# Minimum Basic Income - Ontario



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Good idea, bad idea? don't know?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Nuts.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

In fact... we already have this, just not universally. I know a girl who is 1/16th "native". She is getting paid for her great great grandparent. Visit any reservation to see just how well the system of "free money for everyone" is working out.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Technology and global trade has eliminated a lot of good paying jobs and the trend is going to continue, so the government is going to have to do something to provide income to people for whom there are no jobs.

One of the interesting facts on the Trump victory is that in many of the States he won, truck driving is the main occupation.

Amazon delivered it's first drone delivery last week. Driver less vehicles are here or coming. The world will need fewer drivers in the future.

The current system is a grab bag of different benefits and a single benefit would be easier and cheaper to administer.

The only other options are leave the system as it is or let people starve to death.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

$23,400.

That's minimum wage X 40 hours times 52 weeks


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The crappy jobs scenario is exactly why Trump is heading into the Oval Office.

Obama and Clinton did a lot of talking about the problem, but did nothing about it.

Canada is losing jobs at a quick pace and Trudeau's poll numbers have dropped 10% since he was elected.

Politicians who don't "get it" won't be around long. Social upheaval is here and now.

A guaranteed wage is a virtual certainty in the future.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Given what we spend on income support programs, it is worth doing an experiment to see what we can learn. It is unfortunate that the MINCOME experiment in Manitoba in 1970 was cut short, so we didn't get to learn very much from it. There has been some work done recently that claims that the saved a lot on health care for the participants in that experiment. If a minimum income can improve outcomes over our current system, the experiment will pay huge dividends.

Having said that, I don't think it will, but I'd rather try it out and *know* instead of just think.

Social assistance (welfare) is costly to run because it weeds out lots of people who don't actually need the support (e.g., because they are not looking for work, have assets they can live on, etc.). If you take that away, you save on administration, but provide assistance to a lot more people, so I would expect it to cost a lot more. 

Most other income support is provided through the tax system (children's benefits, GST/HST credits, etc.), so it costs very little to administer.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The "social net" is difficult for a lot of people to navigate though, which is not a good thing unless the goal is to not give them benefits.

There are all kinds of different rules on incomes, assets, going to school or not going to school, children, some disabilities........some not,.........and on and on.

My sister collects CPP Disability for a bad back. A buddy was denied after a heart attack and quadruple bypass surgery.

People can collect welfare.........unless they go to school. Then they need to qualify for student loans.

People can own a $2 million dollar home and collect GIS, but someone who works part time gets their GIS reduced by 50 cents on the dollar.

It is a mixed up mess as it is.

If everyone over the age of 18 received a guaranteed income, we probably wouldn't even need a student loan program, welfare, disability, unemployment, OAS, GIS, child benefits, HST and energy rebates, and a bunch of other programs.

Maybe politicians could concentrate on other things, instead of giving out tax benefits as gifts at election time to buy votes.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

sags said:


> The crappy jobs scenario is exactly why Trump is heading into the Oval Office.
> 
> Canada is losing jobs at a quick pace....


Canada is creating jobs at a moderate pace. It isn't losing jobs. According to StatsCan, Canada added 183,200 jobs between Nov 2015 and Nov 2016. Unemployment fell by 37,000 during that time. (The labour force increased by 146,200.) From Oct to Nov 2016, 10,000 jobs were created. 

And Trump is headed to the Oval Office because of the Electoral Office, and despite the fact that Clinton won almost 3 million votes more that Trump did. Don't mistake the Electoral College mechanism for an expression of the popular will. A lot more people were convinced that Clinton would be the better president than Trump.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada is creating a lot of part time jobs but losing full time jobs. McJobs aren't going to provide income security.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rising-44000-jobs-in-october/article32673813/


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Are there any other countries that have minimum income schemes?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Canada is creating a lot of part time jobs but losing full time jobs. McJobs aren't going to provide income security.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rising-44000-jobs-in-october/article32673813/


In Ontario, minimum wages as of 2016:
General Minimum Wage	$11.40 per hour x 4o hrs x 52 weeks (if working 40hrs a week and every week) = $23,712 per yr
and this is before the normal deductions (income tax, CPP/EI)
Student Minimum Wage	$10.70 per hour x 40 x 52 = $22,256 (before deductions)
Liquor Servers Minimum Wage	$9.90 per hour


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A couple might be able to get by if they both had full time minimum wage jobs, but often minimum wage is accompanied by part time hours.

