billion in 2016–17, compared to a deficit of $1.0 billion in 2015–16.

Revenues were down $2.0 billion, or 0.7 per cent, from the prior year, primarily reflecting declines in personal income tax revenues, Employment Insurance (EI) premium revenues and other revenues, partially offset by an increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues.

Expenses were up $14.8 billion, or 5.0 per cent, from the prior year. Program expenses increased by $16.2 billion, reflecting increases in major transfers to persons and other levels of government and other transfer payments. Public debt charges decreased by $1.3 billion, or 5.2 per cent, from the prior year, reflecting a lower average effective interest rate on the stock of interest-bearing debt._

ltr


----------



## Just a Guy

Those are only federal numbers. Don’t forget to add in provincial and civic debts. 

BTW an asset is something with value. If you can’t sell it and get money for it, it’s pro what you would classify as worthless. What exactly are the assets that the government could sell, because it may be a good idea to do it and pay off the debt. Not seeing too many assets though.

Don’t forget any “surplus” a government finds generally turns into more spending. This should be the richest country in the world on a spending per capita ratio.

Maybe sags is thinking of Justin's wardrobe...


----------



## sags

According to the IMF.........Canada's debt to GDP was 27% in 2016. The average of the G7 countries debt to GDP was 83% in the same year.

Canada's "debt problem" only exists as a conservative boogeyman.......a convenient excuse to do nothing.


----------



## new dog

I would rather keep it that way then try to catch up.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> According to the IMF.........Canada's debt to GDP was 27% in 2016.


Canada's debt to GDP in 2016 was 92.4%.

ltr


----------



## new dog

Looking at different links I am seeing different numbers here. Some take in all debt including provinces and some say 33 percent. 

https://www.budget.gc.ca/2018/docs/plan/overview-apercu-en.html


----------



## Just a Guy

The problem with statistics is you can make them say whatever you want. Like inflation, don't like the numbers, change the items in the "basket". If we were truly growing, the debt wouldn't increase and we wouldn't be going through a recession for the past several years. 

Of course, we just manipulate the headlines (think Russia when it met its first 5 year plan a year early, despite the fact that it never made a single goal). 

You can't hide the fact that we are continually spending more each year than we bring in.

You can't hide the fact that we are taxing the population more than half of what it brings in (if you include all the hidden taxes, not just income tax). The "free money" supply is running out of its source. 

You can't hide the fact that there is no possible way to pay off the debt we are accumulating because of the deficit spending.

You can't hide the fact that we can't afford all the programs we want to implement or have implemented.

We are not "building wealth" in the country because the debt and deficits are growing and we aren't, as a government, producing anything of value. Companies may produce goods which add value, but the government is so inefficient, even if they did produce goods it would cost more than the goods it produced.

Now, you can make up any theories or statistics you want, but anyone who knows how to read real numbers can easily see through the pie in the sky BS.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Just a Guy said:


> The problem with statistics is you can make them say whatever you want. Like inflation, don't like the numbers, change the items in the "basket". If we were truly growing, the debt wouldn't increase and we wouldn't be going through a recession for the past several years.
> 
> Of course, we just manipulate the headlines (think Russia when it met its first 5 year plan a year early, despite the fact that it never made a single goal).
> 
> You can't hide the fact that we are continually spending more each year than we bring in.
> 
> You can't hide the fact that we are taxing the population more than half of what it brings in (if you include all the hidden taxes, not just income tax). The "free money" supply is running out of its source.
> 
> You can't hide the fact that there is no possible way to pay off the debt we are accumulating because of the deficit spending.
> 
> You can't hide the fact that we can't afford all the programs we want to implement or have implemented.
> 
> We are not "building wealth" in the country because the debt and deficits are growing and we aren't, as a government, producing anything of value. Companies may produce goods which add value, but the government is so inefficient, even if they did produce goods it would cost more than the goods it produced.
> 
> Now, you can make up any theories or statistics you want, but anyone who knows how to read real numbers can easily see through the pie in the sky BS.


It will continue because the billionaire class is profiting greatly from this. It will continue to be ignored or spun by the corrupt MSM.


----------



## new dog

Very true Just a Guy, the important thing is to try not to increase debt and then have to raise taxes to cover it.


----------



## Just a Guy

Big Kahuna said:


> It will continue because the billionaire class is profiting greatly from this. It will continue to be ignored or spun by the corrupt MSM.


It's done so governments get re-elected. No government is going to get voted for by the "ignorant masses" if they said "we can't afford our health care program as it currently sits, we need to make major changes and cut services" or "the social programs are unsustainable", or "we're removing these rebate programs" (even though rebate programs usually means it's costing you more because companies jack up their prices). "Teachers/doctors/nurses/public sector workers can't have any more raises so we can direct the money to the actual service they are supposed to be providing" instead of the money going into their pockets. 

No, governments get elected by saying "we'll give you more money and cut your taxes" to the vast majority. "We'll provide more money to health care, education, social programs, etc. (Which the unions will all demand goes to wage increases since they haven't had a raise in the past 6 months and everyone is overworked because all the money goes to wages instead of making more jobs and reducing class sizes/creating more beds/etc. 

People like Sags lap it up. Yeah, more money, tax he rich and corporations, leave my money alone...everything will be fine. Spending more than you earn is a way of life for everyone!!! The government will bail me out, I deserve it. Etc. People DESERVE more money just because they were born (unless you were successful of course, those people deserve to pay for my lazy butt). 

The more money they promise, the more likely they are to be elected. Any hint of. Fiscal responsibility usually means being the opposition at best, more likely not enough seats to even qualify as a party at worst. It's political suicide, no party would do it. 

Bribe people with their own money, most don't even realize it's happening. They thing government money comes from some magical money tree, not their children's pockets or their grandchildren's. It's those mythical "rich" and "corporations" (those things that actually create jobs if they exist and aren't taxed into closure.

You have to love how the government manipulates numbers so people like sags can crow about "low inflation". I don't know if sags ever shops, but anyone who does knows inflation is a lot higher than the stated amounts. My food bill is going up monthly thanks to "revenue neutral" taxes like the carbon tax. Of course, all we have to do to control inflation is change the items we look at. These goods have dropped in price because of automation and not paying some unskilled idiot $15/hour to watch it get made...that's an inflation indicator now...the price of gas, food, necessities...we'll keep all that out of the equation and tell people how cheap it is for them to live under our good stewardship...

They're not going to look at the actual numbers anyway, or understand them if they did. 

Our 5 year plan will be achieved in 4!


----------



## Just a Guy

new dog said:


> Very true Just a Guy, the important thing is to try not to increase debt and then have to raise taxes to cover it.


They don't even try to raise taxes to cover it, they can't with the current high tax rates and then the gat, HST, gasoline taxes, carbon taxes, manufacturing taxes, municipal access fees, property taxes, school taxes, cigarettes taxes, alcohol taxes, etc. 

They just run up a debt for the taxes of the next few generations. We'll all be dead and he money spent...any issues won't be any skin off of our noses.


----------



## new dog

True again but we have been paying for those down the road things that have happened in the decades past. We paid a hefty price to right the ship in the 90's and needed new taxes like the GST as we moved forward. 

Previous to the 90's there were a lot of Sags types saying debt is fine and all that rot.


----------



## sags

Look around. Do you think the Canada you see today looks the same as it did 100 years ago ?

Who do you think built the universities, hospitals, highways, bridges and everything else from one end of Canada to the other ?

What would be the replacement cost of those assets if they had to be built at today's prices ?

Canada has no assets ? Drive across Canada and observe the millions of acres of Crown land. Maybe you think land is worthless ?

Canada owns the seas and fisheries within it's borders. It owns the natural resources in the ground within it's borders. It owns the air and the right to fly in it or transmit information through it. It owns the right to levy taxes and fees and grant the rights of production. 

Canada has no assets to offset it's debt ? Get real........


----------



## bass player

The ones who pay taxes paid for the universities, hospitals, highways, bridges and everything else from one end of Canada to the other, as you put it. They also paid for the UBI program that you love.

Those who don't pay taxes are still able to live in a free and safe country, and have access to food and shelter because some people paid for their freedom with their lives and other people worked their entire life to make the country a better place.


----------



## bass player

duplicate


----------



## sags

bass player said:


> The ones who pay taxes paid for the universities, hospitals, highways, bridges and everything else from one end of Canada to the other, as you put it. They also paid for the UBI program that you love.
> 
> Those who don't pay taxes are still able to live in a free and safe country, and have access to food and shelter because some people paid for their freedom with their lives and other people worked their entire life to make the country a better place.


Why would it be true that people who collect the UBI never paid taxes or never will ? Life challenges people in different stages throughout their lives.

In those cases where it may be true.......people collect OAS who never paid taxes. The only requirement is living in Canada for 10 or more years.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Look around. Do you think the Canada you see today looks the same as it did 100 years ago ?
> 
> Who do you think built the universities, hospitals, highways, bridges and everything else from one end of Canada to the other ?
> 
> What would be the replacement cost of those assets if they had to be built at today's prices ?
> 
> Canada has no assets ? Drive across Canada and observe the millions of acres of Crown land. Maybe you think land is worthless ?
> 
> Canada owns the seas and fisheries within it's borders. It owns the natural resources in the ground within it's borders. It owns the air and the right to fly in it or transmit information through it. It owns the right to levy taxes and fees and grant the rights of production.
> 
> Canada has no assets to offset it's debt ? Get real........


Most people would say at the people who benefited from those universities were the original attendants. Who paid very little in comparison to today for their educations. Today, most universities are complaining about crumbling infrastructure and the need to collect more money. 

The fishing industry...yeah we wiped out the cod stocks completely. This from a country where you used to be able to collect cod by dropping a bucket over the side of your ship. 

Bridges are in dire need to be repaired or replaced...roads are under constant repair hospitals all need replacements as they are contaminated and full of staff infections. 

Face it, the past generations have used and abused this country, leaving it in pretty poor condition. I gather you've had your fill from the trough, so it doesn't bother you. Unfortunately, my kids are seeing it first hand and I can't imagine what will be left for their kids. 

Oh, and the tax rate charged to all those "builders"... it was a lot lower back then than it is today. They certainly didn't pay for it all, we haven't either and the bill is growing while the "assets" are nearing end of life.


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> Face it, the past generations have used and abused this country, leaving it in pretty poor condition.


I don't believe that. Are you purely talking about infrastructure like roads & bridges?

I can think of many ways the country has improved. The Great Lakes are cleaner today than they were 50 years ago, thanks to environmental laws. Deaths by traffic accidents have dramatically reduced over the decades, numbers of impaired drivers are way down. You can see a lot of "quality of life" summed up in mortality statistics: Canadian life expectancy has steadily gone up from only age 60 in 1920, to 82 today.

Canadian life expectancy keeps going higher, along with other top countries like Australia & Norway. Consider that American life expectancy diverged from other developed nations and started going *down* in the last few years.

On just about every global comparison of quality of life, Canada ranks among the top, sometimes at #1. It's really a stretch to say the country's condition is worsening... I don't believe it, and I don't see it in the numbers.

Except perhaps for environmental deterioration in certain areas, which I agree is a danger spot that needs attention.


----------



## sags

If Ford apologizes and reinstates the program, I think Ontario voters will give him a pass on this screwup, but he needs to focus on not making any more big mistakes like this.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> If Ford apologizes and reinstates the program, I think Ontario voters will give him a pass on this screwup, but he needs to focus on not making any more big mistakes like this.


I doubt your wishes will come true, as it's been shown this program was simply not working and needed to be stopped.

_Though the Progressive Conservatives had promised to preserve the pilot project, Social Services Minister Lisa MacLeod said the government reversed course after hearing from ministry staff that the program didn’t help people become “independent contributors to the economy.”

“It really is a disincentive to get people back on track,” she said Wednesday.

“When you’re encouraging people to accept money without strings attached, it really doesn’t send the message that I think our ministry and our government wants to send. We want to get people back on track and be productive members of society where that’s possible.”_

ltr


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> If Ford apologizes and reinstates the program, I think Ontario voters will give him a pass on this screwup, but he needs to focus on not making any more big mistakes like this.


Most people don't consider cancelling it to be a big mistake other than those who would collect it and a few bleeding hearts who think that free money is the solution to every problem.


----------



## Big Kahuna

bass player said:


> Most people don't consider cancelling it to be a big mistake other than those who would collect it and a few bleeding hearts who think that free money is the solution to every problem.


We should give every Ontario resident a million dollars a year-we can call it the Sags anti-poverty solution.


----------



## sags

Use the money for a buy low....rent high.....keep the difference real estate scheme to solve poverty ?

If people bought 15 properties for $60,000 each and made $500 profit each month on each of them.........$7500 a month income.

Voila........poverty solved. Good thinking Big Kahuna !


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> If people bought 15 properties for $60,000 each


And where did that 15 x $60,000 come from in the first place? Did it just grow on trees?

ltr


----------



## bass player

like_to_retire said:


> And where did that 15 x $60,000 come from in the first place? Did it just grow on trees?
> 
> ltr


All Liberal dreams require taxpayer money. The thought of a liberal funding something they think worthwhile with their own dime never crosses their mind.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Most people don't consider cancelling it to be a big mistake other than those who would collect it and a few bleeding hearts who think that free money is the solution to every problem.


Do you have evidence to this effect (polling, say) or are you really just speaking for yourself and not 'most people'?


----------



## Big Kahuna

andrewf said:


> Do you have evidence to this effect (polling, say) or are you really just speaking for yourself and not 'most people'?


Ford is doing exactly what the public wanted done-the guy would win again in a landslide if the election was held tomorrow. If you are depressed now, wait until Selfie Boy loses next year.


----------



## andrewf

Ford was elected by about 40% of voters. It seems like a big problem with our electoral system that people confuse winning a majority of the seats automatically means that a substantial majority of the people support the party in question. It just isn't so, and usually is not true. One also cannot conclude that the election result says anything about whether people support the UBI pilot, since Ford promised to keep it.


----------



## JohnZ7

andrewf said:


> Ford was elected by about 40% of voters. It seems like a big problem with our electoral system that people confuse winning a majority of the seats automatically means that a substantial majority of the people support the party in question. It just isn't so, and usually is not true. One also cannot conclude that the election result says anything about whether people support the UBI pilot, since Ford promised to keep it.


And Trudeau won with a less percentage of the vote than Ford did. That's the way our system works, whether you like it our not. Just like non-leftists need to have to live with Trudeau's policies whether we wish to or not, leftists need to live with Ford's.


----------



## james4beach

JohnZ7 said:


> And Trudeau won with a less percentage of the vote than Ford did.


That's misleading. That happened because the federal election had 3 serious candidates. The Ontario election only had 2 serious candidates, meaning each candidate's % of popular vote is higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_2018

It makes more sense to look at the amount by which the winner beat the opponent. Trudeau won by 7.6% more of the popular vote than his opponent. Ford won by 6.9% more of the popular vote than his opponent.


----------



## Just a Guy

But, if we look at the number of people who didn't even bother to vote because they realized there really were no opttons, then "none of the above" should be the clear winner in almost every election.


----------



## sags

Naysayers said raising the minimum wage would hurt Ontario's economy and cost jobs. They said the CPP couldn't be raised.

Didn't happen. The economy is booming and employers are on a hiring spree. CPP was raised and the economy didn't fall apart.

The same people are now saying the universal basic income can't be done.

They are wrong once again. World leaders and economists know a universal basic income is inevitable.


----------



## Just a Guy

Booming economy?

Wow talk about denier...


----------



## andrewf

If this is bad, what would you call good? Unemployment is at 18 year low, real GDP growth of 2.7%, or 4.5% nominal. How good to be good?


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> If this is bad, what would you call good? Unemployment is at 18 year low


I think there's a legitimate argument that the employment statistics don't capture the whole story and that unemployment may be worse than stated. As I understand it, 'unemployed' is defined as: not working at all and actively looking for work.

Therefore, the government stats don't reflect people who are partially working but unable to find full/permanent employment, OR people who have given up (very significant group) and stopped looking for work. I don't think those people are included in the unemployment figure.

I think that the number of unemployed people who have "given up" continues to rise. As that number rises, the government stats become even more misleading.

If the only job someone is able to find is a short term contract with no benefits and no job stability, the government counts them as "employed" but it is by no means equivalent to full employment of past decades. This is especially a problem for us younger workers. There really aren't very many good quality long-term jobs. I think it's going to get worse, and I've also more or less given up hope of having a "stable" long term job. Most of my friends have had jobs that last for a couple years at a time, and we're talking about highly educated professionals here.


----------



## Just a Guy

The counter argument would be, if the economy is so good, why are you looking for UBI? Why do we need legislated pay raises? Why are you complaining about what a hardship it is for people to make ends meet?

Make sure you know which side of the argument your on...you can’t play both sides.


----------



## andrewf

The economy can be doing well despite income disparity. Nothing about economic growth necessitates that that growth be distributed equally.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yes we lock people in basements and deny them work or even the ability to apply for jobs. It’s all a conspiracy of the rich. In a good economy companies are begging for employees. Unless they are poor of course. 

Sorry, I forgot.


----------



## andrewf

I dunno, it seems to me that the natural state of income and wealth distribution is much less equal than what we see in the West, which is lowered via government transfers and regulations (provided they are moderate and competently formulated).


----------



## Just a Guy

There will always be rich and there will always be poor. There will always be someone smarter and someone dumber, someone who works hard and someone who hardly works...it's the way of humanity.


----------



## andrewf

Sure, but you can have Denmark or Chile (or pre-Revolutionary France). Perfect equality is not only undesirable, it is impossible to achieve in practice. But there is a point beyond which inequality tends to make for less successful, more dangerous societies.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yes, let's aim for Russia, Cuba, china, North Korea, Vietnam or any other socialist dream...much better. No inequities there.

After all capitalism is so much worse. As proven by all the capitalist countries which don't wind up being military dictatorships...

Or maybe Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain? They managed to bankrupt their countries in less than a generation. But no one has to work.


----------



## kcowan

sags said:


> The same people are now saying the universal basic income can't be done.
> 
> They are wrong once again. World leaders and economists know a universal basic income is inevitable.


Do you have a credible link for this groundless claim?


----------



## sags

There are lots of links..........but CNBC and the former US Secretary of Labor should suffice as credible. Lots of links to others within the article.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/robert-reich-us-will-need-some-kind-of-universal-basic-income.html


----------



## Big Kahuna

sags said:


> There are lots of links..........but CNBC and the former US Secretary of Labor should suffice as credible. Lots of links to others within the article.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/robert-reich-us-will-need-some-kind-of-universal-basic-income.html


Everybody knows that big money is pushing this scam-no secret. Same old scam-use the government to steal from the public to give to the megarich. Nobody in the USA has made more money from the food stamp program than the WalMart billionaires (just one example).


----------



## Just a Guy

Al gore is making a fortune off of environmentalism.


----------



## sags

Big Kahuna said:


> Everybody knows that big money is pushing this scam-no secret. Same old scam-use the government to steal from the public to give to the megarich. Nobody in the USA has made more money from the food stamp program than the WalMart billionaires (just one example).


Great.........then people will agree that the wealthy should pay the taxes to pay for it, since they benefit from it so much.


----------



## Just a Guy

Don't see anyone suggesting that...if the wealthy are smart enough to convince stupid people to give them money "for a good cause" why should they just give it back? The same thing will just happen again. The wealthy tend to keep their money, the stupid don't.


----------



## Big Kahuna

sags said:


> Great.........then people will agree that the wealthy should pay the taxes to pay for it, since they benefit from it so much.


The "wealthy" is defined as anyone not poor-and they are already paying for all this B/S-your whole leftist program is being directed by the globalist billionaire class-who are definitely not paying their fair share of taxes.


----------



## Just a Guy

Funny how they worship people like al gore while he rips them off though.


----------



## sags

Just a Guy said:


> Don't see anyone suggesting that...if the wealthy are smart enough to convince stupid people to give them money "for a good cause" why should they just give it back? The same thing will just happen again. The wealthy tend to keep their money, the stupid don't.


No need for the wealthy to volunteer the money. We have many ways of making them pay.


----------



## Just a Guy

I'm not worried...you've been holding your hand out so long, it's probably permanently stuck in that position. Of course listening to you whine your entire life has been costly I'll admit. 

The wealthy always get the money back in the end...even in your socialist countries. The poor tend to wind up dead in far more numbers than the wealthy...even in your socialist countries. Funny how reality actually works.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Yes, let's aim for Russia, Cuba, china, North Korea, Vietnam or any other socialist dream...much better. No inequities there.
> 
> After all capitalism is so much worse. As proven by all the capitalist countries which don't wind up being military dictatorships...
> 
> Or maybe Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain? They managed to bankrupt their countries in less than a generation. But no one has to work.


I specifically said that elimination of inequality should not be the goal. I do think that inequality is somewhat higher in Canada than what is optimal, and there are likely some better ways of reducing inequality than the current welfare state approach.

South Africa and Chile are both capitalist societies with high levels of wealth inequality. Some of the most violent countries on earth are fairly capitalist and unequal. Even North Korea is quite unequal despite being communist--nothing about communism requires actual economic equality as an outcome, just lip service to it. Usually in turns into a wealthy ruling class living off the spoils of the impoverished working class. Same was the case in Cuba and China prior to Greece, Ireland Portugal and Spain are all capitalist societies, some with pretty ineffective governments and institutions.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> No need for the wealthy to volunteer the money. We have many ways of making them pay.


That I agree with. The left has no shortage of ideas on how to take from others. But, that's easy...anyone can take what others have created. The left has always lacked ideas to create wealth, so their only solution is to take wealth from others.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> No need for the wealthy to volunteer the money. We have many ways of making them pay.


of course you do ...

“We must put an end once and for all to the papist-Quaker babble about the sanctity of human life.”
Leon Trotsky

“We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more.”
Nikolai Krylenko, commissar for justice


----------



## sags

Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for it is better to leave them poor with instruction than rich with ignorance.


----------



## Just a Guy

You're obviously well versed at the latter. I'll take your advice there.

Personally, I've got no fear that any of my kids won't succeed going forward. They've been raised to work, they have knowledge of investing, they were taught to find solutions, rely on themselves, have no sense of entitlement and they were never allowed to play the victim growing up.

They will probably do a lot better than I did. Your kids will probably hate them.


----------



## kcowan

sags said:


> There are lots of links..........but CNBC and the former US Secretary of Labor should suffice as credible. Lots of links to others within the article.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/robert-reich-us-will-need-some-kind-of-universal-basic-income.html


Read the last three paragraphs. To paraphrase, yea we need it but it probably won't happen!


----------



## kcowan

Just a Guy said:


> Funny how they worship people like al gore while he rips them off though.


Also David Suzuki, our made-in-Canada bigot.


----------



## RBull

> The same people are now saying the universal basic income can't be done.
> 
> They are wrong once again. World leaders and economists know a universal basic income is inevitable.





kcowan said:


> Do you have a credible link for this groundless claim?





sags said:


> There are lots of links..........but CNBC and the former US Secretary of Labor should suffice as credible. Lots of links to others within the article.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/robert-reich-us-will-need-some-kind-of-universal-basic-income.html


Sags, your link referenced 1 academic/former govt official and a ironically a couple of rich folks. However, a person can infer from your statement that most leaders of the world and most economists would agree universal income is inevitable.

Kcowan asked but I'll ask again - do you have any real evidence to prove conclusively "World leaders and economists know a universal basic income is inevitable"? If not we'll accept your claim as groundless, which wouldn't be without presecendent.


----------



## sags

I doubt the naysayers are interested in accepting any evidence as proof, but here is a country by country assessment of a universal income.

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


----------



## Just a Guy

Do you actually read what you reference? Gee, a bunch of left wing parties in a variety of countries, none of which are in power, support UBI. In some small, really poor countries, they've conducted some experiments on implementing it. 

Hardly a resounding group of world leaders bent on implementing it. Sound like you and your friends getting together for a beer demanding that buck a beer should actually be free beer.

Oh, you may have also missed the fact that, despite all these people "proposing", not one seems to have any plan to actually "fund" UBI. 

So it basically boils down to "yeah, I think it's a great idea to give everyone free money".


----------



## sags

You are surprised there are many left wing political parties in an article on European politics ?


----------



## Just a Guy

I'm surprised you'd try and use that article as proof...well, actually I'm not surprised at all...

I haven't even heard of most of those parties...probably has about the same influence as the Sags freeloaders party.


----------



## sags

Buck a beer is a Doug Ford conservative brain fart.


----------



## sags

The World Economic Forum........article on the support and benefits of a universal basic income.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/why-we-should-all-have-a-basic-income/


----------



## Just a Guy

Guess you missed this part...

“The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum”


One guy’s opinion, not an expert by any means from his bio.


You really need to read your sources better. No wonder you post so much that is just sound bytes lacking substance or thought.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> I doubt the naysayers are interested in accepting any evidence as proof, but here is a country by country assessment of a universal income.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world


Okay, you've proven what we already know- basic income has been discussed in a number of smaller countries around the world at some point in time. 

A basic historical u b i summary of a few groups, fringe parties, or socialist academics etc for some mostly smaller countries is not evidence of "World leaders and economists know a universal basic income is inevitable". 

Which current world leaders and economists now KNOW it is inevitable and is this the majority of world leaders and economists? 

I would be fine with looking seriously at "evidence of proof" but you haven't provided any to back up your claim. That's not surprising.


----------



## sags

Naysayers will never be satisfied with the evidence put before them.

They need to provide the evidence that my position is wrong.

Nobody has provided any evidence in this thread that a universal basic income cannot be implemented.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yeah, the math showing actual costs isn’t evidence at all. The program can’t be funded. Do arithmetic number of people times the amount of money you want to give out. You don’t need a research paper, or experts. 

Unlike your “the options expressed by the author reflect the views of no one with a brain” evidence.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Nobody has provided any evidence in this thread that a universal basic income cannot be implemented.


It's also true that no one has proven a UBI can be successfully implemented in the long run, both financially or socially. And, no, a couple short term pilot projects are not proof of anything.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> Naysayers will never be satisfied with the evidence put before them.
> 
> They need to provide the evidence that my position is wrong.
> 
> Nobody has provided any evidence in this thread that a universal basic income cannot be implemented.


And stating opinions as if they are facts only serves to undermine your argument. Once again, you've provided no evidence to back up YOUR specific claim. You've simply shown that so far so your own statement is indefensible. 

Now you're shifting gears, twisting in the wind talking about the implementation of uib. I've not said it couldn't be done; just that you have zero proof most economists and most leaders realize it is inevitible, let alone wanting it to be done.

Not sure why you want to be so stubborn about that. Or perhaps you mean you think it would be good and some economists, and some political parties and groups also want it. I can see that for sure but don't necessarily agree with it.


----------



## sags

I posted :

_World leaders and economists know a universal basic income is inevitable._

You posted :

_You have zero proof most economists and most leaders realize it is inevitable_

You misquote what I posted and then challenge me to prove your misquote ?..........get real.

I provided several links, which contain all kinds of links, to political leaders and economists across the world advocating for a universal basic income.

You can disagree with them, but you can't deny they are there.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> It's also true that no one has proven a UBI can be successfully implemented in the long run, both financially or socially. And, no, a couple short term pilot projects are not proof of anything.


It's almost like it is a study should be undertaken to see what the impacts of the policy are.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> It's almost like it is a study should be undertaken to see what the impacts of the policy are.


If we funded every liberal idea that came along, the economy would have collapsed decades ago. Perhaps someone could prove the value first instead of expecting the taxpayer to fund their fantasy.


----------



## andrewf

We funded crazy conservative ideas like 3 strikes criminal justice reforms (utter failure, and has cost much more).


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> We funded crazy conservative ideas like 3 strikes criminal justice reforms (utter failure, and has cost much more).


Canada doesn't have a 3 strike law, but if you are referring to the US, Bill Clinton was in power when it was passed and he was a Democrat.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> Naysayers will never be satisfied with the evidence put before them.
> 
> They need to provide the evidence that my position is wrong.
> 
> *Nobody has provided any evidence in this thread that a universal basic income cannot be implemented.*


nor has anyone provided any evidence that a universal basic income will adequately solve the problem of caring for people who cannot provide adequate means for their own care

it is welfare by another name and a very large cohort of people (think those that work and pay taxes and donate to political parties and vote in greater numbers etc) do not like the idea of handing out free money, which is exactly what it is

those same people have much less objection to helping those in need ... in real demonstrated need

so, i would rather spend money on pilot programs that implement higher quality and better targeted social services like giving people semi-full time counselors if need be to see what kinds of support and skills they need to be productive or to determine that they truly cannot be productive for reasons beyond their control and then give them decent and adequate welfare

people pushing universal basic income should be honest and call it universal basic welfare but of course that will never happen


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> I provided several links, which contain all kinds of links, to political leaders and economists across the world advocating for a universal basic income.
> 
> You can disagree with them, but you can't deny they are there.


You seem to ignore the fact that we discredited ever one of your links...unless you consider leaders of unknown parties to be "world leaders".

They are probably as credible as you.


----------



## Pluto

Reportedly, UBI will be paid for by lottery revenue.

https://winningtheslots.rocks/ca/yg...&lpkey=15e734f9347e403f33&uclick=e88pik#valid


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> I posted :
> 
> _World leaders and economists know a universal basic income is inevitable._
> 
> You posted :
> 
> _You have zero proof most economists and most leaders realize it is inevitable_
> 
> You misquote what I posted and then challenge me to prove your misquote ?..........get real.
> 
> I provided several links, which contain all kinds of links, to political leaders and economists across the world advocating for a universal basic income.
> 
> You can disagree with them, but you can't deny they are there.


I'm quite real. You've chosen to ignore why I stated "most" since we are to reasonably infer from your statement that a significant contingent of economists and actual world leaders in power agree universal basic income is inevitable. If this isn't true why would it be important? 


Or are you just trying to prove a few economists and a number of fringe parties in smaller countries are "advocating for a universal basic income" -which isn't really signficant, let alone proof of "realize it is inevitable". 

You've also chosen to ignore my statement about not denying "some" economists and "parties" (of little significance) think it would be good.
As I already stated "Or perhaps you mean you think it would be good and some economists, and some political parties and groups also want it. I can see that for sure but don't necessarily agree with it." 

To be clear what I object to is trying to make it sound like a lot of important people in important places know universal basic income must happen. If this is your intent you haven't proven it whatsover. Because you can't. 

For the record I'm fine with studying this, and if Ontario had continued on it probably would have been a good thing. In what I've read it seems a failed experiment most everywhere and likely would have proven the same in this country.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Canada doesn't have a 3 strike law, but if you are referring to the US, Bill Clinton was in power when it was passed and he was a Democrat.


Criminal justice in the US is mostly state level. Canada doesn't have 3 strikes laws, but Harper did implement severe sentencing/mandatory minimums which served to balloon the prison (criminal training schools) population in Canada.


----------



## Just a Guy

Would you prefer to give criminals free money and a pat on the head while telling them not to do it again? Not sure what the solution is, but I'm betting that's not it either.

Since you're not too concerned about criminals being outside of jail, let me know where you live and I'll buy a place close by and open a halfway house for those recently released. Don't worry, I'll only allow repeat offenders to live close to you.


----------



## CPA Candidate

Just a comment, if universal basic income became policy in Canada, my brother-in-law would never work again, I'm sure of it. He is about 40 and has never had anything resembling a career, just low level jobs for short periods of time. No education or training of any kind beyond high school. He has virtually no ambition or pride and is happy to survive rather than prosper.


----------



## sags

Don't fret.........when he reaches age 65, he can receive senior welfare OAS/GIS and he will be respectable again.


----------



## Just a Guy

I remember when people were expected to EARN a paycheque. When did that change to people are ENTITLED to get a living wage?


----------



## sags

You say that like expecting a living wage is a bad thing.


----------



## kcowan

sags said:


> You say that like expecting a living wage is a bad thing.


Better not use the term wage when discussing handouts:


> A wage is monetary compensation (or remuneration, personnel expenses, labor) paid by an employer to an employee in exchange for work done.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> You say that like expecting a living wage is a bad thing.


Sorry, I don't think says things like "welcome to walmart" to be worth $15/hour. Probably why it'll be replaced by automation and eliminate the job completely in he future. So instead of some people earning something, no one will make anything and you'll complain that jobs are being automated. No more "will there be fries with that" either. No more flipping burgers. None of these jobs are worth it at some point. 

Where will all the high school dropouts go then? Let's provide them with free education...didn't really work at getting them through high school, but I'm sure if we give them the opportunity, most will probably continue to waste tax payer dollars and not improve their life while thinking about how hard they've had it. 

I also don't think that every employee is a good employee. There are many out there who miss shifts, steal from companies, get drunk and work, are on drugs and work or miss, there are those who do the bare minimum or not even that, here are those who cut corners and cost the company millions. 

Then there are those who expect a living wage just because they were born...


----------



## Big Kahuna

sags said:


> You say that like expecting a living wage is a bad thing.


Meanwhile the Left cheers on Apple and its slave factories so they can get 5 cents off on the price of their new phone.


----------



## andrewf

Do they, though?

Am I mistaken in thinking that Kahuna is a previously banned troll? His voice sounds familiar.


----------



## Big Kahuna

andrewf said:


> Do they, though?
> 
> Am I mistaken in thinking that Kahuna is a previously banned troll? His voice sounds familiar.


No wonder you extreme leftists love Communist China so much-you want to ban every single opinion that isn't condoned by your owners.


----------



## humble_pie

andrewf said:


> Do they, though?
> 
> Am I mistaken in thinking that Kahuna is a previously banned troll? His voice sounds familiar.




believe you are mistaken about the prev banned troll

kahuna sounds like nelley, a conspicuous alt-right who appeared in cmf forum fairly early during the 2016 presidential campaign. The language signature is the same. Neither were ever banned (what is jas4beach thinking of?)

kahuna/nelley doesn't come across as a he. Neither does this personnage come across as a she. Strictly on the gender invisibility metric - but on that metric alone - kahuna/nelley has managed to be outrageously cool.

in every other respect he/she is a banworthy troll


.


----------



## Big Kahuna

humble_pie said:


> believe you are mistaken about the prev banned troll
> 
> kahuna sounds like nelley, a conspicuous alt-right who appeared in cmf forum fairly early during the 2016 presidential campaign. The language signature is the same. Neither were ever banned (what is jas4beach thinking of?)
> 
> kahuna/nelley doesn't come across as a he. Neither does this personnage come across as a she. Strictly on the gender invisibility metric - but on that metric alone - kahuna/nelley has managed to be outrageously cool.
> 
> in every other respect he/she is a banworthy troll
> 
> 
> .


I am surprised you are not aware that in Ontario 2018 there are legally 57 genders- call me Gender 58.


----------



## MrMatt

Universal basic income is nearly an eventuality, people tend to vote for "free money". 
The problem is that eventually the government runs short on money. 

Then a few things can happen, they can back off the promise of free money for everyone.
They take more and more, until they destroy the economy, and people are stuck in poverty. 

Economically, you need people to do the work of making society function, you either pay them, or force them. If you take away the pay/profit incentive, you have to force them, or society doesn't function.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Universal basic income is nearly an eventuality, people tend to vote for "free money".
> The problem is that eventually the government runs short on money.
> 
> Then a few things can happen, they can back off the promise of free money for everyone.
> They take more and more, until they destroy the economy, and people are stuck in poverty.
> 
> Economically, you need people to do the work of making society function, you either pay them, or force them. If you take away the pay/profit incentive, you have to force them, or society doesn't function.




ultra dumb crumb question from a poor pie, sorry

but i thought UBI was "instead of" traditional welfare payments?

since both deliver more or less the same benefits to clients, it's a question of finding out which approach costs the least to maintain.

me i continue to think that a pilot program to determine which modality cuts the less-costly biscuit is a good idea.


----------



## Big Kahuna

humble_pie said:


> ultra dumb crumb question from a poor pie, sorry
> 
> but i thought UBI was "instead of" traditional welfare payments?
> 
> since both deliver more or less the same benefits to clients, it's a question of finding out which approach costs the least to maintain.
> 
> me i continue to think that a pilot program to determine which modality cuts the less-costly biscuit is a good idea.


DUH-the original premise from over 30 years ago was to replace other forms of guv payments with UBI-save on guv mismanagement-did the Wynne morons do this? Did they make sure that for every dollar added in this project another was subtracted from the welfare spending? Of course not-then somebody would squeal-so the moronic leftists just layered another guv program on top of the existing spending-miracle of miracles-the lucky ones chosen for the project enjoyed getting more money from the taxpayer. What a farce.


----------



## Just a Guy

I’m continually stunned by the simple fact that so many people don’t understand the simple word “universal”. It doesn’t mean former welfare people, it doesn’t mean clawback, it means EVERYONE. 

Now, that may not be what you personally think it means, but you’d better clue in to the real definition before you vote it into place because, in the end, your version of UBI isn’t what will be implemented. They will implement the defined version.

Too many people think they know what they are voting for, then discover that their interpretation isn't what they are actually voting for. Quit trying to spin things the way you think they are and start understanding the basic English language. This isn't even political spin speech, this is simple English.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Just a Guy said:


> I’m continually stunned by the simple fact that so many people don’t understand the simple word “universal”. It doesn’t mean former welfare people, it doesn’t mean clawback, it means EVERYONE.
> 
> Now, that may not be what you personally think it means, but you’d better clue in to the real definition before you vote it into place because, in the end, your version of UBI isn’t what will be implemented. They will implement the defined version.


That was the original idea 30 years ago-a Universal payment to replace all forms of welfare and somewhat even out income and wealth distribution while eliminating government waste. This new version uses the same word but is totally different-just an excuse to add more government waste on top of everything else.


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> I’m continually stunned by the simple fact that so many people don’t understand the simple word “universal”. It doesn’t mean former welfare people, it doesn’t mean clawback, it means EVERYONE.
> 
> Now, that may not be what you personally think it means, but you’d better clue in to the real definition before you vote it into place because, in the end, your version of UBI isn’t what will be implemented. They will implement the defined version.
> 
> Too many people think they know what they are voting for, then discover that their interpretation isn't what they are actually voting for. Quit trying to spin things the way you think they are and start understanding the basic English language. This isn't even political spin speech, this is simple English.


The words people use, and the system they actually implement are different.
The universal basic income that the Ontario Liberals put in wasn't universal.

Firstly, they only selected from a limited pool.
Secondly different people got different amounts based on age, marital status, and other criteria. 

The thing with a universal basic income, is that they have to claw back most of it from most people, otherwise we quite simply can't afford it.
The math is pretty simple, the Ontario UBI basic income was 16,989, with 36million people in Canada, that's about 600 Billion dollars, or 40% of our 1.5 Trillion dollar GDP.

That's basically more than the current spend of every level of government in Canada combined, just in a "basic income", without paying for a single service we rely on. 

Basically they have to tax or claw back almost all of it, or it's unaffordable. 
Or, more likely make it less "universal".


----------



## sags

Technological unemployment will force a solution by world leaders. What form it takes and how it will be funded isn't decided, but it is being studied and debated.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> Technological unemployment will force a solution by world leaders. What form it takes and how it will be funded isn't decided, but it is being studied and debated.


It’s amazing that someone who spends so much time on an investment forum would never clue into the idea of investing in the companies who are making the money to develop their own personal income stream. Imagine sacrificing your cigarette budget, your drug addiction, your alcohol consumption and putting that money away. It’s amazing how much you can cut from your spending when you want to (and this comes from personal experience). It’s not easy, it’s not comfortable living short term, but it can pay off. 

I did it at a time when stock trading was expensive, now you can trade for free, with low or no minimums. It’s easier to make money today than it ever has been, yet people would still prefer handouts.


----------



## sags

What is amazing is that you have no clue how much dividend paying stock a person would need to own to provide a sufficient "personal income stream".


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> What is amazing is that you have no clue how much dividend paying stock a person would need to own to provide a sufficient "personal income stream".


Actually I know exactly how much you need, and how to accumulate it over time through sacrifice. The real difference is, I had to do it without qualifying for any social services like welfare, EI, insurance, etc. It's definitely not easy, it's not quick, but it can be done. 

It's amazing that you think panhandling the government is the only alternative and a legitimate way to earn a living. 

Why exactly are you on this board, you don't seem to have any interest in making money other than to demand it from others. The purpose of investing is to be able to stand on your own feet, not to pick someone else's pocket. I've looked back at many of your postings and can't really find anything where you actually contribute to the idea of how to make money...take money from others is all over your postings, but nothing about how to actually make it for others to take.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Technological unemployment will force a solution by world leaders. What form it takes and how it will be funded isn't decided, but it is being studied and debated.


Can you explain this technological unemployment?
Technology has massively changed the type of work we do, it used to be that most human work was on basic life necessities, like agriculture.
Now very few people work in that area, they found other things to do. Experts are split on this, some thing technology will take care of everything and the best we can hope for is the world of Wall-E.
Others think we'll just keep coming up with new things to do.

I'm personally in the second camp, for a number of reasons.
Looking at my own todo list of things, there are more things to do than I have time for, if technology somehow freed me up from most of them, I'd still have plenty to do.
- people would even pay for some of it.

Secondly humans need to do something useful. There is a lot of research that shows happiness and longevity are correlated to having a purpose in life. 
- If you're looking, look at senior longevity and how they fit into their society.
- Look at the research on finding opportunities for the developmentally challenged (or whatever the word is today).
Having a purpose in life is very very important.

Finally if the whole world was idle, they'd either sit around and rot, or cause trouble. We're left with a dystopia, be it horrible crime ridden existence, or Wall-E.
IMO the proper path is existence where people still seek purpose, but that needs a cultural shift to where success is something beyond smoking pot, and watching netflix while drones ship meals to your house. 
It's a hard path endlessly debated in Science and Science Fiction.

Finally to clarify, I don't like poverty, and I don't think it's "all their fault". I think we have to ensure that we're helping people build purposeful lives. Anything less is harmful to the individual and society.

One of the saddest things I recall from my childhood is the teacher asking grade 2 students (7yr olds) what they wanted to be when they grew up, and have kids answer "welfare recipient". I went to school with some of those kids


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags would definitely argue your second point. They just want handouts. Though, I suppose their constant advocation for handouts could be consider their mission in life and thus support your point. You wonder what ever happened to having any pride...


----------



## sags

We earned our money the old fashioned way of 40 years of working for it, and throughout the years heard all about the real estate scheme you talk about.

The only difference was the "real estate guru" claiming to have previously unknown secret information that would "change lives".

Here is Tom Vu..........he is an original, promoting the same scheme that you talk about.

He promoted his real estate scheme until he got sued by angry consumers in the 1990's and today is a professional poker player in Las Vegas.


----------



## Just a Guy

The difference is, I don't make my money from telling people how to make money in real estate or stocks, or owning a business...I make my money from doing all those things and freely share my experience freely. 

Same with mr. Matt, though was may make a few bucks from his YouTube channel. 

Do you really think people who make money, not having a regular job, all did it by scams? Paycheques are the worst way to make money, it's a proven fact. Highest taxes, lowest ability to ref the one who got scammed by growing up believing you go to school, get a job and retire...it's the biggest con in the world. I can't name anyone I know who got rich that way. 

There is no scam when you buy something that makes you money and you do the work required. The scam comes from demanding money for not working from those who do. Every property, every stock, and my businesses I own makes me money, even when I'm not working. Then directly. If I was on a paycheque, I don't work I don't get paid, I run out of hours in the day, I can't earn more...

With me, and others, you want to increase your income, invest in something more, earn more, no need to work more hours, no need to demand a raise. 

