Basic Living Stipend

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

My uncles, aunts, and grandmother are all from Slovakia so I think I would. I am not talking about personally, I was referring to the economic side of things.

Well then you should be more than aware of the human cost to achieve that economy. An economy that was mostly smoke and mirrors anyway.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

I disagree greatly with that, as millions of minimum wage people in the US hate their job but keep working them to pay for things they want.

I think this is an interesting debate. Say 10% of the population drops out of the workforce. Suddenly you have more jobs chasing fewer people, unlike the current situation, so wages would have to increase. Why would someone work at McDs for $18k a year when they could just get $18k a year from the goverment. So McDs has to pay 24k to get someone to flip burgers, which thereby makes the burgers more expensive, moving them out of the price range of the folks getting $18k for doing nothing. I feel like an equilibrium would be reached at some point.

One big question with a system like this is what happens if people blow through their stipend, or borrow against it to the point of bankruptcy, or whatever. At that point I would assume they're on the street or in the hands of charities, kind of like the current system. Like I said, the whole concept is very interesting to me. I know I wouldn't be satisfied with just enough to get by, but knocking the people who only want that out of the employment market would sure take a chunk out of the unemployment rate.

Millions of people keep working, but millions of people also don't work as it is. As someone who works in the field of insurance law, I can tell you there is a sizeable portion of the Canadian populace who make a living from insurance claims and disability with no intention of ever working. Many people are on disability with good reason, but many are not.

[Itse]

A similar debate has been going on in Finland for quite a while. Here's my stand in short. There's obviously some huge generalizations going on here.

Most western countries have essentially had basic living allowances covered for all citizens for decades. However, to get the money you deserve by law, you have to jump through a varying level of bureaucratic hoops and usually wait around for quite a while until you actually get your money, which means people have to make do without nothing sometimes for months.

This is stupid.

First of all, as a rule of thumb a bureaucratic machine that make sure nobody "cheats" on welfare costs way more money that it saves. In most systems, cheaters are actually pretty rare.

Second, the people that get suck into the machines belly end up spending all their time and energy trying to make sure every paper is filled and every requirement filled, and they end up having very little left to for example study or look for a job.

So not only is the current "standard way" of doing things cost-ineffective, it actually tend to create "cheaters".

It's funny that people call this "communism", since in Finland a notable amount of young liberal right wing politicians have been advocating for a "citizens salary" of some kind. Less bureaucracy and less government control over people's lives, basicly.

Some of them point out that welfare bureacracy is based on government prying on people's private lives and making a whole lot of decisions about what it is that they really need. That's actually much closer to communism than just giving people money.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Itse

A similar debate has been going on in Finland for quite a while. Here's my stand in short. There's obviously some huge generalizations going on here.

Most western countries have essentially had basic living allowances covered for all citizens for decades. However, to get the money you deserve by law, you have to jump through a varying level of bureaucratic hoops and usually wait around for quite a while until you actually get your money, which means people have to make do without nothing sometimes for months.

This is stupid.

First of all, as a rule of thumb a bureaucratic machine that make sure nobody "cheats" on welfare costs way more money that it saves. In most systems, cheaters are actually pretty rare.

Second, the people that get suck into the machines belly end up spending all their time and energy trying to make sure every paper is filled and every requirement filled, and they end up having very little left to for example study or look for a job.

So not only is the current "standard way" of doing things cost-ineffective, it actually tend to create "cheaters".

It's funny that people call this "communism", since in Finland a notable amount of young liberal right wing politicians have been advocating for a "citizens salary" of some kind. Less bureaucracy and less government control over people's lives, basicly.

Some of them point out that welfare bureacracy is based on government prying on people's private lives and making a whole lot of decisions about what it is that they really need. That's actually much closer to communism than just giving people money.

I think that the two bolded points are closely related to each other. There are few cheats because of the amount of work it takes to go through the system. It's the point of a difficult system. Is it too difficult? Perhaps. But the difficulty itself plays an important role in making the system work, to a degree.

[Thor]

I find it fascinating how welfare and topics about drug tests for welfare are so popular on social media. Certainly these are important issues and ideas on how to do these better are more than welcome, but its often a attack on "lazy, drunk, losers" living off the system.

Wouldn't our efforts be better spent going after the real leeches off our systems, the rich who pay very little if any taxes, corporations who get away with next to nothing in taxes, tax loopholes, military spending, etc.....

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

One big question with a system like this is what happens if people blow through their stipend, or borrow against it to the point of bankruptcy, or whatever. .

I have a relative who just qualified for short-term government assistance in Saskatchewan. The guy is completely penniless and has been for decades.

His first monthly government assistance cheque was $536.

He spent $336 on groceries and $200 on lottery tickets. Now he's penniless.