If both are working 16 or 24 hours a week it would be difficult to live on. Some people take on a couple of these jobs to get by.

My wife is retired but wants to stay active so she has a part time job for 10 years. It was 8 hour days a couple days a week.

Now they have reduced the hours to 4 hours a day a couple days a week. 

It suits her just fine, but others working there have 2 or 3 part time jobs and some are single people.

I don't know how they survive, but I guess it is better than social services which pays about $800 a month for a single person.

I have noticed that in the construction trades a lot of the jobs are sub-contracted self employed now.

The jobs require a person has their own WSIB and HST number, a pickup truck and tools..........etc.

The government can spin it any way they want, but the people know it is tough to find good long term work.


----------



## Nerd Investor (Nov 3, 2015)

Pluto said:


> Are there any other countries that have minimum income schemes?


I thought at least one of the Scandinavian countries had recently decided to implement it, not sure if it actually started though. We're going to have to figure something out as more and more jobs become automated. Ironic that technological advances that theoretically make our lives easier present some interesting challenges to work through.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Hasn't automation been around since like 16th century? Didn't people have exactly the same concerns then and every time the next technological advancement came along? Do people never learn from history?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At the other end of the spectrum, there are many people who are or will be retiring with only CPP and OAS/GIS to live on.

There is going to be a crisis if some changes aren't made and soon.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Nerd Investor said:


> I thought at least one of the Scandinavian countries had recently decided to implement it, not sure if it actually started though. We're going to have to figure something out as more and more jobs become automated. Ironic that technological advances that theoretically make our lives easier present some interesting challenges to work through.


It's Finland and Switzerland


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

sags said:


> At the other end of the spectrum, there are many people who are or will be retiring with only CPP and OAS/GIS to live on.
> 
> There is going to be a crisis if some changes aren't made and soon.


I know people who have little or nothing in the bank and/or no retirement savings that are in their 50's. They either don't care or naively assume CPP and OAS will be enough.

The problem is that you can't force or legislate people to save for their retirement.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

mordko said:


> Hasn't automation been around since like 16th century? Didn't people have exactly the same concerns then and every time the next technological advancement came along? Do people never learn from history?


True.........rooms full of bookkeepers were replaced by a computer, but I don't think in our history whole industries were shipped overseas with nothing to replace them. One after another the industries have disappeared during my lifetime........electronics, appliances, textiles, manufacturing,..........even food production in our area with Kelloggs, McCormicks, and recently a Maple Leaf turkey plant. When I think of all the factories and industries that have closed in our city........it is quite a long list.

Maybe globalization has changed things in a different way. The concept was that it would increase jobs but it is hard to see where.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> At the other end of the spectrum, there are many people who are or will be retiring with only CPP and OAS/GIS to live on.


It may be possible to live off the $1K+ on both CPP/OAS, but that is ONLY if there are two people drawing those gov't pensions living together under the same roof..and getting along.
A single person such as myself could not afford to continue living in my own home even with no mortgage. The property taxes rise every year, so does the heating and electricity costs. 

I don't drive nor own a car anymore, so that is considerable savings on my pension income. Without my Nortel company pension (such as it is these days) I could only afford the very basics of living...no PSW.

Anyone who thinks they can continue in their retirement years (65 to 80+) on gov't pensions alone when their
health starts to deteriorate... is dreaming. 
The first causulties of price increase are those on fixed incomes. 

Here's one story..and I'm sure there will be a lot more others like it..