You're fear of doing something different is what kept you relatively poor compared to others on this board...yet you blame the successful people for doing something you feared and were successful at.

P.s. The trick to figure out if something's a scam is to follow the money. If they aren't making money doing what they say they are, or it's not their money their after, then it's probably a scam.


----------



## s1231

The developing the land that's creating many jobs + benefit to everybody.
(better economy, productivities, health & safe environment )

What is the Canadian way?

Example:
- Iceland Is Growing New Forests for the First Time in 1,000 Years | Short Film Showcase
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnRNdbqXu1I


- Watch This New Technology in China That Converts Desert Into Productive Land Rich With Crops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkdxObsCVGY

How China turns deserts into green. 
Turning drought-ravaged land into fertile soil.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yeah, a lot of those desert to oasis conversions have caused major problems in other areas because of it. Think of Nevada importing California water. Not to mention water is a greenhouse gas, and Nevada is now pumping it all into an area that didn't have it before causing climate change.


----------



## s1231

Just a Guy said:


> Yeah, a lot of those desert to oasis conversions have caused major problems in other areas because of it. Think of Nevada importing California water. Not to mention water is a greenhouse gas, and Nevada is now pumping it all into an area that didn't have it before causing climate change.


China is improving their environment. They are working for it day by day, year after year + mass labour.
Can you imagine how it will change after 50, 100 or more years?
Will Canada start any projects during the time?
What is the Canadian way of improving this land & atmosphere + economy?


----------



## new dog

The Canadian way is to talk about everything we can do like shutting down oil production, not cutting down trees, stop mining and ride your bike. Also just stop the homeless problem by throwing money at it and bring in more homeless by setting out the welcome mat to any refugees or people wanting to cross the border illegally. 

Paying for it is easy because you just tax the rich, tax drivers more for commuting and carbon taxes that do nothing


----------



## Just a Guy

China’s population is just slightly larger than Canada with a smaller landmass. I don’t think you can seriously compare their ability to fix climate change on an equal footing.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Just a Guy said:


> China’s population is just slightly larger than Canada with a smaller landmass. I don’t think you can seriously compare their ability to fix climate change on an equal footing.


With our vast forest cover we already consume more CO2 than we pump out. As for China, it is an ecological disaster-naturally the MSM and the Al Gore type grifters totally ignore this reality.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Criminal justice in the US is mostly state level. Canada doesn't have 3 strikes laws, but Harper did implement severe sentencing/mandatory minimums which served to balloon the prison (criminal training schools) population in Canada.


And many far left states such as California have 3 strike laws. This is common knowledge and you should already know this. So, it's not a "conservative" value, and Harper had nothing to do with them implementing the law.

Why don't you know this? Where do you get your information from?


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> China’s population is just slightly larger than Canada with a smaller landmass. I don’t think you can seriously compare their ability to fix climate change on an equal footing.


Canada has less than 3% of the population of China. They're more than 35 times our population, and that's "Slightly larger".
They emit nearly 30% of all CO2 emissions, Canada is about 1.5%. Their impact is way higher than ours.


----------



## RBull

Just a Guy said:


> China’s population is just slightly larger than Canada with a smaller landmass. I don’t think you can seriously compare their ability to fix climate change on an equal footing.


China has single cities with populations as large as Canada.


----------



## Just a Guy

I was being facetious in response to the original comment comparing China and Canada.


----------



## RBull

Thanks for clarifying. Should have known!


----------



## Longtimeago

new dog said:


> The Canadian way is to talk about everything we can do like shutting down oil production, not cutting down trees, stop mining and ride your bike. Also just stop the homeless problem by throwing money at it and bring in more homeless by setting out the welcome mat to any refugees or people wanting to cross the border illegally.
> 
> Paying for it is easy because you just tax the rich, tax drivers more for commuting and carbon taxes that do nothing


I really do find it frustrating that some Canadians cannot seem to understand the difference between a Legal Immigrant; Illegal Immigrant; Economic Migrant; Asylum Seeker/Refugee, as well as what constitutes a legal or illegal border crossing. And then there is this persistent perception that there is a 'welcome mat' set out.

If someone is going to offer a public (this forum) opinion on something, they should first do their research to understand what they are talking about before putting their foot in their mouth and offering an opinion that simply displays ignorance of the subject or a good example of tribalism.

Illegal border crossers fall into two categories. Genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution or a threat to life of some kind and economic migrants. The former are granted asylum, while the latter are deported. Of those currently illegally crossing the border from the USA, 50% +/- are deported. The ones who are not deported are in fact genuine refugees. There is no 'welcome mat' for all, only for some. 

What gets me the most about tribalism in regards to Canada, is that none of us are natives of this country other than the indigenous people. We all came as immigrants at some point in our family's past. Why did they let your family into Canada new dog, so that you could then try and stop anyone else from getting in?


----------



## new dog

The reality is Trudeau gave a welcoming signal awhile back to those who come across the border illegally. Sure we have border laws and such but that message gives people the false idea that they can just cross our border illegally.

This all costs money and if we keep making arguments like you just made then it will get far worse and cost even more money.

This will strain our housing and homeless problems and cost even more money.

I am not against having some refugees and immigration that will help Canada move into the future.


----------



## new dog

I should add that with illegal crossings you raise the chances of bad elements entering Canada as well.


----------



## humble_pie

new dog said:


> The reality is Trudeau gave a welcoming signal awhile back to those who come across the border illegally. Sure we have border laws and such but that message gives people the false idea that they can just cross our border illegally.



it's comical to see not just the alt-right racist kooks but also some of the PC themselves yammering the above piece of fake baloney.

95% of the people crossing the border via the roxham road have never even heard of justin trudeau. Most do not even know that canada has a democratically elected leader whose title is prime minister.

there are professional human smugglers running those lines from africa through south america - anyone can land in brazil & other SA countries without a visa if one has tickets to show that one is onward bound. Some of the coyotes are stlll trying to deliver their human cargo to US border ports as refugees, but it's failing.

18 months ago they found canada's back door & they turned their smuggling business to canada. This should be shut down. IMHO the fastest way would be to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement.

refugee claimants from all countries other than the US could just as easily claim refugee status at major airports, exactly as they had to do prior to Safe Third. They would be treated the same. Their refugee status would be determined via the same hearings.

the fact that asylum seekers from asia, africa & the middle east are risking their lives by choosing brazil to roxham road - or JFK to roxham road if they are lucky enough to be allowed to land in the US - & in all cases they are paying obscene fees to the coyotes - shows us that canada needs to close rural pathways such as the roxham road ASAP.

the problem is not justin trudeau, the problem is the back door loophole in the Safe third country agreement that prevents the RCMP from turning rural border crossers back, right at the border.

.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Longtimeago said:


> I really do find it frustrating that some Canadians cannot seem to understand the difference between a Legal Immigrant; Illegal Immigrant; Economic Migrant; Asylum Seeker/Refugee, as well as what constitutes a legal or illegal border crossing. And then there is this persistent perception that there is a 'welcome mat' set out.
> 
> If someone is going to offer a public (this forum) opinion on something, they should first do their research to understand what they are talking about before putting their foot in their mouth and offering an opinion that simply displays ignorance of the subject or a good example of tribalism.
> 
> Illegal border crossers fall into two categories. Genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution or a threat to life of some kind and economic migrants. The former are granted asylum, while the latter are deported. Of those currently illegally crossing the border from the USA, 50% +/- are deported. The ones who are not deported are in fact genuine refugees. There is no 'welcome mat' for all, only for some.
> 
> What gets me the most about tribalism in regards to Canada, is that none of us are natives of this country other than the indigenous people. We all came as immigrants at some point in our family's past. Why did they let your family into Canada new dog, so that you could then try and stop anyone else from getting in?


That is a red herring-when my ancestors immigrated to Canada there was no welfare state-nobody came to Canada because of the generous taxpayer funded benefits-if you didn't work you starved.


----------



## Just a Guy

One could argue that the "natives" were just the first "invaders" with no more claim to the land than anyone else. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was born here, not somewhere else like Europe, Asia, India, etc...last I knew that made me a "native" of Canada not some other country where my ancestors were born.


----------



## new dog

Then just solve the problems of the back door or whatever and move forward.

I was also born here and so was my dad and mom. We all have concerns including the natives and we really need simple and cheap solutions to problems. If your here illegally then you get put in a tent city or something and given food but not a lot. 

Kahuna is right about you come and make your way or you starve. That was then however and I agree we need to not let people starve but the message out there will be that legal immigration is the best way to go.

As I have said on another thread that down and out people that are trying hard keeping their place and neighborhood clean should be first up for housing and assistance. Simple solutions and accountability should be the Canadian way, while saving tax payers lots of money.


----------



## Just a Guy

In my dealings with the “poor”, I have to say I don’t see a lot of immigrants using up the social services compared to certain Canadian groups. There does seem to be distinct “groups”, but I’d be portrayed as a “racist” or something if I made the observation more detailed.


----------



## MrMatt

Longtimeago said:


> What gets me the most about tribalism in regards to Canada, is that none of us are natives of this country other than the indigenous people. We all came as immigrants at some point in our family's past. Why did they let your family into Canada new dog, so that you could then try and stop anyone else from getting in?


I was born here, I'm 100% Canadian.
As far as your racist dig (maybe you should read the charter section 15)
Where your family is from doesn't make you any more or less Canadian.


Now as far as immigration, if you're willing to be a law abiding contributing member, come on it.
If you're going to be a lawless criminal trying to take advantage of our generosity, you're not welcome.

If your very first interaction to my country is to break the law, you're starting out on the wrong foot.

I know a lot of immigrants, most of them are just fine, but they all have some respect for our laws and came legally


----------



## andrewf

Longtimeago said:


> I really do find it frustrating that some Canadians cannot seem to understand the difference between a Legal Immigrant; Illegal Immigrant; Economic Migrant; Asylum Seeker/Refugee, as well as what constitutes a legal or illegal border crossing. And then there is this persistent perception that there is a 'welcome mat' set out.
> 
> If someone is going to offer a public (this forum) opinion on something, they should first do their research to understand what they are talking about before putting their foot in their mouth and offering an opinion that simply displays ignorance of the subject or a good example of tribalism.
> 
> Illegal border crossers fall into two categories. Genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution or a threat to life of some kind and economic migrants. The former are granted asylum, while the latter are deported. Of those currently illegally crossing the border from the USA, 50% +/- are deported. The ones who are not deported are in fact genuine refugees. There is no 'welcome mat' for all, only for some.
> 
> What gets me the most about tribalism in regards to Canada, is that none of us are natives of this country other than the indigenous people. We all came as immigrants at some point in our family's past. Why did they let your family into Canada new dog, so that you could then try and stop anyone else from getting in?


I would argue that indigenous people are not natives, either. They are the first immigrants.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I would argue that indigenous people are not natives, either. They are the first immigrants.


I'm happy with the dictionary definition of native.
Where you were born is where you were born.

You shouldn't be judged on who your parents are or where they were from, equality of opportunity is one of the things that makes Canada so great.


----------



## Brainer

I agree wit this largely, but I'll add that this is often partly because new immigrants, esp. those from poorer countries, often have no idea at all of all the social services we provide. Part of my job in a previous life was to introduce them to those services. They were usually shocked to see the wealth of services provided.


----------



## james4beach

100 Canadian CEOs have written a letter to the Ontario Government, asking Ford to keep the basic income experiment running
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...nite-in-bid-to-save-basic-income-project.html

By the way, Nixon almost brought universal basic income to the US. The concept was supported by Nixon and the White House.


----------



## kcowan

Do you know of the makeup of that list? Are they entrepreneurs or employees of larger companies?


----------



## Just a Guy

Where to they say the money should come from?

Is this on top of a $15 minimum wage? Or so they can pay employees less maybe?


----------



## like_to_retire

Just a Guy said:


> Where to they say the money should come from?


Your pocket.


----------



## bass player

Just a Guy said:


> Where to they say the money should come from?


If it was such a good idea, you'd think that they would be more than willing to prove the concept with their own money before expecting everyone else to pay for it.


----------



## bass player

They want a massive 60% increase in the GST to fund basic income. That increase will also magically end poverty :biggrin:

"As for objections around cost, several funding models are available. For instance, a three percent increase in GST federally has been projected as the net cost to pay for a basic income, and that sounds like a good deal to us.22 A three percent increase in GST could be the backbone of a major economic stimulus while simultaneously ending poverty."


----------



## Just a Guy

Taxes don’t create money, so where does the money come from? It also doesn’t get created by people spending UBI. 

It’s like taking out a big loan, then trying to pay it off in monthly payments from the money you borrowed. It can’t be done because the interest will make the loan bigger than the money you took out.


----------



## Spudd

Just a Guy said:


> Where to they say the money should come from?
> 
> Is this on top of a $15 minimum wage? Or so they can pay employees less maybe?


If you read the article you would know they suggest a 3% increase to GST.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sure, increase the gst, where does the money come from to pay the gst? Does it come from the UBI recipients? See my last post. Taxes don’t create money, it takes money out of the system, takes a handling fee, then hands it out. 

Businesses create money by developing new goods and services.


----------



## bass player

Spudd said:


> If you read the article you would know they suggest a 3% increase to GST.


Technically, it's a 60% increase as 8% is 60% more than 5%. But, of course 3% sounds better to those weak in math.

The article also claims that an 8% GST would eliminate poverty, yet GST used to be 7% and that did nothing to reduce poverty, so perhaps those suggesting that an 8% GST should have their motives questioned.


----------



## peterk

Hopefully the Liberals are dumb enough to increase the GST, based on the idea it is a "good" method of taxation (sure, debatable) and take the brunt of the political hit. When the Conservatives cut it, it was good politically, but "bad" tax policy.

I suspect they won't though - More needed funds will come from rich, exclusively.


----------



## sags

The Conservatives (Harper) cut the GST at the same time they cut tax rates.

That "genius" move eliminated a surplus and created a huge deficit.

The best thing Liberals can do is not listen to the advice from Conservatives..........LOL.


----------



## sags

In Ontario, Doug Ford is following the same stupid economic moves as Harper.

He has eliminated revenue before knowing where he will be able to cut spending.

Not too smart that Ford fella.........


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> The Conservatives (Harper) cut the GST at the same time they cut tax rates.
> 
> That "genius" move eliminated a surplus and created a huge deficit.
> 
> The best thing Liberals can do is not listen to the advice from Conservatives..........LOL.


The Conservatives gave a tax break to everyone in Canada by cutting the GST. The Liberals hate that because everyone was treated equally. They also hated it because they considered it to be their money, and not the people's money.


----------



## Just a Guy

The conservative were also forced by the liberals, during a minority government, to go into debt because of the fiscal meltdown. Then the liberals continued to enlarge the debt, much more than they said they would, with no plans on repayment, let alone balancing a budget, despite implementing new taxes like the carbon tax and their taxes on legalized pot...but thanks for, once again, trying to rewrite hiskory sags. 

One could ask where all the money is going under the livberals, since the poor are still just as poor and everyone else is paying much more...and will be for the next several generations under these “enlightened” leaders who never ask where does the money come from?


----------



## peterk

sags said:


> The Conservatives (Harper) cut the GST at the same time they cut tax rates.
> 
> That "genius" move eliminated a surplus and created a huge deficit.





sags said:


> In Ontario, Doug Ford is following the same stupid economic moves as Harper.
> 
> He has eliminated revenue before knowing where he will be able to cut spending.


This is such a tired argument, that "Conservatives rack up debt and Liberals are good for the economy - here look at this graph"

It's plainly obvious to anyone who cares to see it that for the past few decades Conservatives have been able to implement only the first half of their agendas, cutting taxes. When it comes to spending reductions or changes to more productive spending the Conservatives get the living hell beat out of them by a complicit media who cries bloody murder on behalf of every single aggrieved person they can muster, until the party ultimately relents and implements some tiny fraction of what the original plan was.

I often agree with you that the government saying they "can't afford" things is pure BS, driven by Big Business lobbying. But the other half of the problem, which I don't hear much from you about, is Big Welfare lobbying and media complicity with it, which consumes an enormous amount of tax dollars for questionable benefit.


----------



## Just a Guy

More bad news for Sags,

Even their precious unions say UBI can’t work...

http://www.world-psi.org/sites/default/files/documents/research/en_ubi_full_report_2019.pdf


----------



## Longtimeago

You know, all this Liberals vs. Conservatives crap really does annoy me sometimes. The quote, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others' is often mistakenly attributed to Winston Churchill. But the reality is, we do not really have a democracy to begin with regardless of who said that.

We have all heard of 'born again' in reference to something and I willingly accept that description of myself when it comes to government, I am a 'born again' Switzerland admirer. That is the only country that I know of that really is an almost ideal democracy. There is no 'party in power', the power truly is in the hands of the electorate. There is a President but that is a largely ceremonial role and the President is changed every year from among the council of 7. The council of 7 come from various parties, no one party ever dominates or has enough power to force anything on the people. In fact, any individual citizen may challenge any law that the Assembly (parliament) passes and if they can get 50,000 signatures on a petition, within 100 days, then a national referendum of the electorate MUST be called and a simple majority decides whether the law will be accepted or rejected. That is a democracy.

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

But in order for this form of government to work well, it requires one 'simple' thing. An educated electorate and by educated, I mean someone who takes the time to learn about the issue before reaching a conclusion/opinion and a desire to do what is right for the majority, not just the individual. Here is an interesting article that explains how it works. https://www.thelocal.ch/20180523/how-switzerlands-direct-democracy-system-works

You can note a couple of things. First, referendums happen up to 4 times a year. Imagine being expected to vote that often. Turnout on any given set of referendums usually gets over 40% of all eligible voters voting. They pick and choose depending on which issues are of personal interest to them or not. But 90% have voted at least once in the last 20 votes. So clearly, the vast majority of voters do vote when they are concerned by a proposal.

Next note how they vote on certain issues that we here in Canada might vote differently on. They have a compulsory TV license like the UK. In a vote to abolish it, they had a larger than average 55% turnout to vote and the voted NOT to abolish it. Imagine having a larger turnout of voters in Canada voting to keep a tax in place rather than do away with it!

Another that impressed me but isn't in the article was over road repairs. Just like Canada, Switzerland can get potholes in roads due to frost. A proposal was made to reduce the budget for road repairs and allow some potholes to just be filled in (I am simplifying here). This would have meant a tax reduction for the taxpayer. The Swiss people rejected that proposal. . Again, imagine people here in Canada voting to keep taxes up, not put them down. What's more, they actually voted in favour of an alternative proposal which turned all major highways into toll highways to pay for the road maintenance. So they voted to increase taxes! 

My point is that there is a difference in culture and attitude towards government and towards who is in control. The people are in control but are intelligent enough to consider what serves the greater good, not necessarily just their individual pocket. They understand that with power comes responsibility and they accept that responsibility for themselves.

Having said that, I consider only 2 countries as being a place I would choose to live in. Switzerland perhaps not surprisingly would be my first choice but unfortunately, I can't afford to do what would be necessary for me to live there. Canada is my second choice. As much as we, like all people everywhere, love to complain about everything, it's still better here in Canada than anywhere else (except Switzerland) and we have much to be thankful for that we are lucky enough to be able to live here.

P.S. I forgot to mention there was a popular initiative proposed for a Universal Basic Income, in Switzerland, in 2016. It only got a 23% vote by the electorate. So the people did not want it. I wonder what such a referendum would result in in Canada?


----------



## Mechanic

I do not agree with UBI at all. I believe if you want an income, you should be prepared to work for it, not just expect to do nothing and live of other peoples endeavours. Ifyou are unable to work, that is a different story but that is not what UBI is about. You should also save and invest for your future, to a level that will satisfy your requirements. I agree that the Conservatives have made mistakes in the past but the Liberals are making a terrible mess of our economy and seem to waste an awful lot of money.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

How about a universal basic paycheck from working at a universal basic job? Has anyone asked the question, why there are not jobs for everyone? There used to be. What happened? It's not as if there is no work to be done or no needs to be fulfilled. What gummed up the economy and sent all our jobs overseas?


----------



## james4beach

It should be noted that some top conservative thinkers, going back at least to the 1960s, have also thought UBI is a promising idea. So it's not purely a "new" idea nor is it exclusively a left leaning, socialist idea, or union idea. And I don't think unions would love this concept anyway... unions want good quality jobs. That's the whole basis for labour rights.

I would like to see more studies and experiments with the concept. Ford really did Canada and the world a disservice by canceling the experiment that was in progress. What a waste of a useful test bed that could have led to real improvements in our welfare system -- whether it worked or not, the data would have been useful. Other countries, and economists around the world were watching Ontario to see the results.

Now we'll never know. Thanks, Ford!


----------



## Gumball

james4beach said:


> It should be noted that some top conservative thinkers, going back at least to the 1960s, have also thought UBI is a promising idea. So it's not purely a "new" idea nor is it exclusively a left leaning, socialist idea, or union idea. And I don't think unions would love this concept anyway... unions want good quality jobs. That's the whole basis for labour rights.
> 
> I would like to see more studies and experiments with the concept. Ford really did Canada and the world a disservice by canceling the experiment that was in progress. What a waste of a useful test bed that could have led to real improvements in our welfare system -- whether it worked or not, the data would have been useful. Other countries, and economists around the world were watching Ontario to see the results.
> 
> Now we'll never know. Thanks, Ford!


If you feel so strongly for these studies James no one is stopping you from paying someone to stay at home not work and get paid...Ford realized the Ontario taxpayer is not in a position to pay for these studies regardless that "other countries and economists were watching...


----------



## james4beach

Gumball said:


> If you feel so strongly for these studies James no one is stopping you from paying someone to stay at home not work and get paid...Ford realized the Ontario taxpayer is not in a position to pay for these studies regardless that "other countries and economists were watching...


I have been an Ontario taxpayer before and happily did pay for social services and government services that I thought were sensible.

This is a question of welfare systems. I can't tell if you're serious about me personally paying some random person in Ontario, but obviously, this is not how these systems work. These are large systems that operate at mass scales.

The current welfare system costs the Ontario taxpayer a lot of money. It was possible that universal basic income could have reduced total welfare costs due to simplification of administration, reduction of case workers and special cases. The experiment was to help evaluate this.

Don't you want to find out if there's a way we could have reduced Ontario's welfare costs? We had an experiment that could have told us useful information, until Ford killed it. If we had let the experiment play out, and if we had discovered that it produced a net savings, then the Ontario taxpayer would have been the winner.

It's possible that universal basic income will reduce welfare costs and the province's expenses.


----------



## like_to_retire

Gumball said:


> ...Ford realized the Ontario taxpayer is not in a position to pay for these studies regardless that "other countries and economists were watching...


Exactly, you have to live within your means, no matter how deserving a program is. There's a ton of worthy ideas, but they can't all be funded. It's not a lot different than a person's own life, they have to live within their means.

It's great that Ontario finally has such a strong political leader in Ford to stand up and use some financial common sense.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> It's great that Ontario finally has such a strong political leader in Ford to stand up and use some financial common sense.


I thought conservatives were supposed to look for ways to cut spending? Ford did the opposite. He abandoned the effort to investigate efficiency improvements to the welfare system, and returned to the 'status quo' instead.

Are you happy with the 'status quo'?


----------



## Just a Guy

James, how does giving everyone a basic welfare payment save money over giving a select few welfare? Do we make up the losses in volume? The world doesn’t work that way, just ask the companies in the dot bomb era.

The math doesn’t lie...add up how much you want to “give” each month to 40M people, then tell me where all that money is going to come from because it’s more than the federal budget if you have any amount of significance. Unless you want to run it like the carbon tax an basically give everyone $2000/month then tax them $2500/month to pay for it.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> The current welfare system costs the Ontario taxpayer a lot of money. It was possible that universal basic income could have reduced total welfare costs due to simplification of administration, reduction of case workers and special cases.


No. Don't be silly.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> No. Don't be silly.


I'm not being silly. This is what even some conservative thinkers have argued. See the article I link below. Universal income can absolutely put society in a better net position. Potentially.



Just a Guy said:


> James, how does giving everyone a basic welfare payment save money over giving a select few welfare? Do we make up the losses in volume? The world doesn’t work that way, just ask the companies in the dot bomb era.


The argument for why UBI may potentially offer cost savings and net benefit to the economy is that it reduces the size of government, is more efficient, eliminates the need of case workers, shrinks the bureaucracy (the welfare system is very expensive to operate), and gives more personal control to individuals.

Traditional welfare also creates disincentives to finding work or more income of your own. Universal income solves that problem. You guys in this thread seem really caught up on the "handing out $" to people part of the equation, but that's only one component of the welfare equation. I think you're forgetting the costs to operate the system, all the government workers on payroll, the incentives and disincentives of traditional welfare, etc.

You might want to read: The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income



> As Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.” . . . Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to pass a version of Friedman’s plan a few years later.
> . . .
> More recently, in a 2006 book, conservative intellectual Charles Murray proposed eliminating all welfare transfer programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and substituting an annual $10,000 cash grant to everyone 21 years and older. The Alaska Permanent Fund, funded by investments from state oil revenues, sends annual dividend checks to the state’s residents.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> The argument for why UBI may potentially offer cost savings and net benefit to the economy is that it reduces the size of government, is more efficient, eliminates the need of case workers, shrinks the bureaucracy (the welfare system is very expensive to operate), and gives more personal control to individuals.


That's crazy talk James. This is typical socialist theory. The reality is quite different unfortunately.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> That's crazy talk James. This is typical socialist theory. The reality is quite different unfortunately.


Then why do so many conservative thinkers, including Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, believe it? This includes American conservatives. Clearly it can't be socialist theory.

Again I think you are caught up on the direct outflow of cash payments. This is only one part of a very complex system. You also have to consider government administration expenses, tax situations, incentives that result for the potential workers, the cost to government and society of poverty -- which is a tremendous, but hidden cost.

I think you're not very open minded to finding new solutions to this chronic problem of welfare. You're getting hung up on a conservative vs socialist categorization which is irrelevant here.


----------



## Just a Guy

Show me, using real math, how giving everyone money is cheaper than giving a small portion of people money. Forget all your socialist propaganda, just use basic math.

If you can do this, you’ll convert everyone, the problem is, basic math says it can’t work. All your talk about “efficiency” and “savings” is a pipe dream. Giving 40M people a couple thousand dollars each month is more money than we collect in taxes...it’s a basic math fact.

If you’re too lazy to do the math, I did it for you much earlier in this thread. The numbers clearly state it’s higher than the federal and provincial budgets combined...and that just paying for your new welfare scheme...forget about the healthcare (which right now eats up about 50% of most provincial budgets), infrastructure or anything else.

Oh and as for sags’ “tax the rich” strategy, I also did the math there. If we confiscated all the money owned by the 1%ers, we could pay UBI for about a month and a half.

Here is the monthly number, so you have some clue for $1000 and $2000...

$40,000,000,000/month
$80,000,000,000/month

$480,000,000,000/yr
$960,000,000,000/yr

Federal budget 2018 (with an 18,000,000,000 deficit)

$338,500,000,000


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> You're getting hung up on a conservative vs socialist categorization which is irrelevant here.


No, I just know from a lifetime of experience how these things end up. And it ain't the way it's scripted. I have a built in radar now. It's like when Trudeau tells everyone he will balance the budget, and we end up in the hole by 20 billion dollars. It's just how these things end up. I'm a pragmatist. 

ltr


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> Show me, using real math, how giving everyone money is cheaper than giving a small portion of people money. Forget all your socialist propaganda, just use basic math.


I already told you how it could work, you just didn't listen. Read the article I posted earlier, which talks about what some conservative thinkers believe in this area.

Why would conservatives be writing socialist propaganda? Why would the ex Senator who was Chief of Staff to (Conservative PM) Mulroney endorse socialist propaganda? This is crazy talk from you guys... you're obsessed with this "socialist" label for some reason.

Perhaps you're dismissing completely valid theories because you have a bias against what you belief is "socialist"? That would be a mistake in reasoning.


----------



## Just a Guy

Look at the numbers I added to my post and see the reality of the numbers. We don’t spend anywhere near those amounts on welfare or social programs.

I don’t care who the proponents are, the math doesn’t lie.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Why would conservatives be writing socialist propaganda?


Lots of misguided conservatives in the world, believe me.

When you ensure everyone receives $16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income and $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income, you must know that it's completely un-affordable along with the added dis-incentive to make any more income because of the 50% loss, it's a no brainer that it will bankrupt any government.

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire

I was particularly amused at their three year pilot study.

They had one group that received $16,989 per year for a single person, and $24,027 per year for a couple.
The comparison group received nothing.

Then after the three years they asked the participants who received the money if their lives were better. Amazingly they said that there lives were better, and those that didn't receive the money said their lives weren't better.

Well there you go. That proves it. Universal Basic Income works.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

I think it might be a valid argument that "there is no welfare problem to solve here". Perhaps, as JaG says above, we don't actually spend a ton of money on welfare or social programs and maybe there is no need for efficiency/effectiveness improvements. Yes, very possible.

It's important that we provide the correct amount of assistance and services to people in need. I don't know what the correct amount is, but I'd phrase it as vaguely: enough assistance that practically everyone is able to afford the necessities, meaning shelter, food, and basic living needs.

Not everyone can work, not everyone is in good health, and not everyone has circumstances that allow them to work (and keep the money). I absolutely want all these people to receive enough assistance to meet basic living needs.

Being on welfare is not a good life. People don't do it for fun, and there's nothing comfortable about relying on welfare and barely scraping by.


----------



## Just a Guy

Not everyone needs to be able to work or be in good health in order to make money. I am proof of that. When I started I had very little money and managed to go into a lot of debt before things turned around...wasn’t a get rich quick scheme, but eventually I did get rich...without qualifying for any social programs. 

Next, since I do a lot of work with the poor, it’s what they do with the money that keeps them poor. Giving the poor money is like giving a chainsaw to a toddler, they usually don’t have a clue as to what to do with the money. They think eating at McDonald’s is cheap. 

If they were taught how to cook, manage money, alternatives to the traditional low paying jobs, they may be able to turn around their lives...instead we throw money at them and think we’re solving the problem.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I thought conservatives were supposed to look for ways to cut spending? Ford did the opposite. He abandoned the effort to investigate efficiency improvements to the welfare system, and returned to the 'status quo' instead.
> 
> Are you happy with the 'status quo'?


The "Basic Income Trial" wasn't a fair A/B trial of UBI. They called it a UBI trial to distract from the fact it was simply a massive increase in welfare payments.
Ford has done a shocking amount in his time in office.
Look at the lists complaining of all his cuts, he's literally implemented over a hundred policy initiatives, some good, some bad. But he's getting a lot done.


----------



## sags

I see some posters oppose replacing the current mess of programs that require an army of public servants to administer, choosing instead the status quo.

Keeping all those public service jobs in place, my recommendation that young people seek employment in the public service looks all the more prudent.


----------



## sags

Doug Ford is squandering his victory one vote at a time, exactly like Stephen Harper did after he got a majority government.

Remember Harper's attacks on military veterans, immigrants, unemployed, seasonal workers, scientists,.......Atlantic Canada remembered.

When you upset a lot of people for various things, discontent spreads like the concentric rings of a pebble thrown into a pool. 

Before the Conservatives will realize it.............goodbye Doug.


----------



## sags

About the math........I doubt anyone is advocating that every person in Canada receive the UBI. 

I would think it would only be given to adults, so the 40 Million number is way out of whack.

I would also think that all existing social benefits would be merged into a UBI....OAS, GIS, child benefits, CPP disability, welfare........and more programs already paid by taxpayers.


----------



## Just a Guy

Once again, I suggest you look at dictionary.com. UBI stands for Universal Basic Income. Look up the words, it means everyone gets it by definition. Even if you take kids out of the equation (guess we’d still need the child tax benefits then) it’s still unaffordable.

If you’re not going to give it to everyone, quit calling it UBI. 

As for savings in government, name a single new government program which was ever more efficient or saved money...such thinking is pretty unrealistic when compared to reality.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> I see some posters oppose replacing the current mess of programs that require an army of public servants to administer, choosing instead the status quo.
> 
> Keeping all those public service jobs in place, my recommendation that young people seek employment in the public service looks all the more prudent.


Clearly, the posters here like the status quo and don't think we need to pursue alternatives. If we're sticking with the status quo on welfare (as people upthread support) then there will indeed be endless public service jobs to administer the welfare system.

As you said, it requires an army of public servants. Who would have thought that CMF conservatives are such big fans? But there we have it.


----------



## Just a Guy

Come up with a realistic solution not one that literally is at least a thousand times worse. Oh wait, let’s just ignore the numbers...


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Clearly, the posters here like the status quo and don't think we need to pursue alternatives. If we're sticking with the status quo on welfare (as people upthread support) then there will indeed be endless public service jobs to administer the welfare system.
> 
> As you said, it requires an army of public servants. Who would have thought that CMF conservatives are such big fans? But there we have it.


I just feel that UBI is a far worse plan than the existing terrible plans. No need to be sarcastic James.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> I just feel that UBI is a far worse plan than the existing terrible plans. No need to be sarcastic James


Fair enough. It is relative, after all. You're saying that you think the current system is better than UBI.


----------



## andrewf

Rusty O'Toole said:


> How about a universal basic paycheck from working at a universal basic job? Has anyone asked the question, why there are not jobs for everyone? There used to be. What happened? It's not as if there is no work to be done or no needs to be fulfilled. What gummed up the economy and sent all our jobs overseas?


Dig holes and fill them in again?

Personally, I'd be okay if mothers used the income to stay home and raise kids, students went to school, people took care of ailing parents, volunteered, started a business, etc.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Show me, using real math, how giving everyone money is cheaper than giving a small portion of people money. Forget all your socialist propaganda, just use basic math.
> 
> If you can do this, you’ll convert everyone, the problem is, basic math says it can’t work. All your talk about “efficiency” and “savings” is a pipe dream. Giving 40M people a couple thousand dollars each month is more money than we collect in taxes...it’s a basic math fact.
> 
> If you’re too lazy to do the math, I did it for you much earlier in this thread. The numbers clearly state it’s higher than the federal and provincial budgets combined...and that just paying for your new welfare scheme...forget about the healthcare (which right now eats up about 50% of most provincial budgets), infrastructure or anything else.
> 
> Oh and as for sags’ “tax the rich” strategy, I also did the math there. If we confiscated all the money owned by the 1%ers, we could pay UBI for about a month and a half.
> 
> Here is the monthly number, so you have some clue for $1000 and $2000...
> 
> $40,000,000,000/month
> $80,000,000,000/month
> 
> $480,000,000,000/yr
> $960,000,000,000/yr
> 
> Federal budget 2018 (with an 18,000,000,000 deficit)
> 
> $338,500,000,000


Most people would not get net cash. With a UBI, you could/would eliminate the basic personal exemption, and probably have a higher marginal rate at the low end of the income spectrum. Or perhaps higher VAT. There would be a 'breakeven' point that would have to be pretty low where above that point you are paying more in tax than you collect in UBI, and are thus still a net taxpayer.

One way this could work out is that people who currently are forced to stay home and not work in order to not be stripped of what little welfare/disability benefits they receive would have the option of trying to earn an income in whatever way they can, still come out ahead because they don't have to worry about a loss in benefits.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> No, I just know from a lifetime of experience how these things end up. And it ain't the way it's scripted. I have a built in radar now. It's like when Trudeau tells everyone he will balance the budget, and we end up in the hole by 20 billion dollars. It's just how these things end up. I'm a pragmatist.
> 
> ltr


Did your spidey sense work on Harper? He racked up a massive budget deficit (I know, I know--he is accountable for nothing), despite promising otherwise. One could say that his enormous budget deficits were even by design (starve the beast/Grover Norquist school of thought). Maybe you need to re-calibrate your radar.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Lots of misguided conservatives in the world, believe me.
> 
> When you ensure everyone receives $16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income and $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income, you must know that it's completely un-affordable along with the added dis-incentive to make any more income because of the 50% loss, it's a no brainer that it will bankrupt any government.
> 
> ltr


Maybe, just maybe, you would have a really strong argument with data to back it up... HAD THE STUDY BEEN DONE. That was the point of the exercise! It was not unaffordable, it was a pilot for a few years with a few thousand people. If you are correct, the data would have come back showing that the pilot group all quit their jobs, moved into slum housing and ate ramen just so they could stay home.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> The "Basic Income Trial" wasn't a fair A/B trial of UBI. They called it a UBI trial to distract from the fact it was simply a massive increase in welfare payments.
> Ford has done a shocking amount in his time in office.
> Look at the lists complaining of all his cuts, he's literally implemented over a hundred policy initiatives, some good, some bad. But he's getting a lot done.


Can you point to it? I understand he cut Toronto council in half. Some noise around sex ed. Merging some bureaucracy. Forgive me, I haven't been paying a great deal of attention, but I am largely unaware of Doug's extensive list of achievements. Or is this like the list of "the Donald's" achievements that his lackeys have promulgated? Did Doug 'make Ontario great again' and I just haven't noticed?


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Not everyone needs to be able to work or be in good health in order to make money. I am proof of that. When I started I had very little money and managed to go into a lot of debt before things turned around...wasn’t a get rich quick scheme, but eventually I did get rich...without qualifying for any social programs.
> 
> Next, since I do a lot of work with the poor, it’s what they do with the money that keeps them poor. Giving the poor money is like giving a chainsaw to a toddler, they usually don’t have a clue as to what to do with the money. They think eating at McDonald’s is cheap.
> 
> If they were taught how to cook, manage money, alternatives to the traditional low paying jobs, they may be able to turn around their lives...instead we throw money at them and think we’re solving the problem.


Sometimes they eat at McDonalds because they have $5 right now and they don't have a Costco card and a fully equipped kitchen to make scratch meals. I don't disagree that life skills are part of intergenerational poverty. This is why home economics and personal finance should be mandatory part of schooling as a social program. I recognize the massive advantage I received in having parents that taught me these life skills. I don't see how keeping them on welfare is a better solution. The answer isn't just money, but if you are right that the answer is just knowledge, then everyone who gets knowledge and money will quickly become so successful they no longer receive net UBI.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Maybe, just maybe, you would have a really strong argument with data to back it up... HAD THE STUDY BEEN DONE. That was the point of the exercise! It was not unaffordable, it was a pilot for a few years with a few thousand people. If you are correct, the data would have come back showing that the pilot group all quit their jobs, moved into slum housing and ate ramen just so they could stay home.


There was no study ever planned for Basic income.
That's actually the point, the "trial" was not designed to provide usable data for a fair comparison.

Think about it, if the goal was to compare basic income rules to current rules, you should hold the actual monthly payment stable. They didn't, and I believe it was because they were never interested in getting actual data.


----------



## Mechanic




----------



## Just a Guy

Actually Andrew, I can tell you many people in the welfare system can have a fully equipped kitchen...if they wanted it. One of the programs I volunteer with provides the people with a property (rent fully paid), brand new mattress, anything they want on the first trip to a thrift store, no limits and a limited second trip, curtains, basic supplies and full counselling if they want it. They also get basic food supplies, cleaning supplies, and a monthly income...they get this support for a year, then they are suppose to graduate from the program...there are lots of educational course they could take if they wanted to as well, all free on all subjects including money management and life skills...rarely used though. 

Not bad for someone who doesn’t have to do anything for it. 

Many of these people get kicked out of the program for drugs, damaging their places, guest management, etc. They, of course, seem to always feel the victim still. 

As for your assumption that UBI will be cash neutral, then why pay government employees to send out money only to recollect it? Don’t send it out in the first place and save a fortune. Back when I worked for government, many years ago, it cost $30 just to cut a cheque, nothing to do with the amount the cheque was for, I can’t imagine how much it costs today. 

Also, please explain where all the money for UBI is going to come from, or did you just quote my piece and not read the fact that UBI costs more than the entire federal budget.

BTW, want to know what really inspired me to find a way to make money when I was disabled and broke? It was the fact that I was disabled and broke. Life is pretty painful in that situation...a good motivator to want to change. You know what I see with the poor I volunteer with? A level of comfort...not very comfortable, but good enough that they don’t really feel a “need” to change. I keep thinking we need to make life a little more painful and show them that, with a little effort, the pain would ease, with a little more effort, things become comfortable, with a little more effort things become enjoyable...

I don’t think people should have to go through what I did, but what they have today doesn’t work either. We should stop treating them like victims too. It’s too easy an excuse to continue. I’ve lived through most of what these people have (divorce, alcoholics, lost culture, abused family members, etc.) and still managed to come out on top because we weren’t allowed to be victims.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Actually Andrew, I can tell you many people in the welfare system can have a fully equipped kitchen...if they wanted it. One of the programs I volunteer with provides the people with a property (rent fully paid), brand new mattress, anything they want on the first trip to a thrift store, no limits and a limited second trip, curtains, basic supplies and full counselling if they want it. They also get basic food supplies, cleaning supplies, and a monthly income...they get this support for a year, then they are suppose to graduate from the program...there are lots of educational course they could take if they wanted to as well, all free on all subjects including money management and life skills...rarely used though.
> 
> Not bad for someone who doesn’t have to do anything for it.
> 
> Many of these people get kicked out of the program for drugs, damaging their places, guest management, etc. They, of course, seem to always feel the victim still.
> 
> As for your assumption that UBI will be cash neutral, then why pay government employees to send out money only to recollect it? Don’t send it out in the first place and save a fortune. Back when I worked for government, many years ago, it cost $30 just to cut a cheque, nothing to do with the amount the cheque was for, I can’t imagine how much it costs today.
> 
> Also, please explain where all the money for UBI is going to come from, or did you just quote my piece and not read the fact that UBI costs more than the entire federal budget.
> 
> BTW, want to know what really inspired me to find a way to make money when I was disabled and broke? It was the fact that I was disabled and broke. Life is pretty painful in that situation...a good motivator to want to change. You know what I see with the poor I volunteer with? A level of comfort...not very comfortable, but good enough that they don’t really feel a “need” to change. I keep thinking we need to make life a little more painful and show them that, with a little effort, the pain would ease, with a little more effort, things become comfortable, with a little more effort things become enjoyable...
> 
> I don’t think people should have to go through what I did, but what they have today doesn’t work either. We should stop treating them like victims too. It’s too easy an excuse to continue. I’ve lived through most of what these people have (divorce, alcoholics, lost culture, abused family members, etc.) and still managed to come out on top because we weren’t allowed to be victims.


My EFT tax rebate costs $30? I doubt it!

I already explained that most people would effectively repay UBI through the clawback. It's kind of obvious, because the money has to come from somewhere. You could do that through higher revenue and higher transfers, or through an opt-out system for people who know they won't be eligible for net money.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> I don't disagree that life skills are part of intergenerational poverty. This is why home economics and personal finance should be mandatory part of schooling as a social program. I recognize the massive advantage I received in having parents that taught me these life skills. I don't see how keeping them on welfare is a better solution. The answer isn't just money, but if you are right that the answer is just knowledge, then everyone who gets knowledge and money will quickly become so successful they no longer receive net UBI.


I agree with you that education could make a difference. It is amazing how the general population does not even display good sense when it comes to basic math. But I remain pessimistic that the people that need the education would not put it to good use. So the extra money spent on education would just be another sunk cost.

Remember Gail Vax-Oxlade?She had a TV show that led people out of debt. Eventually it was cancelled. It seems that the people that needed the education did not watch?


----------



## sags

Basic math........

I asked a group of adults a simple math question.

What is the sum of ................2 + 2 X 3 ?

Every one of them said.......12.

The correct answer is 8.

I agree that our math skills aren't the best.


