And closer to home, the government of Canada actually ran an experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 70's, where they gave the equivalent of $18,000 in today's money to everybody in the town. The program was shelved with a change in government, but the results showed that there wasn't a rush of people quitting their jobs. Instead they used the money to spend more time with family, study, start their own businesses, etc. There was also a drop in hospital visits, and increase of students finishing their education. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
Many experts believe basic income would be more cost effective than current social programs, which are expensive, and don't always distribute money effectively.
So at the risk of being chased out by an angry mob, I'm wondering what you guys think. I just did some casual research on a lazy Sunday — has anybody looked into this topic in depth? Should we have basic income in Canada?
Last edited by Flames0910; 02-09-2014 at 07:17 PM.
Hugh Segal remains the only Conservative that I would ever vote for (if we voted for senators). I have heard him speak on TVO's "The Agenda" and he puts forth a very good argument for guaranteed income.
The Following User Says Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
Sure, why not study anything that could possibly make people's lives better. If it's cost comparable or better, then awesome. It's not like $18000 a year is reason enough to sit home.
It may come as a surprise since I support the Wildrose party but I think it is a great idea. The current system has so many different departments handing out money and services with different strings attached. It makes for a system that must be very tough to navigate.
The Following User Says Thank You to GP_Matt For This Useful Post:
No sir. Minimum wages are arguably a hurdle to full employment, and a barrier to anyone whose skillset cannot justify their wage.
Now, if there was a negative income tax whereby you ARE essentially guaranteed an income, you can earn some extra by working too. Would have to be on a sliding scale where a crossover point is reached and a wage earner would become a tax payer too.
I saw some news program today where the government (I forget where) was giving free apartments to homeless people. They calculated this cost the government less in the long run than providing the normal supports.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
I saw some news program today where the government (I forget where) was giving free apartments to homeless people. They calculated this cost the government less in the long run than providing the normal supports.
It might be more cost effective, but wouldn't it be a better idea to give someone a free apartment if they have a job so you can count on them to make the most of the free apartment?
Removing the cost of having to pay for housing every month is a pretty big significant help on the financial side for someone that has a low income job.
Where would this 700 billion dollars come from assuming 30 some odd million people vs. $20,000 per year. We cant just assume that this money would take the place of other social infrastructure so it would appear that new money would be needed. Using the closing of the veterans affairs office's that are currently taking place as an example, i dont think people would accept losing out on the social programs they currently rely on even with an influx of money.
Also, wouldn't an influx of cash like this just create an equilibrium where prices skyrocket to match the new spending power of a society?
Every time I hear this idea floated, I'm too much of a cynic and figure that it'll end up like the Haven system in David Weber's Honor Harrington books.
If the research shows this would save the government money to what we have - why not?
If this research shows that it would just increase the cost of things, negating the minimum income and causing what people earn now to be worth less - then no
In short: if the research shows it's generally positive and no big drawbacks then sure, but I'm not going to support this if it just causes other problems due to giving people a minimum wage.. if it increases the cost of living at the same time it's not worth it IMO
Where would this 700 billion dollars come from assuming 30 some odd million people vs. $20,000 per year. We cant just assume that this money would take the place of other social infrastructure so it would appear that new money would be needed. Using the closing of the veterans affairs office's that are currently taking place as an example, i dont think people would accept losing out on the social programs they currently rely on even with an influx of money.
Also, wouldn't an influx of cash like this just create an equilibrium where prices skyrocket to match the new spending power of a society?
Even if 70% of the country is over the age of 18 (I don't think that people under 18 should be getting a guaranteed income) that would still be $490,000,000 as the bottom line on the budget.
Canada's total federal budget if I remember is at $276 billion per year. And that's at a deficit.
I just don't get how that would work. On the current budget the government is spending on average $9200 per person per year and that includes infrastructure, defense, health care etc.
You would probably need to have each working Canadian making $50,000 and tax them 100% to support a program like this. Or you would need to have massive corporate taxes which would probably kill most small businesses and medium business and drive big business out of the country which means that there would be less taxation coming into the government
I don't know if I'm doing the math right, but it doesn't make sense.
I'm all for housing assistance for people struggling to get by as long as its temporary housing assistance that's monitored. I'm all for welfare programs and other income bump up programs as temporary measures to get people back on their feet.
but I don't believe in a permanent government minimum salary top up.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
1) so where do people live? every rental place would get filled and people wouldn't be able to find places to live, the minimum amount won't be enough to buy a place.
So if the problem is to solve homlessness, new buildings will still have to be built to give people places to live, we've just made our spending more by giving people a minimum salary to not work (and trust me, a lot of people will not work when they are provided a minimum salary)...
And as it will still be a problem:
2) more money for these people to just waste on alcohol and drugs
It might be more cost effective, but wouldn't it be a better idea to give someone a free apartment if they have a job so you can count on them to make the most of the free apartment?.
No, this is not the case. A Housing First model - where they get a place to live first before dealing with any other issues (e.g. employment, addictions, health, mental health, etc etc) - is generally proving more effective.
Previously the general idea would have been "a person can't have/hold down a home until they are "stable enough"" - i.e. no house until they deal with their issues. Almost the opposite I believe is holding true - you take some with numerous issues going on (i.e. not stable), put them in housing, then provide supports to help them deal with their issues, and you generally get better results - i.e. people become more stable and keep their houses. At least that is what I understand.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RedHot25 For This Useful Post:
Even if 70% of the country is over the age of 18 (I don't think that people under 18 should be getting a guaranteed income) that would still be $490,000,000 as the bottom line on the budget.
Canada's total federal budget if I remember is at $276 billion per year. And that's at a deficit.
I just don't get how that would work. On the current budget the government is spending on average $9200 per person per year and that includes infrastructure, defense, health care etc.
You would probably need to have each working Canadian making $50,000 and tax them 100% to support a program like this. Or you would need to have massive corporate taxes which would probably kill most small businesses and medium business and drive big business out of the country which means that there would be less taxation coming into the government
I don't know if I'm doing the math right, but it doesn't make sense.
I'm all for housing assistance for people struggling to get by as long as its temporary housing assistance that's monitored. I'm all for welfare programs and other income bump up programs as temporary measures to get people back on their feet.
but I don't believe in a permanent government minimum salary top up.
Does the $9200 per citizen include provincial money spend on each individual? Provinces alone allocated around $4000 per citizen for health care alone, and many social services are funded by provinces no? So savings from that would mean less money transferred to the provinces, which should increase the national budget? I don't know what I'm talking about, but maybe that would account for more of it?
Basic Income (aka Guaranteed Annual Income)