> Kincaid worked as a TNT mixer, survived two explosions and raised a family.
> *He thought he and Janine would be fine in their old age with their pension and CPP*.





> "I came down to Bob one day … and I didn’t even want to say anything to him, but I said, ‘Bob, we can’t live here anymore, *we can’t pay the rent,*'” Janine said.


They HAD to move to a more affordable place near their kids:



> Looking back at how much they were paying in hydro in Sundridge, they are mystified as to *how they were supposed to manage on a fixed income*.


more to this story and the quotes above ^^^^^^^^
http://globalnews.ca/news/3092680/i...s-forced-to-move-due-to-sky-high-hydro-rates/



> There is going to be a crisis if some changes aren't made and soon.


it's already evident...the current hydro rate spikes and increased property taxes/assessments is forcing some seniors to leave their homes.
Mind you, if these homes are in the GTA with the escalating real estate prices, provided these seniors own their homes with no mortgage to pay,, the extra income when invested carefully, may help them get by for the next 10-20 years ..or what may be left of their lives. 
But if they have no finanancial assets like savings or equity in a home, or life insurance policy left to them by a deceased partner, and they are still renting ..they are falling behind very quickly. That is scary.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

sags said:


> Canada is creating a lot of part time jobs but losing full time jobs. McJobs aren't going to provide income security.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rising-44000-jobs-in-october/article32673813/


I'm sure you know better than to draw conclusions about long term trends from one month of data. Canada has been creating full-time jobs year-over-year since at least 2011, with one of the biggest jumps being from 2014 to 2015. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labor12-eng.htm There were 14,559,300 full-time jobs in 2015, and in November 2016, that number had risen to 14,595,000. That isn't great growth, but things are still squishy in Alberta. But it isn't losing full-time jobs either when you look at more than one month of data.

Is the job market restructuring? It looks that way, and workers will have to adjust, as they have always done in the past. 

By the way, "McJobs" is a pretty archaic term. I think we all understand now that service sector jobs aren't just fast food, but include IT, financial sector, etc.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Anyone know where the $ will come from? Ontario is already very debt ridden.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Pluto said:


> Good idea, bad idea? don't know?


btw, Vast majority of Swiss rejected this proposal.
_Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.
Final results from Sunday's referendum showed that nearly 77% opposed the plan, with only 23% backing it.
The proposal had called for adults to be paid an unconditional monthly income, whether they worked or not.
The supporters camp had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child.
The amounts reflected the high cost of living in Switzerland. It is not clear how the plan would have affected people on higher salaries.
The supporters had also argued that since work was increasingly automated, fewer jobs were available for workers.
Switzerland is the first country to hold such a vote._

If it was passed,Swiss family with 2 kidswould get more than 102K CAD! Seems very nice! 

In Ontario, such law will mean 1 thing, more taxes for people who already is paying highest taxes... What else we can expect from liberals?!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What is the alternative.........continue until it reaches a crisis point ?

Government will then increase the OAS/GIS and add more benefits...........and it all comes from government revenues.

Sometimes it costs more to do nothing.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Where the heck is the money going to come from? Ontario is already listing badly. I think it was Thatcher who said the problem with socialism is you run out of other peoples money to spend.


----------



## motl (Mar 3, 2014)

The best part of minimum income is the argument that it can/will be revenue neutral, or even save the government money.

I'm sure university professors can concoct scenarios where that would be true, but if anyone here trusts the Liberals (or any government) and its bureaucracies to implement it that way, you're dreaming. I don't support minimum income, but even if you remove any philosophical or ideological reasons for opposing, at the end of the day I just honestly don't believe it could/would be implemented without costing tax payers massive increases in taxes. Our government(s) are wasteful by nature.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

There is no problem that the left think they can't solve...all they need is more time and more money.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Totally disapprove, even if I might benefit from it. There's no better disincentive to motivation than making the social safety net into a hammock.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

motl said:


> The best part of minimum income is the argument that it can/will be revenue neutral, or even save the government money.
> 
> I'm sure university professors can concoct scenarios where that would be true, but if anyone here trusts the Liberals (or any government) and its bureaucracies to implement it that way, you're dreaming. I don't support minimum income, but even if you remove any philosophical or ideological reasons for opposing, at the end of the day I just honestly don't believe it could/would be implemented without costing tax payers massive increases in taxes. Our government(s) are wasteful by nature.


