[CaptainCrunch]

Obviously I think there needs to be more of a study of this, but I kind of disagree with the premise of the whole throw money at it to solve it. All this does is allow governments to wash their hands of it by shouting, see we threw money at it, its dealt with.

But at the same time, you get rid of the welfare programs and unemployment programs and other programs so in effect. To me anyways you're not really helping people that are in the lower income brackets, your just accepting that they're there and the government loses its incentive to push them up.

People are talking about automation killing jobs, and that's fine, I accept that premise to an extent, however how is just creating a minimum income paid by the government going to create new jobs and industry sectors if it suddenly creates an environment where people can sit at home?

I would question the concept as a person put it that people could collect the BI and then work under the table to increase their wealth? How is that fair in anyway? Shouldn't any dollar earned over minimum income be taxed?

And the whole idea, that its only the wealth that pay for it I think is disingenuous to the sell job to be honest?

First and foremost, wouldn't they either merely move their wealth and income to another country that lets say doesn't have BI and lets say doesn't tax more then half their income? In fact wouldn't other countries fight for their capital investment and their personal wealth.

And what's the definition of the wealthy who pay? Lets say that you suddenly jack up taxation for people making 40 or 50k a year. Lets say to support BI you tax those people half of their pay checks so their take home goes to 20 or 25k? Wouldn't it just be more worthwhile to say screw it, I'll take the 17k and stay home and maybe work under the table mowing lawns? Its less aggravation and I can sit at home and call myself a scientist.

As well, I guess my question is under a pure system of Basic Income, the cost savings are in terms of a reduction of managing a myriad of social programs.

In effect you don't need welfare and UI and for the people that are getting disability from the government that goes away. You can also get rid of the pension. But at the same time wouldn't you do things like put user fees on healthcare since BI would far overshadow healthcare in terms of percentage of tax income spent.

I tend to look at anything that Wynne does as cynically designed to fight her next election, and BI is a big thing that can attract lower income voters to her cause.

I'm certainly not dismissing it, but this seems to be an idea that to me might simplify government but it won't necessarily help the vulnerable and I'm not talking about normal low income earners here.

I tend to think that it will just create a pool of low income earners getting checks but it won't look at underlying causes or specific issues that put people in that pool.