Ontario launches basic income pilot project

[shermanator]

Under the pilot, those on social assistance and those earning less than $17,000 through employment will receive regular payments to help them afford the basics such as housing and food. Couples will have to be earning less than $24,000 a year, after taxes, to take part.

Curious to see how this works out. IIRC, similar pilot projects are going on in Finland.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ges-fewer-jobs

[CaptainCrunch]

well that ought to cover their utilities bills.

[Regorium]

Does free money with no trade-offs at all improve outcomes?

I bet you I could answer that question without spending 150 million over 3 years.

[peter12]

Just an excuse to eventually gut our social service programs.

[Locke]

Hooray! Social Experiments with obvious answers!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hooray! Social Experiments with obvious answers!

What do you think the obvious answer is?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

Just an excuse to eventually gut our social service programs.

It's interesting that the purpose of this the livin wage movement on the right is to reduce the size of government and eliminate social programs

On the left it's to put the money into the hands of people who need it without all of the inference and conditions that current social programs have and set up the society for automation taking over.

It's one of the issues where the libertarians and the left agree on policy but disagree on justifications

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by peter12

Just an excuse to eventually gut our social service programs.

It's going to replace the Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program, which it should. People shouldn't receive minimum income, plus benefits from these other programs.

Seems like a decent model to start with, payments made based on income and reduced to zero once you hit $34k

[ToewsFan]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Curious to see how this works out. IIRC, similar pilot projects are going on in Finland.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ges-fewer-jobs

You don't have to look further than Medicine Hat:

"The homelessness strategy in the city has meant associated declining costs in terms of crime and health care, as well as child welfare services. That's the aspect that really sold Clugston on the project, the idea that he could save taxpayers money by supporting this initiative.

Mayor Ted Clugston
Medicine Hat Mayor Ted Clugston says his job is now to advocate for the success of the program around the world. (Sarah Lawrynuik/CBC)

His job now is to advocate for the success of the program across the province, country and globe.

"I can ignore homelessness in Toronto or Vancouver, but if I have to step over someone on my way to work in my own backyard, you really can't turn a blind eye to that. That's what I try to talk about, a community solution," Clugston said.

He calls on provinces and Ottawa to provide the funding, but then to allow municipalities to implement strategies that makes the most sense wherever they're at.

"What I discovered [in talking about this elsewhere] is that there is basically an aching, burning need around the world to solve this problem."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...date-1.3949030

----

Everyone in Canada should have a roof over their head. If we can find asylum seekers shelter in Canada, we can do it with our less fortunate people.

[ToewsFan]

Funny how the people most against these types of initiatives argue that it's a waste of taxpayer money. Housing Canaidans most at-risk actually saves the taxpayer money, when all is factored in, and lets people with problems with mental health and substance abuse (the majority of the homeless population), focus on getting the help they need, instead of basic survival.

It's a win-win situation for all of Canada.

[taco.vidal]

Can we offer oneway bus tickets to Ontario to select Albertans?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ToewsFan

Funny how the people most against these types of initiatives argue that it's a waste of taxpayer money. Housing Canaidans most at-risk actually saves the taxpayer money, when all is factored in, and lets people with problems with mental health and substance abuse (the majority of the homeless population), focus on getting the help they need, instead of basic survival.

It's a win-win situation for all of Canada.

One concept of basic income (albeit an extreme example) is you get rid of the social programs that provide housing and treatment and expect the people to make good decisions with their minimum income. I wouldn't go that far though

[taco.vidal]

$34k/year plus working under the table to top that up will give a simple but comfortable lifestyle. Lots of people who are grinding away at low wages will be lining up to sign up for this.

[iggy_oi]

These programs are an interesting concept, however they cannot be sustainably funded longterm without significant tax increases to the very wealthy. Given the uproar we see over even a 1 or 2% increase in taxation I can only imagine the roadblocks that would get in the way of this happening in the long run.

[Northendzone]

^ not everyone can work under the table, but is easy for people in certain trades

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

$34k/year plus working under the table to top that up will give a simple but comfortable lifestyle. Lots of people who are grinding away at low wages will be lining up to sign up for this.

A $34k/year job is a roughly 40-50% income increase for anyone making minimum wage. Maybe this would create incentive for low paying employers to better compensate their employees. They would have to choose between paying people to work for them or to have their taxes increased to subsidize them choosing to not work for them.

[FlamesAddiction]

Personally, I think universal basic income is the next stage for social evolution.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/18/elon-...ould-work.html

They have experimented with this in smaller scales in other regions and what they found was that while a few people would become lazy and live off the basic income, the majority of people still wanted to work. But rather than take grinding jobs they didn't really want, they would often take low paying jobs that were satisfying to their lifestyle. It increased entrepreneurship and people becoming home inventors and scientists because they could afford to. On a large scale, they benefits to humanity could be enormous. It would be like leaving the dark ages and starting a new renaissance.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It increased entrepreneurship and people becoming home inventors and scientists because they could afford to. On a large scale, they benefits to humanity could be enormous. It would be like leaving the dark ages and starting a new renaissance.

Yes - what we need is more home scientists... Fentanyl is already prevalent enough

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

$34k/year plus working under the table to top that up will give a simple but comfortable lifestyle. Lots of people who are grinding away at low wages will be lining up to sign up for this.

You don't get $34k a year on this program though. A single person gets $17k and a couple gets $24k, those numbers are reduced as income from employment is worked into the equation.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It would be like leaving the dark ages and starting a new renaissance.

This is why how this is implemented is very important. Automation and outsourcing combined with an increasing population size will make the job market very difficult in the future. The money to fund a guaranteed basic income will need to come from somewhere. As the labour pool decreases, more of that funding will either come from businesses or those who are still employed. Look at the current resistance people put up to any tax increase to create programs for the benefit of the less fortunate, how many people are going to want to continue to pay increasingly more to fund a basic income as the job market continues to decrease? There is no guarantee of how quickly that will escalate, but what happens when the number of unemployed greatly outnumbers the amount of income earners? Once businesses become the majority contributor how long will it take before people start being told "the basic income level needs to be reduced otherwise businesses will be forced to close"?

It is a very slippery slope, I'm not saying it's a bad concept or won't work, however without proper implementation this could very easily lead to a small percentage of the population dictating what everyone else should have because they control all the wealth. Does that sound more like a renaissance or the dark ages?