I used to work in the bureaucracy, and spent some time studying the applicability of the UK's "Universal Credit" to the Canadian context. I can tell you that none of us working on the project believed that it could be implemented on a cost neutral basis when looking at the cost of benefits and administration alone.

The only way it could be cost neutral would be if there were large Medicare cost savings, which there *could* be, but we don't know. That's why an experiment makes sense. We would have to be sure of those cost savings before applying a minimum income across the board, because without them, this would get prohibitively expensive really fast.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

^The study makes complete sense. Why use conjecture when we can rely on evidence?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

motl said:


> The best part of minimum income is the argument that it can/will be revenue neutral, or even save the government money.
> 
> I'm sure university professors can concoct scenarios where that would be true, but if anyone here trusts the Liberals (or any government) and its bureaucracies to implement it that way, you're dreaming. I don't support minimum income, but even if you remove any philosophical or ideological reasons for opposing, at the end of the day I just honestly don't believe it could/would be implemented without costing tax payers massive increases in taxes. Our government(s) are wasteful by nature.


Yes-the basic premise makes perfect sense and could work in a well run country-maybe Switzerland-this thing would be a disaster in Ontario (or anywhere in Canada) as it would just be an excuse for more guv spending and waste.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A universal income being "cost neutral" is more of a guideline than a rule. Cost neutrality isn't a necessary or vital component.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Yes-the basic premise makes perfect sense and could work in a well run country-maybe Switzerland-this thing would be a disaster in Ontario (or anywhere in Canada) as *it would just be an excuse for more guv spending and wast*e.


How is citizens having money to spend a waste ?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

sags said:


> A universal income being "cost neutral" is more of a guideline than a rule. Cost neutrality isn't a necessary or vital component.


HAHAHAHA-yeah "cost neutral" is really likely in Kathleen Wynne's Ontario.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A universal income could be fashioned to be cost neutral.........but why would you want to if it didn't fully address the problems ?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Yes-the basic premise makes perfect sense and could work in a well run country-maybe Switzerland-this thing would be a disaster in Ontario (or anywhere in Canada) as it would just be an excuse for more guv spending and waste.


Why would work in Switzerland and not Canada? Are the Swiss magical creatures?

The Swiss proposal was absurd. A minimum income cannot provide the median income to every citizen and be sustainable. The most realistic case is a rather meagre income that can be counted on by the poor and not immediately clawed back 100% when they seek private employment. It definitely will not be enough for someone to live on comfortably unless they live like a monk in shared accommodations.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

All these ideas always end up in the same place. Eventually other peoples' money run out.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think it would be reasonable to expect a guaranteed minimum income would be less than the sum of current benefits.

Given that a single mom with 3 kids currently would receive about $3500 in social benefits and child care benefits, I doubt it can be replaced with a "minimum" benefit. There are many other examples of people receiving multiple benefits from different sources.

There would be no point creating a new benefit while continuing with all the current ones.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

mordko said:


> All these ideas always end up in the same place. Eventually other peoples' money run out.


Money doesn't "run out", it recirculates from person to person, or person to business, or business to government....or other ways.

The major problems start when money isn't recirculating, as happened in the financial crisis in 2007.

There was no shortage of money in the world. The money is always located somewhere. Nobody is burning it.

A lack of trust among lenders caused the financial system to freeze up and the economy almost collapsed as a result.

More money in the hands of the consumers who will spend it, creates economic dynamics that expand the economy and provide higher government revenues, which is why giving money to bankers and the wealthy who hoard the money fails to stimulate the economy to any degree.