----------



## Prairie Guy

A study has proven that universal basic income doesn't work:

The NEF reviewed 16 real-life UBI trials to see whether a basic income can really bridge the inequality gap. 
Its conclusion: There is no evidence that the project can meet its goals while being economically viable at the same time."

https://www.businessinsider.com/uni...dy-says-it-doesnt-achieve-main-purpose-2019-5


----------



## Just a Guy

People don’t really think things through, they’re just greedy. 

When the government originally implemented old age security, they just gave it to anyone over 65. The recipients had never made any contributions to the funding of it, they just benefitted from it. The “future generations” of working people would pay for it. The problem is, more money out than in (probably though mismanagement) and it’s never really been economically viable. 

Of course, you can’t scrap it today because this generation actually paid into it and feels entitled to it, even though there’s not enough money to actually support the program and less working people in the next generation.

Same thing with public education. Originally they made it cheap for the “current” generation but, once again, there wasn’t enough money to sustain the cheap education, so they raised the costs. The original beneficiaries don’t really care, they got their cheap education and 5e future ones will pay for it for decades.

I see the same argument today for UBI. Hand us out the money, we’ll have “savings” and I’ll pocket a lot of free cash making my life easier and I won’t actually have to learn how to make money myself or change my ways...who cares if it’s unsustainable as long as I get fed first at the trough...

If you really want UBI, get off your butt and develop passive income. You can get unlimited amounts of money each month with a little effort instead of leaching off society. Show some pride once in a while.

P.S. also know what you’re talking about. UBU, by definition, doesn’t have claw backs. Everyone keeps changing the definition to suit their agenda...you can’t do that. UBI has a very clear definition that doesn’t vary.


----------



## Pluto

Denmark apparently gets the money for its social programs via taxation. Reportedly their forumula is: - 1) Calculate the median income, then 2) Income over 1.2 of the median income is taxed at 60%. Denmark, of course, is still capitalist. Reportedly their people are among the happiest in the world. 

Many current day billionaires are concerned about income inequality and claim the playing field is not level. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvzW1BfU6KM


----------



## Pluto

^^ in the beginning of OAS, it was means tested. You had to apply for it and had to be poor. It didn't become universial until the 1950's.


----------



## sags

OAS was also funded by a special tax levy which was kept in a separate fund. The program funding was merged into general revenues and the tax levy was left in place.

OAS is still more or less means tested through claw backs, although it could be argued the income levels are too high before the claw back begins.


----------



## sags

Billionaires understand how the economy works, and for wealthy people to continue to benefit from their assets such as company profits or stocks, the general public has to have money .

Economic slowdowns and social unrest and other negative consequences of wealth disparity create big problems that political leaders will have to deal with at some point in time.


----------



## Just a Guy

Who’s holding you back from benefitting the same as the billionaires? Hint, take a look in a mirror.

If you’re not going to take steps to change, what right do you have to complain?

Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, has been mischaracterized as the definition of insanity, but it works in this situation.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> A study has proven that universal basic income doesn't work:
> 
> The NEF reviewed 16 real-life UBI trials to see whether a basic income can really bridge the inequality gap.
> Its conclusion: There is no evidence that the project can meet its goals while being economically viable at the same time."
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/uni...dy-says-it-doesnt-achieve-main-purpose-2019-5


The study concludes that merging current social spending into a UBI would benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

It is a misguided conclusion because there is no standard definition of a Universal Basic Income upon which to base those possible results.

A universal basic income would be anything and everything a government decides it will be.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Who’s holding you back from benefitting the same as the billionaires? Hint, take a look in a mirror.
> 
> If you’re not going to take steps to change, what right do you have to complain?
> 
> Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, has been mischaracterized as the definition of insanity, but it works in this situation.


This is rethoric designed to justify Social Darwinism. Why is social Darwinism the be all and end all? No reason at all. Its just one worldview among many world and life views.


----------



## Just a Guy

How is it wrong? If you only want to work at McDonald’s, you probably won’t have a very good life...is that my fault? If you insist that’s all you can be then you’re creating a self fulfilling prophecy. Nothing is holding you back.

You can try and call it social Darwinism if you want but, in reality, you’re just afraid to do anything different.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The study concludes that merging current social spending into a UBI would benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
> 
> It is a misguided conclusion because there is no standard definition of a Universal Basic Income upon which to base those possible results.
> 
> A universal basic income would be anything and everything a government decides it will be.


It's a misguided conclusion only because it doesn't agree with what you think it should say. I would bet that 1000 studies could be done that reached the same conclusion and you would dismiss all of them.

At least be honest enough to admit that.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> How is it wrong? If you only want to work at McDonald’s, you probably won’t have a very good life...is that my fault? If you insist that’s all you can be then you’re creating a self fulfilling prophecy. Nothing is holding you back.
> 
> You can try and call it social Darwinism if you want but, in reality, you’re just afraid to do anything different.


How is what wrong? and wrong by what standard? 
I don't work at McDonald's. Never did. what's that got to do with anything? 
Prove that nothing holds anyone back. Oh, then you say fear holds some people back. So something does hold some people back. so I guess you proved people can be held back. Afraid to do what different than what? Lot of vague and circular statments and claims here.


----------



## Just a Guy

Try reading the thread instead on one piece and trying to build a case out of it. Also, it’s not all about you. We’re talking society in general. For a guy who read four pages of a theory of knowledge book, I’d expect more thought put into your responses. 

The general idea is people can and should be more self reliant. People can build up passive income which would be the equivalent of UBI, pensions and everything else they want handed to them by the government. Anyway, you probably haven’t read this far and I should learn not to engage you further as your history proves.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> It's a misguided conclusion only because it doesn't agree with what you think it should say. I would bet that 1000 studies could be done that reached the same conclusion and you would dismiss all of them.
> 
> At least be honest enough to admit that.


So you agree with the study that a UBI would benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor ?


----------



## MrMatt

Pluto said:


> Denmark apparently gets the money for its social programs via taxation. Reportedly their forumula is: - 1) Calculate the median income, then 2) Income over 1.2 of the median income is taxed at 60%. Denmark, of course, is still capitalist. Reportedly their people are among the happiest in the world.
> 
> Many current day billionaires are concerned about income inequality and claim the playing field is not level.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvzW1BfU6KM


If you're going to make an argument, please use real facts to support it.

Your statement might be a bit more believable if there wasn't a 52.07% income tax ceiling in Denmark.
https://www.skm.dk/skattetal/statis...skraat-skatteloft-en-historisk-oversigt#10-1x

Ontario has a top combined income tax of 53.53%, before the other taxes.

Maybe we should cut our taxes down to the Danish levels?


----------



## bgc_fan

Prairie Guy said:


> A study has proven that universal basic income doesn't work:
> 
> The NEF reviewed 16 real-life UBI trials to see whether a basic income can really bridge the inequality gap.
> Its conclusion: There is no evidence that the project can meet its goals while being economically viable at the same time."
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/uni...dy-says-it-doesnt-achieve-main-purpose-2019-5


Actually, no. I would take any sort of article who can't tell the difference between 14 and 16 trials with a grain of salt. Not to mention only 11 of them have been completed with 3 in the future. And one wasn't even a trial, it was the Swiss referendum on whether they want UBI. I get that they could be confused as the source material decided to skip the number 7 on the third time they listed the "experiments". Note that the the study doesn't prove that it doesn't work, it only stated that there isn't sufficient evidence that it does work. There is a significant difference, mainly the fact that these studies were too limited in scope and time to make any definite conclusion.

I take it you didn't actually look at the source material? Otherwise you would have seen that it was the same study that Just A Guy posted saying that unions were against universal basic income. And you can see why unions are against it because they view it as an opportunity for companies to pay their workers less, or have people not take up these type of jobs if they have a minimal amount of income.

There is quite a bit from the study that could be discussed, but seeing as no one here actually wants a logical discussion and just wants to sound off on their beliefs there's no point in wasting my time on it.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> So you agree with the study that a UBI would benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor ?


I agree with the conclusion that UBI is not feasible.


----------



## MrMatt

My thoughts on UBI and social assistance in general.
1. I do want to help people who need it and have no other option.
2. I don't want to give handouts to people who simply don't want to work.
3. I want to minimize the harm of whatever assistance we provide.

Most people agree with the first 2 statements, and aren't sure what I mean by the 3rd.

I'm specifically thinking of "poverty traps". There is an unfortunate situation when social assistance actually creates a situation where "bad" behaviour is incentivized.
Poverty traps is one instance, and UBI could be helpful here.
Lets say you get $1k/month, if you get a job a clawback at dollar for dollar means that you're working for no additional gain. That's bad.
We have even worse situations when if you get a job, they cut other benefits and you actually get effective clawbacks higher than that, if you have prescription drug requirements. Some are covered under the welfare plans, but once you get a job, you lose those benefits. Think about that you go get a job, now you have to pay for lifesaving medication that you can't afford.

I would strongly support a UBI that addresses the clawback issue. 
I think the 50% clawback in the UBI trial was a good idea.

I don't support the Ontario UBI trial because it started by doubling the welfare payment. It made it impossible to fairly compare the outcome of the trial to the control case.

Secondly the current Ontario welfare benefit (and Canadian tax code) discriminates on family status. 2 individuals get more money than a family with kids. It's unfair, and in my opinion against the spirit and the letter of our constitution.


----------



## sags

A universal basic income pays a basic income to everyone, but it doesn't guarantee the benefit will be equal to all people.

It could be $1 for some and $1500 for others. People who reject the concept out of hand are doing so because of their ideology.


----------



## Pluto

MrMatt said:


> If you're going to make an argument, please use real facts to support it.
> 
> Your statement might be a bit more believable if there wasn't a 52.07% income tax ceiling in Denmark.
> https://www.skm.dk/skattetal/statis...skraat-skatteloft-en-historisk-oversigt#10-1x
> 
> Ontario has a top combined income tax of 53.53%, before the other taxes.
> 
> Maybe we should cut our taxes down to the Danish levels?


https://www.google.ca/search?client...x+in+denmark&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

60.2%


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> A universal basic income pays a basic income to everyone, but it doesn't guarantee the benefit will be equal to all people.
> 
> It could be $1 for some and $1500 for others. People who reject the concept out of hand are doing so because of their ideology.


A study of 16 different UBI projects has shown that UBI is not sustainable and you are rejecting that conclusion out of hand based on your ideology.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Try reading the thread instead on one piece and trying to build a case out of it. Also, it’s not all about you. We’re talking society in general. For a guy who read four pages of a theory of knowledge book, I’d expect more thought put into your responses.
> 
> The general idea is people can and should be more self reliant. People can build up passive income which would be the equivalent of UBI, pensions and everything else they want handed to them by the government. Anyway, you probably haven’t read this far and I should learn not to engage you further as your history proves.


1. I read your book in about 3 hours. No surprises in there for me. I guess page 4 is really stuck on your brain, apparently the page that told you why you were wrong and were using a 1930's era theory that had been abandoned before you were born. Not amazing you were bragging about your university course then your own textbook book didn't back you. 
2. Now you are onto Social Darwinism. Your general idea is people can and should be more self reliant. People can build up passive income. Too vague. People can. But if you mean everybody can, it is very very unrealistic. No basis in reality for 'everyone can build up passive income.'


----------



## Just a Guy

Most of your statements have no basis in reality...as I can see by most of your posts.

Why can’t people build up a passive income? My kids started doing it at 6 years old. They ran a vending machine instead of getting an allowance (aka, handout). 

You seem to think that just because you are incapable of doing something, then no other able bodied (or even disabled body) can do it?

It’s got nothing to do with social Darwinism (I see you learned a new term to try and obfuscate an argument), it’s more to do with upbringing (no handouts as a kid, means they don’t expect handouts as an adult for example) and a little use of that big lump on people’s shoulders...the most unused organ on most people.

Exactly why can’t everyone build up a passive income, especially in Canada? If we were talking the entire world, there may be an argument, but really nothing is holding anyone back.

Of course, knowing you, your argue net is going to be, “we can’t all run vending machines”, showing your complete misunderstanding of the billions of ways to make passive income...

For more examples, a 17 year old friend of my son’s started a lawn care company which he later sold for a $400/month ongoing income. My 18 year old son just bought his first rental property. I didn’t have to co-sign the loan, he just started his first ever job this week and is going back to school next year.


----------



## sags

It takes money and time to build enough passive income to replace earned income. People require income to live while they are doing that.

The different theories that revolve around "use the bank's money to make money" are nothing new. 

They have been around for as long as I remember, and believing in them is how naive people get lured into investment scams, false tax rebates, pyramid and ponzi schemes.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Most of your statements have no basis in reality...as I can see by most of your posts.
> 
> Why can’t people build up a passive income? .


here is a quote from my post: "People can". Obviously you didn't read and understand. 

If you mean that everybody can, you are unrealistic. What your kids can do isn't really relevant. You seem to be implying that everybody can build up a passive income. and your arguement seems to be, 'My kids can so everyobody can'. Seriously flawed reasoning called "over generalizing". Its like you have a jar of marbles and some of the marbles are blue. you get obsessed with the blue ones and claim, "all marbles are blue". Flawed reasoning. Over generalizing. 

so, Prove that everybody can build up passive income. No generalizing.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sorry you’re not as capable as a 6 year old Pluto. 

Sags, you can start small, reinvest and build. I didn’t start with money. Neither are my kids. They aren’t getting sucked into schemes either. You can also grow in different directions, my kids may have started with a vending machine, but then they changed. They made and sold stuff at farmers markets, now they are buying real estate.


----------



## MrMatt

Pluto said:


> https://www.google.ca/search?client...x+in+denmark&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> 
> 60.2%


Pluto, 

In this case I'd say my link is more authoritative.
Your 6 year old CNN article with outdated/incorrect information vs a direct link to the Danish Ministry of Taxation article on the *CURRENT* and historical personal tax rates in Denmark.


I'll provide a translation of the appropriate section.

Quote - "Som led i aftalen om finansloven for 2013 forhøjedes bundskatten med 0,19 pct.-point, og skatteloftet for personlig indkomst blev samtidigt hævet til 51,7 pct."
Translation -"As part of the agreement on the Finance Act for 2013, the base tax was raised by 0.19 percentage points, and at the same time the tax ceiling for personal income was raised to 51.7 per cent."

Further cutting the top tax rates from 60 to 52% is a pretty significant drop of about 13% - [(60%-52%)/60% = 13%]
It would seem that the Danish plan is lower, not higher tax rates.


----------



## Pluto

MrMatt said:


> Pluto,
> 
> In this case I'd say my link is more authoritative.
> Your 6 year old CNN article with outdated/incorrect information vs a direct link to the Danish Ministry of Taxation article on the *CURRENT* and historical personal tax rates in Denmark.
> 
> 
> I'll provide a translation of the appropriate section.
> 
> Quote - "Som led i aftalen om finansloven for 2013 forhøjedes bundskatten med 0,19 pct.-point, og skatteloftet for personlig indkomst blev samtidigt hævet til 51,7 pct."
> Translation -"As part of the agreement on the Finance Act for 2013, the base tax was raised by 0.19 percentage points, and at the same time the tax ceiling for personal income was raised to 51.7 per cent."
> 
> Further cutting the top tax rates from 60 to 52% is a pretty significant drop of about 13% - [(60%-52%)/60% = 13%]
> It would seem that the Danish plan is lower, not higher tax rates.


Excellent! Shows UBI can be paid for. what's their sales taxes?


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Sags, you can start small, reinvest and build. I didn’t start with money. Neither are my kids. They aren’t getting sucked into schemes either. You can also grow in different directions, my kids may have started with a vending machine, but then they changed. They made and sold stuff at farmers markets, now they are buying real estate.


I know, as you've explained previously, you didn't start with money. You were dead broke, like the homeless: no income, no assets, no money in the bank, just like the homeless. Then one day you woke up and realized you could buy doors. And now, apparently, according to your vague template, everyone can buy doors and not start wtih any money.


----------



## sags

Just a Guy said:


> Sorry you’re not as capable as a 6 year old Pluto.
> 
> Sags, you can start small, reinvest and build. I didn’t start with money. Neither are my kids. They aren’t getting sucked into schemes either. You can also grow in different directions, my kids may have started with a vending machine, but then they changed. They made and sold stuff at farmers markets, now they are buying real estate.


Anyone can easily develop some "passive" income. Register a domain name, create a free website and add Google Ads to collect a few "passive" dollars a year.

The part missing is how people survive without a job while they take years building sufficient passive income to support themselves.

A UBI could provide income support while people build the elusive passive income.


----------



## lonewolf :)

sags said:


> Anyone can easily develop some "passive" income. Register a domain name, create a free website and add Google Ads to collect a few "passive" dollars a year.
> 
> The part missing is how people survive without a job while they take years building sufficient passive income to support themselves.
> 
> A UBI could provide income support while people build passive income.


 Have to go back to the sharing economy for those that can not afford the expensive individual economy i.e., do chores i.e., plant a garden in exchange for affordable housing. Families stay together so Grandma & grandpa look after kids while parents are away working instead of paying day care. Now days everyone in the family needs a car

Now days the political correct wants to steal from the rich to hand out needles (which seam to be everywhere on the streets these days), food, money & free housing. Yet the guys they hand the money over to can afford smokes, cell phones, a car are to lazy to plant a garden & pick up trash on the street.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags, 

Open your mind up, just a little...a tiny crack even. If you put as much effort into creativity as you do in being negative and looking for handouts, you probably could have been the richest person on this forum. Instead you’ve pained yourself into a corner and can’t see any way out. 

I didn’t start out buying doors as Pluto implies, I bought a door. A couple years later I bought a second door. In fact, it took several years before I owned 5 doors and then, because of the market, that’s all I held for years. Now I buy over 5 doors a year. 

When there were no doors to buy, I bought stocks, when there were no stocks, I invested in my companies...I didn’t sit around whining about how hard life is, I actively worked to change it. The reality is, there is no white knight waiting out there to save you and your ilk. No one wants to pick up the tab of some lazy union members who can’t make ends meet.


----------



## peterk

sags said:


> Anyone can easily develop some "passive" income. Register a domain name, create a free website and add Google Ads to collect a few "passive" dollars a year.
> 
> The part missing is how people survive without a job while they take years building sufficient passive income to support themselves.
> 
> A UBI could provide income support while people build the elusive passive income.


Duh, you just stop complaining and get creative. Maybe chop your arm off first, then while it's growing back and you can't work the creative energies will multiply. That's how it works.

I grew and sold pumpkins when I was 6 years old, unlike Pluto, the lazy bum, and look how I turned out... That Pumpkin seed money was the key. Also, did you know that if you grow pumpkins large enough, 50% larger than the regular size, you can make doors in them and rent the pumpkins out for students to live in? Then take the seeds from the seed money to grow more pumpkins and more doors, using the power of leverage. It's literally an infinite return.


----------



## sags

LOL......

A good buddy of mine was building a new home on the lake, and he went out one day and bought a bunch of doors.

Well not doors exactly, but the square part they cut out of insulated steel doors to make room for the window. 

We went up to his cottage and laid the cut out pieces of the doors on top of the water/septic lines in the trenches to protect them. Then we filled in the dirt on top of them.

Doors are very useful and good.


----------



## Just a Guy

Well, I suppose it’s much easier to remain poor and beg for spare change. Much easier than putting in effort, and having to deal with pride or self worth...that can be sold for a couple of bucks. 

I wish you guys and your descendants all the best, I’m sure they’ll live quite unfulfilling lives. If they come by, I’ll give them a free tin cup so they can have a leg up on their career path. Don’t say I don’t support people. Pluto, I’ll give your kids a reading list so they can claim they have the equivalencies of a university degree too.

Tomorrow is mother’s day, bring the family down to the soup kitchen for your free food, nothin* tastes as good as free right? My family will probably be serving you again.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Sags,
> 
> looking for handouts,
> 
> I didn’t start out buying doors as Pluto implies, I bought a door. A couple years later I bought a second door. In fact, it took several years before I owned 5 doors and then, because of the market, that’s all I held for years. .


1. Looking for handouts. You mention your children. Did you get the child tax credit? Is that a handout? 
2. So how did you buy your first door? You were dead broke, no money, no assets, no income homeless and you bought your first door. sounds like a no money down infomercial.


----------



## Just a Guy

Not sure why you ask, you don’t care, you don’t believe it’s possible, you’d never do it yourself, and you don’t actually read (as I’ve explained it many times in the past), all you’re really looking for is something you can twist around to make yourself feel better. 

Why not go down to the food bank and get some groceries, if you hurryyou can hit the soup kitchen on the way back and save double...better than paying for them yourself. Why stop at government cheques after all. Teach your kids well, so they can be financially free their entire lives.


----------



## sags

You must have borrowed your money from Deutsche Bank.

No money, no job, no assets, no credit............fits within their lending criteria.


----------



## Just a Guy

TD actually, and today I’ve got plenty of assets, unlike some people who are only half of that word and have no money, no job and are renters...probably the wise voice to listen to. Keep up the good work, you inspire many people to accomplish nothing with their lives.


----------



## MrMatt

Pluto said:


> Excellent! Shows UBI can be paid for. what's their sales taxes?


Actually it shows that Denmark realized high taxes are bad, so they're cutting them.

Why would you think Denmark has UBI? 
The reality is that socialism simply doesn't work.

Countries either tax and spend till they realize it's a bad idea, and try to reverse it (Like in the Nordic countries) or they collapse (like Venezuela).


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Not sure why you ask, you don’t care, you don’t believe it’s possible, you’d never do it yourself, and you don’t actually read (as I’ve explained it many times in the past), all you’re really looking for is something you can twist around to make yourself feel better.
> 
> Why not go down to the food bank and get some groceries, if you hurryyou can hit the soup kitchen on the way back and save double...better than paying for them yourself. Why stop at government cheques after all. Teach your kids well, so they can be financially free their entire lives.


Its obvious why I'm asking. you sucked up all the child tax credits you could. Then you claim you are self reliant. You make up stories about how you were "dead broke" like the homeless then, out of the blue, with no assets, no income, no money in the bank, no home, you started buying "doors". so why can't the homeless do the same you ask? But you never get into detail about how you did that. The story does not add up cause you don't explain how you financed it, especially considering you were "dead broke". Where did you get groceries when you were "dead broke"? Oh I know. you bought them at the grocrey store because you were not actually "dead broke". It looks like a fake "dead broke" story. Way too vague to be real. 

Then you make up fake stories about me at the food bank and what not. Why? Oh I know, to distract attention away from your story that doesn't add up.


----------



## Pluto

MrMatt said:


> Actually it shows that Denmark realized high taxes are bad, so they're cutting them.
> 
> .


could be. But if you gave me a reference, instead of expecting me to have unabiding faith in your word, it would help.


----------



## Pluto

MrMatt said:


> Actually it shows that Denmark realized high taxes are bad, so they're cutting them.
> 
> Why would you think Denmark has UBI?
> The reality is that socialism simply doesn't work.
> 
> Countries either tax and spend till they realize it's a bad idea, and try to reverse it (Like in the Nordic countries) or they collapse (like Venezuela).


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

Actually it seems like Denmark is in great financial shape despite its social programs. its possible it lowered taxes due to completeing some debt repayment.


----------



## Just a Guy

Wow, you got my whole life story from your imagination...but then you equate reading 4 pages of a book with a PhD too, so I shouldn’t expect more. I’ve never made half the claims about me that you did, but you always prefer your version of reality to the truth...must help make up for your own lack of success. 

If you actually read my posts over the past, you’d see that your summary of my life is as out to lunch as most of your other made up posts. Then again, you’ve never really been one too concerned about facts. 

Since you obviously never read them in the first place, here’s no point in restating it as you probably won’t read it this time either. You’ve proven you prefer to live in your personal version of reality.

You must feel so superior as you raid the local food banks and soup kitchens and collect every possible freebie and government benefits you can while dumpster diving to support your lifestyle. Since you’ve never proven any of those statements false, they must all be true by your own twisted use of logic. 

I, of course, am just living off made up houses, stocks and companies...I can only dream of being as successful as you.

People who’ve done the same thing as me, and there are several on this forum I’m certainly not unique, know the truth. The ones who’ve never tried to make money other than by some job, can’t believe it and will never move beyond their golden handcuffs and closed minds.


----------



## sags

If banks are lending 100% mortgage money to people with no money, no assets and no jobs, it is of interest to bank stock investors on a financial forum.

It would indicate the banking sector isn't nearly as secure as many trust that it is.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> If you actually read my posts over the past, you’d see that your summary of my life is as out to lunch as most of your other made up posts. Then again, you’ve never really been one too concerned about facts.
> 
> Since you obviously never read them in the first place, here’s no point in restating it as you probably won’t read it this time either. You’ve proven you prefer to live in your personal version of reality.
> I, of course, am just living off made up houses, stocks and companies...I can only dream of being as successful as you.
> 
> People who’ve done the same thing as me, and there are several on this forum I’m certainly not unique, know the truth. The ones who’ve never tried to make money other than by some job, can’t believe it and will never move beyond their golden handcuffs and closed minds.


A vague, rambling denial. But no actual corrections. Until you correct it, I'll stick with what you previously claimed: you were injured and "dead broke" then started buying doors. In contrast, according to you, the homeless are dead broke too, but all they do is look for handouts. According to you, nothing is stopping them from buying doors too instead of looking for handouts. But you never get around to the details. How did you buy that first door when you were "dead broke"? Explain that so we can get on with the rest of your agenda, such as getting the homeless to buy some doors too.


----------



## Just a Guy

Been there, done that (several times)...just because you missed it, as you miss most things you don’t agree with, is not something I’ll ever be able to change. Face it, I could show you all the proof you could ask for and you still wouldn’t believe it because your mind can’t comprehend such an existence because you’re so rooted in your tiny little world and couldn’t do it yourself even if I walked you, step by step, through the process.

Just look at Sags for example, no matter how many times we try to explain that people like me (several people have tried to explain it) are getting an 80% LTV mortgage based on the appraised value of the property, he still can’t grasp how that can work out to 100% of the purchase price, thus confusing things and thinking banks are giving out 100% mortgages. The idea that you can buy a property below appraised value is just incomprehensible to him, not that he’s ever tried to even find such a property. I could literally take him shopping, show him such a property, and he’d still deny it, call it a slum no matter how it looks, or do whatever else he could so that his version of reality isn't jeopardized. People like the two of you can’t handle other ways, I now understand that. People like you “need” to have things work your way or you get uncomfortable. It points out the weakness in your lives. 

For you, you don’t even have a clue as what it means to be dead broke, you seem to think it means no money and no assets...that’s being poor. Most people who get into financial trouble pass that point fairly early. Being dead broke means having a large, negative net worth. Basically living off credit you have no real way of paying off. This means you’ve basically borrowed as much as you can, living off credit cards and debt, any have are basically worthless. Being dead broke means you don’t even have the funds to declare bankruptcy because you don’t have the money required to do that. Fortunately for me, when I hit that point, I was able to find a contract to generate a little money, enough to get past the hump...but, as I said, you probably can’t even comprehend such a situation. I made it all up after all.

You know, going over past posts, I notice that people like you and sags never contribute, that I could find at least, anything on the subject of making money, investing, running a company or anything of that ilk on a financial forum...but you, of course, claim to be an expert. All you are is an expert in twisting words to try and justify your version of reality, no matter how many people disagree with you. 

Until you can, in your words, “prove” that my characterization of you isn’t valid, I’ll continue to believe my outline of your financial acumen outlined above. Besides, collecting bottles out of the garbage is good for the environment. 

I do recommend that you and sags pick up a book called psycho-cybernetics by maxwell maltz it may help you, but probably not, as the book itself will explain, plus you’d actually have to read it. It will explain why you continue to be less successful than others, and how you could actually change that...but it’s probably beyond your abilities as it needs a change in mindset. 

P.S. you, like sags, really need to look up the definition of the word “denial”. I’d post the definition, again, but neither of you seems to have read it the last time I did that.


----------



## sags

"Dare to be Great" self help books often coyly equate poverty with laziness and a lack of morals. I am not the least interested in that kind of misguided ideology.


----------



## OptsyEagle

sags said:


> "Dare to be Great" self help books often coyly equate poverty with laziness and a lack of morals. I am not the least interested in that kind of misguided ideology.


I would equate poverty more with IQ then I would with laziness. As long as no one does anything stupid, like just giving the money away, the laziness can be dealt with. It is IQ (personal intelligence) that is the problem. In a competitive world, like the one we live in, the differences in IQ, create a huge unfair advantage. Probably more then the wealth pyramid does, but certainly on the same level, at least.

For this I do not have a solution. IQ is something you are born with. More education can help but rarely overcomes the disability of being born with a lower level IQ.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sweeping statements to avoid change, why am I not surprised. No real clue about what you’re talking about, just negative comments...the book actually talks about changing your self image, nothing to do with lazyness, poverty or lack of morals...as I said, it explained you and Pluto quite well. Lots of self fulfilling prophecy examples.


----------



## MrMatt

OptsyEagle said:


> I would equate poverty more with IQ then I would with laziness. As long as no one does anything stupid, like just giving the money away, the laziness can be dealt with. It is IQ (personal intelligence) that is the problem. In a competitive world, like the one we live in, the differences in IQ, create a huge unfair advantage. Probably more then the wealth pyramid does, but certainly on the same level, at least.
> 
> For this I do not have a solution. IQ is something you are born with. More education can help but rarely overcomes the disability of being born with a lower level IQ.


It isn't just intelligence.
If you're able to do more and be more productive, why shouldn't you get more of the benefits of that?

If you aren't willing to reward people at least partially in line with their contribution, the high producers will produce less, or simply leave.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> People like you “need” to have things work your way or you get uncomfortable. It points out the weakness in your lives.
> 
> Fortunately for me, when I hit that point, I was able to find a contract to generate a little money, enough to get past the hump...but, as I said, you probably can’t even comprehend such a situation. I made it all up after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do recommend that you and sags pick up a book called psycho-cybernetics by maxwell maltz it may help you, but probably not, as the book itself will explain, plus you’d actually have to read it. It will explain why you continue to be less successful than others, and how you could actually change that...but it’s probably beyond your abilities as it needs a change in mindset.


1. You are very mixed up. You have me confused with somone else. I did very well on my real estate rentals. Also do quite well on my stocks. 
2. Ahh. Now you get a little more specific. Luckily you got a contract that turned the tide. Eventually you started buying "doors". Now you are feeling self reliant and morally superior to the poor. And you feel victimized by virtue of the poor getting "handouts". Instead of handouts you propose that the poor can get some contract that will turn the tide and then they will start investing and gettin a passive income stream, just like you. You are a visionary. Noting wrong with that, but a lot of visionaries are so impractical as to be detached from reality. I find the following more credible:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/26/war...nequality-us-should-take-care-of-its-own.html


----------



## OptsyEagle

MrMatt said:


> It isn't just intelligence.
> If you're able to do more and be more productive, why shouldn't you get more of the benefits of that?
> 
> If you aren't willing to reward people at least partially in line with their contribution, the high producers will produce less, or simply leave.


Not sure why you tagged my post. Everything else you said is correct. Of course there are other factors. I mentioned the current wealth pyramid, which means, how much money a person currently has access to will aid them significantly in creating wealth. All that said, it is my opinion, that without an above average IQ, even the amount of wealth one starts with, will not be enough to override the disability of a lower level IQ. 

None of this will be 100% for everyone. There will be many exceptions, but on average, if you segregated the entire population of the country by wealth, and then did it again for IQ, you would see a relationships, as you would if you segregated them by current access to capital. If I had to give a more detailed opinion, I would guess that access to capital would be more important moving a person from well off to stinking rich, whereas a higher IQ would be more valuable to move a person from pathetically poor to self sufficient or better. You will rarely find a person with a high IQ on welfare. It just isn't necessary for them.

Again, just my opinion and with the understanding that there will be lots of exceptions. Let us not forget about the importance of luck. Luck is equally distributed but has a bigger dollar effect on a person merging their $Billion dollar internet company with another, then for another person who finds the $2 item they were looking for, at the dollar store, to now be on sale for $1. Both were lucky, but one a lot more financial benefit, then the other. So it takes a lot more then luck, is my point.


----------



## MrMatt

OptsyEagle said:


> Not sure why you tagged my post. Everything else you said is correct. Of course there are other factors. I mentioned the current wealth pyramid, which means, how much money a person currently has access to will aid them significantly in creating wealth. All that said, it is my opinion, that without an above average IQ, even the amount of wealth one starts with, will not be enough to override the disability of a lower level IQ.
> 
> None of this will be 100% for everyone. There will be many exceptions, but on average, if you segregated the entire population of the country by wealth, and then did it again for IQ, you would see a relationships, as you would if you segregated them by current access to capital. If I had to give a more detailed opinion, I would guess that access to capital would be more important moving a person from well off to stinking rich, whereas a higher IQ would be more valuable to move a person from pathetically poor to self sufficient or better. You will rarely find a person with a high IQ on welfare. It just isn't necessary for them.
> 
> Again, just my opinion and with the understanding that there will be lots of exceptions. Let us not forget about the importance of luck. Luck is equally distributed but has a bigger dollar effect on a person merging their $Billion dollar internet company with another, then for another person who finds the $2 item they were looking for, at the dollar store, to now be on sale for $1. Both were lucky, but one a lot more financial benefit, then the other. So it takes a lot more then luck, is my point.


Luck isn't evenly distributed.
Look at the lottery, the expected value is the same for everyone, but the actually winnings are very highly concentrated.

It isn't an even playing field in any way, and it isn't possible to even it out without going all Harrison Bergeron on everyone, and even in that dystopia it didn't work.

We should strive for fairness, not jealously.


----------



## OptsyEagle

Luck, by its nature, has to be evenly distributed, if given enough time.

It is the degree of luck AND how we perceive what is good luck and what is bad luck, that is not the same.

Anyway, luck alone will not work. Capital alone will not work. IQ alone will not work. All I am saying is a deficiency of any of those can really put a person behind the 8-ball...but anything can be overcome.


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto, 

once again you got it wrong, I started investing on the way down financially, I didn’t get a contract which turned the tide as it were. What turned the tide was when my investments started to generate more income. The contract was more a bandaid Since you can’t understand without making stuff up to try and explain it, there is no real point in keeping up this discussion also, you’ve never proven to have done well at anything aside from criticism, which usually comes from insecurity and a lack of success. Until you can prove otherwise, well just stick with that.


----------



## Just a Guy

OptsyEagle said:


> Luck, by its nature, has to be evenly distributed, if given enough time.
> 
> It is the degree of luck AND how we perceive what is good luck and what is bad luck, that is not the same.
> 
> Anyway, luck alone will not work. Capital alone will not work. IQ alone will not work. All I am saying is a deficiency of any of those can really put a person behind the 8-ball...but anything can be overcome.



Ironically I’ve had a lot of luck over the years, most of it bad luck. Of course, I benefitted quite well from the bad luck as it led me to investing. I wonder how much IQ plays a role, smart people can obviously think of new and creative solutions, but also people who are told they are dumb all their lives also tend to try and live up to that lifestyle (self fulfilling prophecies as it were). I think one of the things that frustrates me the most about poorer people is they rarely try to change their situation even relatively normal people (look at some posters on this forum for example) who argue to their death that nothing can be changed.

I think the big part of IQ comes not in the making of the funds, but in the keeping of the funds. Many lottery winners wind up broke within 10 years, whereas many people who earn their wealth can make it multigenerational.


----------



## OptsyEagle

Our economic system is one of competition. We all understand it well when it comes to business but only the ones with the higher IQs seemed to have figured out that competition applies to all of us, all the time. We compete for the limited amount of success that is available. There are not jobs for everyone. There are not promotions for everyone. Wealth, by definition is simply the financial difference between the rich and the poor. Having money would be of no use if you did not have other people in your world, who have less. Because of this, "Life is a competition".

Now in the competition of life, there are many factors that go into winning at that competition, but one that I have noticed from a very young age, was IQ. Some people learn quicker then others. The others eventually learn, but by the time they do, the job is taken. The promotions has been filled. The girl now has a boyfriend. How quickly one can figure things out makes a very large difference in whether they win or lose, in the game of life.

The average IQ of our society is quite low, in my opinion. It has not been very difficult for me to get other people to do what I need them to do, to help me succeed. Which I could not have done without them. Others, I have noticed, cannot seem to figure this out. 

My wife will have a conflict with a family member and when she is done telling me what she plans to do, I am astonished. Even when I explain how that plan will work out poorly, and even though she knows it to be true, she can have a hard time doing what needs to be done, to resolve the conflict, in her favour. To me it is just natural. To get everything I want, and have the other person think they got the better of me, is simply a job well done, in my book. To others they need to be right at all cost. That is just not very bright. The people you know; your family, your boss, your co-worker, your customer, your contractor, the prosecutor, etc., are all very predictable. For the less well known, usually it only takes a few, well thought out questions, to figure out how to manipulate them to your benefit. But people don't do this. I see it everyday. Because of that, they struggle, both financially and in many other parts of their lives.

The exceptions I have seen, usually come from the successful. It would be very difficult for them to be successful, if they did not figure out how to manipulate other people to their will. It's not that they can never be successful without an IQ, it is just that it would be very, very difficult.

So in summary, the biggest problem the poor have is the fact that even if they were lucky to come across some amount of wealth or prosperity, the people with the higher IQ will simply go to work to transfer that money into their own pockets. This is why they are poor. It's not the only reason, but it is very big one. I wish I had a solution, but I don't.


----------



## Just a Guy

I find the poor need to be educated. Giving them more money isn’t the solution because they don’t know what to do with it. They also generally lack any life skills like cooking, General repairs, and such like.

Their biggest problem though is that they think of themselves as victims. They spend their lives feeling sorry for themselves instead of seeing the challenges of life and trying to overcome them, so they give into self pity. Then, of course, are the ones who only criticize any form of change as impossible, any accomplishments of others as fluke of lies. Nothing can be done to help these people, they need to change themselves.


----------



## MrMatt

OptsyEagle said:


> Luck, by its nature, has to be evenly distributed, if given enough time.
> 
> It is the degree of luck AND how we perceive what is good luck and what is bad luck, that is not the same.
> 
> Anyway, luck alone will not work. Capital alone will not work. IQ alone will not work. All I am saying is a deficiency of any of those can really put a person behind the 8-ball...but anything can be overcome.


Even assuming "luck" is evenly distributed given enough time (which I somewhat disagree with, there are many books on the subject)
Look at the lottery example, winning is a matter of luck, every ticket has the same potential to win, and given enough time, it is equal.
But realistically we are not going to enter enough lottery draws to win Lotto Max, we simply won't live that long.

Also lets say being born into particular circumstances and with certain attributes is a matter of luck. You get good or bad, and unless you're reincarnated that's it.
Also assuming random distribution, people will end up at the tails with much better and worse luck.

Finally being lucky depends on your ability to exploit the circumstances as presented. 
There are many situations were someone with more resources could benefit from a situation where I could not, or someone with fewer who couldn't where I could.

I'm not talkign just financial resources.

Face it, it's an unequal world, we can work to make it fair, but we can't make it equal.
No matter how much one wants to, it just can't happen.


----------



## OptsyEagle

MrMatt said:


> Even assuming "luck" is evenly distributed given enough time (which I somewhat disagree with, there are many books on the subject)
> Look at the lottery example, winning is a matter of luck, every ticket has the same potential to win, and given enough time, it is equal.
> But realistically we are not going to enter enough lottery draws to win Lotto Max, we simply won't live that long.
> 
> Also lets say being born into particular circumstances and with certain attributes is a matter of luck. You get good or bad, and unless you're reincarnated that's it.
> Also assuming random distribution, people will end up at the tails with much better and worse luck.
> 
> Finally being lucky depends on your ability to exploit the circumstances as presented.
> There are many situations were someone with more resources could benefit from a situation where I could not, or someone with fewer who couldn't where I could.
> 
> I'm not talkign just financial resources.
> 
> Face it, it's an unequal world, we can work to make it fair, but we can't make it equal.
> No matter how much one wants to, it just can't happen.


Good points. I noticed that you figured out that my "given enough time" comment, was my cop out on the luck distribution theory. I didn't say that the amount of time required was within a human beings lifetime. It is not. 

Anyway, very little of the things we are talking about can be changed. Education would help, but at the end of the day, our economic system demands that there is a difference between the rich and the poor. Hence, whatever, we do, this cannot change. The names of the rich and the names of the poor might change, but the financial differences between them all, cannot. The closer you bring the wealth of the people at the top to the people at the bottom, the less amount of wealth there will be for all. In a world with less wealth, the poor will suffer much more then the rich. So with that in mind, what should we do?


----------



## sags

The middle class is shrinking and it isn't because they are climbing into the higher wealth brackets. It is because of exactly the opposite. The middle class is becoming less wealthy.

Why will highly educated young people be the first generation to be worse off financially than their parents ? I doubt IQ is a factor.

I think the problems are systemic and the consequences of a capitalist model that needs wholesale changes. It isn't working for the majority of people anymore.

Mom and Pop capitalists have been destroyed by the big corporations like Walmart, Amazon and nationally franchised food businesses.

The "old" capitalism model is long gone. The wealth/income gaps continue to widen.

Income redistribution is one way the government can change the economics without blowing up the entire system.

A Universal Basic Income is a worthy method of redistributing income. The status quo isn't a viable option anymore.


----------



## Just a Guy

Optsy, I agree that there will always be poor, but that doesn’t mean those who are poor must remain so. Fortunately we live in Canada where everyone, should they choose, has a chance to change their lives. Many truly poor (not Canadian poor) immigrants have proven this time and again. Too bad the Canadian poor can’t figure out how to accomplish the same thing considering they tend to start from a much better position and less challenges such as language, culture shock, etc.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags,

You still have never answered the question as to why people are entitled to have UBI.

Aside from greed that is.


----------



## sags

Entitled is your word, but I suppose it could be used to describe a universal basic income. Other permanent social programs are sometimes known as entitlements.

I think the phrase "social benefits" is more typically used to describe such programs.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Pluto,
> 
> once again you got it wrong, I started investing on the way down financially, I didn’t get a contract which turned the tide as it were. What turned the tide was when my investments started to generate more income. The contract was more a bandaid Since you can’t understand without making stuff up to try and explain it, there is no real point in keeping up this discussion also, you’ve never proven to have done well at anything aside from criticism, which usually comes from insecurity and a lack of success. Until you can prove otherwise, well just stick with that.


1. Once again I got it wrong. You are so critical all the time. In principle, I don't mind critique, as thoughtful critique has changed my thinking for the better. Anyway, I see, the part I got wrong is you started investing on the way down. Hmmmm. 
2. But the overall objective here is apparently to get the poor and the homeless to invest and get passive income, and not to dwell on you personally. Given your objective, what's your next step? do a management by objectives work sheet. Lay out each essential step required to achieve your goal of the poor and homelss having passive income from investments. In other words, how are you going to achieve this objective?


----------



## Mukhang pera

Pluto said:


> Lay out each essential step required to achieve your goal of the poor and homelss having passive income from investments. In other words, how are you going to achieve this objective?


Maybe the way it will be done will be to pay UBI to the poor and homeless for say 5 years, commuted to a present value lump sum, which they may then apply as a down payment on their first "door". They are then on their way. The sky is the limit!


----------



## Just a Guy

You two do realize there are literally, as I’ve said many, many times before millions of ways to make money outside of a job. Personally I’ve done it with companies, real estate and stocks, but those aren’t the only ways.

You seem hung up on real estate because that was one of the paths I took...there are probably thousands of different ways to make money just in real estate.

Face it, you don’t have any form of imagination, you’re looking at my particular situation and saying I’m trying to apply it to all the homeless (your idea, not mine) and thus implying that the homeless have no choice and are unable to make a passive income.