I assume the government welcomed the return of their $200.

As a former poor person, I disagree with the notion that once you're born there, you stay there. But it takes a lot of determination and persistence through a period of time to generally push forward.

And some people are just dolts and they'll always be poor as a result.

People are not born equal. Not in abilities. Not in background. There will always be winners and losers.

I agree with the general premise of a social safety net as the Great Depression probably taught us its cheaper to have that net than the alternative. But you can't de-incentivize people. The struggle has to be there.

Cowperson

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I would absolutely still be working, but this brings up an interesting argument. I don't want a government that pays my every need--I don't want to just survive. But Nordic companies offer better educational support beyond basic K-12, and I would love to see the US adopt a system which evened the playing field, with regards to higher education, for lower income students. As it stands now, if you're born into a lower income family, you live in a lower income neighborhood, you go to a lower income school, you get a lower tiered education with fewer resources afforded you, and often you bypass further education because your family can't afford to go into debt to send you to college. If you're born in a wealthy family, you live in a safer neighborhood with better transportation options, you go to a better school with better resources, you're afforded better opportunities for further education because your parents can afford it.

If the US fixes that one issue, it would fix a lot of the issues in this country. Until then, the wealthy cannot argue that lower income families don't work hard enough--you can work your entire life and still have nothing, if you came from nothing. Class mobility is severely limited in this country, if you're born into wealth, you're likely to keep it, if you're born into poverty, you're likely to stay there, or slightly above. You can no longer count on hard work and dedication to get you from lower class to upper-middle. Ask all the people who worked diligently for companies for 20-30 years, only to lose their jobs as soon as the recession started. It isn't just about hard work, hard work is a small part of the equation here. The government doesn't need to offer to cover all basic living expenses, but it should offer equal opportunities to all income levels.

Agreed. Don't want to turn this into a US bashing thread (or political).. but blows my mind that a country as powerful as the USA, skimps on education on health care.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I think that the two bolded points are closely related to each other. There are few cheats because of the amount of work it takes to go through the system. It's the point of a difficult system. Is it too difficult? Perhaps. But the difficulty itself plays an important role in making the system work, to a degree.

There's been quite a few studies about this in Finland, since sociology in various forms has been a big thing here. AFAIK the evidence is actually pretty conclusive: the money saved is not worth the bureaucracy. I'm pretty sure in a country like Canada (which I understand keeps decent statistics) crunching these numbers would not be much of a hassle, and there's a good chance that someone somewhere has already done it.

Basicly the problem is that welfare actually involves rather small amounts of money per person, but bureaucracy is damned expensive when applied to large amounts of people. It's actually so expensive that even if every applicant cheated a little, it propably wouldn't be worth doing anything about it. (Especially if you count in the fact that the time wasted of the applicants is away from something else, and most people are at least trying to be useful to the society despite some cheating somewhere.)

It's much like small tax frauds or small insurance frauds are generally not worth doing much anything about. Too little money involved compared to the size of things.

There is even some (inconclusive) evidence that a higher amount of bureaucracy actually encourages dishonesty to some extent, because bureaucracy creates emotional distance and outright animosity towards "the system".

EDIT: Of course these are all generalizations. Not all bureaucracy is alike.

[Paladium]

Every day we move closer to providing everything for everybody - the growth of the NDP in the federal election - anti-government vote or not - makes me think/fear that eventually we will be providing everything off the backs of those who have worked their assess off.

Just like Me and Bobby McGee

Stipend is just another word for ....you are all going to be screwed.

[WhiteTiger]

Hm, well, reading over my original post and the replies (and spending a day at work thinking more about it) I find that I sort of botched the question and didn't really lay out the premise.

First off, I was thinking of the system from David Weber's "Honor Harrington" books, hence the thread title.

Under this system, the BLS kept pace with or was slightly behind the rate of inflation for the most part.

Additionally, from what I can tell, if you spent through your BLS, you were SOL. The government was giving you this much, and nothing more.

You had a right to the BLS, by right of being a citizen. All you would have to do is show proof of citizenship, and you would be able to collect the BLS. The full amount. No fancy paperwork, no varying amounts. If you were on the BLS, you got the same amount of money as everyone else in that lineup.

You could work if you wanted to (and were encouraged to!) but if you did, you couldn't collect the BLS. Most people didn't bother to work.

The Government is doing this in an attempt to buy your vote, and so tend to pander to you, promising increases and perks.

The BLS system has been in place for "several generations" by the point the books start.

So, hopefully, that clears up a bit of the scenario I was thinking of.

What I was thinking about today at work was that if you were looking at starting a BLS style thing tomorrow, what would the starting amount be? I ended up figuring around 25 to 30k mark, which is just slightly below the average salary of your average Canadian. Since I can't really figure out what would be a good starting point due to inflation, I figured that just under what most folks would earn at an average job would work. I have a feeling I'm lowballing it since I often hear a lot of complaining that most folks raises aren't even keeping up with inflation.