When the US was in financial trouble, they gave the money to bankers and it had little positive economic benefit.

When China faced a similar financial situation, they gave money directly to the consumers who spent it in the economy.

As a result, the Chinese economy recovered at a much faster rate than the US economy.

Government spending can be a virtuous cycle if administered properly.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

sags said:


> Money doesn't "run out", it recirculates from person to person, or person to business, or business to government....or other ways.


We all know that. It's the "recirculation" part that is the issue. The left always want to "recirculate" everyone else's money towards their cause.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> Money doesn't "run out", it recirculates from person to person, or person to business, or business to government....or other ways.


The real money does. You end up with Venezuelan money. Or Cuban money. Or Greek money. Sometimes truckloads.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Money doesn't "run out", it recirculates from person to person, or person to business, or business to government....or other ways.
> 
> The major problems start when money isn't recirculating, as happened in the financial crisis in 2007.
> 
> ...


sags, money runs out when spending exceeds income. Surely you know that from personal experience. I fear you are lost in the abstractions of economics. 
Unfortunately, governments, unlike individual taxpayers, can arbitrarily increase their income until, of course, there is no more income to tax.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Why would work in Switzerland and not Canada? Are the Swiss magical creatures?
> 
> The Swiss proposal was absurd. A minimum income cannot provide the median income to every citizen and be sustainable. The most realistic case is a rather meagre income that can be counted on by the poor and not immediately clawed back 100% when they seek private employment. It definitely will not be enough for someone to live on comfortably unless they live like a monk in shared accommodations.


Go to Switzerland and then go to Syria and see if you can perceive any differences in the societies Einstein-I know they taught you in school Kumbaya everything is the same but reality actually exists anyway.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

mordko said:


> The real money does. You end up with Venezuelan money. Or Cuban money. Or Greek money. Sometimes truckloads.


Classic examples of what happens when the wealthy have all the money. 

It creates an underground economy that starves government revenues and raises the risk level on their currencies.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pluto said:


> sags, money runs out when spending exceeds income. Surely you know that from personal experience. I fear you are lost in the abstractions of economics.
> Unfortunately, governments, unlike individual taxpayers, can arbitrarily increase their income until, of course, there is no more income to tax.


When individual's money runs out they stop spending and the economy shrinks, government revenues decline and there is a recession.

Governments can increase their income by expanding the economy and collecting revenues from a larger base.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

sags said:


> Classic examples of what happens when the wealthy have all the money.
> 
> It creates an underground economy that starves government revenues and raises the risk level on their currencies.


Those examples (Venezuela, Cuba, and Greece) are proof how destructive a dictatorship is, or when there is too much socialism.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

sags said:


> When individual's money runs out they stop spending and the economy shrinks, government revenues decline and there is a recession.
> 
> Governments can increase their income by expanding the economy and collecting revenues from a larger base.


The only way a government can expand the economy is by enabling capitalism and free enterprise to flourish. The government itself can never expand the economy. Venezuela and Cuba are perfect examples of governments stifling the economy.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> Classic examples of what happens when the wealthy have all the money.
> 
> It creates an underground economy that starves government revenues and raises the risk level on their currencies.


What? Venezuela and Cuba and Greece are examples of what happens when the wealthy have all the money? Really? As opposed to socialism/big nanny state trying to give away a lot of goodies to everyone?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

For the ignorant - this is what got Venezuela to where it is today (aka people are starving in what used to be the richest country in Latin America):

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/07/11/chavez-stepping-up-the-handouts/


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I wonder what Ontario's policy will be re people just moving there? Once Ontario embarks on this experiment there will be a migration of poor into Ontario to get the minimum income. that should help out the real estate rental market in Toronto.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

bass player said:


> The only way a government can expand the economy is by enabling capitalism and free enterprise to flourish..


Capitalism only works if consumers have money to buy products and services.