How about an idea for a non passive income...my kids took some sugar, butter and nuts and made homemade candy which they sold at farmers markets. It cost $6/kg to make and they sold it for $4/bag. Worked out to about $40-45/kg and over $20/hour including all prep and selling time plus materials and costs.

A poor person could go down to a food bank and get the supplies needed to start for free...at $6/kg it’s not that expensive to get started without the food bank. Did I mention young kids did this?

How about the guy who invented the pet rock, he picked a rock up out of his backyard, put it in a box and made himself a millionaire. Passive income. Low cost of entry. 

How about the kid who used a library computer to write software that sold on the App Store? Passive income, low cost of entry. Poor people can get free coding course if they wanted (I realize your obvious criticism, which really doesn’t hold water). 

How about these stay at home moms...https://www.theguardian.com/technol...y-tinkerers-fighting-for-your-right-to-repair

I could list off more and more ideas, but I’d bet you’d find fault with each and every one for some reason, yet somehow, someone made a success of every one of them. 

Now, I’m sure you’ll find problems with all these success stories (pet rock is dead and won’t resurrect for example) completely missing the point that someone did it because they had a little creativity and was successful.

Face it your thinking makes further discussion a waste of time, all you want to see is that it’s impossible and, for people with your attitude, I agree it is impossible. 

Like sags, if you guys put in half the effort to come up with ideas as you do on trying to be shoot them all down and coming up with excuses as to why nothing will work, you’d probably be some of the riches people on the board. Instead, your not.

I’m sure you’re feeling quite smug with yourselves, but the reality is people around you are doing what you think isn’t possible and leaving you behind each and every day. It really makes no difference if you believe me or not, I can see where you came from and where you’ll wind up in comparison.

So take your “victory lap”, in your mind I’m sure you’ve won. I’ll keep trying to mentor the poor, to make changes and you can sit around and pat yourself on the back for doing nothing and keep trying to shoot down the people who actually do something.


----------



## james4beach

Why is anyone "entitled" to OAS? How about health care?

Why are wealthy Canadians who can afford to establish corporations "entitled" to such beneficial low tax rates that others don't have access to?

Why are wealthy Canadians with large amounts of investment capital "entitled" to very low tax rates on dividends, and "entitled" to ultra low taxes on capital gains?

I list all these because this "entitlements" term is thrown around sometimes as if it's supposed to mean something bad. The reality is that we all benefit from various things in society, and rich people benefit very significantly as well. However the entitlements term is framed as a negative thing, trying to make it look like it's uniquely undesirable for poor people to receive something.


----------



## sags

And.... the discussion has gone full circle back to making fudge and selling it at the farmers market.

How much fudge should a fudge maker make to make enough fudge to make enough money to continue making fudge to make money ?


----------



## Mukhang pera

And you JAG, do realize, that my post (the first to this tiresome and childish thread, started by you as a vehicle to display your foolishness) was intended wholly in jest. You take yourself far too seriously for anyone else to take you seriously. 

There are now almost 1,200 posts to this thread. How many of those have you racked up? And with what result? What have you accomplished with all your bluster, insults, calumnies and boring repetition? In short, what the hell is the point? Do you not see that you will not change the minds of any here? And why do you seem to care so intensely? Why have you wasted so much time here, when that time, surely, could be more beneficially applied to managing your own assets, businesses & c., making them swell. 

As well, you say you regularly work with the poor. You have so much to teach them. Knowledge to impart. Valuable experience to share. Do you not see how utterly futile has been your time dedicated to this thread, which has been kept alive by you for more than 2 years? You have taught nothing to anyone. No one wants to listen. You must have long since realized that no one here is receptive to your displays of superior knowledge. Perhaps it's a case of brilliance that blinds more than it illuminates. Too much for us dullards here. Just dismiss those here who will not bow to your superior savoir faire as idiots who cannot be taught. Decide to give up on me and anyone else here as lost causes, hopeless cases, derelicts in the sea of humanity. Would it not be the case that, in the time you have squandered on this thread, you could have taken one of the poor you know in tow and mentored that person to a better life? I expect you'll say you have already done that. But then, my rejoinder would be that with the time and effort pissed away here, you could have taken yet one more under your wing and set them on the path of righteousness, according to the immutable laws of JAG. There are so many, so little time. Get on with it.



Just a Guy said:


> Like sags, if you guys put in half the effort to come up with ideas as you do on trying to be shoot them all down and coming up with excuses as to why nothing will work, you’d probably be some of the riches people on the board. Instead, your not.


How are you able to say that I do not rank among the "riches" people on the board. How can you say so definitely "Instead, your (sic) not." According to your prescience, please set out your "riches" list of cmf members. A cmf "sunshine list", if you will. I expect those here with the deepest pockets are not those who are here daily talking about how smart, successful and rich they are.


----------



## Just a Guy

james4beach said:


> Why is anyone "entitled" to OAS? How about health care?
> 
> Why are wealthy Canadians who can afford to establish corporations "entitled" to such beneficial low tax rates that others don't have access to?
> 
> Why are wealthy Canadians with large amounts of investment capital "entitled" to very low tax rates on dividends, and "entitled" to such beneficial low tax rates that others don’t have access to?



Easy to answer. People who made financial contributions to OAS and health care by actually paying taxes are probably entitled to the benefits. Big difference between free money for just being in Canada or those asking for a free ride with zero contributions and no intention of making contributions. 

As for the taxes on dividends, people who support companies ensure jobs are created. For example, as a company owner I get preferred rates because I provide jobs to people. If the government wants to encourage me to create jobs, they give a company tax advantages to encourage them to hire people. How many jobs does the average employee create? How much do the poor contribute to support companies? Who invests in the startups, who ensures companies have the cash to keep going? 

Also, a tax write off just means you don’t give the money to the government to spend, but you don’t get to keep it. For example, I can send the government thousands of dollars or I can pay my accountant thousands of dollars to prepare my taxes, saving me time and effort, paying him and his staff keeping employment happening. I don’t get to keep the money, but I do benefit and I choose where the money is spent instead of the government. 

The rich, who still pay more taxes at any rate, usually contribute to the economy and thus get favourable rates to encourage them to continue doing so. The poor tend to just take from the economy (for example they are paid by the rich) and they do little to create jobs or stimulate the economy on anywhere near the same level.


----------



## sags

Poor people pay all kinds of taxes and fees.

Even if they spend all their money on smokes, booze and gambling.........those are heavily taxed.

JAG......you fail to appreciate the cycle of money. The government gives money to poor folks and they are far more likely to spend it than rich folks.

Giving money directly to people to spend creates far better results for the economy than giving it banks or wealthy people who don't spend it.

The last thing the government wants is to give money to people who never spend it.


----------



## Just a Guy

The government usually doesn’t “give” money to the rich in the first place.

The rich spend more in a year than the poor. It’s not like they sit on hordes of gold, not eating or buying things like boats. 

The poor often dont don’t know how to handle money, giving them more often exasperates their problems. 

The taxes they pay, probably makes them eligible to have health care for their lung cancer, liver damage, and social workers...don’t see it being a good idea to give them UBI to make things worse though. Your cycle of money would probably be better spent on boats though, since all the health care for the poor costs a lot more than they paid in taxes. Chemotherapeutic drugs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, that’s a lot of smokes. Let’s not forget the cost of police too. They tend to have to deal more with the poor than the rich, and then there are the courts, the prisons...

Just had a fire in one of my condos. $45k of damages to the building because a poor tenant, on support, who swears she only smokes outside despite her place being covered in cigarette butts, fell asleep while smoking in bed. She claimed, in a semi-incoherent state, that she’d only had one drink before falling asleep accidentally. I suppose the people she put out of a home for a while should be glad she stimulated the economy and employed firefighters, police, construction people, etc. I and the other owners should be happy to pay for the damages with our condo fees because she has no money of her own to cover the damages...and the government moved her to a new building so she can continue to stimulate the economy going forward.


----------



## sags

The rich don't buy enough apples to keep a single orchard in business. They don't buy enough cars to keep one auto assembly line open.

The wealthy don't drive the economy. Everyone else does.


----------



## Just a Guy

They also don’t burn down enough places to keep the firefighter employed, commit enough crimes to keep the police employed, do enough damage to their bodies to keep the health care workers employed, steal enough cars to keep the auto manufacturing employed, buy enough booze to keep the distilleries working, enough cigarettes to keep the foreigner tobacco growers employed...I get it. It’s all so clear now.

Let’s not forget the government employees who are charged with collecting the funds to redistribute it to the poor so that they can keep up their stimulating work...

How many cars do the poor buy?

BTW, who owns the apple orchards generally? Who pays the people to collect and maintain the orchards? It is a collective of the poor? Maybe the government?

How many apples would you sell if there were no orchards?


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The rich don't buy enough apples to keep a single orchard in business. They don't buy enough cars to keep one auto assembly line open.


So what? The top 10% pay the bulk of the taxes that support the bottom 50%, and they also provide countless jobs. Some of those jobs are in orchards.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> The government usually doesn’t “give” money to the rich in the first place.
> 
> The rich spend more in a year than the poor. It’s not like they sit on hordes of gold, not eating or buying things like boats.
> 
> The poor often dont don’t know how to handle money, giving them more often exasperates their problems.
> 
> The taxes they pay, probably makes them eligible to have health care for their lung cancer, liver damage, and social workers...don’t see it being a good idea to give them UBI to make things worse though. Your cycle of money would probably be better spent on boats though, since all the health care for the poor costs a lot more than they paid in taxes. Chemotherapeutic drugs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, that’s a lot of smokes. Let’s not forget the cost of police too. They tend to have to deal more with the poor than the rich, and then there are the courts, the prisons...
> 
> Just had a fire in one of my condos. $45k of damages to the building because a poor tenant, on support, who swears she only smokes outside despite her place being covered in cigarette butts, fell asleep while smoking in bed. She claimed, in a semi-incoherent state, that she’d only had one drink before falling asleep accidentally. I suppose the people she put out of a home for a while should be glad she stimulated the economy and employed firefighters, police, construction people, etc. I and the other owners should be happy to pay for the damages with our condo fees because she has no money of her own to cover the damages...and the government moved her to a new building so she can continue to stimulate the economy going forward.


The rich do tend to horde cash, relate to the poor. Giving $1 to a poor person has a higher multiplier effect than the same $1 given to a rich person as they have a higher propensity to spend it.


----------



## sags

Not in overall government revenues at all levels..........not even close.

How many licence plate renewals do the rich pay for ? How much sales tax do they collectively pay ? How much gas tax do they pay ? How much do they pay in home taxes ? 

The list is endless where the wealthy barely contribute to the overall revenue for municipalities, Provinces, and the Federal Government.


----------



## sags

Our landlord requires we show proof of tenant insurance. If the insurance is cancelled the landlord is notified. Same with the hydro.

I would have thought that was basic to being a landlord.


----------



## Just a Guy

Where are the poor getting all this money to buy cars and renew license plates...heck I wish I was poor so I could get free cars. When did “living wage” include cars?

Even if the tenant has insurance (not my tenant), who do you think pays for it? She’s on social assistance, so I imagine the government, meaning the rich paid for it. Who invests in the insurance company? Who pays the difference between the premium and the payout? Who pays the deductible? The poor don’t even pay the $150 or whatever for coverage. The balance probably comes from the rich people coverage as they don’t tend to make as many claims as the poor.

Anyway, all I know is the condo is suing the social program who housed her to recover the costs. That’s now 45k not being used to support people, rather pay for one deadbeat.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> The rich do tend to horde cash, relate to the poor. Giving $1 to a poor person has a higher multiplier effect than the same $1 given to a rich person as they have a higher propensity to spend it.



The rich will spend more than the poor in all cases. If the poor are only given 20-30k/year there is no way they spend more than even the middle class. Sure, the rich may not waste their money, but they do invest it, and tend to spend way more on anything they do buy when they buy it. Remember investments are stimulating the economy probably more so than spending money. When a rich person buys a car, goes out for dinner, buys a house, hires a gardener, pays the accountant, they spend way more than the poor. 

The only reason the poor spend more is there are more. BTW, where do the poor get their money from? Could it be the taxes paid by the rich? So that would mean the rich are paying both ends.

Without the rich, the poor wouldn’t have money to spend and the middle class probably wouldn’t have jobs. Even government jobs have to be paid for by people with money...except when they go into deficits I guess.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Not in overall government revenues at all levels..........not even close.
> 
> How many licence plate renewals do the rich pay for ? How much sales tax do they collectively pay ? How much gas tax do they pay ? How much do they pay in home taxes ?
> 
> The list is endless where the wealthy barely contribute to the overall revenue for municipalities, Provinces, and the Federal Government.


You are wrong...or maybe you're lying again?

In Canada the top 10% pay 54% of ALL federal and provincial taxes. They also subsidize lower income people by paying higher property taxes.


----------



## andrewf

Maybe you should read what I wrote again. I said, dollar for dollar, the poor are more likely to spend/less likely to save than the rich. Not really up for debate--the data shows this. Your argument is that the rich have more dollars to spend and spend more per capita. Sure. However, in aggregate, there are more dollars spent by relatively poor people than by the rich (depends on definitions and where you draw the lines).


----------



## kcowan

james4beach said:


> Why is anyone "entitled" to OAS? How about health care?
> 
> Why are wealthy Canadians who can afford to establish corporations "entitled" to such beneficial low tax rates that others don't have access to?
> 
> Why are wealthy Canadians with large amounts of investment capital "entitled" to very low tax rates on dividends, and "entitled" to ultra low taxes on capital gains?
> 
> I list all these because this "entitlements" term is thrown around sometimes as if it's supposed to mean something bad. The reality is that we all benefit from various things in society, and rich people benefit very significantly as well. However the entitlements term is framed as a negative thing, trying to make it look like it's uniquely undesirable for poor people to receive something.


While I am not a participant in this holy argument. I could not let the errors in this post sit unchallenged.

The so-called entitlements of OAS and health care are paid for by the tax payers. OAS used to be specifically ear-marked until the government decided that it prevent them from spending the money on other things. By the time health care was introduced, the government had already learned its lesson about earmarking taxes. The only flaw that remains is that OAS is means-tested and healthcare is not.

Dividend tax credits are to compensate investors for the taxes already paid by the corporation. They adjusted the credits downward when they reduced corporate tax rates.

Favourable capital gains taxes is to encourage investors to take risks. Should those gains be protected forever? Well they aren't. The taxes become due when you (and your spouse) die. In fact, they are often confused with estate taxes but they are often worse than US estate taxes (and adjusted cost basis).


----------



## sags

Historically the top rate of income tax was much higher than it is today. The country managed to prosper quite nicely. The wealthy did too.

Some people continually confuse income taxes as the only revenue the different levels of government receive. 

If that is the case, how accurate is Alberta's claim to be a big contributor to Canada's revenue via oil royalties etc. 

Of course Alberta contributes a lot to the general revenue, as do every Canadian who spends money to live every day.

This "the wealthy pay for everything" theory is just plain nonsense.


----------



## james4beach

kcowan said:


> Dividend tax credits are to compensate investors for the taxes already paid by the corporation. They adjusted the credits downward when they reduced corporate tax rates.
> 
> Favourable capital gains taxes is to encourage investors to take risks. Should those gains be protected forever? Well they aren't. The taxes become due when you (and your spouse) die. In fact, they are often confused with estate taxes but they are often worse than US estate taxes (and adjusted cost basis).


Corporate tax rates are very low. Yes, corporations paid taxes, but at low tax rates. The very wealthy get the luxury of piggy-backing on ultra low corporate tax rates... pretty much the lowest corp tax rates in the world, instead of sharing a similar tax burden to poorer people.

Canadian corp tax rates have dropped very significantly over the last few decades. The fact remains that wealthy people with access to corporate structure, or equity, get very favourable taxation compared to regular hard working Canadians.

I understand the intent of low capital gains taxes, but when you think from the perspective of socioeconomic classes, this also provides a huge benefit to people with lots of capital compared to regular hard working Canadians.


----------



## sags

Sixty five years ago, corporations and taxpayers each paid an equal $1 in taxes.

In 2015, taxpayers paid $3.50 for every $1 in taxes paid by corporations.

Years ago the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. Over the years it dropped to 70% and then again to 50%.

The theory that wealthy and corporations pay exorbitant tax rates is a false product of marketing and lobbying by those who benefit from it.

The CRA estimates they are losing billions of dollars every year in tax evasion by the wealthy and corporations.


----------



## Just a Guy

Corporations technically shouldn’t pay taxes, it should be a pass through to the end beneficiaries. So when the money comes out of the company it’s taxed. Otherwise you get taxes on taxes. 

If the money is taxed in payroll, capital gains, dividends, then the money is only taxed once. If the company pays taxes, then you pay taxes on payroll, capital gains and dividends, then there is less money to employ people. This is why things like dividends get a tax credit, because the money was already taxed. Simpler to just tax the end user, that way people like James aren’t confused.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags, are you willing to pay 90% tax personally? You seem to think it’s perfectly fair, put your money where your foot is.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The rich don't buy enough apples to keep a single orchard in business. They don't buy enough cars to keep one auto assembly line open.
> 
> The wealthy don't drive the economy. Everyone else does.


The orchard exists because some "rich guy", bought land and planted a bunch of trees, and paid to support them for years until the apples were grown.
So because of the investment of the "rich guy", we have the orchard and everyone gets apples.

No "rich investor" to buy the land and grow the trees, no apples.

Repeat for factory or pretty much everything else.


----------



## sags

A more likely story is immigrants arrived from Europe and were given land by the Canadian government to establish a farm. 

Eighty years ago, my wife's grandfather arrived from Germany and was given land in Saskatchewan to farm. They built a small house and planted wheat, and raised chickens and beef.

Her father took over the farm raised 4 kids. They were closer to poor than wealthy but he managed to grow the farm.

When he passed away, my wife's brother took over the farm and eventually it was sold when he retired as he had no kids to leave it to.

If the government hadn't given a handout of free land...........none of that would have taken place. 

Rich people didn't build the country.


----------



## Just a Guy

Did he give 90% of the sale price back to the government or did he pocket the cash? I’m betting he made a pretty penny. 

Oh, and how many apples did he produce over three generations? Doesn’t sound like many.


----------



## sags

If the farm earned income in that tax bracket then I would guess they did pay a 90% tax on their income at the time.

You are right. They didn't produce any apples on their wheat and beef farm. They produced..........wheat and beef.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yeah right, he never paid close to 90% and probably claimed it as a personal residence and paid no capital gains on it either. 

You should take your crusade to tax the rich over to his house...see what happens.

BTW, island several apple trees on my property every year. Also apricots, cherries, and other fruit trees and bushes. I also have a wide variety of animals. What’s wrong with your relatives.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Maybe you should read what I wrote again. I said, dollar for dollar, the poor are more likely to spend/less likely to save than the rich. Not really up for debate--the data shows this. Your argument is that the rich have more dollars to spend and spend more per capita. Sure. However, in aggregate, there are more dollars spent by relatively poor people than by the rich (depends on definitions and where you draw the lines).


What data?
Most rich people I know have their money invested. While the middle have it locked up in their house. Poor don't have much money.

Personally almost all my money is invested, my float is all in credit.


----------



## kcowan

When is this merry-go-round going to be put out of its misery?

Could we ask CMF to do a bit of moderation? Do people have to start calling names before moderators act?


----------



## OptsyEagle

sags said:


> A more likely story is immigrants arrived from Europe and were given land by the Canadian government to establish a farm.
> 
> Eighty years ago, my wife's grandfather arrived from Germany and was given land in Saskatchewan to farm. They built a small house and planted wheat, and raised chickens and beef.
> 
> Her father took over the farm raised 4 kids. They were closer to poor than wealthy but he managed to grow the farm.
> 
> When he passed away, my wife's brother took over the farm and eventually it was sold when he retired as he had no kids to leave it to.
> 
> If the government hadn't given a handout of free land...........none of that would have taken place.
> 
> Rich people didn't build the country.


Sags, that is a touching story but unrelated to UBI. In the case of this immigrant, he was not given money to sit around and do nothing and what he was given most likely had very little value at the time...unless they could convince someone to work the land for a meagre living. Because of that, the land was basically worthless and completely worthless if this immigrant did not get off his behind and work the land.

That would be like comparing UBI to a program where the government lowers minimum wage but provides a government supplement. That is a program I would like to see. It creates jobs with the reduced minimum wage and any money given ONLY goes to those who are trying to work and get ahead. That was also the case with your related immigrant.

UBI is completely different and would be a disaster of magnitude proportions if anyone was dumb enough to implement it. One does not need a study to understand how demotivating work can become when the need for the money is reduced. There will be exceptions, but not very many.


----------



## Just a Guy

Now there is a solution I could probably get behind. It’s already been tested in the real world (summer student top up for employment) and it has been proven to create jobs that wouldn’t exist otherwise.


----------



## moderator2

kcowan said:


> When is this merry-go-round going to be put out of its misery?
> 
> Could we ask CMF to do a bit of moderation? Do people have to start calling names before moderators act?


I'm open to suggestions. Are you suggesting the thread should be shut down due to the circular argument and impasse?

Or are you referring to a different type of moderation? I'm not sure which post(s) are bothering you.


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> Sags, that is a touching story but unrelated to UBI. In the case of this immigrant, he was not given money to sit around and do nothing and what he was given most likely had very little value at the time...unless they could convince someone to work the land for a meagre living. Because of that, the land was basically worthless and completely worthless if this immigrant did not get off his behind and work the land.
> 
> That would be like comparing UBI to a program where the government lowers minimum wage but provides a government supplement. That is a program I would like to see. It creates jobs with the reduced minimum wage and any money given ONLY goes to those who are trying to work and get ahead. That was also the case with your related immigrant.
> 
> UBI is completely different and would be a disaster of magnitude proportions if anyone was dumb enough to implement it. One does not need a study to understand how demotivating work can become when the need for the money is reduced. There will be exceptions, but not very many.


With UBI, unlike status quo, nothing would stop a recipient from also earning an income.


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> With UBI, unlike status quo, nothing would stop a recipient from also earning an income.


The easy money would make the hard earned money less valuable. It would simply reduce their willingness to earn more income then they would have if the UBI was not there.

That is what I am saying. With people at this income level, we do not want to reduce their motivations. Reduced motivation has hurt them enough already, lets not add to it.


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> The easy money would make the hard earned money less valuable. It would simply reduce their willingness to earn more income then they would have if the UBI was not there.
> 
> That is what I am saying. With people at this income level, we do not want to reduce their motivations. Reduced motivation has hurt them enough already, lets not add to it.


Would it decrease a person's willingness to work if they go from 100% effective tax rate (current state with welfare/disability, etc.) to 50% effective tax rate? Does not follow in my books.

I know people who, while receiving government benefits, were terrified of returning to work because of the fear of losing income and health care benefits. They might work under the table or do odd jobs/trading of goods to generate cash income, but cannot participate in the formal economy. Actively discouraged from getting out of that hole. It is a toxic, messed-up system. One solution is perhaps to make that existence so meager and unbearable (I'd argue we're already pretty far down this road) so that people fall right through the net and end up on the street or living off the generosity of others. Call it 'sink or swim'. The solution on the other end is an income supplement like UBI or EITC that does not actively & punitively discourage participation in the formal economy. I really have an active dislike for the current welfare system. All of the UBI critics seem to be proponents of the status quo. Saying that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps is a platitude, not a solution.


----------



## OptsyEagle

The majority of people are not disabled. As for not wanting to work for fear of losing welfare. That pretty much makes my case for how giving money to people reduces their incentive to earn any. 

I am not against helping people but giving them a fish will not help them learn how to fish. It just makes them dependant on free seafood and temporarily makes them feel better...right up until it doesn't anymore, and then what are they to do.

In the mean time the taxes other hard working Canadians have to pay to support it, demotivates them, plus the lost jobs from the higher wages required to compete against the free money. Jobs will move away to a less socialist environment, out of the necessity to compete and survive.

It just all spirals downward. It hurts a lot of people to help a few.


----------



## MrMatt

moderator2 said:


> I'm open to suggestions. Are you suggesting the thread should be shut down due to the circular argument and impasse?
> 
> Or are you referring to a different type of moderation? I'm not sure which post(s) are bothering you.


I don't see a moderation issue. 
Simply making unsupported or wrong statements isn't a moderation issue.

I'm quickly realizing certain people have an agenda and beliefs. 
They have no facts to back up their argument, and they really have no interest in educating themselves. That's not a moderation issue, that's a "Matt shoudln't waste his time with those people" issue


----------



## Retired Peasant

kcowan said:


> When is this merry-go-round going to be put out of its misery?
> 
> Could we ask CMF to do a bit of moderation? Do people have to start calling names before moderators act?


I believe the moderators act (at least review) when you hit the 'report post' button on a specific post.


----------



## sags

I have never seen a research paper or study that concluded a lack of motivation as a major factor in poverty.

The factors they often cite are opportunity, education and the state of the economy.

In education, years ago the PC government caused a lot of chaos when they eliminated Grade 13 and crammed 5 years into 4. 

They also made the curriculum more difficult and failed to provide educators with the necessary materials to teach. As a result the number of young males who drop out of school exploded.

Today they are young adults who are forced to work in low wage jobs due to a lack of education.

On the economy, I read that in Alberta the lure of well paid jobs in the oil industry caused many young males to leave school to work. Today they are likely unemployed or working in low wage jobs due to a lack of education.

Of course some people simply cannot work at all. They are disabled or mothers trying to raise kids on their own, or they may be workers who have been hurt over the years.

Studies of workers who were hurt and collected worker's compensation revealed that many of ended up in poverty when their benefits were arbitrarily reduced or cut off.

There are many reasons for poverty, a lack of motivation isn't one of the major factors.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I have never seen a research paper or study that concluded a lack of motivation as a major factor in poverty.
> 
> The factors they often cite are opportunity, education and the state of the economy.
> 
> In education, years ago the PC government caused a lot of chaos when they eliminated Grade 13 and crammed 5 years into 4.
> 
> They also made the curriculum more difficult and failed to provide educators with the necessary materials to teach. As a result the number of young males who drop out of school exploded.
> 
> Today they are young adults who are forced to work in low wage jobs due to a lack of education.
> 
> On the economy, I read that in Alberta the lure of well paid jobs in the oil industry caused many young males to leave school to work. Today they are likely unemployed or working in low wage jobs due to a lack of education.
> 
> Of course some people simply cannot work at all. They are disabled or mothers trying to raise kids on their own, or they may be workers who have been hurt over the years.
> 
> Studies of workers who were hurt and collected worker's compensation revealed that many of ended up in poverty when their benefits were arbitrarily reduced or cut off.
> 
> There are many reasons for poverty, a lack of motivation isn't one of the major factors.


Persistent poverty has many causes, some are 

Drug abuse, mental or physical health issues, breakdown of the family unit, education and opportunity.

We're going the wrong way on drug abuse, the Liberals just legalized pot and the NDP wants to legalize everything!
Nobody knows how to handle the health issues, particularly mental health.

Taxes, red tape and other issues are an impediment to small businesses, it's a missed opportunity.


----------



## Just a Guy

You realize that Ontario was the only province to have had 13 grades...you saying that Ontario youth can’t handle the education in 4 years like any other province’s kids? Are you suggesting Ontario youth is somehow stupider than any other province, or are they maybe less motivated to learn than other provinces and thus needed that extra year to complete a basic education?

As for the curriculum being more difficult, I’ve never heard of Ontario’s being any harder than any other province’s. How do students in the advanced programs like IB and AP manage to survive? Could it be motivation?

Are they actually trying, or do they find it easier to give up? You’re right, it may not be motivation, it could be called something else.


----------



## sags

The changes were a lot more complicated than simply eliminating a year of study.

Grade 13 was known as senior matriculation which prepared those kids who wished to pursue a university education.

Other students completed high school in 4 years and went to community college or trade schools. It was a good system until the PCs messed it all up.

Educators concluded the new 4 year program was almost identical to the 5 year program in core subjects and were too difficult for many of those students.

After the changes, our universities reported they had to expend a lot of effort for remedial classes for students unprepared for the rigors of study.

So there were students who were paying to go to university but not taking university program classes unti they were qualified.

It was quite the embarrassment for the Harris government and voters booted them out.

I have no idea about the education system in other Provinces, although I have been told it is quite different.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> We can adopt the changes necessary or they will be forced upon us.
> 
> One way or the other, the status quo is unsustainable.


Every liberal solution, whether there is a problem or not, requires the government power to exercise more power over the people. They manage to convince easily led people that there is a problem and only they can solve if you just give them more power. But in every single case, it collapses into a socialist nightmare.

You should take a vacation to Venezuela to see what happens when the ideology you hold dear is implemented.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> We can adopt the changes necessary or they will be forced upon us.
> 
> One way or the other, the status quo is unsustainable.


Nobody is arguing that the current situation is perfect.

However the problem is that some people are proposing changes that will make things much worse.

The thing is many of these bad ideas have been tried, and it is very clear they don't work. But people say "we have to do something", it's like they lack the understanding that we live in the best society at the best point in history.
Basically everywhere else in the world, and every other time in history was worse than what we currently have, right here, right now.
I'm all for change, but it has to be a good change that is going to make things better, or at least not worst.


----------



## twa2w

sags said:


> Some students managed the changes, but many didn't and the drop out rate increased.
> 
> When the Liberals were elected they changed the curriculum so fewer students failed. Unfortunately that meant they were less prepared for university.
> 
> Remedial classes at university is one consequence. Another is that universities rank the high schools their applicants attended.
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/4405495/waterloo-engineering-grade-inflation-list/
> 
> Personally I think the rigorous Grade 13 washed out some university "hopefuls" who didn't make the grades necessary for entrance.
> 
> Now they are washing out after they are in university and end up with student debt and no degree.
> 
> Or, they transfer from demanding programs into other programs that are less in demand and easier to accomplish.........but has no jobs.
> 
> The university will happily accept their money.


I went to university in 1976. Remedial classes were a thing then too. Long before grade 13 was eliminated. 
I went to a school in Ontario. One that introduced semester systems and other ideas before they were introduced accross the province.
I recall first year chemistry, physics and calculus classes at UWO where the profs were upset students were not at the level required. I essentially sat through remedial classes for the first six months so other students could catch up on material I had covered in the first half of grade 13. They were still not up to the level, at that point when I left for other ventures.
FYI, when my Alberta educated son went to university a few years ago, it was common for Alberta students to get up to a 10% point bonus on their marks when appliying to universities outside Alberta. If you got an 80% grade in Alberta, it was treated as 88-90 when applying to US or UWO for example. 
Alberta kids are not brighter, but they did have a tougher curriculum. Kids moving from other provinces often struggle for a while to catch up. 
Much of this is about expectations. Kids can learn much faster than we give them credit for.
I do agree there was a lost year for some students when grade 13 was eliminated and there was a higher dropout rate for about two years. But that was years ago.
Perhaps it is time for a university entrance exam.


----------



## OptsyEagle

They also forget that there really is no poverty in Canada. There is mental illness, substance abuse and a few exceptions. The real problem people see, that they actually call poverty, is really just the fact that some people are a lot less well off then others. That will never change, nor would you want it to. The elimination of that would just mean that you and I are now also poor. I hope that is not what you want, but reading these posts, I sometimes cannot tell. 

I have always said, that if you have a tap that gives you clean fresh water, your situation is probably ahead of 500 million people in this world. If you really want to see what poverty looks like, just google "poor people of Ethiopia". When you are done, ask yourself if you have ever seen the like of that, here in Canada. I know I haven't.


----------



## kcowan

> A thought to remember, Marx said, "Remove one freedom per generation and soon you will have no freedom and no one would have noticed."
> 
> There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.
> One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.
> 
> The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting Communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.
> 
> In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"
> The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
> The young man said that it was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free food.
> When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of. the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
> They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.
> The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
> Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around. inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."
> 
> The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in Canada. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops, welfare entitlements, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
> 
> One should always remember two truths:
> 1. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and
> 2. You can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
> 
> If you see that all of this wonderful government "help" is a problem confronting the future of democracy in Canada, you might want to share this with your friends.
> 
> If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, then you will probably not share this.
> BUT, God help us all when the gate slams shut.


Think about this 
Quote for today: "The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for their subsidized living."


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> They also forget that there really is no poverty in Canada. There is mental illness, substance abuse and a few exceptions. The real problem people see, that they actually call poverty, is really just the fact that some people are a lot less well off then others. That will never change, nor would you want it to. The elimination of that would just mean that you and I are now also poor. I hope that is not what you want, but reading these posts, I sometimes cannot tell.
> 
> I have always said, that if you have a tap that gives you clean fresh water, your situation is probably ahead of 500 million people in this world. If you really want to see what poverty looks like, just google "poor people of Ethiopia". When you are done, ask yourself if you have ever seen the like of that, here in Canada. I know I haven't.


Sounds like someone who hasn't been to many poor places in Canada.

There are plenty of people in Canada that don't have access to clean drinking water.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yeah, I read about a native community outside a major city, can’t remember which one exactly but I could look it up. Apparently the city ran lines right to the edge of the reserve, but weren’t allowed to supply the water because the natives had some sort of clause that a majority of the workers for the water supply had to be native and it would have been just a feed off of the city’s lines. 

The federal government was supposed to build an entire water treatment plant that the natives could run themselves, but the natives who were trained to work in the water treatment plant found they could get paid more working for the city, so they’d leave after being trained and they found they couldn’t hire enough people to keep the plant running, so it’s not currently in operation. 

Funny thing is, the casino they built has a direct water feed from the city and has no water issues despite being on the same reserve.


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> Sounds like someone who hasn't been to many poor places in Canada.
> 
> There are plenty of people in Canada that don't have access to clean drinking water.


They have decided to be exceptions, or they are the mental ill or substance abused. It is not like they could not find a developed city, if they wanted to.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

You are not in a poor country when more people die of obesity than starvation.


----------



## OptsyEagle

Rusty O'Toole said:


> You are not in a poor country when more people die of obesity than starvation.


That is better then my running water analogy. You do have a good point though. The problem many have are the exceptions. Plus, if that person who is "less well off" is someone you care about, it does make it heart wrenching, all the same. I do understand that well. All I can say, in those cases, is at least they live in Canada and not Ethiopia. I doubt many would argue with me about that.


----------



## londoncalling

I know discussion has taken place elsewhere on CMF regarding UBI but I just stumbled upon the following article while reading today's news. IMO it is an interesting read.



https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-march-29-2020-1.5509908/amidst-a-global-pandemic-hugh-segal-s-call-for-a-guaranteed-annual-income-is-even-more-timely-1.5509938


----------



## MrMatt

UBI is Netflix and Chill money.
The reason it's a good idea now, is exactly the reason it's a bad idea long term.
If its too comfortable, people will opt out of working.

Right now we want to make opting out survivable, I don't want that to continue long term.
It's bad for the country, it's bad for the individual who has no purpose, it's bad for those who don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labours.

I understand supporting those who are unable to work, and that's fine. 

Also UBI is basically unaffordable, I haven't seen a single "living wage" calculation that ended up below the basic personal deduction for income tax. Don't forget, the Federal government has spent another years budget on COVID 19.

If they couldn't function without taxing someone making minimum wage before, there is no way they can handle it now.


----------



## andrewf

^I dunno. If that were true, wouldn't people work _just_ enough to get the equivalent of UBI, then netflix and chill? Think about it honestly. People work full time jobs to get more than that amount, kinda putting the lie to the assertion that people stop working once they have that amount of money.

Welfare, on the other hand, makes it mandatory that you not work or you lose 100% (or more) of what you get on welfare.


----------



## Just a Guy

If you really want ubi so much, and want corporations to pay for it, why not step up at a time like this and invest in those companies and create your own ubi stream of income. It’s not hard to do, corporations would actually pay you and you wouldn’t be taking from others for nothing.
hate to say it, but you don’t deserve any free money just because you were born incompetent.


----------



## sags

A forced inability to save causes a lack of savings, high levels of debt, and a dependency on government programs.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> If you really want ubi so much, and want corporations to pay for it, why not step up at a time like this and invest in those companies and create your own ubi stream of income. It’s not hard to do, corporations would actually pay you and you wouldn’t be taking from others for nothing.
> hate to say it, but you don’t deserve any free money just because you were born incompetent.


I think you're getting confused with the child benefit. You do get money for being born (incompetent or otherwise).


----------



## Just a Guy

ubi is money for nothing, just existing...no Confusion there. It supposed to be enough money to exist on


----------



## andrewf

There is no 'supposed' to. We have welfare disability. Whether they are enough to live on is another question. UBI is generally a poverty reduction measure, not necessarily a poverty elimination measure.


----------



## Just a Guy

Ubi, is not welfare disability, it’s given to everyone, able bodied, rich or not, hence the word “universal“. 

as I said before, if you want ubi, set up o own personal ubi. For example, my son wants to attend school in a different city and Was wondering how to pay for rent there. He bought a local 3 bedroom place last year which he rents to 3 students for $1500/month. The profits from that will more than pay his rent while he’s gone. He’s set up a brokerage account and invested his extra income, each month he collects income from dividends. He chooses not to blow his money like most people and doesn’t have to worry about money while he goes to school. it just takes a little restraint and discipline to achieve, maybe some sacrifices as well.

if an underemployed 19 year old can do this, I think most people don’t have the excuse not to be able to.


----------



## andrewf

The point is that welfare and disability are not enough to live on, really. So nothing says that a UBI would have to be enough to live on. We already have a janky UBI in place between GIS, HST rebate, child benefits, earned income tax credit.


----------



## Just a Guy

Minor point, it will still be more money than we can afford to pay. Especially since we can’t balance a budget today without it. Unlike my son’s example where he pays his own way. Personal responsibility, not government handouts.

btw, disability isn’t a limit when it comes to investing. I started when injured in an accident and couldn’t work for several years, I needed an income and didn’t qualify for Any government assistance. When you really need to survive, most people will find a way. The people I know on a government subsidy, rarely change their situation as it’s comfortable enough with the free money.


----------



## andrewf

So, you support eliminating welfare, disability, child benefit and GIS/OAS? Personal responsibility and not handouts, right?

I don't even know what you mean by saying 'we can't afford one'. We already have a low level UBI, in the form of HST rebates, etc. It just isn't called a UBI. The only thing we are talking about is the level and streamlining.


----------



## Just a Guy

No, I wouldn’t want people to have to go through what I did. I have no problem with social programs as long as we can afford them, meaning balance the budget. I don’t believe in long term government support either though. I work almost daily with the poor, most of which will never change because of the programs.

i, on the other hand, now have wealth, not because I was on a government program, but because I wasn’t. The pain of my situation was the motivation for me to learn how I could change it. i sacrificed to save up a little money to start investing, I didn’t start with thousands, I built it slowly. I don’t see how my reward should be the bill for those who don’t even try.

I think the education system needs a major overhaual. Quit teaching people how to work a job, teach them how to make money. I can bet you my kids won’t wind up on these programs, whereas the kids of those on welfare will most likely continue for generations.

im not heartless, but I’m also not brainless.

also, I lived with 4 kids on no income for several years...if you can manage to live on a couple thousand of free money, you have a spending problem, not an income problem. Not enough to live on indeed.


----------



## andrewf

The biggest barrier to people getting off these programs is the fear of losing what little benefits they get. I have seen it with my own eyes what happens to people. Loss aversion is a powerful thing. You tell people that they can earn an income without losing those benefits dollar for dollar, and that fear is greatly abated. And some people with disabilities can work part time, or perhaps from home. The current rules are not supportive of people with disabilities trying to earn an income to supplement their benefits. So instead people get trapped by their fear of losing what little they have. It is perverse.

You can bet that your kids won't end up on those programs because you can bail them out. What happens if dear son is sideswiped in an intersection and severely disabled both physically and mentally. Bank of dad will help pay for his care for the next 20-40 years, but not everyone is so fortunate.


----------



## Just a Guy

my kids won’t wind up like that or be bailed out because we went through something similar...they know what it takes to get out of that situation without handouts, plus they stated early making passive income for themselves in case something like that happens to them. If it does, my son still has his rental income and stock dividends paying him every month.
they were raised to solve problems on their own, they know they aren’t entitled to what I earned.
however I taught them what they needed to know to avoid the situation we were in.

My kids were raised to focus on solutions, not problems. It makes a big difference.


----------



## andrewf

So your son is going to manage a rental if he is mentally incompetent and in a wheelchair?


----------



## robfordlives

We already have UBI in the form of the CCTB. Do alot of tax returns and see many families pulling in 30k per year doing absolutely nothing just from the CCTB


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> So your son is going to manage a rental if he is mentally incompetent and in a wheelchair?


There is something called property managers. Who’d have thought? Yes it’ll cost money, but he’ll probably own several By the time he needs to worry about it, if ever. Ready for your next excuse. 

stop focusing on the problems and start looking for solutions. Until you do, you’re just holding yourself back. If you only spent a quarter of the time you do coming up with solutions instead of reasons why you can’t do it, you’d probably be a 1%er.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> There is something called property managers. Who’d have thought? Yes it’ll cost money, but he’ll probably own several By the time he needs to worry about it, if ever. Ready for your next excuse.
> 
> stop focusing on the problems and start looking for solutions. Until you do, you’re just holding yourself back. If you only spent a quarter of the time you do coming up with solutions instead of reasons why you can’t do it, you’d probably be a 1%er.


You mean you would do it on his behalf as power of attorney.

Don't worry about me JAG. Hard to say exactly, but I am in top decile of income and net worth for my age.


----------



## andrewf

What you are arguing here is that there should not be disability, EI, welfare, CCB, GIS, OAS because anyone, even a person in a persistent vegetative state, could amass a real estate empire. The existence of these programs keeps people from helping themselves. Therefore they should not exist. Did I get that right?


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> You mean you would do it on his behalf as power of attorney.
> 
> Don't worry about me JAG. Hard to say exactly, but I am in top decile of income and net worth for my age.


No, there are companies who manage properties out there, they care called property managers. Look it up if you don’t believe me.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> What you are arguing here is that there should not be disability, EI, welfare, CCB, GIS, OAS because anyone, even a person in a persistent vegetative state, could amass a real estate empire. The existence of these programs keeps people from helping themselves. Therefore they should not exist. Did I get that right?


Once again, you’re trying really hard to twist what I said...if only you could put that mind to work on something productive.

i said I believe in social programs, short term and if we can afford it, not long term handouts. I also said, my son started early amassing a passive income portfolio so he probably will never be a burden on society even if the worst happens. He makes enough now to support himself while in school, how much more would he need? What did you do at 18 to ensure your future needs would be covered?

I didn’t say what you implied I did any more than you said we should all contribute more money to keep you in a better lifestyle just because you were born and got hurt. Maybe we needed to buy you a Porsche and mansion to keep you happy along with all the other poor people out there. Correct?

keep trying to twist what I say to make yourself feel better as you collect free money from the government and complain it’s not enough for you.

top domicile for people your age, wow. Considering most people can’t afford an unexpected $2000 expense in Canada, you’ve made quite the achievement congrats, how much of that money is government funds? You and sags should be neighbours...


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> No, there are companies who manage properties out there, they care called property managers. Look it up if you don’t believe me.


If someone is not mentally competent, they cannot enter into agreements with companies like property managers.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Once again, you’re trying really hard to twist what I said...if only you could put that mind to work on something productive.
> 
> i said I believe in social programs, short term and if we can afford it, not long term handouts. I also said, my son started early amassing a passive income portfolio so he probably will never be a burden on society even if the worst happens. He makes enough now to support himself while in school, how much more would he need? What did you do at 18 to ensure your future needs would be covered?
> 
> keep trying to twist what I say to make yourself feel better as you collect free money from the government and complain it’s not enough for you.
> 
> top domicile for people your age, wow. Considering most people can’t afford an unexpected $2000 expense in Canada, you’ve made quite the achievement congrats, how much of that money is government funds? You and sags should be neighbours...