I started thinking that the BLS wouldn't go over well with folks 30+. Especially folks from this generation/time period. We've been sold on the benefits of the 'self made man', and see the rewards of hard work. They've been working for a while and put a lot into the system already. Where the BLS would be targeting would be the younger crowd. I have a feeling that they'd get a good number of them. And the ones after them. With each generation, I imagine it would just get worse.

But them, maybe I just need a bit more faith in humanity.

[Reanimate]

Put that money into cheaper education and workforce training and programs. There are as many freeloaders as there are people in need in our privileged society.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Reanimate

Put that money into cheaper education and workforce training and programs. There are as many freeloaders as there are people in need in our privileged society.

I'm assuming you have numbers to back that up?

My mother works at a Halifax food bank and from what I hear, yes, there are a few able-bodied people that are finding ways of getting through life without putting in a day's work... and it's amazing how much effort they put into "working the system" to avoid actual work. But the vast majority are people who have just fallen on hard times... single mothers who can't afford daycare, disabled people (mental or otherwise), people escaping abusive relationships, hard working people who just can't seem to land a job (which are scarce in Halifax). I know that is all anecdotal... but given that background, I'd love to see what your source is to say that "there are as many freeloaders as people in need".

[Reanimate]

It's my opinion. No stats. I grew up dirt poor. I would be offended if this type of system was implemented in Canada. It is a slap in the face of me, my mom, and my brother who worked our asses off to get where we are. And growing up in that demographic, saw many many people who abused the hell out of our current welfare system. I couldn't imagine the sloth that guaranteed money would incur.

[PIMking]

say everyone does this, who is the government going to tax to pay for this?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by PIMking

say everyone does this, who is the government going to tax to pay for this?

Businesses.. or at least thats the premise that the NDP operates on.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by PIMking

say everyone does this, who is the government going to tax to pay for this?

In the case of the books, it was rapid, frequent, aggressive expansionism.

But that's the question, isn't it? It's all well and good to say "Everyone shouldn't have to worry about money!" but...someone has to. The money doesn't just appear out of thin air.

[Phanuthier]

This fits on the opposite end of the spectrum, but I thought this was a great post:

http://www.quora.com/Wealthy-People-...onaire?hover=1

How is being a billionaire better than being a millionaire?Edit
How are the perks/benefits different? Are there distinct "classes" at the upper end of the wealth scale?Edit

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Reanimate

It's my opinion. No stats. I grew up dirt poor. I would be offended if this type of system was implemented in Canada. It is a slap in the face of me, my mom, and my brother who worked our asses off to get where we are. And growing up in that demographic, saw many many people who abused the hell out of our current welfare system. I couldn't imagine the sloth that guaranteed money would incur.

I don't buy that. "We had it very hard and had to kick and claw our way out of the gutter. So everyone else should too."

Based on the poll numbers, I doubt many would turn to laggards overnight. Right now the most you can get in welfare benefits as a single person is about $17,000. Heck, that's about what I pay in rent in a year. So let's say that we have a BLS that is double that to $34,000 and let's even say there is no taxes on that $34,000. I still can't see me being able to live on that, especially if I want to experience life - travel, go to movies, socialize with friends at the pub or at a restaurant... Like I said, that guy that works at the gas station would very much be tempted to quit. That job doesn't give him any more money, nor does it address any of his personal needs. But I don't think any professional workers would be tempted at all.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't buy that. "We had it very hard and had to kick and claw our way out of the gutter. So everyone else should too."

Based on the poll numbers, I doubt many would turn to laggards overnight. Right now the most you can get in welfare benefits as a single person is about $17,000. Heck, that's about what I pay in rent in a year. So let's say that we have a BLS that is double that to $34,000 and let's even say there is no taxes on that $34,000. I still can't see me being able to live on that, especially if I want to experience life - travel, go to movies, socialize with friends at the pub or at a restaurant... Like I said, that guy that works at the gas station would very much be tempted to quit. That job doesn't give him any more money, nor does it address any of his personal needs. But I don't think any professional workers would be tempted at all.

You think the basic stipend should be $34,000 after tax? Per person? If so, that is almost what the average wage is already. You don't think many people would forego work if they had $34,000.00 in guaranteed income? Even if you don't want to work fulltime, I could see the result being some massive massive reductions in work week.

I lived on less than $34,000.00 in post-tax income until 3 years ago. You find ways to live and travel.

You also realize, just throwing that kind of money around is an amazing waste. It just adds to inflation.

[Thor]

Did anyone other than a few of you bother watching the video I posted on what motivates us?