It is classic conservatism to blame the poor for being poor.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Greece didn't match revenues with spending for decades. Their tax collection system was a shambles. The black market in trade was huge.

They had a choice of declaring bankruptcy or accepting buyouts with stiff austerity measures attached to them.

The austerity measures shrunk the economy by 30% and raised the unemployment rate to 25%.

Capitalist "help" made the problems worse for the Greeks.

Nobody is advocating for Canada to stop collecting revenues and pay higher social benefits.

Increased benefits means there must be an increase in revenues to compensate for it.

Direct payment of benefits to consumers is a better way to grow an economy and create more government revenue, than tax reductions and deductions for multinational corporations and the wealthy, or giving money to the banks that they can loan back to the government for an easy, risk free profit.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Right. N. Korea is da best. Government collects everything and everyone lives on benefits. Dream come true.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Ok Sags, I think this where you, the Monty Python Black Knight stands up resolutely and says "Alright, we'll call it a draw"
View attachment 13306


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

The boarders are not secure enough to give basic income to everyone. It will attract a lot of lazy people to cross into our country. If they do supply a basic income to everyone all other social handouts should stop including the reserves.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is amazing to me how conservatives believe shrinking people's purchasing power solves economic problems.

Cut public service jobs, cut people off welfare, eliminate unions, eliminate pensions, eliminate the minimum wage, let companies go bankrupt,..........and everything would be flowers and unicorns.

Under the category of facts we know, people's buying power has been shrinking and to compensate they borrowed money.

Banks, mortgage lenders, auto loan lenders, alternative lenders, payday loan lenders, online lenders...quite a debt industry we have grown.

We now have a situation previously unknown in Canada of a highly indebted society, shaky jobs, and stagnant wages.

Not a good combination.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

lonewolf :) said:


> The boarders are not secure enough to give basic income to everyone. It will attract a lot of lazy people to cross into our country. If they do supply a basic income to everyone all other social handouts should stop including the reserves.


Canada currently requires 40 years of residence to receive the full OAS, so it isn't difficult to manage people coming to Canada for benefits.

I agree that a basic income should replace all of the current programs. Otherwise it becomes a political tool like many of the other "benefits".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Ok Sags, I think this where you, the Monty Python Black Knight stands up resolutely and says "Alright, we'll call it a draw"
> View attachment 13306


I don't know. The opposition is down to North Korea's economy. I think I got them on the ropes.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Purchasing power increases through increases in productivity, due to technological innovation and trade. Purchasing power falls due to tariffs, government regulations and loss of productivity as incentives decrease and taxes go up. 

Canada has experienced a healthy growth in pp between 2008 and 2015.

US did not.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We have a unique opportunity to witness a self professed titan of capitalism with virtually unfettered control over the fate of the US economy.

He is filling his cabinet with billionaires, Goldman Sachs bankers, and like minded individuals.

He says he will roll back regulations, lower tax rates on corporations, and do all the things on the capitalist wish list.

He will release the full potential of capitalism..........he says.

In a few months or perhaps years, we shall see how this all works out.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Go to Switzerland and then go to Syria and see if you can perceive any differences in the societies Einstein-I know they taught you in school Kumbaya everything is the same but reality actually exists anyway.


What does Syria have to do with anything?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> I wonder what Ontario's policy will be re people just moving there? Once Ontario embarks on this experiment there will be a migration of poor into Ontario to get the minimum income. that should help out the real estate rental market in Toronto.


No, I doubt it. A realistic (ie, low) minimum income is not going to motivate hordes of people to move to Ontario.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

lonewolf :) said:


> The boarders are not secure enough to give basic income to everyone. It will attract a lot of lazy people to cross into our country. If they do supply a basic income to everyone all other social handouts should stop including the reserves.


So you think illegal migrants will have no problem getting SINs and signing up for government benefits?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

andrewf said:


> So you think illegal migrants will have no problem getting SINs and signing up for government benefits?