Welfare, disability, GIS, etc. are not temporary (except in the sense that humans are temporary). They are long term handouts. Therefore you do not support them?

The last government money I received was some small scholarships for university quite a few years ago and GST rebates when I had low income. You are making wild assumptions about me and have no idea. My point is that I am not arguing out of self interest (unlike sags, who seems primarily interested in how to get more public money in his pocket). I am in the top decile of income for any age (into 6 figures). I have 2 years of living expenses in liquid assets. I find it very hard to relate to people who are a paycheque away from defaulting on their obligations. I am also ineligible for CERB and all the other government stimulus initiatives currently. I expect you have probably gotten a lot more handouts from the government for you and your family than I have.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> Welfare, disability, GIS, etc. are not temporary (except in the sense that humans are temporary). They are long term handouts. Therefore you do not support them?
> 
> The last government money I received was some small scholarships for university quite a few years ago and GST rebates when I had low income. You are making wild assumptions about me and have no idea. My point is that I am not arguing out of self interest (unlike sags, who seems primarily interested in how to get more public money in his pocket). I am in the top decile of income for any age (into 6 figures). I have 2 years of living expenses in liquid assets. I find it very hard to relate to people who are a paycheque away from defaulting on their obligations. I am also ineligible for CERB and all the other government stimulus initiatives currently. I expect you have probably gotten a lot more handouts from the government for you and your family than I have.


Your right, I don’t support them. I don’t qualify for government handouts and never have, even when injured and disabled. I believe people are capable of taking care of themselves and I know people in probably every situation who do, even people with severe mental disabilities. The people on free money Rarely change their situations, so they are addicted to the free money. As you said, they are more afraid of losing the easy cash than making more And therefore having more. What’s worse it it become multi generational. Will you allow your kids to live in your basement forever and pay all their bills forever or do you think they need to stand on their own feet at some point? Government funding is no different, except it’s my money not necessarily yours. 

you seem to think we should ensure everyone on the planet gets a nice house in a great neighborhood, eating steak everyday, yet i bet you don’t want to pay more in taxes why not donate all that spare cash to the poor instead of asking the government to take it away from me to pay for your ideals? I’d be willing to bet you don’t even know where the homeless shelters are in your city. Let alone what they endure or don‘t other than in your imagination. Nor how they exploit the system to get thousands of dollars for nothing every month. There is an extremely high burnout rate for caseworkers because they can’t stand the system and the money wasted. Some of their clients take in more than the caseworkers each month to sit around doing drugs and complaining...

ive got a buddy who rents to the homeless all the time. The government pays all their rent, utilities and guarantees the condition of the places...he still has to evict more than half of his tenants for various reasons. the last ones he had cost the government $14k in damages to his place. Not money well spent from what I see. He’s not a slum lord either, he fixes his places up nice, and they are in good areas, usually why the evictions are ordered. Because the people cause problems and the building demands it.


----------



## andrewf

It seems you can't wrap your head around the idea that not clawing back at 100% does a lot to eliminate that fear of losing benefits by earning an income and the multigenerational poverty. From the tests that have been done, UBI has generally not been associated with the calamity you predict. You want everyone to take your word for it that it would be a disaster. I think this thread started (or a previous one) on the subject of the pilot in Ontario. I don't see why people should be afraid of empirical data that demonstrates the effects of the policy. If it is a disaster, it will be borne out in the data. If the test is not rigorous enough, we should run one that is better constructed. But arguing that the idea shouldn't be studied isn't very rational.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> I don’t qualify for government handouts and never have, even when injured and disabled.


Never received a GST rebate when you were supposedly destitute? Never received a baby bonus/CCB etc.?


----------



## Just a Guy

They didn’t have gat rebates when I was injured it only was implemented about 15 years ago. Never saw a baby bonus either.

im not predicting any disasters I’m saying we can’t afford it no matter how much you want it. We can’t balance the budget without ubi, but, by some miracle you seem to believe the more we spend the more money will be avaliable for handouts. For what it’s worth, I’m still considered disabled by definition with chronic pin and depressio on top of it, yet somehow keep adding to my net worth...
you also seem to dismiss my experience with the poor, unlike your expertise which relies on second hand informa at best interpreted by people who want ubi implemented. No bias there. They found people given extra money are happier and more financially secure than people who weren’t given extra money. What a surprise. Probably got a government grant to prove the obvious. Wish I could get paid large sums for similar “work”.
you seem to need someone to take care of you despite your six figure salary. I don’t. I’m a grown up who can take care of myself, within my own means and budget.Unlike the government. Money and age obviously don’t lead to being grown up and responsible.


----------



## andrewf

They also found that very few people left the labour market. Mostly mothers with children and students. They also found fewer hospitalizations and improved heatlh.

I'm not looking for anyone to look after me. I wouldn't/don't benefit from UBI--indeed, I am paying for it. It seems you can't fathom that someone would want others not to be stuck in the welfare trap. I have told you countless times, and you seem incapable of grasping it. You can only empathize with yourself.


----------



## sags

Oh oh....we are poor ?

Who knew ? And here I thought our "net" income of $85,000 a year was pretty darn good.

Guess we should have bought a bunch of $30,000 condos, financed them for $40,000 each and then rented them out for $2,000 a month.

We could be real estate tycoons today. Opportunities forever lost.

I must have missed the......."how to get rich and influence people"......section of the book.......LOL.


----------



## Just a Guy

Where did I say anyone left the labour market? Again you seem to be putting your own arguments and fears as statements I’ve made. You can’t seem to grasp that money doesnt solve poverty it’s a lifestyle. Get off your high horse for a few hours and go down to the poor section of town, talk to caseworkers, Research the resources these people have access to, you’ll be amazed if not discusted. find out how much money these people get now and how they don’t change. Watch how they’d decide to have kids in order to get more money every month, not for the kids either.

these people think eating at McDonald’s is cheap, they don’t understand how that same money could feed their family a Nutritious meal for several days if they shopped and cooked at home. They’d never sacrifice cigarettes or alcohol for their kids. They don’t budget, they can’t handle money.

i think we both agree that there is a welfare trap, we just disagree on how to fix it. I think it requires education to change their thinking, you seem to think throwing more money will solve it. As I’ve said before money is a tool, used correctly you can build wonderful things, used incorrectly you’ll get hurt. Throwing money at the poor is like giving a baby a chainsaw and hoping things will work out fine. I get this opinion from actually working with the poor, not some ideals based in fantasy.

im at least willing to walk the walk as well. I’m on a daily prescription that I pay for out of pocket, no subsidy. About $3.50/day. There is an alternative drug I could be on, fully Covered by the government at $1500/month. I could pay nothing except my taxes and cost the taxpayer $18000/year more, but I choose to be an adult an pay for my own needs Saving everyone. strange that the government doesn’t cover the cheaper drug, others must be costing the system a fortune because of that decision. 

im stunned your not worried about where all this Covid handout money is going to come from...we’ll be paying for it for generation, if we dont bankrupt the world first.


----------



## andrewf

If you'd been following the discussion elsewhere, you would see that I did indeed say that I thought CERB should be a loan with no payments for 12 months. Just to bail out those who did not keep appropriate cash emergency funds to be able to keep paying their bills (and prevent the financial system from grinding to a halt). We can do cash grants later if appropriate, but I think it is early to be making those decisions. I'm actually not persuaded that the private sector should not take a lot of the hit for this on the chin. We shouldn't make Air Canada shareholders whole, for instance. If AC goes bust, I'm okay with recapitalizing the firm because it is important infrastructure. A lot of small businesses will fail. I don't see how the government can bail them all out.


----------



## andrewf

Oh, and I think there is more than one kind of poor out there. I never argued for withholding education. There are the intergenerational poor who seem intent on wallowing in poverty. Not sure how UBI would make it worse. But a lot of people just came from unfortunate situations or had misfortune visited upon them and could use a bit of support to get back on their feet. Ideally that support is not of the kind that prevents them from earning an income as well. 

My brother in law suffered a severe leg fracture which did not heal well and required multiple surgeries. He could not work in his previous line of work--his skills are mostly mechanical. My sister has never held very good jobs. So they were on the disability treadmill for almost 3 years. My sister worked under the table. He did some wheeling and dealing on kijiji (buying quads, etc. and flipping for profit). All not reported because my sister was terrified of losing benefits (including the medical that they got that helped cover cost of dental, medications, etc.). It was awful to see them in that situation. My BIL's leg finally healed and he gradually regained most of the function of his leg. They finally got out of that trap, but I could see how people can get trapped by the incentives at play. The only real option for fixing those incentives is to do away with disability altogether, or to make it less punitive (confiscatory) to earn an income.

I know that there are skid row types out there that subsist on welfare. How do you think it is better that they get welfare than UBI? With UBI, they might be tempted to work... and not just in the informal economy like my sister and her husband.


----------



## Just a Guy

I have a couple of small businesses that could be forced to go under because of government regulations. I’m not asking for a bailout. I don’t think the private sector, who actually creates the money to pay the bills should be left holding the bag while the public sector gets a free ride. Government layoffs would go a long way to freeing up money needed elsewhere. And our public education is a good place to start. Kids can read, write or do math without a calculator, dont know anything if not given a job, except to go back to school, what are we paying for? Not a good roi by any measure except all the jobs for teachers and staff. I don’t believe in work for welfare either.

as I said in an earlier post, maybe a different thread, I taught a buddy of mine how to invest in stocks using my strateg. He is very risk adverse, paranoid and frightened of losing money. I spent a long time holding his hand, reassuring him, and he actually tried it. Been making double digit returns since he started. He understands this isn’t normal, but still Wishes he'd listened to me much earlier in life now. in this market it’s almost impossible to lose money today, yet people still won’t try it. I’ve changed the path of several people over the years and am quite proud of that. Unlike my buddy and all the social workers who are dealing with the homeless...very few have changed despite a ton of money and resources.


----------



## Just a Guy

You realize that all these social programs just promote crime and drug dealing because they can make money without the government claw backs. My buddy who rents to the homeless often has to evict them because of illegal activities.


----------



## sags

_My buddy who rents to the homeless often has to evict them because of illegal activities. _

Sir, it seems that you are no better a judge of human beings than you are a specimen of one. Just on a brief inventory, I'd say that you could use yourself a shave and a brighter disposition. And lastly, if you don't mind me aspersing your friends, a better class of drinking buddy........Buster Scruggs.


----------



## gardner

Just a Guy said:


> I have a couple of small businesses that could be forced to go under because of government regulations.


Just out of curiosity, what regulations are at issue? Is this something peculiar to the COVID19 shutdown, or something else?


----------



## Just a Guy

gardner said:


> Just out of curiosity, what regulations are at issue? Is this something peculiar to the COVID19 shutdown, or something else?


Covid shutdown orders, no clients, no income. It’s nice that the government is helping with payroll, but a business has a lot of overhead aside from employees.


----------



## Money172375

In my very early years of retail banking, I was surprised that most small Businesses were operating with large utilized lines of credit. Whether it was out of necessity or creative accounting, it was surprising to see successful, long-term businesses operate that way. I don’t think the average (uninterested) Canadian appreciates that the world revolves around credit....they just think it’s for people who overspend or who are bad with money/budgeting.


----------



## newfoundlander61

With all the money that is being handed out lately relating to COVID-19 my take is that we could easily afford a basic income.


----------



## Just a Guy

Wait until we have to pay for all this money being handed out. It’s easy to hand out money, it’s hard to actually pay for it.


----------



## peterk

^ Nah. I'm sure the deficit will take care of itself! 😝


----------



## sags

Spending to consumers who spend it, returns a lot of the money back to the government.


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> Wait until we have to pay for all this money being handed out. It’s easy to hand out money, it’s hard to actually pay for it.


What are the Feds at? 20% of GDP so far, just for COVID19 so far?
That's just one level of government, and that's in the first 2 months of them taking it seriously.

Also due to the economic shutdown, revenues are going to be way down. I would not be surprised if the Federal government alone adds 40% of GDP to the debt by the end of this crisis.
Add in the Provincial debts and our total Government debt is likely to exceed 100% of GDP.
Some provinces are unable to sell debt on the open market.

This is a huge problem.


All that being said, I think UBI is the only fair way to have large amounts of the population stay home. That's exactly what we need now, but we need people to get to work ASAP. Which is why I think the CERB 75% "keep on payroll" plan, is at least conceptually a good idea.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> 20% of GDP so far, just for COVID19 so far?


20% GDP is $450B...


----------



## Just a Guy

We are in a deficit now, we just spend another 85M we don't have and you think it’s fine to spend even more...Give yourself a slap and wake up to reality.are you the type of person who thinks you still have money because you still have cheque’s left in your check book and credit cards in your wallet


----------



## :) lonewolf

COVID = certificate of vaccine identification, micro chip the sheep, the sheep hail to the Anti Christ & get paid in crypto for being good little sheep.


----------



## Just a Guy

Your tin foil hat is showing.


----------



## andrewf

^ I have him on a 'do not respond' policy.


----------



## Just a Guy

Well sags must be thrilled With Canada’s experiment upon ubi, I mean cerb and other related programs...unfortunately, as predicted, it‘s unaffordable costing $320+ billion that we don’t have and won’t have for generations (it pushed the national debt over Trillion dollars). I’m pretty sure sags could care less as long as he got his 2k/month, but the reset of us may wonder where the money comes from, or when the government starts Increasing the taxes in unprecedented amounts In the next few years making the $2000 handout look like peanuts in comparison.


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> Well sags must be thrilled With Canada’s experiment upon ubi, I mean cerb and other related programs...unfortunately, as predicted, it‘s unaffordable costing $320+ billion that we don’t have and won’t have for generations (it pushed the national debt over Trillion dollars). I’m pretty sure sags could care less as long as he got his 2k/month, but the reset of us may wonder where the money comes from, or when the government starts Increasing the taxes in unprecedented amounts In the next few years making the $2000 handout look like peanuts in comparison.


You forgot that there are people who chose to stay on CERB, than return to work.

Think about that, people were turning away full time employment in favour of a temporary payout


----------



## Just a Guy

MrMatt said:


> You forgot that there are people who chose to stay on CERB, than return to work.
> 
> Think about that, people were turning away full time employment in favour of a temporary payout


You mean sags And family, trust me I didnt forget.


----------



## milhouse

MrMatt said:


> You forgot that there are people who chose to stay on CERB, than return to work.
> 
> Think about that, people were turning away full time employment in favour of a temporary payout


That's been kind of telling hasn't it? It's not like I have a large sample size but there sure seems to be a number of reports/news segments where businesses are struggling with labour shortages due to staff and usual employees happy to sit at home to collect CERB.


----------



## Just a Guy

My daughter got a job this year, missed the cutoff for the cseb by $8, she made 1008 her first paycheque, she would have made 1250 more by earning $8 less but still went to work. Could have made more not working, but that’s the difference between my family and sags‘.


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> My daughter got a job this year, missed the cutoff for the cseb by $8, she made 1008 her first paycheque, she would have made 1250 more by earning $8 less but still went to work. Could have made more not working, but that’s the difference between my family and sags‘.


To me that's a HUGE problem, the poverty trap is destructive.
It's bad for the person, and the economy, and we all pay for it.

I don't think that we should have government programs that by design, encourage negative choices.

The crazy thing is that she'll likely end up paying income tax to cover that handout to other people who will take home more than her, despite doing less work.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Well sags must be thrilled With Canada’s experiment upon ubi, I mean cerb and other related programs...unfortunately, as predicted, it‘s unaffordable costing $320+ billion that we don’t have and won’t have for generations (it pushed the national debt over Trillion dollars). I’m pretty sure sags could care less as long as he got his 2k/month, but the reset of us may wonder where the money comes from, or when the government starts Increasing the taxes in unprecedented amounts In the next few years making the $2000 handout look like peanuts in comparison.


CERB isn't UBI. You weren't allowed to work and also collect. It was welfare. Let's get our terms straight.

Any system that requires you to not earn income to collect benefits is *NOT *UBI.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> CERB isn't UBI. You weren't allowed to work and also collect. It was welfare. Let's get our terms straight.
> 
> Any system that requires you to not earn income to collect benefits is *NOT *UBI.


You could work, it was a limited UBI-lite, and even that caused the expected problems.


----------



## andrewf

It is awfully selective to use a not-really-UBI (at best) program like CERB that was employed during a global pandemic as evidence UBI doesn't work and ignore the evidence that shows it is relatively benign for workforce participation and has lots of positive social impacts besides. Seems like motivated reasoning to me.


----------



## nathan79

CERB is like welfare on steroids. Not just the dollar amount, but also how easy it is to get. You could have made six figures and had a million dollars in the bank, but you only needed to lose your source of income to qualify.

I doubt UBI would be anywhere near $2K a month... realistically, it might be closer to $1K/mo for the maximum benefit. You'd be able to earn a certain amount of income per year without losing any of your UBI -- maybe an additional $12K/yr. Once you started earning more, you'd start to get the UBI clawed back. The clawback might be 50 cents of each dollar, so if you made $24K/yr in earned income you'd only get $6000/yr in UBI. Then once you reached $36K/yr in earned income, you'd get $0 of UBI. 

Your initial UBI would be set using your regular income for the previous year on your tax return. You could apply to adjust the amount if your employment situation changed at any time. Any overpayment or underpayment would be squared up when you did your taxes.

I chose $1000/mo for simplicity, but ideally the base UBI would be set so that it replaces multiple other programs such as welfare, disability, oas and gis. Some of these programs are overdue for reforms anyway, IMO.


----------



## Just a Guy

Great, we still can’t afford to pay for it regardless of the amount.

btw ubi stands for universal basic income...by definition it means money for everyone (universal) no claw backs or any other moderation which you may think it means. Cerb was indeed a close experiment to ubi. Nearly everyone could get it, even work (up to $1000/month) and it’s results were the highest deficit since ww2 and a bunch of people refusing to work, exactly as predicted at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## OptsyEagle

Did anyone notice the deficit these days? $350 Billion dollars. Somebody eventually does have to do some work. These things don't pay themselves. 

UBI is a motivation killer. Since that amount will be different for everyone you will never find the happy medium that works, so give up. Anyway, we can't afford it. End of story. Your parents spent your UBI dream many deficits ago and we spent our children's UBI dream in 2020.


----------



## Longtimeago

Just a Guy said:


> My daughter got a job this year, missed the cutoff for the cseb by $8, she made 1008 her first paycheque, she would have made 1250 more by earning $8 less but still went to work. Could have made more not working, but that’s the difference between my family and sags‘.


I know sags opinion differs from others but where is this suggestion that sags or anyone in his family collected CERB coming from? I don't recall him saying anything about that. Can someone show me where he did? Or that he said any family member was staying home and collecting it because it was more than they could earn going back to work?

I'm just wondering if he is being painted with a brush that is specific for a generally held positive opinion he has re UBI etc.


----------



## hfp75

Reservations 150 years later are not zones of prosperity.... 

Lesson learnt...


----------



## Mukhang pera




----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> It is awfully selective to use a not-really-UBI (at best) program like CERB that was employed during a global pandemic as evidence UBI doesn't work and ignore the evidence that shows it is relatively benign for workforce participation and has lots of positive social impacts besides. Seems like motivated reasoning to me.


The argument is that sending big fat checks to people will encourage them to not work.
They sent big fat checks to people, and the expected problem of people choosing not to work materialized.


It's really simple, if you want people to not go to work, you pay them enough so they can afford to turn down work.
If you want them dependent on government handouts, so they'll keep voting for you this is a great idea.
If you care about the people and the economy, it's a horrible idea.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> Great, we still can’t afford to pay for it regardless of the amount.
> 
> btw ubi stands for universal basic income...by definition it means money for everyone (universal) no claw backs or any other moderation which you may think it means. Cerb was indeed a close experiment to ubi. Nearly everyone could get it, even work (up to $1000/month) and it’s results were the highest deficit since ww2 and a bunch of people refusing to work, exactly as predicted at the beginning of this thread.


It 100% was not UBI. I didn't get any CERB, for instance. And a UBI doesn't have 100% clawback (that's called welfare). It can have clawbacks, in that it creates a marginal effective tax rate that's higher than it would be if you were not receiving the benefit (kind of like OAS, which is a really wonky UBI for old people).


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> The argument is that sending big fat checks to people will encourage them to not work.
> They sent big fat checks to people, and the expected problem of people choosing not to work materialized.


The fat cheques required one not to work. Also, you know, global pandemic. People who worked as restaurant servers were reluctant to take a job as a grocery store cashier for any number of reasons, including that disrupting their working relationships for what would hopefully be a shorter term lockdown didn't make sense.

My position all along is that CERB should have been a (potentially forgivable) loan. It was welfare, not UBI.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> It's really simple, if you want people to not go to work, you pay them enough so they can afford to turn down work.


If someone gave you $12k per year and said "Go ahead and work if you want to, but you have to give me 50% of each dollar you earn until you cover the $12k", would you really not work? I don't know about you, but I am quite willing to work to enjoy the much higher level of compensation I enjoy. And having $18k after tax is a lot better than having $12k after tax to live on and would require working 2 days per week at Ontario minimum wage.


----------



## andrewf

Just going to throw this out there, too. Remember when everyone was up in arms about the UBI pilot being this enormous waste of money? Had we actually tested the idea properly, we might have had better insight into how to structure a program like this in a crisis that did not create bad incentives. Seems rather penny-wise, pound foolish in highsight.


----------



## andrewf

hfp75 said:


> Reservations 150 years later are not zones of prosperity....
> 
> Lesson learnt...


Point? The goal was never to make natives prosperous. It was to remove them from prime land so European settlers could become prosperous.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Just going to throw this out there, too. Remember when everyone was up in arms about the UBI pilot being this enormous waste of money? Had we actually tested the idea properly, we might have had better insight into how to structure a program like this in a crisis that did not create bad incentives. Seems rather penny-wise, pound foolish in highsight.


The UBI pilot was designed to not be comparable to the existing system, that's why it was a waste of money.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> If someone gave you $12k per year and said "Go ahead and work if you want to, but you have to give me 50% of each dollar you earn until you cover the $12k", would you really not work? I don't know about you, but I am quite willing to work to enjoy the much higher level of compensation I enjoy. And having $18k after tax is a lot better than having $12k after tax to live on and would require working 2 days per week at Ontario minimum wage.


I'd rather work too. The problem is that there are far too many people that would never work if they were paid $1000 a month. Give a couple $2000 a month and they can live in a cheap apartment for $1000 or less in many places and have $1000+ a month left over for food, booze, smokes, and marijuana.


----------



## sags

Longtimeago said:


> I know sags opinion differs from others but where is this suggestion that sags or anyone in his family collected CERB coming from? I don't recall him saying anything about that. Can someone show me where he did? Or that he said any family member was staying home and collecting it because it was more than they could earn going back to work?
> 
> I'm just wondering if he is being painted with a brush that is specific for a generally held positive opinion he has re UBI etc.


LOL..........that is just JAG going on with stupid talk again, like his buying $40K units and renting them for high rents malarky.

I am 70 and retired with pensions. I don't work or collect CERB. My wife is 73 and collects pensions and works p/t at a retirement home. She "could" have stayed home and collected CERB but instead she worked more hours and received pandemic pay. Our son finished trade school as a heavy equipment operator as the COVID hit. He collected a couple months of CERB and then got a good job. He is earning a 6 figure income in construction with all the side jobs on weekends.

JAG lives in his own world of easy money "passive income". He doesn't like the concept of working and holds disdain for those who do work.

Looking at his example of his daughter and CERB.........I think his basic math skills need work too.


----------



## sags

As to the government debt etc......as I have posted before governments don't operate like household finances.

We are already entrenched in Modern Monetary Theory.........if people realize it or not.

_"The problem we have is that MMT is considered so fringe that many economists are even afraid to talk about it for fear of being viewed as complicit," said Frances Donald, global chief economist at Manulife Investment Management in a phone interview.

But she said *refusing to address the reality of what governments and central banks around the world are already doing* is a mistake.

"Like it or not, elements of MMT are already so embedded in our economy and financial system since COVID-19 developed that burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help us," said Donald._



https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/economics-modern-monetary-theory-spending-1.5704124


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> If someone gave you $12k per year and said "Go ahead and work if you want to, but you have to give me 50% of each dollar you earn until you cover the $12k", would you really not work? I don't know about you, but I am quite willing to work to enjoy the much higher level of compensation I enjoy. And having $18k after tax is a lot better than having $12k after tax to live on and would require working 2 days per week at Ontario minimum wage.


Well actually if the government gave me $2k/month, and my wife $2k/month, I'd consider it.


----------



## sags

Minimum wage pays $14 an hour x 2000 hours = $28,000 per year gross income.

$2K a month pays $2000 x 12 = $24,000 a year gross income.

I don't see living on $4,000 a year less than minimum wage as much of an incentive to not work.

The Liberals have already said they aren't considering a "universal basic income". They are considering a basic living wage as a floor.

Their target group is single low income working folks. People with children and seniors already get basic income support benefits.

Chrystia Freeland said the government has and will continue to target those in most need.

Raising the minimum wage would achieve the same goal but falls under Provincial control and would hurt small businesses.

Redistribution of wealth at the Federal level is the preferred option.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Minimum wage pays $14 an hour x 2000 hours = $28,000 per year gross income.
> 
> $2K a month pays $2000 x 12 = $24,000 a year gross income.
> 
> I don't see living on $4,000 a year less than minimum wage as much of an incentive to not work.


Yup...there's a long line up of people willing to work 5 days a week all year for $2 an hour at entry level jobs.



sags said:


> Redistribution of wealth at the Federal level is the preferred option.


Wealth distribution already happens. If you're not happy with the level of "distribution" you're free to get off your *** and find a job.


----------



## sags

_Yup...there's a long line up of people willing to work 5 days a week all year for $2 an hour at entry level jobs. _

Who do you think was working in the fast food places, grocery stores, retailers, delivering food and parcels for the past 6 months ?

_Wealth distribution already happens. If you're not happy with the level of "distribution" you're free to get off your *** and find a job. _

Been there and done that for over 40 years. Don't need to work anymore. The government redistributes our money and we are fine with that.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> I'd rather work too. The problem is that there are far too many people that would never work if they were paid $1000 a month. Give a couple $2000 a month and they can live in a cheap apartment for $1000 or less in many places and have $1000+ a month left over for food, booze, smokes, and marijuana.


1000 doesn't buy a lot of booze, smokes or pot. After feeding yourself, utilities, etc. you might have a couple hundred bucks. It won't get you far. 

I don't doubt that there are some people for whom this is true. Are we better served by keeping them on welfare, or at least giving them the option to work? Right wingers seem to be obsessed with keeping people on welfare and punishing them if they start to make steps to earning a market income. The poor are to be punished.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Well actually if the government gave me $2k/month, and my wife $2k/month, I'd consider it.


Even if you could earn more?

Not sure how old you are, it may be you're already getting your age-tested UBI (OAS). I know lots of over 65s that keep working despite that.

At any rate, I don't think a UBI would be set at $2k/month. I think $1000 - 1500 is more likely.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Yup...there's a long line up of people willing to work 5 days a week all year for $2 an hour at entry level jobs.


This is welfare thinking. The system you support, welfare, imposes a 100% clawback, so people keep nothing of what they earn incrementally until they finally get out of the welfare 'hole'. A $24K UBI + $28k min wage income with a perhaps 50% clawback on UBI would result in an after tax income of $38k.* $38K is a lot more than after-tax of $24k for sitting on one's duff. Many would still consider it worth their time to work for it. UBI generally doesn't have more than 50% clawback, but it eliminates the basic personal exemption.

*ETA: I don't think $2k is the right level for UBI, in that it is likely too high. I always saw CERB as a liquidity measure to prevent mass defaults. I think we could have accomplished the same result more effectively by giving zero-interest short term loans to people, and at some later point in time forgiven some or all of it on the basis of how much people were prevented from working despite ability and willingness to do some resulting from lockdown (easier to assess in hindsight).


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> 1000 doesn't buy a lot of booze, smokes or pot. After feeding yourself, utilities, etc. you might have a couple hundred bucks. It won't get you far.


That's more than enough for far too many people.


----------



## sags

Personally, I would have preferred the Liberals called an election and sought a new mandate from the people, than seeking support from other parties.

I guess Trudeau felt he had to give it a try before dissolving Parliament.


----------



## andrewf

I think it makes sense to have an election soon, if only because the situation has materially changed from the previous election and Canadians should have their say in how Canada comes out of this crisis. It might just be a bit early for it. I am incline to give O'Tool time to settle into his role etc. and maybe an election early in the new year. Canada has some tough decisions to make about public finances.


----------



## kcowan

I don't see the NDP withholding support. They are getting what they want from Trudeau. Why would they risk another election so soon whether JT wants it or not?


----------



## Pluto

"In truth, at least in economic terms, the country of the 1950s resembled Denmark as much as the America of today. Marginal tax rates for the wealthy were 90 percent. The salaries of CEOs were, on average, just 20 times that of their mid-management employees. Today, the base pay of those at the top is commonly 400 times that of their salaried staff, with many earning orders of magnitude more in stock options and perks." Wade Davis, The Unraveling of America

Is that true, or socialist sophistry?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> This is welfare thinking. The system you support, welfare, imposes a 100% clawback, so people keep nothing of what they earn incrementally until they finally get out of the welfare 'hole'. A $24K UBI + $28k min wage income with a perhaps 50% clawback on UBI would result in an after tax income of $38k.* $38K is a lot more than after-tax of $24k for sitting on one's duff. Many would still consider it worth their time to work for it. UBI generally doesn't have more than 50% clawback, but it eliminates the basic personal exemption.
> 
> *ETA: I don't think $2k is the right level for UBI, in that it is likely too high. I always saw CERB as a liquidity measure to prevent mass defaults. I think we could have accomplished the same result more effectively by giving zero-interest short term loans to people, and at some later point in time forgiven some or all of it on the basis of how much people were prevented from working despite ability and willingness to do some resulting from lockdown (easier to assess in hindsight).


I also think $2k is too high for UBI, but they'll vote in whoever raises it.

I'd like to see a $1k UBI with maybe a 40-60% clawback.
However it would have to replace all the other benefits.

Also I think that before we start talking about such plans, we need to raise the basic personal deduction to where UBI goes away, at a $1k/month 50% clawback, that means basic personal deduction of at least $24k.

It will be quite a while before we can afford a basic exemption that high.

Also I think CERB should have been a mass handout to everyone, the way they picked winners and losers over all these programs left too many holes.
If we're going to go into generational debt, we should at least split the benefit fairly. Lots of people who had jobs during COVID, will be impacted by the secondary effects.


----------



## sags

I doubt the Liberals will present a full scale UBI in the Throne speech. 

Perhaps there will be some new targeted programs or increases or changes to others.

Perhaps they will fulfill their pledge to increase the OAS for seniors 75 and older.

From their past comments, the Liberals appear to be content with the current plethora of government programs and will concentrate on other areas.


----------



## Just a Guy

Can someone please explain how to pay for any UBI, cosidering the cost of cerb? Does anyone understand how money works? Sure everyone wants the free money, and I have no doubt it will make things better short term for those who get it, but the money has to come from somewhere...and dont be foolish to think thr “rich” can support it.


----------



## andrewf

I think there is literally zero chance of the government proposing UBI in the current fiscal/economic situation.


----------



## sags

The NDP are being pushed by supporters to demand a full UBI be included in the Throne speech.

There is an online petition to force the Liberals to acquiesce to the demand. NDP supporters view this as a rare opportunity to force changes.

I doubt the Liberals would agree to such demands, and it might well be up to the Conservatives if there is an election or not.

What say you Erin O'Toole ?


----------



## OptsyEagle

More importantly, will the people that are required to lend us the incredible amount of money to provide this freebee, agree to the demand.


----------



## like_to_retire

OptsyEagle said:


> More importantly, will the people that are required to lend us the incredible amount of money to provide this freebee, agree to the demand.


I think that the Parliamentary Budget Officer pretty much said it all this week with their analysis of the situation we're in. I tend to listen to this because they provide independent and non-partisan financial and economic analysis.

_“It’s without a doubt that we cannot afford deficits of over $300 billion for more than just a few years. And when I say a few years, I really mean a year or two. Beyond that, it would become unsustainable,” he said.

“So if the government has plans for additional spending, it will clearly have to make difficult choices and either raise taxes or reduce other areas of spending. Because it’s clear that we cannot afford to have deficits of that magnitude for even the medium term.”_

ltr


----------



## sags

The Coronavirus deficit will hopefully end some day, but until it does the government will have to continue to support Canadians.

The deficit is higher due to the support provided to Canadians and the economy, but nothing like what it was in 1995.

_At the time, Canada's debt-to-GDP was at about 66% - the highest in the G7 - and interest rates were high.

*Today's debt-to-GDP ratio is lower, at 49%, up from 31% during last fiscal year, and interest rates are at historic lows.*_


----------



## andrewf

There is no 'hopefully' about it. The current level of borrowing is far from sustainable.


----------



## sags

It will have to be "sustainable" until the COVID has passed, unless we want to let the economy collapse. What is the alternative ?


----------



## andrewf

There are more cost effective interventions than a money cannon.


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> There are more cost effective interventions than a money cannon.


Yes. Even in these times a little respect and responsibility towards our tax money would go a long way.


----------



## sags

One alternative is for everyone to stop paying their bills. That may be coming in the future.

The government is giving people money to pay their lenders. Maybe they shouldn't be doing that ?

I have no doubt there are people who give their CERB money to payday loan companies charging 700% interest a year.

Maybe let the lenders take the losses ? Their predatory lending business isn't the taxpayer's obligation to sustain.


----------



## OptsyEagle

sags said:


> One alternative is for everyone to stop paying their bills. That may be coming in the future.
> 
> The government is giving people money to pay their lenders. Maybe they shouldn't be doing that ?
> 
> Let the lenders take the losses ?


In other words instead of just the government giving freebees to people that don't work, everyone should? Banks, Telecommunication companies, Power companies, auto leasers, landlords, Nannies. Where does it stop?


----------



## sags

What do you think would happen if the government didn't pay the CERB or CEWB ?

I am guessing people still unable to work would have no choice but to default on their debts.


----------



## sags

I found Conservative Leader Erin O' Toole's interview with the CBC Power and Politics show interesting.

It becomes readily apparent that he doesn't know what to do. He is an odd place where they want the CERB to end but the virus is getting in the way.

They want to force the "lazy" back to work, but the employers are still closed due to COVID and it makes the Conservatives look like they are trying to create outbreaks of the virus. They aren't sure how to come at that problem without looking bad to voters. (recent polls show 88% of Canadians support the government's handling of the pandemic). The Conservatives know they have to tread carefully.

So he is left with rhetoric about holding the Liberals to account......blah, blah, blah. He refused to answer if the Conservatives would vote against future government support. He refuses to offer any solutions except for perhaps shifting the CERB to EI benefits...which is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The bottom line is that the virus is still here and will spread if the economy re-opens. The government can either continue with the support or stand around watching the economy collapse and Canadians suffer the consequences. That would be mess of epic proportions.

The Liberals are driving full steam ahead pushing out government support with the NDP riding in the passenger seat.

The Conservatives are motoring around and around and around the traffic circle.


----------



## OptsyEagle

sags said:


> What do you think would happen if the government didn't pay the CERB or CEWB ?
> 
> I am guessing people still unable to work would have no choice but to default on their debts.


We really don't know because the government IS paying the cerb. Hopefully we will find out sooner then later. In any case, you did not say that, you said _"One alternative is for everyone to stop paying their bills."_ That of course is completely rediculous. Do you mean everyone? Do you mean only people eligible for CERB should be told to stop paying their bills. Is everyone who receives money from these "bills" a bad guy and in need of punishment. Will doing that reduce the amount of money our poorer people owe, in the future, or increase it. Of course if a person is not held accountable to their commitments, they would want to increase it, but since no commitment can now ever be assured by the lenders, you can be darn sure no one will lend to this group ever again, at the same lending rates they do today. That is obvious.

I imagine you did not give that one much thought because, as I said, it is rediculous.


----------



## Just a Guy

Many renters tried this with the blessIng of the government...which explains why the landlord tenant hearings are now through the roof and thousands will soon be evicted. Of course, many properties are probably facing foreclosure as well since no revenues were generated For months and the likelihood of recovering that money is slim.

all this despite the cerb money so people could actually pay their bills.


----------



## andrewf

The government could have made the CERB a loan. That would have cut the cost of the program by upwards of 80%....


----------



## Just a Guy

Paying your own way isn’t fair...free money is the only fair way to go, just ask sags.


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> The government could have made the CERB a loan. That would have cut the cost of the program by upwards of 80%....


The Liberals considered "loans, but Trudeau and Morneau clearly stated the government took on debt so Canadians didn't have to.


----------



## sags

OptsyEagle said:


> We really don't know because the government IS paying the cerb. Hopefully we will find out sooner then later. In any case, you did not say that, you said _"One alternative is for everyone to stop paying their bills."_ That of course is completely rediculous. Do you mean everyone? Do you mean only people eligible for CERB should be told to stop paying their bills. Is everyone who receives money from these "bills" a bad guy and in need of punishment. Will doing that reduce the amount of money our poorer people owe, in the future, or increase it. Of course if a person is not held accountable to their commitments, they would want to increase it, but since no commitment can now ever be assured by the lenders, you can be darn sure no one will lend to this group ever again, at the same lending rates they do today. That is obvious.
> 
> I imagine you did not give that one much thought because, as I said, it is rediculous.


"Everyone" means everyone who lost their incomes due to COVID and can't pay their bills.

Without income, millions of Canadians would certainly have defaulted on their debt. That is what happens when people don't have money.

If Conservatives hope to win the next election, they best sit down and think carefully through their "anti-CERB" policies.

A lot of Canadians (88%) support the COVID support programs.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The Liberals considered "loans, but Trudeau and Morneau clearly stated the government took on debt so Canadians didn't have to.


Uhm, Canadians still have the debt, it is just held publicly. This isn't pennies from heaven.


----------



## OptsyEagle

sags said:


> "Everyone" means everyone who lost their incomes due to COVID and can't pay their bills.
> 
> Without income, millions of Canadians would certainly have defaulted on their debt. That is what happens when people don't have money.
> 
> If Conservatives hope to win the next election, they best sit down and think carefully through their "anti-CERB" policies.
> 
> A lot of Canadians (88%) support the COVID support programs.


Thank for changing the definition of everyone.

Even with your new description, lets keep the social programs to the government and not involve private business. These companies are providing a service and making a competitive profit. We can nitpik that all day long but it is still a private and needed business. They are not charities.


----------



## OptsyEagle

andrewf said:


> Uhm, Canadians still have the debt, it is just held publicly. This isn't pennies from heaven.


That is the point that Sags must obviously forget. There is a cost to this stuff. The money comes from someone. Either we confiscate it from someone else that we call rich and therefore must not deserve it, or, when that person fights back and figures out a way not to pay it, we print it up and effectively confiscate it from all Canadians in the form of inflation. One way or the other for everyone that receives a dollar someone probably pays a little more then that to provide it.


----------



## andrewf

All the money we are handing out now reduces our ability to fund future government spending, like hospitals, schools, health care, roads, transit, etc. You can only spend money once.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sags, despite all his time on this board, continues to prove he has no idea how money works, he’s like the homeless guy on the street, he gets money, spends it and demands more from those who have it in the name of fairness. He’s got no clue that government money is our money, or that you can’t spend your way out of debt. He sees every business owner as evil, despite creating the jobs and paying the profits into union pension funds. I wonder what he’d do if he successfully shut down all these evil companies and could no longer collect his pension because no one was making any money to put into his pension. He’d probably demand we tax the rich for him.


----------



## sags

Interesting that Canadians net worth, investments, and savings rates went up by more than the government spent on COVID.

The government will have to hold the debt, but it looks like the effects of the spending was a very positive impact.

_Direct deposits into Canadians’ bank accounts increased in the last three months by almost $94 billion. Billion. With a b. The most ever. Household net worth in the midst of the worst downturn since the 1930s was up by 5%. *The value of investments increased by over $300 billion.* Residential real estate was pushed higher $78 billion in just 90 days. Yikes.

There’s more. The ratio of debt payments to income dropped by the largest amount on record, partly because of all those mortgage deferrals. Debt as a percentage of income plunged from over 175% to 158% – the biggest quarterly plop ever._





__





Book and Weblog – Authored by Garth Turner — Greater Fool – Authored by Garth Turner – The Troubled Future of Real Estate







www.greaterfool.ca


----------



## sags

Government spending = increased GDP, savings and investments making it easier to structure and repay the debt from increased government revenues.

The government refinanced all the debt for a longer period at lower interest and the debt servicing costs are lower now than before the COVID spending.

Governments hold more of their own debt today. The BOC made significant purchases of assets during the pandemic.

Some of you are too immersed into ancient Milton Friedman economics, which were a disaster back in the 1970s and would be today.

Do some research on Modern Monetary Theory. That is where the world is today........partly along the shift to MMT.


----------



## sags

_"He’s got no clue that government money is our money"_

You are right about that. I don't agree with your theory that it is "your money".

Money was created by governments as a standard medium to pay taxes. That is why you have to pay US taxes in US dollars.

The government controls the creation of money and the government distributes it to the people as a medium of exchange for goods and services.

You get to hang onto it until the government takes it back.


----------



## james4beach

I think one thing being overlooked is that our (Canadian) investment values, both stocks and bonds, have largely been boosted by the stimulus actions in the USA. The Canadian bond market moves with about 90% correlation to the US bond market. The two are closely coupled, and the US basically drives our bond market.

So when the Federal Reserve manipulated the bond market, Canadian investors benefited. And when the Federal Reserve pumped however many trillion $ into financial markets (I've lost count now honestly) to move markets higher, Canadian & global investors also saw gains.

To some extent, the USA is stimulating the whole world. Our Canadian investment and pension balances, even the CPP fund, have all benefited from American stimulus. That could partially explain why it looks like we've gotten a larger benefit than Cdn government spending. It's because the US is paying the bills and consequences.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> What do you think would happen if the government didn't pay the CERB or CEWB ?


Millions of people and businesses would default. The loans on bank balance sheets would implode (very high loan losses). Then, the banking system would implode, bank equities would be wiped out, bail-ins would start. Ultimately banks would be nationalized and Canada would have a 5-10 year depression.

The people around here complaining about the handouts had better think more carefully about what happens when millions of people suddenly default.

There is no choice but to make these payments. Or, if you really want to lobby for the subsidies to stop, then you'd better get out of bank equities and make sure you don't have any uninsured deposits.


----------



## OptsyEagle

sags said:


> The government controls the creation of money and the government distributes it to the people as a medium of exchange for goods and services.
> 
> You get to hang onto it until the government takes it back.


But Sags, that is exactly what we are all trying to prevent, this taking it all back to pay for a bunch of programs that allow people to sit around and do absolutely nothing.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The government controls the creation of money and the government distributes it to the people as a medium of exchange for goods and services.
> 
> You get to hang onto it until the government takes it back.


The government can print money but it can't create money or wealth. Individuals and corporations create the wealth and then the government takes it and then redistributes it.