In California they give illegal aliens driver's licenses and add them to the voter registry. Constant vigilance is needed to prevent the left in Canada from moving us further in that direction.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> What does Syria have to do with anything?


Einstein: You asked if Swiss were magical because you couldn't grasp why minimum income would be a fail in Wynne's Ontario. Our Ontario politicians are closer to the Syrian level than the Swiss level in terms of competence.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Yeah, you're going to have to try again. The Swiss are not mythical creatures.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> No, I doubt it. A realistic (ie, low) minimum income is not going to motivate hordes of people to move to Ontario.


As long as welfare is higher or requires less means testing than in other jurisdictions, this will be the exact effect. Indeed it has been proven numerous times, e.g. in the U.K. https://www.gov.uk/government/speec...ing-european-council-meeting-19-february-2016


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It is pretty expensive to move, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of losing access to your network of family and friends. I doubt many would move to get slightly more cash in one province vs another. And really, the lower means testing would mean that, horror of horrors, they could earn a market wage so they are not totally dependent on the state.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Guess it was cheaper to move from the rest of European Union to UK (as a huge numbers of welfare seekers did) than it would be to move from Newfoundland to Ontario.

I also wonder what is it that drives all them safety-seeking asylum seekers to travel through Greece, Italy, France, Turkey and other southern European countries with low benefits and into Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Austria.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

bass player said:


> In California they give illegal aliens driver's licenses and add them to the voter registry. Constant vigilance is needed to prevent the left in Canada from moving us further in that direction.


Apparently, constant vigilance is needed to keep misinformation from growing. As should be obvious, non-citizens of the United States are not eligible to vote. The special drivers license which California provides to undocumented residents cannot be used for identification purposes, and does _not_ allow them to be registered to vote.

I guess it isn't a big deal - it isn't as if some national figure down there is going to go around claiming there were millions of illegitimate votes in the recent election... oh, wait...


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Fact: Illegals in California can apply for a driver's license. 
Fact: People with driver's licenses are automatically added to the voter registry unless they advise that they are not eligible. 
Fact: Voter ID is not required in many places in California.
Fact: Democrats block every single attempt to strengthen voter validity or ID requirements.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ More accurately, Democrats oppose attempts by Republicans to make it difficult for minorities, the poor and the young to vote. The Republicans dress these measures up as measures to defeat the phantom menace of voter fraud.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

bass player said:


> Fact: Illegals in California can apply for a driver's license.
> Fact: People with driver's licenses are automatically added to the voter registry unless they advise that they are not eligible.
> Fact: Voter ID is not required in many places in California.
> Fact: Democrats block every single attempt to strengthen voter validity or ID requirements.



wondering why you are repeating this though? do you have a valid source? or is this another fake-news-post-truth-news-misinformation attempt? 


Raven has just debunked you, in the immediately preceding post:



NorthernRaven said:


> Apparently, constant vigilance is needed to keep misinformation from growing.
> 
> As should be obvious, non-citizens of the United States are not eligible to vote. The special drivers license which California provides to undocumented residents cannot be used for identification purposes, and does _not_ allow them to be registered to vote.
> 
> I guess it isn't a big deal - it isn't as if some national figure down there is going to go around claiming there were millions of illegitimate votes in the recent election... oh, wait...


.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

andrewf said:


> ^ More accurately, Democrats oppose attempts by Republicans to make it difficult for minorities, the poor and the young to vote. The Republicans dress these measures up as measures to defeat the phantom menace of voter fraud.


That's the "minorities are not intelligent enough to get ID" lie the Democrats like to use. But, Republicans are the racists...


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> wondering why you are repeating this though? do you have a valid source? or is this another fake-news-post-truth-news-misinformation attempt?


Do some research...the information is readily available.


----------



## Bowzer (Feb 25, 2015)

bass player said:


> Do some research...the information is readily available.


Good Lord.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Bowzer said:


> Good Lord.


Yeah, I know it can be tough for some people when others don't do their work for them....