You seem to think that the money belongs to the government instead of the people.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Millions of people and businesses would default. The loans on bank balance sheets would implode (very high loan losses). Then, the banking system would implode, bank equities would be wiped out, bail-ins would start. Ultimately banks would be nationalized and Canada would have a 5-10 year depression.
> 
> The people around here complaining about the handouts had better think more carefully about what happens when millions of people suddenly default.
> 
> There is no choice but to make these payments. Or, if you really want to lobby for the subsidies to stop, then you'd better get out of bank equities and make sure you don't have any uninsured deposits.


We could have provided equivalent liquidity by giving the CERB in the form of zero interest loans that wouldn't have needed to be repaid for several years (and potentially forgiveable). Now, all the fiscal firepower has been blown and can't be used for more targeted interventions. What would the benefit have been if, say, we put $400 billion into infrastructure?


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> The government can print money but it can't create money or wealth. Individuals and corporations create the wealth and then the government takes it and then redistributes it.
> 
> You seem to think that the money belongs to the government instead of the people.


Government can create wealth by providing public goods. Building infrastructure often creates a lot more wealth (increase in property values) than it cost to create that infrastructure. The 407 highway cost $1.5B to build. The province sold it for $3.1B and it is now worth $30B. Pretty good investment. Doesn't count any of the knock-on benefit of increasing property values along the corridor, which is probably in the 9 figure range.


----------



## sags

The Liberal convention made a Guaranteed Basic Income the top priority for the government.

It is apparent they are not interested in a UBI, but a restructuring of the social benefits that currently exist.

A GBI could streamline administration and reduce costs, eliminate arbitrary rules that are disincentives to education or work, and provide a minimum income.

Funding is likely to be part of a reduction of Provincial transfers as the Federal government assumes some of those costs from the Provinces.

I suspect we will be hearing more about a GBI.......than a UBI in the future, and it will likely be part of a post pandemic election platform.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guaranteed-basic-income-priorities-liberals-1.5721943


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> A GBI could streamline administration and reduce costs, eliminate arbitrary rules that are disincentives to education or work,.........


It's funny how things never work out that way though.

The Marxist mantra only looks good on paper. In reality, it has failed over and over and over.........

ltr


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> We could have provided equivalent liquidity by giving the CERB in the form of zero interest loans that wouldn't have needed to be repaid for several years (and potentially forgiveable). Now, all the fiscal firepower has been blown and can't be used for more targeted interventions. What would the benefit have been if, say, we put $400 billion into infrastructure?


That's an interesting idea, the loan direction. However this would be far more complex on the administration side and let's remember, they had to pump out stimulus very fast -- and they DID. The program got rolled out and cash delivered incredibly fast.

You can't do the same with a loan system.


----------



## sags

like_to_retire said:


> It's funny how things never work out that way though.
> 
> The Marxist mantra only looks good on paper. In reality, it has failed over and over and over.........
> 
> ltr


And yet......our social programs have evolved through many literations over time and still no fall into chaos.

You do know for example, that OAS began as a small benefit for retirees funded by a special tax levy ?


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> That's an interesting idea, the loan direction. However this would be far more complex on the administration side and let's remember, they had to pump out stimulus very fast -- and they DID. The program got rolled out and cash delivered incredibly fast.
> 
> You can't do the same with a loan system.


I disagree. They could just tell everyone that it was a loan, and worked out the administration later. Every recipient has a SIN. As it stands, it will effectively be a loan for many people who will later be deemed to have been ineligible. They will have to repay the benefits.

It could have been as simple as a negative tax credit, to be repaid as a tax surcharge of later income, starting in a couple years. Pay an extra 10% marginal tax on income over a certain amount until the loan is repaid. 

The main downside is that people may not have been as persuaded to comply with lockdown due to wealth impact (vs lack of liquidity) of not working.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> I disagree. They could just tell everyone that it was a loan, and worked out the administration later. Every recipient has a SIN. As it stands, it will effectively be a loan for many people who will later be deemed to have been ineligible. They will have to repay the benefits.


Maybe that could have been a good way to go but I'm still not convinced, because the people who really need CERB are the ones who are not going to be able to repay loans.

Many of us writing here are reasonably well off. Personally I only saw a small reduction in my income... I've been very lucky. There are many people who are absolutely screwed in the current situation. They were living paycheque to paycheque, working in the service industry. Or people working in travel, leisure, airports & airlines.

This is an extremely bad situation for many people. They truly are going to need large cash handouts NOW otherwise they are going to default on everything, get evicted, end up on welfare, on the street, and at food banks. *They are already at the food banks.*

Those people hit very hard can't repay loans. They will be lucky if they don't declare bankruptcy through this whole thing. I don't like the idea of giving loans to people who had job losses in the COVID situation.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> You do know for example, that OAS began as a small benefit for retirees funded by a special tax levy ?


And now look at the socialist abomination it has grown into. A couple can receive OAS up to an income of $155K. Socialism gone crazy.

ltr


----------



## sags

The CERB is taxable income, so anyone earning more than their personal exemptions will pay tax on the amount they received.

The government could have said it was a loan, but how would Canadians have reacted to that ? I think they would have said the government was being nasty.


like_to_retire said:


> And now look at the socialist abomination it has grown into. A couple can receive OAS up to an income of $155K. Socialism gone crazy.
> 
> ltr


I like your thinking PG. 

Lower the OAS clawback level to fund the GBI. Keep those good ideas coming !


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> I like your thinking PG.
> 
> Lower the OAS clawback level to fund the GBI. Keep those good ideas coming !


But wait, this is a program you were touting a moment ago as something to be proud of as a monument to the beauty of socialism. Please don't tell me you don't support this wasteful program any more? Or have you found a new and innovative way to waste money?

ltr


----------



## nathan79

I've always though OAS was a wasteful program.... it's mostly just a type of welfare (but don't call it welfare) for middle class seniors who probably own million dollar homes.

It looks like the GBI would probably replace all other types of welfare... seniors welfare shouldn't be excepted.


----------



## Just a Guy

james4beach said:


> Maybe that could have been a good way to go but I'm still not convinced, because the people who really need CERB are the ones who are not going to be able to repay loans.
> 
> Many of us writing here are reasonably well off. Personally I only saw a small reduction in my income... I've been very lucky. There are many people who are absolutely screwed in the current situation. They were living paycheque to paycheque, working in the service industry. Or people working in travel, leisure, airports & airlines.
> 
> This is an extremely bad situation for many people. They truly are going to need large cash handouts NOW otherwise they are going to default on everything, get evicted, end up on welfare, on the street, and at food banks. *They are already at the food banks.*
> 
> Those people hit very hard can't repay loans. They will be lucky if they don't declare bankruptcy through this whole thing. I don't like the idea of giving loans to people who had job losses in the COVID situation.


I don’t personally have a lot of sympathy for people like this. There is no law that says they can’t invest money, buy stocks, real estate or run their own business. The only thing holding most people back is self generated fear. I spend a lot of time mentoring people on investing, even my bank manager, mostly younger friends of my kids who need a real education which will help them to survive in this world. Ironically they are more willing to take the plunge than older people with the means to invest in nearly everything. 

maybe if we taught people the right stuff like reading, writing and math without a calculator as well as investing, we’d be better off As a society. Instead of teaching kids to decorate body bags like in Ontario. No wonder everyone lives in fear. Fortunately the guy who wrote one of the best books on investing in real estate has written a second book on general investing, real estate and running a business ( I was one of his proofreaders). Should be must reading for people.

i find it frightening that the government is hinting at ubi in the next thrown speech, and they predict it to cost 98B for only six months.


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> I don’t personally have a lot of sympathy for people like this. There is no law that says they can’t invest money, buy stocks, real estate or run their own business. The only thing holding most people back is self generated fear.


Do you think it will lead to a better quality of life for you, if you leave these people out to starve?



Just a Guy said:


> maybe if we taught people the right stuff like reading, *writing*
> . . .
> we’d be better off As a society.
> . . .
> next thrown speech


Couldn't help but notice this As I red your post.


----------



## Just a Guy

I don’t need a better quality of life, I know how to make money. Unlike the “people left out to starve” despite being handed thousands did dollars each month. Would it make my life bette? Probably if I didn’t have to pay for them as well as my own family.


----------



## sags

If a lack of character caused poverty, a lot of wealthy people would be homeless and broke.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> If a lack of character caused poverty, a lot of wealthy people would be homeless and broke.


People who want free money with no strings attached lack character.


----------



## Just a Guy

Ive got monthly basic income, set up by my real estate holdings. As a bonus, I also get stock income and business income. If I need more, I can buy another piece of real estate. Its not hard to do, I’m not a brain surgeon, however I do use my brain which is unusual these Days


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Maybe that could have been a good way to go but I'm still not convinced, because the people who really need CERB are the ones who are not going to be able to repay loans.
> 
> Many of us writing here are reasonably well off. Personally I only saw a small reduction in my income... I've been very lucky. There are many people who are absolutely screwed in the current situation. They were living paycheque to paycheque, working in the service industry. Or people working in travel, leisure, airports & airlines.
> 
> This is an extremely bad situation for many people. They truly are going to need large cash handouts NOW otherwise they are going to default on everything, get evicted, end up on welfare, on the street, and at food banks. *They are already at the food banks.*
> 
> Those people hit very hard can't repay loans. They will be lucky if they don't declare bankruptcy through this whole thing. I don't like the idea of giving loans to people who had job losses in the COVID situation.


James, the money we're giving these folks is going to diminish the resources we can use later to help needy people. How many hundreds of billions should we be handing out, no strings attached


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The CERB is taxable income, so anyone earning more than their personal exemptions will pay tax on the amount they received.
> 
> The government could have said it was a loan, but how would Canadians have reacted to that ? I think they would have said the government was being nasty.
> 
> I like your thinking PG.
> 
> Lower the OAS clawback level to fund the GBI. Keep those good ideas coming !


On what planet is ab interest free loan nasty? You could always decline it. As it stands, there may be many recipients who took the cash despite not really needing it. That is all money we are taking away from future widows and orphans.


----------



## sags

An interest free loan could have had the best intentions, but the Loyal Opposition parties would have crucified the Liberals in the media.

All of the political parties, including the Conservatives were hollering and pounding the table for everyone to get CERB, without exception.

Some Conservative CMFers still complain about not getting "their fair" share of CERB.

Trudeau and Morneau avoided giving their critics the opportunity. If the polls are correct.......the Liberals made a wise decision.


----------



## andrewf

Everyone could have gotten CERB. And it still could have been a loan.


----------



## Just a Guy

either way we’re still going to have to repay it.


----------



## number12spicy

Very interesting times right now, but I don't believe the rumors Trudeau is going to bring in a UBI...But we shall see.


----------



## fplan

Many of my friends, who are incorporated IT contractors got 40k in the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) program. They did not lose their income/contract. They bought under construction property in GTA and used that money towards deposit. All COVID related programs were misused by lot of people . My company reduced pay by 5% and stopped contributing to Retriement accounts but we are not eligible for any programs. I am really thanksful to god that I did not lose my job and my health is not effected


----------



## andrewf

^Agreed. Very unlikely to see UBI proposed at this time.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> An interest free loan could have had the best intentions, but the Loyal Opposition parties would have crucified the Liberals in the media.
> 
> All of the political parties, including the Conservatives were hollering and pounding the table for everyone to get CERB, without exception.
> 
> Some Conservative CMFers still complain about not getting "their fair" share of CERB.
> 
> Trudeau and Morneau avoided giving their critics the opportunity. If the polls are correct.......the Liberals made a wise decision.


Well they should have given money to everyone, or noone
Lots of people who needed help didn't get it, lots of people who didn't need help got the money.

The criteria for the mess of systems was totally arbitrary and didn't really make much sense.

The way they distributed the money was wholey unfair, which is not coincidentally why I don't think the government is good a distributing wealth fairly!
Heck they tried to give millions to the Keilburgers until they were caught!


----------



## james4beach

Not UBI, but this is an interesting experiment. The researchers selected some homeless people, excluding ones which have drug addictions and mental health issues.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-project-results-1.5752714



They gave some of them $7500 cash. After 12 months, they found positive outcomes for those who received the cash: many of them moved into stable housing and managed their money well.

The result isn't extremely surprising but it does show how someone who's having a rough time can make very good use of free money. Giving people cash could also be cheaper than letting them live as desperate homeless people. It costs an average of 55K annually to give a homeless person social services.

It's believed that handing out this $7500 to people actually saved money on a net basis.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> It's believed that handing out this $7500 to people actually saved money on a net basis.


The socialists will tell you that, but I doubt it. Just my gut feeling about the reality of how all these schemes end up costing more.

ltr


----------



## sags

A UBI replacing a myriad of programs and administration costs would save money.

The future of technology means automation replacing jobs.There will be many more people than available work.

Governments have to address the reality of the future.

I like the Trudeau government's "one step at a time" plan moving towards a UBI incrementally.

As they have stated....seniors collect UBI (OAS/GIS), people with kids collect UBI (child benefits).

The Liberals goal is to address those groups of people who don't collect similar benefits.


----------



## Just a Guy

My buddy rents places to the homeless. He knows that the homeless are in a program where they get more money than the caseworkers (university graduates) who take care of them get paid. They get these benefits for at least a year and, most wind up doing nothing to improve their lives...he’s housed hundreds and maybe a handful have been “successful“ meaning they have moved beyond the program, but are still living on subsidies. Most of his tenants tend to trash their places, covered by the program, and get rehoused somewhere else without consequences.

further, he notes, the program is actually set up for them to fail. If they get a job, their benefits are clawed back but, if they sell drugs or commit crimes to make money, they get to keep that income and their full benefits. Guess which path they generally choose?

sure, being housed gets them off the street, out of sight, out of mind, but these people certainly don’t reintegrate into society most of the time. The big savings comes from the fact that the program is funded by a charity instead of directly from the government (of course the government is a big contributor to the charity, but they can claim it’s not public money officially). Sorry fudge their story to make things seem better.


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> The socialists will tell you that, but I doubt it. Just my gut feeling about the reality of how all these schemes end up costing more.


This requires more study and I'm not sure about this. There are MANY hidden costs of poverty that you may not realize.

One of my friends is an ER doctor and all day, he deals with people coming in with pill overdoses and other conditions that are directly linked to poverty. It's shocking how much of the hospital and ER capacity is occupied by people who live desperate lives due to poverty.

That means that when you have a medical emergency and go to the ER, you are sitting in queue because a huge number of very poor people have problems due to their living situation. That's something to think about.

There's also an enormous amount of crime that spins off out of situations of poverty. Just the health care and crime costs alone are huge. On top of this there are social workers, case workers, city workers who visit and monitor these various situations.

Poverty and homelessness creates enormous costs all around us, and we all suffer. I agree the solution is not purely to hand out money, but I think handing out cash + offering mental health services and addiction recovery assistance could be very positive for society.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> The socialists will tell you that, but I doubt it. Just my gut feeling about the reality of how all these schemes end up costing more.
> 
> ltr


Gut or data?


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> further, he notes, the program is actually set up for them to fail. If they get a job, their benefits are clawed back but, if they sell drugs or commit crimes to make money, they get to keep that income and their full benefits. Guess which path they generally choose?


I thought you liked welfare and detested a scheme that preserves work incentives like UBI?



> sure, being housed gets them off the street, out of sight, out of mind, but these people certainly don’t reintegrate into society most of the time. The big savings comes from the fact that the program is funded by a charity instead of directly from the government (of course the government is a big contributor to the charity, but they can claim it’s not public money officially). Sorry fudge their story to make things seem better.


It doesn't just get the off the street, it gets them out of hospitals and jails. Homeless people cost a lot to leave festering on the street.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Gut or data?


Well, I guess I could repeat myself, but everyone else sees in my post that I said it was a *gut feeling*. Did you miss that?

When I think about the homeless, and remember having read many times in the past that about 45% are struggling with mental illness, and then about 38% were dependent on alcohol, and 26% abused other drugs.

Sure, over the years they have done different studies and the percentages move a bit, but that's basically the long and the short of it.

So now, the starry eyed socialists feel they can solve all these problems by dumping $7500 into these people's pockets. 

Forget the fact that there are those that will try and game the system to get themselves into receiving this government largesse, and forget that we already have programs available for the homeless, I look at the massive costs associated with administrating any government program. I think of all the government clerks, and their supervisors and the many $100,000 managers of these programs and wonder how effective it is spending all this overhead to give someone who is mentally ill a cheque for $7500. 

These are socialist driven crazy ideas that cost the taxpayers over and over and help a precious few. Why not try and find a solution other than throwing money at these people?

ltr


----------



## latebuyer

*I'm just glad i'm not a homeowner in vancouver, where homeless people are being housed at a cost of 30 million to vancouver property tax payers. There has got to be a fairer way to deal with this. (Hope this isn't a repeat-its monster thread!)*


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> further, he notes, the program is actually set up for them to fail. If they get a job, their benefits are clawed back but, if they sell drugs or commit crimes to make money, they get to keep that income and their full benefits. Guess which path they generally choose?


Poverty traps have to be one of the most insidious things out there.


----------



## calm

The "Capitalist System" has always calculated that 15% of the population was to be "Discarded" as being "Unnecessary" and to be tossed onto the scrap heaps of history.

Initially, they are housed in provincial jails. Sentences of 7 days or 30 days or maybe 18 months.
The largest impact of homelessness is the huge costs of just "Policing" the problem.
The costs are to property owners in Ontario.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> I thought you liked welfare and detested a scheme that preserves work incentives like UBI?
> 
> 
> It doesn't just get the off the street, it gets them out of hospitals and jails. Homeless people cost a lot to leave festering on the street.


andrew, I detest any handouts, I believe in personal responsibility. not sure how ubi “preserves work incentives“ considering how cerb turned out for many.

do you seriously think the crime and drug abuse goes away when they are off the street? These people generally don’t change, they bring the problems to the building they live in. My buddy has the police visit his properties regularly because they are after the tenants or their friends. Many of them are still regulars at the hospital due to overdoses and other health issues...rthe only difference, he says, is we now pay for their housing as well.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> andrew, I detest any handouts, I believe in personal responsibility. not sure how ubi “preserves work incentives“ considering how cerb turned out for many.
> 
> do you seriously think the crime and drug abuse goes away when they are off the street? These people generally don’t change, they bring the problems to the building they live in. My buddy has the police visit his properties regularly because they are after the tenants or their friends. Many of them are still regulars at the hospital due to overdoses and other health issues...rthe only difference, he says, is we now pay for their housing as well.


A lot of drug use is contingent. 

I know you won't be swayed, but maybe consider this:








The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications


American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)



ajph.aphapublications.org


----------



## milhouse

Here's a link to Basic Income study for British Columbia that was recently released. The origin of the report is that the Green party required the NDP party to conduct a study on basic income as a requirement to support them forming the minority government in BC. 

I haven't had a chance to skim through it yet (500+ pages). Articles that review it seem to indicate the report rejects a simple form of basic income like sending cheques to those under the poverty line and instead recommends targeted forms of basic income (for vulnerable like youths aging out of care, people with disabilities, etc) combined with social services and labour policy reform since cash alone without wraparound services won't get you to a goal of a more just society. I don't want to focus on this too much but there also seems to be references around not everyone wanting to work full time and people being less inclined to work if receving certain benefits which I suspect supports the recommendation of a more targeted approach.

If you want to google some articles, search on "BC Basic Income report David Green Rhys Kesselman".


----------



## MrMatt

milhouse said:


> Here's a link to Basic Income study for British Columbia that was recently released. The origin of the report is that the Green party required the NDP party to conduct a study on basic income as a requirement to support them forming the minority government in BC.
> 
> I haven't had a chance to skim through it yet (500+ pages). Articles that review it seem to indicate the report rejects a simple form of basic income like sending cheques to those under the poverty line and instead recommends targeted forms of basic income (for vulnerable like youths aging out of care, people with disabilities, etc) combined with social services and labour policy reform since cash alone without wraparound services won't get you to a goal of a more just society. I don't want to focus on this too much but there also seems to be references around not everyone wanting to work full time and people being less inclined to work if receving certain benefits which I suspect supports the recommendation of a more targeted approach.
> 
> If you want to google some articles, search on "BC Basic Income report David Green Rhys Kesselman".


AFAIk nobody has done a basic income study, and they tend to be flawed.
The Ontario study was intentionally given a flawed design to result in a particular outcome.

We already have a labour shortage because people would rather be unemployed than work.

I doubt we'll ever get a good scientific study on the full impact of a basic income.
Mostly because everyone who's informed on this knows the results won't make a good scientific argument.

Also having a life with no purpose sitting on the couch watching Netflix isn't good for anyone anyway.


----------



## Just a Guy

A buddy of mine houses the homeless. They are given more money in a month than their university degree caseworkers are paid. Funny thing is, the vast majority of the homeless, tend to wind up homeless again, despite all the money, and the caseworkers tend to keep their homes, though they tend to change jobs after a couple of years because they get frustrated watching the broken system. They do, however, remain productive members of society. 

part of the problems of the free money...

1) no inspiration to change, they get the money anyway.
2) if they get a real job, their benefits are clawed back (a solution often proposed here). However, if they make money illegally, they get to keep their benefits and their illegal income. The program encourages them to be criminals
3) no consequences, if they get kicked out, they get rehoused, so why change your behaviour?
4) they do use drugs and alcohol a lot
5) they teach their kids this is the way you do it, so it’s multigenerational, once you have a lifestyle, that is what you have.
6) as money is given, they don’t know how to use or earn it...it’s like giving a child a chainsaw, they wind up hurting themselves. They don’t develop skills like money management, budgeting, cooking, shopping, etc.
7) their friends often are worse off than they are, so they come by and take over, usually damaging their stuff...since there is nothing earned, and damaged stuff will be replaced for free, they don’t care.
8) the problem often isn’t money, it’s mental illness. Giving the mentally ill money, doesn’t solve their problem, or even help them, it hands them a chainsaw and makes you feel better thinking you solved the problem. Better to use the money for a mental institution where they can get real help.

would they be worse off without the free money? Maybe, when I was broke, the lack of money hurt a lot and inspired me to change what I was doing, had I been given money, I probably wouldn’t be where I am today. I would have been comfortable.

these are the results of my buddy’s unofficial ubi study. He’s housed hundreds of people who get free money every month over more than a decade and seen the results firsthand. He also went into the study of his own free will and paid for it on his own dime, unlike any government study one wants to quote.


----------



## diharv

Just a Guy said:


> A buddy of mine houses the homeless. They are given more money in a month than their university degree caseworkers are paid. Funny thing is, the vast majority of the homeless, tend to wind up homeless again, despite all the money, and the caseworkers tend to keep their homes, though they tend to change jobs after a couple of years because they get frustrated watching the broken system. They do, however, remain productive members of society.
> 
> part of the problems of the free money...
> 
> 1) no inspiration to change, they get the money anyway.
> 2) if they get a real job, their benefits are clawed back (a solution often proposed here). However, if they make money illegally, they get to keep their benefits and their illegal income. The program encourages them to be criminals
> 3) no consequences, if they get kicked out, they get rehoused, so why change your behaviour?
> 4) they do use drugs and alcohol a lot
> 5) they teach their kids this is the way you do it, so it’s multigenerational, once you have a lifestyle, that is what you have.
> 6) as money is given, they don’t know how to use or earn it...it’s like giving a child a chainsaw, they wind up hurting themselves. They don’t develop skills like money management, budgeting, cooking, shopping, etc.
> 7) their friends often are worse off than they are, so they come by and take over, usually damaging their stuff...since there is nothing earned, and damaged stuff will be replaced for free, they don’t care.
> 8) the problem often isn’t money, it’s mental illness. Giving the mentally ill money, doesn’t solve their problem, or even help them, it hands them a chainsaw and makes you feel better thinking you solved the problem. Better to use the money for a mental institution where they can get real help.
> 
> would they be worse off without the free money? Maybe, when I was broke, the lack of money hurt a lot and inspired me to change what I was doing, had I been given money, I probably wouldn’t be where I am today. I would have been comfortable.
> 
> these are the results of my buddy’s unofficial ubi study. He’s housed hundreds of people who get free money every month over more than a decade and seen the results firsthand. He also went into the study of his own free will and paid for it on his own dime, unlike any government study one wants to quote.


So the safety net that is a lifestyle for many is now outed, made politically correct, and normalized as UBI? How will this be paid for? Or is there actually any intention of paying for it, kind of like the handouts of the past year? It does not usually end up well for the countries that go down the welfare state rabbit hole, like my wife's country in South America.


----------



## vonMarburg

Advanced nations will have to apply some form of minimum basic income as technology and outsourcing removes jobs from the market. The Climate Change activists (mostly college kids brainwashed by professors) are also going to play an increasingly larger role in moving away from cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. This means that energy prices will continue to increase, and when you have high energy costs you lose manufacturing. Manufacturing jobs are outsourced when energy prices rise. This is simple business. I urge people to watch FrackNation the documentary and be wary of some of the lies coming from Al Gore, Josh Fox, and many other ideologically driven liars.

People who are against a UBI are wealthy and generally in secure jobs that haven't been, and are unlikely to be (or so they think), unaffected by outsourcing.

UBI would allow a basic income for people to survive, this is for the lazy and the non-lazy. It would also serve as a potential springboard for some to get some of the skills (or a skill set) the market demands.

I think people have this perception that with a UBI program in place all recipients will be driving around in BMWs and will be living like kings. Get a grip.

We will either get a UBI or out comes the guillotine.


----------



## Just a Guy

Cerb and crb excellent test of UBI. Also 400B in a couple of months. Where will the money come from to keep it ongoing? Funny how it wasn’t needed before they killed all the jobs with shutdowns. All you’re setting up is hyper inflation. Ask someone who’s been through that how fun it is and how easy it is to survive.

The industrial revolution destroyed many jobs, but new jobs were created in fact, the world has more people today than back then, so that arguement is just hyperbole.


----------



## milhouse

If anyone has the time, I'd recommend the intro and summary of the report I listed above, it's only about 30 pages and where I've gotten to so far. It takes a pretty pragmatic approach IMO as it does talk about the challenges in the current system, the challenges and effectiveness with a basic income approach, and not just a UBI system but other options like hybrid models that combine targeted basic income via cheques or tax credits and support services.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I am old enough to remember when there was NO homelessness problem. Between the end of the thirties depression and 1970 it did not exist. In Toronto in those days there were cheap rooming houses and boarding houses where you could rent a room for $50 a month or less, and you could earn more than that washing dishes in a restaurant.
Then the government decided to do poor people a favor by putting all the substandard (by middle class standards) places out of business, imposing new zoning laws to prevent urban sprawl, basically prevented most new development. Who could have predicted that this would result in a housing shortage? Which they "cured" by imposing rent controls which means there have been no new apartments built since the early seventies. Condos, yes. Rental apartments, no.
While they were at it they "improved" working conditions with stricter employment laws, more workmen's comp taxes, more regulations, more paperwork and higher minimum wage. With the result that a lot of employers stopped hiring.
To take a country with all kinds of land, abounding in building materials of every kind, with high unemployment, and create a housing shortage takes real political talent. To continue the same failed policies for 50 years without ever noticing they are not working, I don't know what to call that.


----------



## Just a Guy

Don’t forget all the “savings” governments made by shutting down mental hospitals and forcing the patients back into normal society Without support.


----------



## nathan79

I am not that old, but I also remember a time when there was very little homelessness. The current homelessness crisis is a reflection of the housing bubble. There was very little homeless problem before roughly 2005. It really began to accelerate during the 2008 financial crisis and has continued to grow pretty much unabated since then. The concept of a "homeless camp" or "tent city" was not something most Vancouverites had ever heard of 20 years ago, but no one thinks twice when they hear those words now. There's barely a week that goes by where there isn't some kind of incident related to homeless camps.


----------



## Just a Guy

Not quite true, people used to live in Stanley park and in the bunkers on wreck beach..it was probably easier to ignore back then though.


----------



## nathan79

There just wasn't nearly as many back then. Vancouver has always had some homeless, but not to the extent they do now. And it was very rare to see homeless people in the suburbs before. Now you see tons of homeless in places like Surrey, Maple Ridge and Abbotsford.


----------



## MrMatt

nathan79 said:


> I am not that old, but I also remember a time when there was very little homelessness. The current homelessness crisis is a reflection of the housing bubble. There was very little homeless problem before roughly 2005. It really began to accelerate during the 2008 financial crisis and has continued to grow pretty much unabated since then. The concept of a "homeless camp" or "tent city" was not something most Vancouverites had ever heard of 20 years ago, but no one thinks twice when they hear those words now. There's barely a week that goes by where there isn't some kind of incident related to homeless camps.


The current homelessness problem has a number of causes.

Deistitutionalization. People that need help are just being kicked out of the institutions that were caring for them. 
Government Anti Rental policies. Governments across Canada are creating explicitly anti-rental housing policies, which is reducing the amount of rental housing available.
Homelessness is big money, lots of people make money providing services to the homeless. I am sure many are well meaning, but there is an incentive mismatch.


----------



## sags

The debate on guaranteed basic income is over and discussions are now on the particulars.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The debate on guaranteed basic income is over and discussions are now on the particulars.


When you say "the debate is over", you agree that the evidence is clear it will be bad for people right?


I understand many simply aren't informed enough to understand the risks and harm, I get that. I really do.
I accept that ignorant people thing it is a good thing. 

All I'm trying to do is advocate to blunt the worst and most harmful parts.

I honestly don't know how anyone who cares about the personal wellbeing of the individuals isn't concerned with the harmful impacts.
Don't they care about people? Or is the harm they inflict just "collateral damage".

Like who cares if we have mentally ill people homeless, sleeping in the streets, at least they're not in "institutions".

Why you'd choose to hurt people like this is beyond me.
I can get ignorance, but I can't accept the malevolence of those who are actually informed of the impact.


----------



## kcowan

Politicians are transaction-oriented. The only political party to publish a vision was the NDP and that scared voters. The astute politician had a secret grand plan but tested every tiny step for voter acceptance.


----------



## nathan79

MrMatt said:


> The current homelessness problem has a number of causes.
> 
> Deistitutionalization. People that need help are just being kicked out of the institutions that were caring for them.
> Government Anti Rental policies. Governments across Canada are creating explicitly anti-rental housing policies, which is reducing the amount of rental housing available.
> Homelessness is big money, lots of people make money providing services to the homeless. I am sure many are well meaning, but there is an incentive mismatch.


Deinstitutionalization has been going on for at least 40 years. The difference now is the lack of affordable housing options for those people. Governments built a lot of subsidized housing in the 1960's and 70's, but escalating land values over the last 20 years have decreased their ability to build these units. At the same time, developers have bought up these aging properties and gotten them rezoned for higher density. The tenants are then kicked out, the buildings are razed, and high end condos are built in their place. These new properties are marketed to middle class tech workers and investors, leaving the former residents to fight over the scraps of affordable hosuing that remain.


----------



## Just a Guy

I find it ironic that all the advocates for affordable housing are usually the first to stand up and complain about slum landlords, even if they aren‘t slums...


----------



## MrMatt

nathan79 said:


> Deinstitutionalization has been going on for at least 40 years. The difference now is the lack of affordable housing options for those people. Governments built a lot of subsidized housing in the 1960's and 70's, but escalating land values over the last 20 years have decreased their ability to build these units. At the same time, developers have bought up these aging properties and gotten them rezoned for higher density. The tenants are then kicked out, the buildings are razed, and high end condos are built in their place. These new properties are marketed to middle class tech workers and investors, leaving the former residents to fight over the scraps of affordable hosuing that remain.


Of course
1. Cities are on a push to intensify, that means put in high density housing. It's actually a requirement for rezoning in most areas.

2. As for Condos vs Rentals, you'd be nuts to have a rental. Governments are outright attacking landlords, there are people who don't pay rent for months, and don't get evicted.

If the government allowed market rents, and eviction of destructive and non paying renters, a lot of the housing problem would sort itself out.
Much of the housing 'shortage', is simply the result of bad government policy.


----------



## sags

In 1975, I rented a 2 bedroom apartment in a brand new building. The rent was $300 a month.

Today, that same apartment is 45 years old and rents for $1600 a month.

If the same landlord owns the building........they have done very well.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> In 1975, I rented a 2 bedroom apartment in a brand new building. The rent was $300 a month.
> 
> Today, that same apartment is 45 years old and rents for $1600 a month.
> 
> If the same landlord owns the building........they have done very well.


Not really.








$300 in 1975 → 2022 | Canada Inflation Calculator


This inflation calculator uses the official Canadian consumer price index. An inflation rate of 3.59% per year means $300 in 1975 is worth $1,573.10 in 2022.




www.in2013dollars.com





Assuming that property taxes increase faster than inflation (which the do in most cities), the landlord actually makes less now than they did before.
Crazy that their real cashflow goes down, year after year, and you think that's a good investment.


----------



## sags

Except that the landlord would have paid off the mortgage debt 20 years ago, so their profit margin increased since then.

People today are paying more to live in a 45 year old building (adjusted for inflation) than I was paying to live in a brand new building.

If the landlord paid $500,000 for the building, it would be worth $2.2 million today at the rate of inflation.

In 1975 I was earning about $300 a week. Today that job should pay $1354 a week ($32 per hour) as per inflation.

I think few people are earning $32 an hour these days.

Landlords have done just fine.......


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Landlords have done just fine.......


Sure, that's why they're clamouring to build rental housing... oh wait, they're not.


----------



## sags

They are.....but it is all luxury buildings.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> They are.....but it is all luxury buildings.


Those are mostly condos

The reality is that the government has systematically disincentivised the construction of affordable rental housing.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Sure, that's why they're clamouring to build rental housing... oh wait, they're not.


There is a fair amount of purpose-built rental in development in Toronto. But it tends to be geared toward upper income. I guess the more worn out units will trickle down to lower income renters.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> There is a fair amount of purpose-built rental in development in Toronto. But it tends to be geared toward upper income. I guess the more worn out units will trickle down to lower income renters.


Of course, high income rentals avoid a lot of the risks of the low income market.

The person with a high income and great credit rating and some assets is going to be less risky than the low income person with few assets. You can seize their BMW, but not a Bus pass.


----------



## Just a Guy

The government gave them the bus pass in the first place. Of course, I’d like to see you live with a low income person in your building...in my buddy’s experience they are the first targeted to get run out.

another not in my backyard concern.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Of course, high income rentals avoid a lot of the risks of the low income market.
> 
> The person with a high income and great credit rating and some assets is going to be less risky than the low income person with few assets. You can seize their BMW, but not a Bus pass.


I daresay many of them don't own cars. But they enjoy Starbucks and avocado toast. Like, young professionals with good incomes but not enough savings to buy a condo.


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> The government gave them the bus pass in the first place. Of course, I’d like to see you live with a low income person in your building...in my buddy’s experience they are the first targeted to get run out.
> 
> another not in my backyard concern.


Of course.
I grew up in a low income neighbourhood, most were decent people, as are most people in general.

However there were more issues for me to deal with than when I moved to a nicer more affluent neighbourhood.

Not saying there aren't issues, but they don't as directly affect my family here.


----------



## hfp75

Its official









Canada's First Basic Income Bill C-273 - Add Your Voice and Tell Your MP to Support the Bill Today


Canada just got it's first ever bill for Basic Income, Bill C-273, a landmark for the UBI movement. Add your voice today and tell your MP to support Canada's Basic Income bill.




www.ubiworks.ca


----------



## MrMatt

hfp75 said:


> Its official
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's First Basic Income Bill C-273 - Add Your Voice and Tell Your MP to Support the Bill Today
> 
> 
> Canada just got it's first ever bill for Basic Income, Bill C-273, a landmark for the UBI movement. Add your voice today and tell your MP to support Canada's Basic Income bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ubiworks.ca


Scary, hope it goes nowhere.

Also, there is no way there are 3.2 million families in poverty.
The idea that 1/3 of Canadian families are living in poverty is absurd.

Poverty is a real problem, we need to take real action.
But when you start out making outlandish claims, I'm very doubtful if you're open to a serious discussion on the required trade offs.


----------



## sags

The Liberals have hinted at what their version of a guaranteed basic income would look like.

They consider child benefits and OAS as guaranteed basic incomes already, and will focus any new program on single, low wage earners who don't already collect some form of government benefits.

The benefit would not be "universal" basic income but a "guaranteed" basic income similar to the guaranteed basic income for seniors in the form of the GIS benefit.

The notion that Liberals will give a budget breaking benefit universally to every Canadian is fear mongering by Conservatives. The Liberals have never said they would consider such a broad program.

A simplified way of looking at it is the GIS benefit extended to all Canadians in need.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The Liberals have hinted at what their version of a guaranteed basic income would look like.
> 
> They consider child benefits and OAS as guaranteed basic incomes already, and will focus any new program on single, low wage earners who don't already collect some form of government benefits.
> 
> The benefit would not be "universal" basic income but a "guaranteed" basic income similar to the guaranteed basic income for seniors in the form of the GIS benefit.
> 
> The notion that Liberals will give a budget breaking benefit universally to every Canadian is fear mongering by Conservatives. The Liberals have never said they would consider such a broad program.
> 
> A simplified way of looking at it is the GIS benefit extended to all Canadians in need.


The Liberals are lying, they do it all the time.

They know if they just hand out endless piles of cash, they'll have a captive voter pool.
Why do you think that the biggest line items in the Ontario Budget go into the salaries of their strongest supporters?


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The Liberals have hinted at what their version of a guaranteed basic income would look like.
> 
> They consider child benefits and OAS as guaranteed basic incomes already, and will focus any new program on single, low wage earners who don't already collect some form of government benefits.
> 
> The benefit would not be "universal" basic income but a "guaranteed" basic income similar to the guaranteed basic income for seniors in the form of the GIS benefit.
> 
> The notion that Liberals will give a budget breaking benefit universally to every Canadian is fear mongering by Conservatives. The Liberals have never said they would consider such a broad program.
> 
> A simplified way of looking at it is the GIS benefit extended to all Canadians in need.


UBI vs GIS is just different names for the same thing.

And UBI was never and will never mean an increase in income for every individual. This isn't possible while maintaining a balanced budget. So, it was always an increase for those with low incomes and decrease for those with high incomes, with likely a large swath in the middle who see nearly nil impact on incomes. Whether that is achieved with a universal transfer that is clawed back through a marginal tax or an income-tested measure is largely just an accounting matter and doesn't affect cost, except a tested measure usually means infrastructure and cost associated with administering and verifying eligibility.


----------



## andrewf

hfp75 said:


> Its official
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's First Basic Income Bill C-273 - Add Your Voice and Tell Your MP to Support the Bill Today
> 
> 
> Canada just got it's first ever bill for Basic Income, Bill C-273, a landmark for the UBI movement. Add your voice today and tell your MP to support Canada's Basic Income bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ubiworks.ca


Well, it's official that a back-bench government MP is proposing a bill that would require the Finance Minister to study UBI. Hardly earth shattering. I don't see why opponents of UBI would necessarily be opposed to study, unless they think the facts are not on their side and they are opposed to it for reasons other than it being objectively a bad idea from a cost/benefit perspective.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Well, it's official that a back-bench government MP is proposing a bill that would require the Finance Minister to study UBI. Hardly earth shattering. I don't see why opponents of UBI would necessarily be opposed to study, unless they think the facts are not on their side and they are opposed to it for reasons other than it being objectively a bad idea from a cost/benefit perspective.


I'm all for a proper study to gain knowledge.
However I'm concerned that they will implement a loaded study, like the one in Ontario, to advance their cause.

The reasons I'm against UBI, as typically proposed by activists, is it will make things worse for everyone,and impose catastrophic costs on the country.
I expect it would contribute to generational poverty, as many other social programs have done.

If someone brought forth a program that would address the generational poverty problems, and actually make things better for their target population, without undue cost on society, I'd be for it.

I think implementing or pushing for UBI has political benefit, just like legalization of marijuanna, or fighting climate change, or banning toy guns (which the Liberals just did) etc. The underlying science is largely inconsequential, compared to the political value.

Again, I do not trust that the study being proposed will be a proper study of UBI, and THAT is why I oppose the study. Have you ever seen a supervised injection site study that shows it isn't a good thing? Of course not, they just minimize the negatives.
Ever see a politician advocating for a supervised injection site next to their house, or their kids school? Didn't think so.

Now I'll wait for someone to accuse me of of being a right wing shill who opposes UBI on partisan grounds, rather than legitimate concerns about the implementation, fairness and effectiveness of particular proposals.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Again, I do not trust that the study being proposed will be a proper study of UBI, and THAT is why I oppose the study. Have you ever seen a supervised injection site study that shows it isn't a good thing? Of course not, they just minimize the negatives.


I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting critics of safe injection sites from conducting studies to try to prove they are harmful. You can conclude that the absence of evidence of their harm is attributable to biased analysis of the data. But Occam's razor would suggest that the real reason is that they are far and away a public health success story.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting critics of safe injection sites from conducting studies to try to prove they are harmful. You can conclude that the absence of evidence of their harm is attributable to biased analysis of the data. But Occam's razor would suggest that the real reason is that they are far and away a public health success story.


Actually supervised injections sites are incredibly complex and while they show some harm reduction, they also have significant costs. Some of which are ignored or minimized.

For example regarding Insite
"To date, over 40 peer-reviewed studies have been published which speak to the many benefits and lack of negative impacts of this site. "








Supervised injection facilities in Canada: past, present, and future - Harm Reduction Journal


Canada has long contended with harms arising from injection drug use. In response to epidemics of HIV infection and overdose in Vancouver in the mid-1990s, a range of actors advocated for the creation of supervised injection facilities (SIFs), and after several unsanctioned SIFs operated briefly...




harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com





Lets be completely honest, can you honestly say that a supervised injection site has no negative impacts?
No reasonable person would ever say such a thing.
You can argue that the benefits drastically overshadow the negatives or something, that's at least plausible.
But "No negative impacts", at the very least it would seem obvious that it would most likely slightly depress real estate values of the adjacent properties.

But no negative impacts? Sorry, that's unbelievable to me, and it's insulting.

Oh and who funds these papers? The people who want the sites, the people who will work there.
They'll pull it out of the health authority budgets, or health people.

DO you think any of those groups are going to fund someone who would be critical of them?
It's like climate change research, one side is very well funded, and the other is not, and it's career damaging to be on the "wrong" side.

You show me a study that shows the positives and negatives, fairly and properly I'll consider it.
You show me one sided crap that is clearly biased, by design, (like the Ontario UBI study) and I'll throw it in the trash where it belongs.

If the proponents of these ideas actually thought they were good, they'd engage in proper, comprehensive and balanced, research. Not one sided crap.

FYI this is a problem with much of the science world today.


----------



## andrewf

I'm persuaded that supervised injection sites are a huge win: it gets injection drug use off the streets, allows sharps to be disposed of responsibly, drastically reduces the risk associated with overdose, encourages hygienic use of needles/reduction in bloodborne illness, and opens up avenues for intervention in habits of addiction to get people properly housed, receiving medical treatment, and working on putting the addiction into remission. There are some obvious downsides: not in my backyardism (NIMBYism), but I don't think withholding safe injection sites makes the problem if injection drug use go away. So, some care has to be taken in where they are situated. I'm not aware of any being put next to a school or any other pearl-clutch inducing factors.

I think a lot of conservatives seem to wish they could wave a wand and disappear all the poor and undesirables. Liberals tend to share the same end goal, but add the desire to do the hard work to make that happen instead of just wishing it away. Locking people up for ten years for injection drug use isn't going to solve the drug problem. It won't even save their precious pocket books as prison is expensive. I guess we impose summary capital punishment.


----------



## sags

The Trudeau government isn't contemplating a "universal" benefit.

Finance Minister Freeland has publicly discussed an expansion of the GIS to everyone who qualifies.

It has already been studied to death, and they are nearing the point of implementation.

The GIS is a "top up" to a defined level, so people will receive different amounts.

People above the income threshold will receive no benefit.


----------



## sags

One of the problems the Federal government has to overcome is the tendency of the Provinces to claw back Provincial benefits when people receive Federal benefits.........as they did with CERB payments.


----------



## Just a Guy

No negative impacts...let’s move one next to the people who conducted the study, it would make it much easier for them to study the issue.

something tells me it’s anothrr no negative impact as long as you apply nimby.

andrew, what’s your address? I’m willing to buy something close by for the homeless and safe injections to take place.
also, how is the liberal‘s throw money we don’t have at the problem considered “hard work”?


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Finance Minister Freeland has publicly discussed an expansion of the GIS to everyone who qualifies.
> 
> It has already been studied to death, and they are nearing the point of implementation.


Evidence please.


----------



## andrewf

Just a Guy said:


> No negative impacts...let’s move one next to the people who conducted the study, it would make it much easier for them to study the issue.
> 
> something tells me it’s anothrr no negative impact as long as you apply nimby.
> 
> andrew, what’s your address? I’m willing to buy something close by for the homeless and safe injections to take place.
> also, how is the liberal‘s throw money we don’t have at the problem considered “hard work”?


Two doors down from you, buddy.

Realistically, these sites tend to be located in areas where they would have clientele: the areas with lots of injection drug use happening on the street. So the NIMBYism is puzzling. This drug use is going to happen in the community anyway, better to have it in a clean, supervised area that collects the dirty needles instead of the park next door where the needles end up as litter.

You can ignore the problem and let is fester (along with associated ills of property crime, homelessness, etc.) or you can use this as an off-ramp for people to get help and stop using drugs. There are countries that have largely decriminalized drugs and have seen the problems associated with drug use decline. I don't know what your solution is JAG... just hope it goes away?


----------



## Just a Guy

I tend to work with the problem, I volunteer at shelters all the time (I’m betting you don’t even know where they are in your town) and try to educate people. You run into a ton of resistance since these people rarely want to change but, having been broke myself and a casualty of chronic pain, I can relate to their situations, so I continue to bang my head against the wall for those one or two success stories that do occasionally happen.

Btw, I don’t pretend to consider these to be “good” people or that throwing money at them will change anything. If you worked with the problem, you could easily see that money just makes the situation worse in a lot of cases. So, your two doors down comment is really stupid, whereas I’m willing to put my money where your mouth is...don’t worry, these people are often willing to travel to use the facilities, so they’ll bring their community to you. Something, once again, you’d know if you were involved.


----------



## james4beach

@andrewf perhaps you could learn a lot from this philanthropist,
pillar of the community,
real estate mogul,
and stock investing genius.

Is there anything he _can't_ do?

lol


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I'm persuaded that supervised injection sites are a huge win: it gets injection drug use off the streets, allows sharps to be disposed of responsibly, drastically reduces the risk associated with overdose, encourages hygienic use of needles/reduction in bloodborne illness, and opens up avenues for intervention in habits of addiction to get people properly housed, receiving medical treatment, and working on putting the addiction into remission. There are some obvious downsides: not in my backyardism (NIMBYism), but I don't think withholding safe injection sites makes the problem if injection drug use go away. So, some care has to be taken in where they are situated. I'm not aware of any being put next to a school or any other pearl-clutch inducing factors.
> 
> I think a lot of conservatives seem to wish they could wave a wand and disappear all the poor and undesirables. Liberals tend to share the same end goal, but add the desire to do the hard work to make that happen instead of just wishing it away. Locking people up for ten years for injection drug use isn't going to solve the drug problem. It won't even save their precious pocket books as prison is expensive. I guess we impose summary capital punishment.


Exactly, even someone like yourself sees that there are obvious downsides.
So, knowing that there are downsides, because there are ALWAYS downsides, and that the study authors say there are none, what does that do to their credibility.

I think Conservatives and Liberals share the same goal, but I think it's the Liberals and NDP that want to wave the magic wand and make it all disappear.
They're the ones unwilling to do the hard work of making it happen.

I agree locking people up in jail for injection drug use isn't going to solve the drug problem, but throwing piles of money at programs, without considering their effectiveness isn't likely to work either.

I think BEFORE we push these programs ahead, we need to do proper study and analysis of them.
Unfortunately, based on the history of politically motivated programs, this analysis won't happen.

Supervise injection sites were never properly studied. Marijuanna legalization was not studied before implementation.
The only major, well funded trial of UBI in Canada, the Ontario one, was based on a flawed design from the outset. 
I have zero faith in the willingness of the current government to fairly investigate something they think will win them votes.


In short I agree that Liberals and Conservatives share the same goal.
I think the partisans in both groups are willing to sit back and sit back in their respective "easy" solution.
Conservatives think if people followed the law and we applied the laws we have on the books the problem will go away.
Liberals/NDPs think if we give everyone lots and lots of money and the the problem will go away.

Both "solutions" are flawed. 
Of course nobody really wants to go for the third option, it doesn't get votes.


----------



## Just a Guy

james4beach said:


> @andrewf
> Is there anything he _can't_ do?


yes, advocate and beg for government handouts.


----------



## sags

james4beach said:


> @andrewf perhaps you could learn a lot from this philanthropist,
> pillar of the community,
> real estate mogul,
> and stock investing genius.
> 
> Is there anything he _can't_ do?
> 
> lol


Yes, nothing like lessons on personal finance to solve the homeless problem.

Maybe just give the homeless some brochures or something. That should do it.

If only the homeless knew more about TFSAs, RRSPs, and low cost stock trading........


----------



## Just a Guy

Andrew, as I’ve said many times before and you would know if you were actually involved, the “poor” get more in tax free benefits Than their casework (who need a university degree) get paid. Explain how a caseworker can survive prosper on less and how the “poor” just need more money.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Yes, nothing like lessons on personal finance to solve the homeless problem.
> 
> Maybe just give the homeless some brochures or something. That should do it.
> 
> If only the homeless knew more about TFSAs, RRSPs, and low cost stock trading........


If you did a little research on the causes of homelessness, you'd understand that while for some there is an aspect of financial literacy, that's not the primary cause.
I think it's pretty arrogant to suggest it's all self inflicted financial problems.

You need to be a bit more understanding Mr Sags.


----------



## sags

What.......you can't "personal finance" your way out of poverty ? I am shocked.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> What.......you can't "personal finance" your way out of poverty ? I am shocked.


Not surprised, most socialists seem to think that the problem is simply not enough money.
They fail to understand that the CAUSES of poverty are complicated, and typically not "they're bad with money".



Thomas Sowell has written about this extensively, and I highly recommend his books.
(Hint poverty isn't genetic either)


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> Maybe just give the homeless some brochures or something. That should do it.
> 
> If only the homeless knew more about TFSAs, RRSPs, and low cost stock trading........


How about real estate flipping seminars for the homeless?


----------



## Just a Guy

How about basic money management and cooking skills? Many “poor” think McDonald’s is cheap food, I can buy a vacuum pack of tenderloin, vegetables and potatoes And feed my family for several days for way less money.
keep up the jokes though, it just shows your ignorance of the real problem and what lengths you’ll go to to avoid understanding them. “Tax the rich”, only solution you guys know.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> How about real estate flipping seminars for the homeless?


Yeah, sounds like a Liberal solution to the problem.

Really, the lack of understanding of the problem has to be the single biggest impediment to solving the problem.

Interestingly a "right wing religous" group seems to be pretty good at addressing homes.




__





Frequently asked questions


Get answers to some of our most frequently asked questions on what Habitat for Humanity does in the U.S. and around the world, and how you can join us.



www.habitat.org





So go ahead, offer expensive useless programs that won't work, and ignore the real workable solutions we already have in place.


----------



## Just a Guy

They also fail to understand how mental illness isn’t fixed with money....there i a huge amount of nonfunctional or barely functional mentally ill who are homeless...

my buddy was telling me about his last tenant. She died around Christmas. Her mentally ill son lived with the decomposing body on the couch for over a month. Not realizing that it was his mother, nor that they were dead. A caseworker finally figured it out by visiting. The body was so decomposed the caseworker thought it was a dead black man, not a white woman. Since everything was paid for automatically, without the caseworker noticing there’d been no contact with the mother, it would have continued on forever probably.

again, easy to pretend you understand the problem when you’re not involved at all.


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> again, easy to pretend you understand the problem when you’re not involved at all.


We know there is a high correlation between poverty and drug abuse. ( Lots of data here)
You know 20 years ago Mike Harris tried to get help for drug addicts.








Little sense behind drug tests for welfare users


The Globe and Mail offers the most authoritative news in Canada, featuring national and international news




www.theglobeandmail.com





The Liberal solution is to make it easier to do drugs. ( Not sure how that helps poverty, too bad they're afraid to study it)


----------



## sags

james4beach said:


> How about real estate flipping seminars for the homeless?


Maybe we could also include "buy low.....sell higher" stock buying training as well.

After all, it is never a bad time to invest.


----------



## andrewf

Some results from a small UBI study in Stockton CA.









Stockton’s Basic-Income Experiment Pays Off


A new study of the city’s program that sent cash to struggling individuals finds dramatic changes.




www.theatlantic.com





Video summary:





The payments actually saw an increase in employment over the control group, very little spent on alcohol and tobacco.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Some results from a small UBI study in Stockton CA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stockton’s Basic-Income Experiment Pays Off
> 
> 
> A new study of the city’s program that sent cash to struggling individuals finds dramatic changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The payments actually saw an increase in employment over the control group, very little spent on alcohol and tobacco.


I do believe it was the Liberals who said if you give people a nominal handout, you'd spend it on "beer and popcorn".


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/liberal-apologizes-for-saying-harper-day-care-bucks-may-buy-beer-popcorn-1.534811



Nobody disputes that if you handout a small amount of money, things might be marginally better.
it's with larger amounts that will dissuade people from working. Also it's a stupid game to hike taxes massively just to cut everyone a $500 check.

I know people who took paycuts for quality of life, and quote honestly, there is a level, below my current salary, where I'd just as well stay at home and stop working.


----------



## sags

So the debate is over and it is time to act.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Nobody disputes that if you handout a small amount of money, things might be marginally better.


I am absolutely certain JAG disputes this, but I'll let him chime in for himself.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> So the debate is over and it is time to act.


What debate? 
That generous handouts are harmful and destructive? I agree that the data is clear, but I think we should still debate it.

I am completely for programs, and even handouts, that make things better.
I think the current broken proposals can be improved in many ways, and I'd definitely support a program that results in a net benefit to society. But nobody is proposing such a system.

Just because right now, we don't have a workable UBI program doesn't mean we should stop debating how to provide assistance in a beneficial manner to those at need.
Face it, the current system is broken, we need to implement a better system, not discussing how to make it better is a bad idea.

Or are you suggesting we stop discussing, and immediately implement programs that have have demonstrated negative impacts? Are you a sociopath?
Also is it just me, or is it the lefties that tend not to want to engage in the liberal democratic approach to addressing problems.


----------



## Just a Guy

andrewf said:


> I am absolutely certain JAG disputes this, but I'll let him chime in for himself.


as usual, you are wrong. I have no issues with free money, my life would also improve marginally with free money...the problem is the money isn’t free. Explain how to pay for it and I’ll support it.

as I said before, I’ve set up my own ubi, it’s paid for by my rentals. I provide affordable housing, and I get a guaranteed income every month with minimal work...unlike the government which spends money it doesn’t have ad who’s best solutio is to take it from someone else without any benefit to that person.


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> as usual, you are wrong. I have no issues with free money, my life would also improve marginally with free money...the problem is the money isn’t free. Explain how to pay for it and I’ll support it.


With all your talk of multiple mortgages, it seems to me that you are benefiting tremendously from free money printed by central banks at rock bottom interest rates. Those are artificial rates, and you are being given free money. It's part of the public/government stimulus regime.

You're taking public handouts and getting public assistance, care of the Bank of Canada. You talk as if you're a self made man, but you are getting handouts. And profiting a lot from it, by the sounds of it.

This is a common practice among rich people, actually. They benefit from all these handouts (e.g. central banks stimulating asset prices) and then go and whine when poor people are actually given some money too.


----------



## Just a Guy

It’s not free, as I actually have to pay it back (with something called interest), every month I put tens of thousands of dollars back into the economy. I also have to qualify to get it In the first place, it’s not handed over to just anyone as you like to point out. Also, mortgages have been around long before central banks...maybe, if you learned a little about how money works you wouldn’t be so jealous of more successful people.

anyone who confuses a mortgage with ubi clearly has no clue about money.

oh, and the government is doing all that for their benefit, not mine. Imagine where the debt and deficit could be if we were back in the 80’s with 21% interest.


----------



## james4beach

Just a Guy said:


> Also, mortgages have been around long before central banks...maybe, if you learned a little about how money works you wouldn’t be so jealous of more successful people.


The rate on your mortgage is completely artificial. You are the beneficiary of a hand-out system to put credit in the hands of people, a stimulus program. Yes it does have to be paid back, but the availability of this money, is artificial.

You are getting public assistance. I think you should write a thank-you letter to the government, since they are largely funding your business. Your business would not be viable without all the government help, including the massive government stimulus specifically directed at real estate.

Does it feel good to be the beneficiary of government stimulus programs? This is the case for all the real estate investors and speculators ... you are all benefiting tremendously from government policy and stimulus.


----------



## Just a Guy

Actually, I self fund a lot of my own properties (bank money, not government money, has a lot of restrictions) so I pay myself a rate I set back to me (the availability of this money comes from my investing and businesses), or pay it outright from cash flow profits...so once again, you fail to understand how money works. Also, the reason for the low interest rates, which you want to completely ignore is the government needs it to ”afford” the 350B in handouts which it has no intention of ever paying off. the government isn’t stimulating anything, it’s bankruptIng the country...my businesses tend to create jobs, and actually stimulate the economy because I make money(I don’t print it), not take it from others.

sorry to disappoint you, I’m not the societal leach you strive to be.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> The rate on your mortgage is completely artificial. You are the beneficiary of a hand-out system to put credit in the hands of people, a stimulus program. Yes it does have to be paid back, but the availability of this money, is artificial.
> 
> You are getting public assistance. I think you should write a thank-you letter to the government, since they are largely funding your business. Your business would not be viable without all the government help, including the massive government stimulus specifically directed at real estate.
> 
> Does it feel good to be the beneficiary of government stimulus programs? This is the case for all the real estate investors and speculators ... you are all benefiting tremendously from government policy and stimulus.


Well our whole currency system is artificial, which is why people want to opt out to a system that isn't manipulated by the government.
I oppose the stimulus programs. 

I am not getting public assistance, I am paying far more than I am getting.

So, given that you think that the government is massively interfering and giving handouts to so many, do you support cutting government benefits programs and stimulus programs?
I do.


----------



## kcowan

When we rid ourselves of the current PM, we will need to seek someone that represents traditional Liberal values. Then we might return to the kind of government that Cretien/
Martin gave us. I can only hope. The other choice is tax evasion ...


----------



## MrMatt

kcowan said:


> When we rid ourselves of the current PM, we will need to seek someone that represents traditional Liberal values. Then we might return to the kind of government that Cretien/
> Martin gave us. I can only hope. The other choice is tax evasion ...


I don't know, a lot of people, particularly the young, seem to think that free speech and open debate are harmful, if not literal violence. 
I'm not being hyperbolic, some people think speech is violence. It's terrifying.


----------



## wayward__son

MrMatt said:


> Well our whole currency system is artificial, which is why people want to opt out to a system that isn't manipulated by the government.
> I oppose the stimulus programs.
> 
> I am not getting public assistance, I am paying far more than I am getting.
> 
> So, given that you think that the government is massively interfering and giving handouts to so many, do you support cutting government benefits programs and stimulus programs?
> I do.


sure, if we could fire up the old time machine, not do QE and let the free market set interest rates. Asset owners got a whole lot of central bank welfare over the last decade and change.


----------



## Just a Guy

You mean the people paying taxes, interest, your wages etc? What did the $350B do, and how is it ever getting paid back?


----------



## kcowan

I think there is a case for long term debt as a result of the pandemic. I am just opposed to the indescriminant giveaway by this government, in some cases due to government incompetence which they admitted.


----------



## MrMatt

kcowan said:


> I think there is a case for long term debt as a result of the pandemic. I am just opposed to the indescriminant giveaway by this government, in some cases due to government incompetence which they admitted.


I agree, but they were growing the debt at an astonishing rate BEFORE the pandemic.
Apparently they don't have any intention of ever making a budget either.


----------



## Retired Peasant

No worries. The budget will balance itself.


----------



## sags

Canada doesn't have a debt problem.

The cost of servicing the debt is lower than it was pre-pandemic.

If the debt servicing costs rise it will be due to a strong economy which produces increased revenues for the government, from which it can pay the rising servicing costs.

Worrying about Canada's debt is like worrying about a $1,000 mortgage on a $1,000,000 home.

Canada has a $1 Trillion debt on assets of infinite value.


----------



## afulldeck

sags said:


> Canada doesn't have a debt problem.
> 
> The cost of servicing the debt is lower than it was pre-pandemic.
> 
> If the debt servicing costs rise it will be due to a strong economy which produces increased revenues for the government, from which it can pay the rising servicing costs.
> 
> Worrying about Canada's debt is like worrying about a $1,000 mortgage on a $1,000,000 home.
> 
> Canada has a $1 Trillion debt on assets of infinite value.


What strange math you have. What Canadian assets have infinite value: Wood? Oil? Minerals? Potash?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Canada doesn't have a debt problem.
> 
> The cost of servicing the debt is lower than it was pre-pandemic.
> 
> If the debt servicing costs rise it will be due to a strong economy which produces increased revenues for the government, from which it can pay the rising servicing costs.
> 
> Worrying about Canada's debt is like worrying about a $1,000 mortgage on a $1,000,000 home.
> 
> Canada has a $1 Trillion debt on assets of infinite value.


The "cost of servicing the debt" is an illusion. 
We already have dangerously low interest rates, and are really running the risk of massive inflation.

Also the strong economy needs productivity, which won't be achieved with people sitting at home on UBI rather than working.
It is well documented that the overly generous COVID19 benefits did result in labour shortages, despite people being "unemployed"


----------



## sags

afulldeck said:


> What strange math you have. What Canadian assets have infinite value: Wood? Oil? Minerals? Potash?


Fresh water, productive farm land, hydroelectric power, renewable forests, renewable fishing resources......

Governments have only recently attempted to quantify the wealth, but renewable fresh water alone has incalculable wealth.


----------



## off.by.10

sags said:


> Fresh water, productive farm land, hydroelectric power, renewable forests, renewable fishing resources......


The last three are already fairly well tapped out. Not sure about the second but a lot of it is in use, certainly. Think you can service the debt with fresh water? lol Having a lot extra is worthless unless we can trade it for something else we want.

The complete nonsense you're constantly posting is really tiring for everyone trying to have an actual discussion.


----------



## sags

An example of what Canada's wealth of assets are worth........

_At Monday's announcement, *Economy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon spoke at length about the province's deposits of lithium and nickel — key components in electric vehicle batteries — as well as its supply of low-emission hydroelectricity.*

"If we play our cards right, we could become world leaders in this market of the future," Fitzgibbon said.

*Currently, many of those strategic minerals found in Quebec are exported to Asia where they are turned into battery cells, and then imported back to Quebec by companies like Lion, said Mickaël Dollé, a chemistry professor at the Université de Montréal.*

By opening a battery assembly plant in Quebec, Lion could help stimulate more cell-makers to set up shop in the province. Further localizing the supply chain, Dollé said, means better value and a greener product. _



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/trudeau-legault-electric-vehicle-announcement-1.5949998


----------



## afulldeck

sags said:


> An example of what Canada's wealth of assets are worth........
> 
> _At Monday's announcement, *Economy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon spoke at length about the province's deposits of lithium and nickel — key components in electric vehicle batteries — as well as its supply of low-emission hydroelectricity.*
> 
> "If we play our cards right, we could become world leaders in this market of the future," Fitzgibbon said.
> 
> *Currently, many of those strategic minerals found in Quebec are exported to Asia where they are turned into battery cells, and then imported back to Quebec by companies like Lion, said Mickaël Dollé, a chemistry professor at the Université de Montréal.*
> 
> By opening a battery assembly plant in Quebec, Lion could help stimulate more cell-makers to set up shop in the province. Further localizing the supply chain, Dollé said, means better value and a greener product. _
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/trudeau-legault-electric-vehicle-announcement-1.5949998


Hardly infinite value. But if we did have infinite value, we would have no debt.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Fresh water, productive farm land, hydroelectric power, renewable forests, renewable fishing resources......
> 
> Governments have only recently attempted to quantify the wealth, but renewable fresh water alone has incalculable wealth.


Uhh, we don't have unlimited fresh water. We're just using it at a mostly sustainable level today.
Farm land ? we are plowing under the farm land for developments, cheaper to import from Mexico.
Hydroelectric power? Where? and how much environmental damage are we willing to tolerate for another hydropower station?


----------



## sags

The Liberal convention is coming up in April (held virtually), and a top listed priority is a UBI.

There are progressives in the party, including MPs and cabinet ministers that want to create a UBI.

PM Trudeau is resisting the idea during a time of pandemic spending.

A UBI in some form is likely to become Liberal policy and an election platform.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The Liberal convention is coming up in April (held virtually), and a top listed priority is a UBI.
> 
> There are progressives in the party, including MPs and cabinet ministers that want to create a UBI.
> 
> PM Trudeau is resisting the idea during a time of pandemic spending.
> 
> A UBI in some form is likely to become Liberal policy and an election platform.


Done wrong UBI is a corrosive and horrible idea.

I'm shocked that even Trudeau, the guy who doesn't believe in budgets would be pulling back.


----------



## Arctic_White

sags said:


> The Liberals have hinted at what their version of a guaranteed basic income would look like.
> 
> They consider child benefits and OAS as guaranteed basic incomes already, and will focus any new program on single, low wage earners who don't already collect some form of government benefits.
> 
> The benefit would not be "universal" basic income but a "guaranteed" basic income similar to the guaranteed basic income for seniors in the form of the GIS benefit.
> 
> The notion that Liberals will give a budget breaking benefit universally to every Canadian is fear mongering by Conservatives. The Liberals have never said they would consider such a broad program.
> 
> A simplified way of looking at it is the GIS benefit extended to all Canadians in need.


Having an expanded GIS to our senior citizens in need is something I whole-heartedy support.


----------



## MrMatt

Arctic_White said:


> Having an expanded GIS to our senior citizens in need is something I whole-heartedy support.


I honestly don't know how to solve the reality that too many people didn't save for retirement.
I think it is unfair that we give handouts to those who didn't save, but those who DID save don't get the same handouts.
It's important to note GIS is based on annual income, not lifetime income, it is entirely possible that people who made more money during their working life, and spent all of it will be rewarded with handouts, while those who were a bit more responsible won't get them.


----------



## Thal81

I agree that the current system is terrible because it can't distinguish between people who need GIS because of their life circumstances and those who were flatly irresponsible with money. The problems also exist with OAS. For example, my parents are wealthy yet they get OAS, which is totally absurd.

I think the government should reform OAS and GIS. If it were me, I would completely get rid of these programs and instead boost CPP from 10% to 15-20%. This means the money would come from people's wages in their working life rather than general tax revenues, so it would greatly help the government with its budget. And then, if it doesn't exist already, modify CPP so spouses who didn't work much (stay-at-home parents) can benefit from their working spouse's CPP even after the spouse passes away.

Sadly it means more forced savings which I'm generally against, however I prefer forcing people to save more than having my tax dollars used to support people in their old age.

edit: corrected GIC --> GIS. I suck at accronyms!


----------



## nathan79

GIS serves an important purpose. What if someone is widowed and their spouse was the main income earner? Increasing CPP won't help in that situation. I would say get rid of OAS for sure, and use the savings to increase GIS. Increasing CPP is also a good idea though.

UBI is a non-starter... but some form of GMI (guaranteed minimum income) is a likely outcome. Even at that I'm guessing the amount would be quite small.


----------



## MrMatt

nathan79 said:


> GIS serves an important purpose. What if someone is widowed and their spouse was the main income earner? Increasing CPP won't help in that situation. I would say get rid of OAS for sure, and use the savings to increase GIS. Increasing CPP is also a good idea though.
> 
> UBI is a non-starter... but some form of GMI (guaranteed minimum income) is a likely outcome. Even at that I'm guessing the amount would be quite small.


All but the craziest would start small. But remember, this is Canada, once you get 35%+ of the vote, you're in majority government territory.

Promise to increase the GMI/UBI and you'll win again and again.

This is why Ontario Teachers are among the highest paid in the world, you win the teachers union, you win the election


----------



## sags

I would be interested in an audit of the CPP to see if benefits being currently paid are relative to the size of the fund.

The fund has exceeded benchmarks for a long time and the fund is much higher than was ever projected.

As the fund grew and the benchmarks were beat.......there was a compounding effect.

A higher return on a larger amount of money.......should increase benefits.

The CPPIB say they don't consider such matters. It isn't within their mandate.

So the fund could grow to $100 Trillion dollars and people would still collect an average of $500 a month.

If the benefits can't be increased.....so be it, but at least we should know the numbers.

I think for sure though, the death benefit of $2500 maximum should be increased.

That might have been sufficient 30 years ago, but isn't even close now.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> I would be interested in an audit of the CPP to see if benefits being currently paid are relative to the size of the fund.
> 
> The fund has exceeded benchmarks for a long time and the fund is much higher than was ever projected.


Pension accounting is tricky. A few years of good performance aren't the end of the story.

This has been a great few years for the CPP, which is excellent, but it doesn't automatically mean they can boost future payouts. Would you also want them to reduce payouts if we get a stretch of a few bad years?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Pension accounting is tricky. A few years of good performance aren't the end of the story.
> 
> This has been a great few years for the CPP, which is excellent, but it doesn't automatically mean they can boost future payouts. Would you also want them to reduce payouts if we get a stretch of a few bad years?


Pension account is nearly impossible.
What if there is a new breakthrough and lives are dramatically extended?


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Pension accounting is tricky. A few years of good performance aren't the end of the story.
> 
> This has been a great few years for the CPP, which is excellent, but it doesn't automatically mean they can boost future payouts. Would you also want them to reduce payouts if we get a stretch of a few bad years?


CPP has massively outperformed what they need to do to be actuarially sustainable. Assuming we don't have any massive surprises on lifespan.


----------



## off.by.10

MrMatt said:


> I honestly don't know how to solve the reality that too many people didn't save for retirement.


Forced savings (ie. bigger CPP) is the least unfair solution I can see. It's not very popular because it's a "pay now, collect much later" deal but it does help with people who just spend all the money they have and later need handouts.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> CPP has massively outperformed what they need to do to be actuarially sustainable. Assuming we don't have any massive surprises on lifespan.


Also consider the declining birthrate, and ultra-low interest rate environment.


----------



## andrewf

off.by.10 said:


> Forced savings (ie. bigger CPP) is the least unfair solution I can see. It's not very popular because it's a "pay now, collect much later" deal but it does help with people who just spend all the money they have and later need handouts.


We are overpaying now to compensate for underfunding by Greatest Generation and Boomers. The CPP expansion is at least more actuarially fair. Prior to that, 60% of CPP contributions were paying for your pension, 40% was to compensate for prior undercontribution.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> We are overpaying now to compensate for underfunding by Greatest Generation and Boomers. The CPP expansion is at least more actuarially fair. Prior to that, 60% of CPP contributions were paying for your pension, 40% was to compensate for prior undercontribution.


Yup, I'm spending my working years paying for the irresponsibility of my parents generation, and we have a slew of young people who want UBI so they don't have to work, and expect us to pay for that too.

To be fair, boomers based their assumption on.
1. Stable birthrate. This changed with birth control and widespread abortion.
2. Continued strong growth. This wasn't sustainable, there was massive innovation, and a dramatic increase in the available workforce.

I'm not saying innovation and productivity growth is not happening, but throughout history, you can see that productivity growth isn't a straight line, it's very bumpy.

In retrospect those assumptions were wrong, but they seemed okay at the time.


----------



## Just a Guy

Now Matt, thanks to Justin and his $400B, we’ve more than screwed the next generation...outdoing what our parents did to us...and remember, we’re not done yet.


----------



## sags

It was baby boomers who built up the CPP fund while paying the benefits for the previous generation, but they have not received a good return on their contributions. I was born in 1950 and paid the maximum into the CPP for 40 years of uninterrupted work. My employers also contributed for those 40 years.

The return on my contributions looks about 2%.

That is pretty shabby considering the CPP gained much more than 2% returns for decades.

The CPP returned over 10% net earnings annually over the past 10 years.

They are earning substantial returns on witheld boomer money.


----------



## sags

Now look at these numbers from the CPPIB. Sharp increases in the fund to $1.8 Trillion by 2040.









Our Performance | The Fund | CPP Investments


Our management strategy and innovative approach to portfolio management deliver the performance levels needed to keep the CPP sustainable over many generations.




www.cppinvestments.com


----------



## MrMatt

Just a Guy said:


> Now Matt, thanks to Justin and his $400B, we’ve more than screwed the next generation...outdoing what our parents did to us...and remember, we’re not done yet.


Well I'm in my prime working years, so yeah it hurts.

It's going to hit the millenials that voted for Trudeau pretty hard, which they deserve having voted for that idiot.

I feel really bad for the school aged kids who are going to try and start lives in the mess millenials made.


----------



## sags

All the roads, bridges, highways, water treatment plants, parks, schools, universities, hospitals, and every other thing that past generations have built over the past 155 years, while acquiring est. $1.4 Trillion in debt........which is $600 billion less than the one bill just passed by Congress for $1.9 Trillion........and you guys think Canada is in terrible shape ?

A little perspective needed here........


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> It's going to hit the millenials that voted for Trudeau pretty hard, which they deserve having voted for that idiot.


Wait, are we pretending the Conservatives would not have done anything to support the economy and Canadians? Balanced budget this year? Hilarious!


----------



## Just a Guy

So, because someone else would screw up, that makes it okay for others to as well? No wonder so many people are begging for ubi.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Wait, are we pretending the Conservatives would not have done anything to support the economy and Canadians? Balanced budget this year? Hilarious!


Even excluding the COVID spending, Trudeau has been reckless , even before COVID he was pretty clear that he had no intention of ever balancing the budget.

I do think a massive spend during this crisis is appropriate. I even said back last year that the Trudeau emergency support handouts weren't enough.

Trudeau didn't care about government finances before the COVID crisis, and now he's just using it as an incredibly convenient excuse to continue his irresponsible ways.
Like come one, he could at LEAST put out a budget.


----------



## Just a Guy

when income is the same as debt payments the budget will balance itself.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I would be interested in an audit of the CPP to see if benefits being currently paid are relative to the size of the fund.


Why an audit? That's not what an audit is.


Just look at the financial reports that they publish.








CPP Investments


CPP Investments is a global investment management organisation that invests the assets of the Canada Pension Plan and operates at arm's length from government.




www.cppinvestments.com


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Even excluding the COVID spending, Trudeau has been reckless , even before COVID he was pretty clear that he had no intention of ever balancing the budget.
> 
> I do think a massive spend during this crisis is appropriate. I even said back last year that the Trudeau emergency support handouts weren't enough.
> 
> Trudeau didn't care about government finances before the COVID crisis, and now he's just using it as an incredibly convenient excuse to continue his irresponsible ways.
> Like come one, he could at LEAST put out a budget.


I am more than willing to criticize the spending this year. It could have been more efficient. I advocated zero interest loans instead of grants for CERB. But to pretend that but for Trudeau being re-elected this year we wouldn't have run a deficit is pure fantasyland nonsense. Had Scheer won instead, would the deficit have been $350B or $300B instead? Maybe.


----------



## andrewf

If CPP reserves are higher than needed for benefits, the answer is to lower the current overcontributions that are in place to provide those benefits, not to give sags a gift increase in benefits.


----------



## diharv

Just a Guy said:


> when income is the same as debt payments the budget will balance itself.


But with Trudope's way, the income will be the same as the interest alone to service the debt. When it gets to that point, he'll say "See? It's balancing itself!"


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I am more than willing to criticize the spending this year. It could have been more efficient. I advocated zero interest loans instead of grants for CERB. But to pretend that but for Trudeau being re-elected this year we wouldn't have run a deficit is pure fantasyland nonsense. Had Scheer won instead, would the deficit have been $350B or $300B instead? Maybe.


I actually don't think zero interest loans are a good idea, too many people are so far in debt they're basically bankrupt.
Most importantly the people most in need of help are those who don't have the resources.

Maybe "interest free" written off over the next X 5+ years at a prescribed rate assuming income levels would also be good, but again I'd be concerned about accidentally creating a poverty trap.

I would have preferred a Universal handout (taxable), or something.
Because the goal was to have people stay at home and not go to work, the correct solution would be UBI.



Growing up in a low income area, I'm particularly sensitive to poverty traps. 
Almost 40 years later I remember 7yr olds saying they wanted to be welfare recipients, or little girls say they wanted lots of babies for baby bonus, so they could watch Pay TV all day. First Choice and Superchannel (IIRC) were a big deal back then.
Even now I know some of those families were getting together to work on their latest plans to get more handouts so they wouldn't have to work. What disabilities could they claim etc etc.
Such a horrible waste.


----------



## sags

I grew up in a low income area and everyone wanted a steady job with good pay and benefits.

I don't think subsisting on welfare is as great a life as Conservatives say it is.


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> If CPP reserves are higher than needed for benefits, the answer is to lower the current overcontributions that are in place to provide those benefits, not to give sags a gift increase in benefits.


Give the boomers the money accumulated by them since 1967 and the next generations get what they have contributed.

People are paying higher contributions because they will be getting higher benefits.

A 2% return on boomer's money is pitiful. They would have been better off buying CSBs.

Who would buy an annuity that paid them out 2% a year in retirement until they died ?


----------



## andrewf

Gen X and Millenials will have paid more into CPP than boomers. Why should boomers get a bump in benefits at the expense of later generations? Boomers started work in 1970 or so, and until the late 90s, the CPP was undercontributed and contributions were raised. Gen X and Millenials will pay the higher rate for their whole careers. If anything, they deserve a break on the overcontributions. Poor returns on CPP before the reforms in the 90s are the fault of political decisions made during that time.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Give the boomers the money accumulated by them since 1967 and the next generations get what they have contributed.
> 
> People are paying higher contributions because they will be getting higher benefits.
> 
> A 2% return on boomer's money is pitiful. They would have been better off buying CSBs.
> 
> Who would buy an annuity that paid them out 2% a year in retirement until they died ?


Sags, you don't know the history here.

It wasn't until the 90's when they decided that maybe you should only get out the money you put in.
The Liberals actually started fixing the problem. (look at that, giving credit to the Liberals, me!)

The reason we pay higher contributions today, and basically since inception, CPP was obligated to pay people more than they contributed.
So working people like me, and even those retiring now, have been paying more in premiums than can expect to get back, because we have to make up the massive shortfall.

Of course most people would be better off buying CSBs, when your contributions go to pay someone elses benefits, and aren't investing for you it hurts the returns substantially.
That being said, they started managing CPP properly a few decades ago, and it's actually a much better forced savings program these days.

As for who would buy a 2% annuity? Why do you ask, CPP doesn't pay 2%. 

Maximum contribution for CPP uis just over $6k/yr, maximum payout is just over $14k/yr Inflation adjusted
For a 20 year working career, that's a decent deal.


----------



## Just a Guy

Let me guess, sags, the king of “tax the rich and give it to me” is upset that he has to pay more cpp than he’ll get to keep for himself...so glad there is a block poster option on this board.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> As for who would buy a 2% annuity? Why do you ask, CPP doesn't pay 2%.
> 
> Maximum contribution for CPP uis just over $6k/yr, maximum payout is just over $14k/yr Inflation adjusted
> For a 20 year working career, that's a decent deal.


Great.......now calculate it with the 39 years of maximum contributions you need to qualify for that maximum CPP benefit.....(47 years minus the "drop out" years.)

After 20 years of contributions, you might get 50% of the full benefit......$7,000 a year.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Great.......now calculate it with the 39 years of maximum contributions you need to qualify for that maximum CPP benefit.


Do you have that calculation handy? I'd like to see the math of 39 years * max contributions to see what one really gets for 14,000/yr indexed (somewhat?) to inflation.


----------



## sags

The Fraser Institute has done several studies on it.

The question I am asking is how much "surplus" invested cash is appropriate.

_The returns of the CPPIB do not in any direct way influence the CPP retirement benefits received by individual Canadian workers. CPP retirement benefits are basically determined by the number of years a person works, their earnings in each year (relative to the maximum under the CPP), and the age at which they retire. The returns to the CPPIB, however, do benefit workers and retirees indirectly. *Specifically, the returns earned by the CPPIB can reduce the need for higher contribution rates. In addition, sustained over-performance by the CPPIB over time could allow for a reduction in the contribution rate and/ or an increase in the benefits paid. * However, the opposite is also plausible, whereby under-performance by the CPPIB could necessitate higher contribution rates and/or reduced benefits. _



https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/rates-of-return-for-the-canada-pension-plan-exec-summary.pdf


----------



## cainvest

Found this on the subject ... seems like those close to retirement have it good with CPP.
Is CPP a good deal?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Great.......now calculate it with the 39 years of maximum contributions you need to qualify for that maximum CPP benefit.....(47 years minus the "drop out" years.)
> 
> After 20 years of contributions, you might get 50% of the full benefit......$7,000 a year.


Good, you made claim under those circumstances, it's 2%, please substantiate it.
Or is it another case of sags says random @[email protected]#[email protected]#

Oh wait, just saw the article where the real rate of return exceeds 2%. Good job finding data that in the worst case still disproves your claim.
A real return of OVER 2%, means an actual return significantly higher than you can get with CSBs or really any low risk investment.
Good luck even hitting a 0% real return with GICs or CSBs today.


Mostly because we have to pay off all that boomer debt. << don't you people see why all this government debt is bad? We are screwing over our future generations because of greed.


----------



## sags

cainvest said:


> Found this on the subject ... seems like those close to retirement have it good with CPP.
> Is CPP a good deal?


Thanks for the link. It is informative and puts things into context.

I post the relevant information here to refer to :

_Let’s say Bill started working 40 years ago. Back then heonly contributed 1.8% of your pay to a maximum of $135.00. From this point, every year hiscontribution amount would have gone up because of inflation adjustments and increases to the contribution rate. Over the course of 40 years, hewould have contributed $44,692.80. Bill’s employer would have also matched his contributions. Today, 40 years later, Bill would be eligible for a CPP retirement benefit of $1092.50 per month or $13,110 per year. Is that good or bad?

If we look at it from the perspective of how much money would we need today as a lump sum to generate an annual income of $13,110 per year, we can estimate that we would need somewhere between $230,000 and $330,000. Let’s say Bill could have taken his CPP contributions along with the employer contributions and invested it himself he would need to earn somewhere between 6.5% and 8.8% to achieve the $230,000 to $330,000. If Bill did not have the employer contributions, it would be very difficult to replicate a pension of $1092.50 per month._

If the assumptions are correct, and they look close enough to be valid, Bill and his employer contributed about $90,000 over the 40 year time span.

With an assumed return of a reasonable 7% per year, Bill would have accummulated about $300,000. (the TSX returned 9.3% annually over the past 40 years but the CPPIB has likely performed as comparably well)

Bill draws $1100 a month out of his pile of cash....which is less than 5% a year.

It appears that all Bill is doing is withdrawing less cash per year than his capital is generating.

*That is the part I am talking about. What happens to Bill's capital ?*

The CPP was a great idea, but I think the return on investment needs to evaluated.

The CPP has $475 billion of Bill and everyone's money.

I have seen forecasts from the CPPIB where they may have to start spending "some" of the investment gains to pay for benefits to retirees in the future, but never seen any time period in the future where they spend any of the capital in the fund.

From their own projections, the fund will just continue to build.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> *That is the part I am talking about. What happens to Bill's capital ?*


Depends on their return on the investment.



sags said:


> The CPP was a great idea, but I think the return on investment is very poor.


Why is it poor? The article says the previous years were a pretty good deal.


----------



## sags

I don't see how the author comes up with that conclusion, based on his own calculations.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> I don't see how the author comes up with that conclusion, based on his own calculations.


I see it. It definitely is a real bonus for those that don't otherwise get employer matched contributions, CPP forces that part on them.

There may be more examples available via a google search that will clear things up for you.


----------



## sags

I found the answer at OSFI.

The CPP fund will just continue to grow.

The size of the fund, surplus or deficit, has no relationship to the benefits paid.

*Base CPP*

_This report confirms that the legislated contribution rate of 9.9% is sufficient to finance the base CPP over the long term. Under the legislated contribution rate, contributions to the base Plan are projected to be higher than expenditures over the period 2019 to 2021, with a portion of investment income thereafter required to pay for expenditures. Total assets of the base Plan are expected to increase significantly over the next decade and then to continue increasing, but at a slower pace. Under the legislated contribution rate of 9.9%, *base CPP assets are projected to accumulate to $688 billion by the end of 2030 and $1.7 trillion by 2050*, while the ratio of assets to the following year’s expenditures is projected to remain relatively stable at a level of 7.6 over the period 2021 to 2031, then grow to 8.8 in 2050 and continue increasing over the projection period.

The MCR of the base CPP is 9.75% for years 2022 to 2033 and 9.72% for the year 2034 and thereafter, which is lower than the legislated contribution rate of 9.9%. Thus, despite the projected substantial increase in benefits paid as a result of an aging population, the legislated rate exceeds the MCR, and the base Plan is expected to be able to meet its obligations throughout the projection period.

Since the MCR of the base CPP is below the legislated contribution rate of 9.9%, the insufficient rates provisions in subsections 113.1(11.05) to 113.1(11.15) of the Canada Pension Plan do not apply. Therefore, in the absence of specific action by the federal and provincial governments, the legislated contribution rate will remain at 9.9% for the year 2019 and thereafter._





__





Actuarial Report (30th) on the Canada Pension Plan







www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I have seen forecasts from the CPPIB where they may have to start spending "some" of the investment gains to pay for benefits to retirees in the future, but never seen any time period in the future where they spend any of the capital in the fund.


They should never spend the base capital.
That's a fundamental principle of perpetual pension plans.



> From their own projections, the fund will just continue to build.


Because the number of people in the plan will continue to build.
Every time you add a person the fund should grow.


It's important to note that funds "capital" isn't the same as the participants contributions. 
I suggest you read a basic intro to pensions, you don't seem to understand hwo they work.


----------



## sags

When pension plans have surpluses they often increase ancillary benefits or reduce contributions.

When they have shortfalls they eliminate ancillary benefits or increase contributions.

Changes to the CPP can be made through legislation.

The Liberals did discuss an increase to the CPP spousal benefit which would be a good thing.

They should also raise the life insurance from the maximum $2500.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> That isn't how it works in the pension world.
> 
> When pension plans have surpluses they often increase ancillary benefits or reduce contributions.
> 
> When they have shortfalls they eliminate ancillary benefits or increase contributions.


You're talking across yourself.

You started talking about base capital, now you're talking about surpluses and shortfalls.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, you seem to be mixing and matching terms. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. 

I'll make my point.

CPP is a pretty good forced savings plan. It's well funded, offers a decent risk adjusted return, and appears well structured for long term sustainability.
The books are published and easily visible by anyone, and it's pretty much unanimous that it is a decent program. Not perfect, but you could make an argument that it is one of the better programs out there.