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bass player said:


> That's the "minorities are not intelligent enough to get ID" lie the Democrats like to use. But, Republicans are the racists...


Does that also explain why Republican States shut down polling stations near black communities, for 'efficiencies'? It's not about intelligence, it is about making the process of getting proper I'd expensive, difficult and onerous. Hard to do when you work two jobs and have to take three buses to get to the city office that is open one day a month.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

bass player said:


> Do some research...the information is readily available.


I did some research. Here's the California voter registry website:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/

It says clearly on there that you need to register to be able to vote. It does not say "If you have a driver's license you're automatically registered".


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

While the scale is debatable, voter fraud is clearly possible when no ID is required: 

http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/
http://projectveritas.com/2016/10/1...-commissioner-they-bus-people-around-to-vote/


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

*Vote fraud is also possible* when *ID is required*.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

The example of the discrepancy in machine counts showed that many votes were not accurately counted. The counting by machine was widely used in the election.
The problem is the refusal to double check the votes, the discrepancy of counting should be investigated properly.
Let them proceed with recounting by hand to investigate the results in Wisconsin. 
All the votes should be counted correctly. 

- Wisconsin Recount: Erroneous Machine Vote Counts Swept Under Rug:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/wisconsin-recount-erroneous-machine-vote-counts-swept-under-rug/

Wisconsin is seeing the same issues discovered in Detroit where over half of the votes where disqualified from being recounted because machine counts from scanners did not match the number of actual ballots or the number of voters logged in poll books as having voted.

- Machine Count Not Matching Hand Count - Racine Co WI :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1284ARxFag

Published on Dec 16, 2016
In the 2016 Wisconsin presidential recount, Liz Whitlock and her team find an error rate of almost 5% in the optical scanner vote in the Village of Elmwood Park. A similar error rate applied across all of Wisconsin’s 2,976,150 votes – could produce an error of 140,000 votes. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000 votes. 

Liz and other volunteers count votes with a hand clicker as the ballots are fed into an optical scan machine. They count 15 votes that are not counted by the machine in ward 1 of The Village of Elmwood Park. That ward has 310 votes total, creating the potential error rate of almost 5%. Donald Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin was less than 1%. The team found errors in other wards that they click-counted as well, but the clerk in Racine County Wisconsin would not allow the votes to be counted by hand. 



- 63% of Disqualified Detroit Precincts Had Too Many Hillary Clinton Votes:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/new-records-37-detroit-many-votes-counted/

State Elections Director Chris Thomas explains a state audit of 20 precincts in Detroit where ballot boxes contained fewer votes than counted in the election poll book. Chad Livengood, The Detroit News

In Detroit Michigan 392 of 662 precincts, nearly 57%, were disqualified from the recount because of differences in the number of ballots scanned and the number of voters logged has having voted in poll books, according new records released by the Wayne County Board of Elections in Michigan.
The new records show that scanners in 248 of Detroit’s 662 precincts counted more ballots than the number of voters that actually voted.
That is nearly two-thirds of disqualified precincts and 37% of all precincts in Detroit where Hillary Clinton won 95% of the vote.

The new report from the Board of Elections shows the tendency to count too many votes in Wayne county was more systemic than originally thought.
The widespread anomalies were discovered during the Michigan recount which lead to initial reports that more than 1/2 of Hillary’s Detroit Vote faced recount disqualification.

Donald Trump won the state of Michigan by 10,704 votes, a 0.2% margin, over Hillary Clinton.
Statewide, 10.6% of the precincts were disqualified for recount due to either differences between machine and poll book counts or precincts hacving ballot boxes with broken seals.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

olivaw said:


> *Vote fraud is also possible* when *ID is required*.


Accept that very clearly it ISNT possible as the woman go caught. Guess how.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

^ Unless the capture rate is less than 100%. 

No matter, S123 had a far more interesting post above. Voter ID laws would do nothing to tackle a problem of that magnitude.


----------