----------



## andrewf

The main feature of CPP is guaranteeing to everyone else that if Bill has decent income but can't manage his money, he is forced to save at least a pittance that will support him in his retirement without having to go on welfare (GIS).


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> The main feature of CPP is guaranteeing to everyone else that if Bill has decent income but can't manage his money, he is forced to save at least a pittance that will support him in his retirement without having to go on welfare (GIS).


Unfortunately we need that.
Nobody seems capable of managing money unless someone forces them.

Individuals, governments, they're all out of control.

CPP isn't perfect, but it's a good program.
More people have retirement savings because of it, and the risk adjusted return is okay for most people.


----------



## Fain

I will entertain the idea of voting for it but only after Universal Pharmacare is implemented.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> The main feature of CPP is guaranteeing to everyone else that if Bill has decent income but can't manage his money, he is forced to save at least a pittance that will support him in his retirement without having to go on welfare (GIS).


I would add to that, it's not just a safety net for people who can't manage their own money. It's also a safety net for people who suffer severe misfortunes (bad luck) which wipes them out, in various ways. I think that many of us tend to forget about the role of luck.

Bad luck can happen to any of us, too. There are countless examples.

Perhaps a severe injury or illness that holds someone back from working. Even simple old "chronic pain" can be debilitating and is not easily resolved; it can ruin someone's life. Perhaps legal trouble resulting in bankruptcy. Maybe they have a child who is handicapped, with tons of expenses. Or just misfortune among family members which drains money out of someone's life and makes it impossible for them to save their own money.

Many of these are not the fault of the person. I think it's also good to remind ourselves that these things *could happen to us* as well.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I would add to that, it's not just a safety net for people who can't manage their own money. It's also a safety net for people who suffer severe misfortunes (bad luck) which wipes them out, in various ways. I think that many of us tend to forget about the role of luck.
> 
> Bad luck can happen to any of us, too. There are countless examples.
> 
> Perhaps a severe injury or illness that holds someone back from working. Even simple old "chronic pain" can be debilitating and is not easily resolved; it can ruin someone's life. Perhaps legal trouble resulting in bankruptcy. Maybe they have a child who is handicapped, with tons of expenses. Or just misfortune among family members which drains money out of someone's life and makes it impossible for them to save their own money.
> 
> Many of these are not the fault of the person. I think it's also good to remind ourselves that these things *could happen to us* as well.


They could, and they do.
But a lot of bad situations are the result of bad choices.

Some say it is victim blaming, but I've avoided or left many situations that weren't likely to end well.


----------



## sags

If the situation is bad now......considering boomers had it pretty good with jobs, wages, and pensions.......wait until the next generation of part time, contract workers gets close to retirement.

People with jobs are sleeping in their cars because they can't find a place to rent they can afford.

I can see the taxpayer cost of GIS climbing dramatically.

Decades of stagnant wages is going to have an economic impact.

Isn't a lack of money that the point of a UBI ?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> If the situation is bad now......considering boomers had it pretty good with jobs, wages, and pensions.......wait until the next generation of part time, contract workers gets close to retirement.
> 
> People with jobs are sleeping in their cars because they can't find a place to rent they can afford.
> 
> I can see the taxpayer cost of GIS climbing dramatically.
> 
> Decades of stagnant wages is going to have an economic impact.
> 
> Isn't a lack of money that the point of a UBI ?


People can't find a place to rent because the government discourages rental housing.

Yes GIS and other handouts will continue to increase in cost, that's why we need good sustainable solutions.

The point of UBI depends on your goal.
1. I think it's primarily a way to get a voting block, you get 1/3 of the voters hooked on free money, you're going to be perpetually in power.
2. UBI would be a very good wealth/income redistribution system.
3. UBI is seen as a way to address poverty.
4. UBI is better than the mess of systems we have.

I think there is overlap.
I think #4 is pragmatic.
I think #3 is IMO the most noble and well intentioned.
I think #2 is based on ignorance & greed.
#1, well that's just politics and the worst reason to support UBI.

Assuming it's #3, there are better options available.
For #4, I think there are many improvements that we can engage in without going to this extreme.


----------



## like_to_retire

Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) program offers an example of why UBI schemes can hurt the economy.


_Small-business owners say they cannot find enough workers willing to give up federal pandemic payments and take jobs, so they’re paring back reopening plans, potentially hampering the economic recovery.

Industry groups and business owners have warned for months that the Trudeau government’s Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) program in particular has hampered efforts to bring back workers, incentivizing some to decline work opportunities in favour of staying at home for reduced pay.

“The government is empowering people to stay home and still get paid,” said Angelo Santorelli, president of Schomberg, Ont.-based Trisan Construction.
Trisan employs around 180 people and pays its operators anywhere between $22 and $28 per hour, Santorelli said. But he has seen workers across that pay range decline work in order to continue receiving federal benefits.
“It’s not as if we’re paying them minimum wage,” he said._

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) program offers an example of why UBI schemes can hurt the economy.


CERB is a great real example of UBI.
They wanted people to stay home and not go to work. So people stayed home and didn't go to work.

If the goal is to have people stay home and not work, UBI is a great idea.


----------



## andrewf

Well, UBI is defined as not tying eligibility binarily to work. so any programs that feature that are definitionally not UBI, but rather some form of welfare/employment insurance.


----------



## Tostig

MrMatt said:


> CERB is a great real example of UBI.
> They wanted people to stay home and not go to work. So people stayed home and didn't go to work.
> 
> If the goal is to have people stay home and not work, UBI is a great idea.


The goal is to limit the spread of the virus. There's a pandemic going on, remember? The one that's keeping people who can't work from home getting sick at work because Doug Ford refused to reinstate the paid sick days he had cancelled.

It was bad enough in previous years that the same cold or flu kept circulating around the office because people kept going to work sick. Now people are ending up in the hospital because of that.


----------



## MrMatt

Tostig said:


> The goal is to limit the spread of the virus. There's a pandemic going on, remember? The one that's keeping people who can't work from home getting sick at work because Doug Ford refused to reinstate the paid sick days he had cancelled.
> 
> It was bad enough in previous years that the same cold or flu kept circulating around the office because people kept going to work sick. Now people are ending up in the hospital because of that.


I agree, UBI/CERB are a great tool to encourage people to stay home instead of going to work.
In the face of a dangerous pandemic, I think it's a fine option.

However if you are paying people to not work there are serious mid/long term consequences.

That's specifically why I support UBI as a tool to shut down the economy in the face of the pandemic (go back to March/April 2020 when I said this). And I simultaneously oppose UBI, because it will shut down/damage the economy.

My reasons to support it in one exceptional context (COVID19 response) are the EXACT same reason I oppose it.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> And I simultaneously oppose UBI, because it will shut down/damage the economy.


Empirical studies don't support this conclusion. The data from experiments show that effect on workforce participation is quite limited.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Empirical studies don't support this conclusion. The data from experiments show that effect on workforce participation is quite limited.


I'd like to see those studies, all the ones I'm aware of are flawed. The Ontario study was by design, one of the most flawed.

That being said while I think UBI is a very bad idea, I strongly support removing the poverty trap aspects from our current social support systems.


----------



## sags

like_to_retire said:


> Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) program offers an example of why UBI schemes can hurt the economy.
> 
> 
> _Small-business owners say they cannot find enough workers willing to give up federal pandemic payments and take jobs, so they’re paring back reopening plans, potentially hampering the economic recovery.
> 
> Industry groups and business owners have warned for months that the Trudeau government’s Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) program in particular has hampered efforts to bring back workers, incentivizing some to decline work opportunities in favour of staying at home for reduced pay.
> 
> “The government is empowering people to stay home and still get paid,” said Angelo Santorelli, president of Schomberg, Ont.-based Trisan Construction.
> Trisan employs around 180 people and pays its operators anywhere between $22 and $28 per hour, Santorelli said. But he has seen workers across that pay range decline work in order to continue receiving federal benefits.
> “It’s not as if we’re paying them minimum wage,” he said._
> 
> ltr


The owner is about $10 an hour below what experienced, qualified construction workers are earning with big unionized companies.

The big companies also offer extensive benefit packages and DB pensions., and are recruiting experienced trades themselves.


----------



## milhouse

Thought it might be of value to restart this thread since the last few comments discussed CERB and the Auditor General report on COVID benefits was recently released: Performance audits related to COVID-19

There's a section that specifically discusses the disincentive to work because of the CERB and CRB (the follow-up to CERB) benefits: Report 10—Specific COVID-19 Benefits

This statement stands out to me: "In our opinion, the ability for low‑income individuals to earn more on the Canada Recovery Benefit represented a disincentive to work, which impacted some labour markets at a crucial time when the need for employees was trending upwards." Note the analysis covered both CERB when people were encouraged to stay at home and CRB when people were encouraged to get back into the labour force.
Based on this, I don't think it's a stretch that a UBI would likely create a similar situation where lower income individuals would be more incentivized to stay home and collect UBI versus working part time for example. The devil is in the details of course.


----------



## sags

People had to be laid off to collect CERB, and the benefit paid $2000 a month which is significantly less than minimum wage.


----------



## MrMatt

milhouse said:


> Thought it might be of value to restart this thread since the last few comments discussed CERB and the Auditor General report on COVID benefits was recently released: Performance audits related to COVID-19
> 
> There's a section that specifically discusses the disincentive to work because of the CERB and CRB (the follow-up to CERB) benefits: Report 10—Specific COVID-19 Benefits
> 
> This statement stands out to me: "In our opinion, the ability for low‑income individuals to earn more on the Canada Recovery Benefit represented a disincentive to work, which impacted some labour markets at a crucial time when the need for employees was trending upwards." Note the analysis covered both CERB when people were encouraged to stay at home and CRB when people were encouraged to get back into the labour force.
> Based on this, I don't think it's a stretch that a UBI would likely create a similar situation where lower income individuals would be more incentivized to stay home and collect UBI versus working part time for example. The devil is in the details of course.


This was the literal and stated intention of CERB.
"Encouraged to get back into the labour force", by paying them more than their working income to stay home and not work.
This was EXPLICITLY encouragement NOT to work.

That's the problem with how they ran CERB, and a predictable outcome from UBI. 
UBI is a poverty trap.


----------



## bigmoneytalks

canew90 said:


> No matter how much they got from a Universal Income it would never be enough. Look at how many people refuse to find a basic job because they can make more on EI, welfare or they can sit at home and their parents will pay the bills.
> 
> Certainly there are those who need assistance, but the vast majority don't. Cut gov't spending\benefits, cut the handouts, cut taxes and if the only option is to find a job, than that's what they will do.


I agree with this statement except for one caveat. Seniors. We need to support them as they might not be able to get jobs at their age and we need to look after our senior citizens. Thinking about my parents here and feeling a bit of compassion for others.


----------



## HappilyRetired

sags said:


> People had to be laid off to collect CERB, and the benefit paid $2000 a month which is significantly less than minimum wage.


Minimum wage in Ontario is $15.50. 160 hours is $2480. After deductions the net pay is $2,069.65.

Minimum wage in Manitoba is $13.50. 160 hours is $2160. After deductions the net pay is $1,785.74.

Do some research, it's not that hard. Or, at the very least stop making false claims that anyone can prove wrong in 2 minutes.


----------



## sags

CERB was taxable income.


----------



## MrBlackhill

So... When it comes to minimum wage, we say that a person working full-time at minimum wage will have a hard time paying his bills so it's somehow an incentive to get a higher paid job and work more, but when it comes to CERB which is below minimum wage we now say it's an incentive to not work? Choose, it's either one or the other.


----------



## HappilyRetired

MrBlackhill said:


> So... When it comes to minimum wage, we say that a person working full-time at minimum wage will have a hard time paying his bills so it's somehow an incentive to get a higher paid job and work more, but when it comes to CERB which is below minimum wage we now say it's an incentive to not work? Choose, it's either one or the other.


Would you work 160 hours a month to earn $300? Most people wouldn't, they'd just sit on their *** and collect the money.


----------



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat

MrBlackhill said:


> So... When it comes to minimum wage, we say that a person working full-time at minimum wage will have a hard time paying his bills so it's somehow an incentive to get a higher paid job and work more, but when it comes to CERB which is below minimum wage we now say it's an incentive to not work? Choose, it's either one or the other.


I agree with a lot of your posts, not this one. Without a permanent CERB or a UBI, many people are essentially forced to work. If they are earning minimum wage, some are inclined to climb the ladder or find better opportunities. They want to broaden their knowledge and skill set and earn promotions and a higher income.

There are others, however, who would just live a lazy life of leisure at the drop of a hat if they could have UBI covering their modest expenses for the rest of their days.

There are varying work ethics and mentalities out there.

I wouldn't be opposed to a form of guaranteed income for people in certain circumstances, like low-income seniors, as mentioned by a previous poster. But I don't support the concept of a "universal" basic income for anyone who decides they want it.


----------



## HappilyRetired

A lazy couple can take in 2X $2000 UBI and rent an apartment for $1200 a month in most parts of the country. Even if it's $1500 that leaves them $2500 (pre-tax). That's plenty of money for food, booze, smokes, and a bus pass.

I know people that worked 35 years and have a pension of $4000 a month or less. Why work at all if you can get that $4000 from Day 1?


----------



## MrBlackhill

AlwaysMissingTheBoat said:


> I agree with a lot of your posts, not this one. Without a permanent CERB or a UBI, many people are essentially forced to work. If they are earning minimum wage, some are inclined to climb the ladder or find better opportunities. They want to broaden their knowledge and skill set and earn promotions and a higher income.
> 
> There are others, however, who would just live a lazy life of leisure at the drop of a hat if they could have UBI covering their modest expenses for the rest of their days.
> 
> There are varying work ethics and mentalities out there.
> 
> I wouldn't be opposed to a form of guaranteed income for people in certain circumstances, like low-income seniors, as mentioned by a previous poster. But I don't support the concept of a "universal" basic income for anyone who decides they want it.


I believe most people want to do a job they love (in that case, they work because they enjoy it) or do a job because they want to improve their situation (in that case, they work for the money) and some lucky people also do a job they love while improving their situation (in that case, they enjoy it and they get paid well for it).

How many here want to retire on low income? No one wants to retire on low income. Are there many people paid way below median wage who aren't seeking ways to increase their income? Most people want to live a nice life requiring some decent amount of money.

Now, if some people want to live a miserable life only on UBI not doing anything else than living in a crappy apartment, eating discounted food and call it a day, I couldn't care less because anyways you don't want people with that kind of mindset to work, they'll more likely be a nuisance. And if that UBI allows to reduce poverty at the expense of having a few individuals "taking advantage" of the UBI, then I'm all in with UBI. My uncle was collecting social assistance while working under table during the summers and you don't want the kind of life he had. But you also don't want that kind of employee. Does that mean he deserved to be in the streets, though? I wouldn't say that. And some people in the streets actually try to get in jail so they have shelter and food.

Also, having UBI would simplify the redistribution of money instead of all the bureaucracy needed to send money to people based on every different situations, requiring many different programs. Instead, money would be only taken back once, when collecting taxes, based on the situation during that year. Recall that every adult would get the UBI, working or not.

Another thing, at the moment, there's so many bullsh*t jobs (term coined by David Graeber in his book) only to make sure people work even though their contribution is actually worthless. With automation, there's fewer and fewer people needed in the workforce. The lack of workforce at the moment is mostly due to all those bullsh*t jobs, bureaucracy and obviously the consumerism mindset.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> This was the literal and stated intention of CERB.
> "Encouraged to get back into the labour force", by paying them more than their working income to stay home and not work.
> This was EXPLICITLY encouragement NOT to work.
> 
> That's the problem with how they ran CERB, and a predictable outcome from UBI.
> UBI is a poverty trap.


Welfare requires you not to work, UBI doesn't unduly punish work. CERB was welfare, not UBI.


----------



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat

AlwaysMissingTheBoat said:


> The lack of workforce at the moment is mostly due to all those bullsh*t jobs, bureaucracy and obviously the consumerism mindset.


That's a hard statement to prove. There's an estimated million job vacancies in Canada. You think all of those are "bullshit" jobs? Maybe a percentage, but there are a lot of legit jobs that need to be filled. Sure, people off the street aren't going to walk in and get hired for those professional and skilled positions, but I'd rather that those who are able to contribute something to the economy are paid to do it rather than sitting at home being paid to do diddly squat, even if their lives are far from glamorous. Unless they have some sort of mental illness, there are plenty of useful things they could be doing to help society.


----------



## MrBlackhill

AlwaysMissingTheBoat said:


> That's a hard statement to prove. There's an estimated million job vacancies in Canada. You think all of those are "bullshit" jobs? Maybe a percentage, but there are a lot of legit jobs that need to be filled.


The bullsh*t jobs are distributed amongst different types of jobs, some may be vacancy jobs, some may be fulfilled jobs. So, no, I don't think _all_ of the vacancy jobs are bullsh*t jobs; I think some of them are and I think some of the fulfilled jobs are. Actually, it's likely that there's more bullsh*t jobs amongst the currently fulfilled jobs than amongst the vacancy jobs.



AlwaysMissingTheBoat said:


> Sure, people off the street aren't going to walk in and get hired for those professional and skilled positions


Having a UBI could actually help them getting out of that situation and get a job at some point and start contributing to the society.



AlwaysMissingTheBoat said:


> I'd rather that those who are able to contribute something to the economy are paid to do it rather than sitting at home


I think the nuance I'm trying to make is about the mindset. If someone thinks that taking advantage of the UBI is the best option they could find to enjoy life, then they certainly don't have much ambition and have motivation issues. Therefore, you don't want those people on your team as their lack of ambition and motivation will be a nuisance due to that kind of mindset, and you'll be wasting money paying them.

I mean, as an employer, if I have to choose between someone motivated who chose to apply for the minimum wage job *even though* he collects UBI like everybody or someone lazy who reluctantly applied for the minimum wage job because he needs to pay his bills as there's no UBI, I'll pick the first one, in a world where there's UBI instead of the second one, in a world where there's no UBI.


----------



## HappilyRetired

MrBlackhill said:


> I believe most people want to do a job they love (in that case, they work because they enjoy it) or do a job because they want to improve their situation (in that case, they work for the money) and some lucky people also do a job they love while improving their situation (in that case, they enjoy it and they get paid well for it).
> 
> How many here want to retire on low income? No one wants to retire on low income. Are there many people paid way below median wage who aren't seeking ways to increase their income? Most people want to live a nice life requiring some decent amount of money.
> 
> Now, if some people want to live a miserable life only on UBI not doing anything else than living in a crappy apartment, eating discounted food and call it a day, I couldn't care less because anyways you don't want people with that kind of mindset to work, they'll more likely be a nuisance. And if that UBI allows to reduce poverty at the expense of having a few individuals "taking advantage" of the UBI, then I'm all in with UBI. My uncle was collecting social assistance while working under table during the summers and you don't want the kind of life he had. But you also don't want that kind of employee. Does that mean he deserved to be in the streets, though? I wouldn't say that. And some people in the streets actually try to get in jail so they have shelter and food.
> 
> Also, having UBI would simplify the redistribution of money instead of all the bureaucracy needed to send money to people based on every different situations, requiring many different programs. Instead, money would be only taken back once, when collecting taxes, based on the situation during that year. Recall that every adult would get the UBI, working or not.
> 
> Another thing, at the moment, there's so many bullsh*t jobs (term coined by David Graeber in his book) only to make sure people work even though their contribution is actually worthless. With automation, there's fewer and fewer people needed in the workforce. The lack of workforce at the moment is mostly due to all those bullsh*t jobs, bureaucracy and obviously the consumerism mindset.


$4000 a month for a couple is more than enough to live comfortably. Maybe not if you want to own a house in Toronto or Vancouver, but it's plenty if you're renting an average apartment in 80% of Canada it's far from miserable.


----------



## MrBlackhill

HappilyRetired said:


> $4000 a month for a couple is more than enough to live comfortably. Maybe not if you want to own a house in Toronto or Vancouver, but it's plenty if you're renting an average apartment in 80% of Canada it's far from miserable.


Propositions for UBI take into account households with 2+ adults. Mostly, some propositions say $2,000/month for an adult living alone, otherwise $1,500/month for adults living in a household, so a couple would receive $3,000/month, taxable.


----------



## KaeJS

milhouse said:


> Thought it might be of value to restart this thread since the last few comments discussed CERB and the Auditor General report on COVID benefits was recently released: Performance audits related to COVID-19
> 
> There's a section that specifically discusses the disincentive to work because of the CERB and CRB (the follow-up to CERB) benefits: Report 10—Specific COVID-19 Benefits
> 
> This statement stands out to me: "In our opinion, the ability for low‑income individuals to earn more on the Canada Recovery Benefit represented a disincentive to work, which impacted some labour markets at a crucial time when the need for employees was trending upwards." Note the analysis covered both CERB when people were encouraged to stay at home and CRB when people were encouraged to get back into the labour force.
> Based on this, I don't think it's a stretch that a UBI would likely create a similar situation where lower income individuals would be more incentivized to stay home and collect UBI versus working part time for example. The devil is in the details of course.


Shocker.


----------



## nathan79

$24,000 a year is definitely too much for a UBI. Welfare is less than half of that. I just don't see where the money would come from. There's certainly some waste that could be eliminated by replacing overlapping programs and bureaucracy, but not that much. 

Maybe start at $12,000/yr and allow another $6,000 of earned income without reducing UBI to avoid a disincentive work. Then, claw back 50 cents per dollar of the UBI above $6,000 earned income until its fully eliminated at $30,000 earned income.

Examples:

UBI alone = $12,000
$6,000 earned income + $12,000 UBI = $18,000
$10,000 earned income + $10,000 UBI = $20,000
$16,000 earned income + $7,000 UBI = $22,000
$20,000 earned income + $5,000 UBI = $23,000
$24,000 earned income + $3,000 UBI = $27,000
$30,000 earned income (no UBI)

A full-time worker earning minimum wage makes over $30,000 so they won't get any UBI.

UBI replaces OAS and welfare, however low income seniors can still get a GIS top up.


----------



## MrBlackhill

nathan79 said:


> $24,000 a year is definitely too much for a UBI. Welfare is less than half of that. I just don't see where the money would come from. There's certainly some waste that could be eliminated by replacing overlapping programs and bureaucracy, but not that much.
> 
> Maybe start at $12,000/yr and allow another $6,000 of earned income without reducing UBI to avoid a disincentive work. Then, claw back 50 cents per dollar of the UBI above $6,000 earned income until its fully eliminated at $30,000 earned income.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> UBI alone = $12,000
> $6,000 earned income + $12,000 UBI = $18,000
> $10,000 earned income + $10,000 UBI = $20,000
> $16,000 earned income + $7,000 UBI = $22,000
> $20,000 earned income + $5,000 UBI = $23,000
> $24,000 earned income + $3,000 UBI = $27,000
> $30,000 earned income (no UBI)
> 
> A full-time worker earning minimum wage makes over $30,000 so they won't get any UBI.
> 
> UBI replaces OAS and welfare, however low income seniors can still get a GIS top up.


UBI Works proposition:

_"This program would guarantee all Canadians aged 18 to 64 an income of at least 75% of the Low-Income Measure (LIM, a common measure of Canada’s poverty line), or a basic income of about $18,300 for individuals and $25,900 for couples. This basic income would be reduced by $0.50 per dollar of employment income but does not impact pensions, payments to seniors, or children."_









Who Pays for Basic Income? Probably not you. — How to Pay for Basic Income in Canada


If your money comes from a paycheque, you likely won’t pay for it. We can fund a Basic Income with contributions from our financial sector and by reducing tax breaks for large corporations and subsidies used by the wealthiest in Canada.




www.ubiworks.ca


----------



## sags

I wouldn't hold my breath for the government to be overly generous with the UBI. They increased the OAS by a piddly 10% after seniors reach 75 years of age.

Chrystia Freeland has said that any new benefit would be a Guaranteed Basic Income that targets low income singles who don't qualify for other benefits.


----------



## KaeJS

sags said:


> They increased the OAS by a piddly 10% after seniors reach 75 years of age.


But all the workers are getting the same size raise, right? 10% a year added to their wages? 🤣


----------



## sags

Yes.....all workers get the increase when they are 75, as long as they qualify for OAS.

Now you got something to look forward to when you get old.

While you are waiting, I would hope you get at least an equal raise of $60 a month from your employer.

That is what.......a 40 cents a hour increase ?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Welfare requires you not to work, UBI doesn't unduly punish work. CERB was welfare, not UBI.


It really matters how they construct the program, and how it is implemented.



MrBlackhill said:


> UBI Works proposition:
> 
> _"This program would guarantee all Canadians aged 18 to 64 an income of at least 75% of the Low-Income Measure (LIM, a common measure of Canada’s poverty line), or a basic income of about $18,300 for individuals and $25,900 for couples. This basic income would be reduced by $0.50 per dollar of employment income but does not impact pensions, payments to seniors, or children."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Pays for Basic Income? Probably not you. — How to Pay for Basic Income in Canada
> 
> 
> If your money comes from a paycheque, you likely won’t pay for it. We can fund a Basic Income with contributions from our financial sector and by reducing tax breaks for large corporations and subsidies used by the wealthiest in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ubiworks.ca


Ahh, the free money argument in favour of UBI.
We'll tax the rich and THEY will pay for this thing you want.
Honestly if we could hike taxes to have billions more in government funding, without any negative impacts, I'm all for it.
Tax the [email protected]# and use it to fund the things we need. The problem is that nothing is free, and there are ALWAYS trade offs.

So lets take the funding problem away from UBI. Lets look at it as a good policy, on its merits, and if we should continue we should then look to see what programs we should cancel to pay for it.


The problem is that we can't even afford to raise the personal basic deduction to the poverty line, what makes you think we can guarantee a handout to at least that level?

I'm actually in favour of a UBI, under the precondition that it is NOT a disincentive to work.
I've never seen a program that actually achieves this aim, and I don't believe that the people pushing this even consider that an important criteria, and are not designing their plans accordingly.

Implementing a UBI that disincentives value creation in the economy is destructive.


----------



## sags

Raising the personal basic deduction would benefit everyone, including the wealthy........so that would not be targeted enough.

The best way is to reduce the theshold for OAS clawbacks, rename the benefit and expand it to everyone earning below the threshold.

It would redistribute the benefit to those who need it from those who don't.

The current clawback structure for the OAS benefit is ridiculously high anyways. People can debate what the clawback structure should be.

If that doesn't raise enough money to pay for the UBI.....return to a lifetime capital gains exemption and tax anything above that at normal tax rates.

People may not know but it wasn't that long ago there was a lifetime capital gain exemption of $100,000 and people paid taxes on the rest.

_What is the clawback amount for OAS in 2022? 

The clawback amount for OAS in 2022 is* $81,761*. The minimum income recovery threshold for the 2022 tax year is $81,761 and the maximum income threshold is* $133,141*. The clawback rate is *15% on the portion of your income that exceeds the minimum threshold........*.Nov 21, 2022_


----------



## m3s

Just Trudeau plans to replace OAS with MAiD

It's the secret weapon of the liberals to fix the healthcare system and budget

Probably Klaus whispered the idea to him


----------



## HappilyRetired

sags said:


> Raising the personal basic deduction would benefit everyone, including the wealthy........so that would not be targeted enough.


Typical liberal idiotic thought process...if someone better off than you might benefit then don't do it. It's better that poor people suffer than a well-off person get the same tax break.


----------



## MrBlackhill

I'm fully willing to increase the basic personal amount if the revenue lost is compensated by increasing the tax on the higher tax brackets.


----------



## HappilyRetired

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm fully willing to increase the basic personal amount if the revenue lost is compensated by increasing the tax on the higher tax brackets.


And if not, you'd rather that poor people suffer?

That's why liberals love full socialism and communism...they'd prefer that everyone have nothing rather than someone have more than them. Even if the poor person is better off when rich people do better, they are too selfish and greedy to accept it.


----------



## MrBlackhill

HappilyRetired said:


> And if not, you'd rather that poor people suffer?
> 
> That's why liberals love full socialism and communism...they'd prefer that everyone have nothing rather than someone have more than them. Even if the poor person is better off when rich people do better, they are too selfish and greedy to accept it.


Because increasing the basic personal amount means less revenue for the government, which means less money for public services and benefits, which means the poor isn't better off after all. But if you can increase that basic personal amount without reducing government revenue and with the same level of public services and benefits, then I'm all in.


----------



## londoncalling

Nothing to do with UBI but I agree that the basic personal amount needs to be raised. The net benefit in dollar amount is the same for all but the outcome on how it can change one's situation is much different. For the wealthiest it will make next to no difference. For the lowest earners it has the potential to make significant change in their lives. Granted many will not capitalize on the benefit due to other reasons (financial illiteracy, addictions, etc.). However, the lost tax revenue needs to be made up either though other revenue or a reduction of other expenditure. OAS clawback seems the most obvious and logical but there isn't a single politician in Ottawa bold enough to make that statement let alone implement legislation to that effect. Much easier to just keep spending. Most people either don't understand or don't care.


----------



## MrBlackhill

londoncalling said:


> The net benefit in dollar amount is the same for all but the outcome on how it can change one's situation is much different. For the wealthiest it will make next to no difference. For the lowest earners it has the potential to make significant change in their lives.


I'm not sure about this argument though. Last spring when our government in Quebec sent $500 to everybody making less than $100,000 net income, we could use that argument and say "well, $500 is only +0.5% on a $100,000 income whereas $500 is +2% on a $25,000 income", sure but still, someone making $100,000 definitely doesn't need those $500 to deal with inflation whereas someone making $25,000 definitely needs help dealing with inflation, so it would've been even better if he had received even more money by not sending $500 cheques to people making $100,000 and target only those in need.


----------



## londoncalling

Perhaps I didn't word my post clearly. I agree that those that make over 100k are in a better position to fight inflation and likely don't need it. That was the gist of my post. With any hand out policy there will be those that don't need it that receive it. There will also be some that don't receive it that are in greater need than a few that received it. 

When threshold limits are set there is always room to criticize the policy. One has to decide why 100k? why not 60k? A cutoff number number is needed when it is not given to all. I chose 60k at random. Who decides at what point someone is in need and what are the factors? That is the problem with "free" money. Everybody wants it. If I was in Quebec I would prefer to be the person making $99 999 than the person making $100 001. A think we need to look at the deeper issue. Creating money out of thin air is not benefitting the majority.


----------



## coptzr

londoncalling said:


> Perhaps I didn't word my post clearly. I agree that those that make over 100k are in a better position to fight inflation and likely don't need it.


Disagree.
CERB, child benefit cheques, and misc rebates have proven this.
A household making over $100k per year will spend more and benefit lower income households.
The higher income household is typically not a diy or end user of products. Lower income earners typically buy used, cheaper, disposable or wasteful products.

You give more to them and none to me, I will give none to them and demand more for my used products.

I keep biting my tongue, after seeing how many people I know abused the handouts over the past 3 years which enabled the wheel of abuse within their household, cashable handouts don't improve society other than retail/corporate profit.

Maybe the government should support employee benefits such as paid sick time or medical/dental top ups.
Maybe the government should make mandatory programs for low income earners such as job training, addiction rehabilitation, child/spouse counseling, or homecare services.
Dumping cash in their mailbox or bank account does NOT work.


----------



## MrBlackhill

londoncalling said:


> With any hand out policy there will be those that don't need it that receive it.


Which is very similar to increasing the basic personal amount, as every taxpayer would benefit from it, even though the high-income earners don't really need that benefit. That's why I'd balance it out with an increase in taxes on the higher tax brackets, that way the low-income would benefit from the increase of the personal amount, then the lower-middle class would also benefit and that benefit would slowly disappear as they move towards higher-middle class reaching the higher tax brackets and finally the high-income would have to pay a bit more taxes but due to their situation it's within noise-level and would barely see it. I mean, as someone making 6-figure income, whether I end up paying $40k in taxes or $42k I'm not even seeing it, whereas someone paying $10k taxes now paying $9k is a great relief to them.



londoncalling said:


> When threshold limits are set there is always room to criticize the policy. One has to decide why 100k? why not 60k? A cutoff number number is needed when it is not given to all. I chose 60k at random. Who decides at what point someone is in need and what are the factors? That is the problem with "free" money. Everybody wants it. If I was in Quebec I would prefer to be the person making $99 999 than the person making $100 001. A think we need to look at the deeper issue. Creating money out of thin air is not benefitting the majority.


I think in Quebec they used $100,000 because it's a psychological threshold (reaching a 6-figure net income) and it was benefiting 95% of taxpayers therefore as a centre-right government they like giving money to all without properly targeting the needs of the poor.

And it was pretty stupid because it didn't take into account the situation: single or with partner, having children or not, they didn't care and gave the same $500 to every individual.

As for the threshold, they gave $500 to everybody up to $100,000 net income, but then $400 to those making $101k, $300 to those making $102k, etc. and $0 to those making $105k net income.

If I compare this to what the federal government did, I believe the federal government did a better job at targeting the low-income and the specific household situations by using the GST credit. It makes no sense to me that as a household making $200k+ gross income, we got 2x $500 from our provincial government* whereas it makes total sense to me that we obviously got nothing from that GST credit from the federal government.

*And it actually doesn't stop there as our provincial government decided to give more money recently in December (with a "better targeting") which was $600 to individuals making less than $50k net otherwise $400 to those making up to $100k net. So a couple with no kids making $200k net income ($100k each) received a total of $1,800 this year whereas a single mom with 2 kids making $50k net income received $900 this year.

All this analogy is the reason why I believe we should properly target the low-income only, therefore if we increase the basic personal amount I'd be super happy but only if it's balanced by increasing taxes on the higher brackets (or any other solution to keep the same level of public services and benefits).


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm fully willing to increase the basic personal amount if the revenue lost is compensated by increasing the tax on the higher tax brackets.


I'm fulling willing to increase the tax on higher tax brackets, and pay more tax, if they stop wasting billions of dollars, AND stop using tax dollars to hurt Canadians.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I'm actually in favour of a UBI, under the precondition that it is NOT a disincentive to work.
> I've never seen a program that actually achieves this aim, and I don't believe that the people pushing this even consider that an important criteria, and are not designing their plans accordingly.


The only way to do this is to have no clawback at all. Even then, there might still be some small disincentive to work if people have different priorities (like attending school, caring for kids/elderly parents, etc.) where, if they had their needs met, they would choose to work less even if they didn't have anything clawed back.

I don't think this is something that needs to be jumped into all at once. I think it makes sense to design proper studies and commit to them long term. I think you don't really even understand the long-term implications if the study is explicitly timeboxed. Probably one of the best studies was done in Manitoba back in the 70s, which showed that work disincentives were pretty minor and mostly centred around young adults continuing education and young mothers. Even then, it was cancelled for political reasons and the data largely carelessly archived. It was later partially reassembled to be analyzed. Ideally, one could choose experimental and control cohorts and run the study over many years. If it is only a 3 or 5 year study you may get misleading data on what people would do in response to a program that would be run in perpetuity (positive or negative).

It's really a shame this has not been studied more extensively since then, and instead ideological battles are fought over whether we should gather evidence or not. I don't think it is even in the interest of conservatives to stymie UBI studies in the long run, as it seems just as likely to result in a log jam that is relieved by a big plan being implemented absent good evidence for the right way to structure it, perhaps along the line of CERB. CERB was done in a hurry and could have been designed better if we had more experience with what works and what doesn't. I was expressing a lot of reservations about the way CERB was carried out back in 2020, but it was obvious that there wasn't really time to debate and rework the plan and the government had to pick something and execute it.


----------



## coptzr

andrewf said:


> The only way to do this is to have no clawback at all. Even then, there might still be some small disincentive to work if people have different priorities (like attending school, caring for kids/elderly parents, etc.) where, if they had their needs met, they would choose to work less even if they didn't have anything clawed back.
> 
> Probably one of the best studies was done in Manitoba back in the 70s, which showed that work disincentives were pretty minor and mostly centred around young adults continuing education and young mothers.


I would be willing to bet it is now at least 50% male who are unemployed and progressing less in society.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> It's really a shame this has not been studied more extensively since then, and instead ideological battles are fought over whether we should gather evidence or not. I don't think it is even in the interest of conservatives to stymie UBI studies in the long run, as it seems just as likely to result in a log jam that is relieved by a big plan being implemented absent good evidence for the right way to structure it, perhaps along the line of CERB. CERB was done in a hurry and could have been designed better if we had more experience with what works and what doesn't. I was expressing a lot of reservations about the way CERB was carried out back in 2020, but it was obvious that there wasn't really time to debate and rework the plan and the government had to pick something and execute it.


Yes, but nobody is actually even proposing studying it.

Those who want it, push for it, and push for "trials" that are stacked to give the answer they want.
Those who don't want it, argue it's so obviously flawed it's not even worth studying.

CERB, was intentionally set up as a flawed system for political gain. This is the simplest explanation.


----------



## londoncalling

MrBlackhill said:


> Which is very similar to increasing the basic personal amount, as every taxpayer would benefit from it, even though the high-income earners don't really need that benefit. That's why I'd balance it out with an increase in taxes on the higher tax brackets, that way the low-income would benefit from the increase of the personal amount, then the lower-middle class would also benefit and that benefit would slowly disappear as they move towards higher-middle class reaching the higher tax brackets and finally the high-income would have to pay a bit more taxes but due to their situation it's within noise-level and would barely see it. I mean, as someone making 6-figure income, whether I end up paying $40k in taxes or $42k I'm not even seeing it, whereas someone paying $10k taxes now paying $9k is a great relief to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I think in Quebec they used $100,000 because it's a psychological threshold (reaching a 6-figure net income) and it was benefiting 95% of taxpayers therefore as a centre-right government they like giving money to all without properly targeting the needs of the poor.
> 
> And it was pretty stupid because it didn't take into account the situation: single or with partner, having children or not, they didn't care and gave the same $500 to every individual.
> 
> As for the threshold, they gave $500 to everybody up to $100,000 net income, but then $400 to those making $101k, $300 to those making $102k, etc. and $0 to those making $105k net income.
> 
> If I compare this to what the federal government did, I believe the federal government did a better job at targeting the low-income and the specific household situations by using the GST credit. It makes no sense to me that as a household making $200k+ gross income, we got 2x $500 from our provincial government* whereas it makes total sense to me that we obviously got nothing from that GST credit from the federal government.
> 
> *And it actually doesn't stop there as our provincial government decided to give more money recently in December (with a "better targeting") which was $600 to individuals making less than $50k net otherwise $400 to those making up to $100k net. So a couple with no kids making $200k net income ($100k each) received a total of $1,800 this year whereas a single mom with 2 kids making $50k net income received $900 this year.
> 
> All this analogy is the reason why I believe we should properly target the low-income only, therefore if we increase the basic personal amount I'd be super happy but only if it's balanced by increasing taxes on the higher brackets (or any other solution to keep the same level of public services and benefits).


Professor Robert Frank from Cornell proposes that a higher tax rate for the super wealthy would benefit all in that pricing for luxury goods would fall as would real estate values. In essence he claims the cost of goods would decrease across the board. I think in theory that may be true but as we know theory differs from practice. I find his ideas fascinating but not necessarily practical. A couple of exceptions are his theory on success and luck and the other is his theory on gratitude.

Robert H. Frank's faculty page for the Cornell Johnson


----------



## m3s

londoncalling said:


> Professor Robert Frank from Cornell proposes that a higher tax rate for the super wealthy would benefit all in that pricing for luxury goods would fall as would real estate values. In essence he claims the cost of goods would decrease across the board. I think in theory that may be true but as we know theory differs from practice. I find his ideas fascinating but not necessarily practical. A couple of exceptions are his theory on success and luck and the other is his theory on gratitude.
> 
> Robert H. Frank's faculty page for the Cornell Johnson


Does this theory assume the tax rate applies to the entire world?

Super wealthy people have an abundance of options to structure their wealth and pay less taxes

Higher tax rates in one country just make it more likely they will structure another way


----------



## MrMatt

londoncalling said:


> Professor Robert Frank from Cornell proposes that a higher tax rate for the super wealthy would benefit all in that pricing for luxury goods would fall as would real estate values. In essence he claims the cost of goods would decrease across the board. I think in theory that may be true but as we know theory differs from practice. I find his ideas fascinating but not necessarily practical. A couple of exceptions are his theory on success and luck and the other is his theory on gratitude.
> 
> Robert H. Frank's faculty page for the Cornell Johnson


Oh I'll summarize, Wealthy expert calls for more taxes on people wealthier than him, says it won't cause problems.

Interesting that few people call for themselves to pay more taxes, and even among those who donate money, they donate it to charities, because they feel it's a better use of their money than government.

Basically everyone knows government is a wasteful inefficient system.


----------



## sags

That is all great and all that.......but I want more of my money back from the government. You can turn down yours if you want.


----------



## londoncalling

m3s said:


> Does this theory assume the tax rate applies to the entire world?
> 
> Super wealthy people have an abundance of options to structure their wealth and pay less taxes
> 
> Higher tax rates in one country just make it more likely they will structure another way


I doubt he factors in a nomad capitalist lifestyle. He recently did a podcast on RR and tried to throw in some Canadian examples. By and large he is focused on US only scenarios. EX. People in TX have huge houses compared to Manhattan. The general thesis being that consumers of all wealth levels participate in comparative consumption (keeping up with the Joneses) within their own market.

Not sure if any writing has been forth on international comparisons. I think everyone wants to give as little to the taxman as they can. Obviously the wealthier one is the more resources that can be allocated to do so including lobbying the government of the day to leave your piggy bank alone.


----------



## m3s

londoncalling said:


> I doubt he factors in a nomad capitalist lifestyle. He recently did a podcast on RR and tried to throw in some Canadian examples. By and large he is focused on US only scenarios. EX. People in TX have huge houses compared to Manhattan. The general thesis being that consumers of all wealth levels participate in comparative consumption (keeping up with the Joneses) within their own market.
> 
> Not sure if any writing has been forth on international comparisons. I think everyone wants to give as little to the taxman as they can. Obviously the wealthier one is the more resources that can be allocated to do so including lobbying the government of the day to leave your piggy bank alone.


Lots of Americans are moving within the US for tax and government policy reasons

People are leaving California, NY, MA and people are moving to places like Texas and Florida. Lots of Americans are leaving the US as well especially during the everything bubble

The super wealthy don't even have to move. They can afford the cost to structure their assets off shore


----------



## HappilyRetired

m3s said:


> People are leaving California, NY, MA and people are moving to places like Texas and Florida. Lots of Americans are leaving the US as well especially during the everything bubble


Taxes are just part of it. Some of them are moving because of idiotic leftist policies that are destroying the states.


----------



## m3s

HappilyRetired said:


> Taxes are just part of it. Some of them are moving because of idiotic leftist policies that are destroying the states.


When talking with american colleagues, their primary reason is usually politics. It comes above taxes, beautiful landscape/weather and even family/origins

The country is radically divided and brainwashed both domestic and foreign pysops at this point


----------



## coptzr

HappilyRetired said:


> Taxes are just part of it. Some of them are moving because of idiotic leftist policies that are destroying the states.


They aren't just moving themselves, they are moving their manufacturing companies with them. I'm not talking about your local gift shop. I see vehicle parts manufacturers, trade services, and food production. Places like California may be "left" with only useless people.


----------



## sags

How many are moving to poverty stricken Republican dominated states ?


----------



## HappilyRetired

sags said:


> How many are moving to poverty stricken Republican dominated states ?


You don't know what Republican states they are moving too. But if they really are leaving for a poorer state that just means that some people would rather make less money than live under Democrat policies.

Good for them, they value personal freedom over a few $$.


----------

