Basic Income (aka Guaranteed Annual Income)

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting.

I wish we had more outside the box stuff like that happening. If you take away the moral obligation to help those stuck in poverty, there is still the financial benefit of having these people get jobs, and hopefully begin supporting themselves.

This has been the approach I believe in Alberta for a while now: http://humanservices.alberta.ca/homelessness/15698.html

What is the Housing First approach?
This means that permanent housing is provided along with support services. Providing support services helps formerly homeless people maintain their housing over the long term.
Does this cost more?
Studies show it can cost upwards of $100,000 per year in health, emergency and justice system services to support a chronically homeless person. Under Housing First, it costs less than $35,000 per year to provide permanent housing and the supports they need to break the cycle of homelessness.

Plan for Ending Homelessness: http://humanservices.alberta.ca/homelessness.html and http://humanservices.alberta.ca/homelessness/14601.html and http://humanservices.alberta.ca/docu...riat_final.pdf

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Itse

That's why I said "supposedly". I don't necessarily trust those calculations.

That would be intentional. For most working people, their taxes would go up the same as they get from the government, making it a wash. This is a main reason why the program isn't as expensive as it sounds at first.

The idea is not to give everybody more money. The idea is to take a new approach to the way social benefits system works, essentially.

There are places that have already tried it and generally it seems the systems have been doing okay at worst. However, the experiments have been small in scale and often in countries that compare poorly to a country like Canada or Finland, like Namibia, India or Iran.

Check out mincome from wikipedia, that experiment was done in Canada in the seventies.

Well said, in this and your original post.

I like the idea of trying this kind of thing, but ultimately there is no way it flies.

No matter if it's recouped in taxes or offset, people will lose their marbles over rich folks getting the same as not rich folks.

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You could say that video game addiction would cause many health and social issues.

Originally Posted by AcGold

well they do cause health problems if abused so it's not completely erroneous.

Yes but with a lot of things it can be said to cause health problems if it is abused.

It'll take a lot more abuse of video games to cause health problems vs. someone who drinks and takes drugs every day.

I also see it going to be far more prevalent that people would buy more alcohol and drugs, than than those who abuse video games to a point where it will be a health problem.

[Jets4Life]

In Winnipeg, they had an article about how much money was spent on homeless people, in terms of shelter, food banks, ambulance and police cars and trucks, and overall care in institutions (jail, drunk tanks, psych ward, etc.), and found the 100 worst offenders cost the city something insane like $50,000,000, if I am not mistaken. That's nearly 12 times the annual income of the average citizen.

If it is that costly to attend to people who have slipped through the cracks of our social support system, I definitely think we should be looking at guaranteeing at least a bachelor apartment for every Canadian citizen over the age of 18. It would be cost effective, and safer for the most vulnerable segment of the population, considering the homeless have exponentially higher rates of physical and mental illness, and substance abuse problems, compared to the overall Canadian population.

[lorenavedon]

If you go to bed every night knowing that when you wake up you will have food, shelter and clothing, that goes a long way to changing someone's mentality from one of desperation, anger, stress and depression, to one of hope. That goes all across the spectrum. Nobody has sleepless nights because they can only afford a 40" TV instead of the new 80". People lose sleep because they worry that they cant pay their bills and might lose their homes. Or not have enough to feed themselves or their family. A living income can go a long way. $1500/month is plenty for one person in terms of paying for the things you need. Instead of that person being homeless, potentially an addict, committing crimes and putting a strain on the system. That person might be able to spend time going to school or looking for work.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

$1500/month is plenty for one person in terms of paying for the things you need. Instead of that person being homeless, potentially an addict, committing crimes and putting a strain on the system. That person might be able to spend time going to school or looking for work.

If $1500 per month has the power to change someone's life then the easiest solution would be to go earn it plus more. Why wait for the government to tell you its ok?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

If $1500 per month has the power to change someone's life then the easiest solution would be to go earn it plus more. Why wait for the government to tell you its ok?

Because you are physically incapable of doing so, and by not being given the 1500 a month you're costing tax payers 10 000?

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

If $1500 per month has the power to change someone's life then the easiest solution would be to go earn it plus more. Why wait for the government to tell you its ok?

a lot of people starting at the bottom might have a bit more issues and factors that affect their ability to just "go earn it". Someone's life can't be summed up with catch phrases or general bull#### like "lots of work out there, pick up a hammer and shut up". That's a real hick mentality that doesn't take into account all the factors that surround a person in poverty. Equating poverty with laziness is insulting and discriminatory. The most lazy people I know are well off middle class.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because you are physically incapable of doing so, and by not being given the 1500 a month you're costing tax payers 10 000?

The people that are physically incapable of working are already provided with money but more importantly provided with social programs to help them. To give them a larger portion of money at the cost of those social programs would leave them in a worse off position.

[Red John]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

If you go to bed every night knowing that when you wake up you will have food, shelter and clothing, that goes a long way to changing someone's mentality from one of desperation, anger, stress and depression, to one of hope. That goes all across the spectrum. Nobody has sleepless nights because they can only afford a 40" TV instead of the new 80". People lose sleep because they worry that they cant pay their bills and might lose their homes. Or not have enough to feed themselves or their family. A living income can go a long way. $1500/month is plenty for one person in terms of paying for the things you need. Instead of that person being homeless, potentially an addict, committing crimes and putting a strain on the system. That person might be able to spend time going to school or looking for work.

Most poor people lose sleep because they can't pay their bills because they had to blow their paycheck on that 80" TV last week. Or the new XBox. Or cigarettes, alcohol and weed.

$1500 a month will get blown very quickly on vices, and that person will still be committing crimes and putting a strain on the system to get by.

Would love to see a basic living stipend though; an extra $18k a year would be awesome to invest and put to work for me. It won't solve any problems though, as those whom it was designed to help will just end up blowing it and putting it back into the hands of business owners (best case scenario) or drug dealers (worst case scenario).

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

a lot of people starting at the bottom might have a bit more issues and factors that affect their ability to just "go earn it". Someone's life can't be summed up with catch phrases or general bull#### like "lots of work out there, pick up a hammer and shut up". That's a real hick mentality that doesn't take into account all the factors that surround a person in poverty. Equating poverty with laziness is insulting and discriminatory. The most lazy people I know are well off middle class.

Poor people arent poor because they're lazy. Poor people are poor because the continously make decisions that lead to that result, and continuously fail to take steps that would lead them out of it.

[burn_this_city]

How many people here who think the poor can just pull up the bootstraps have actually been truly poor?

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

How many people here who think the poor can just pull up the bootstraps have actually been truly poor?

I have. Every meal i have eaten since i was 15 was paid for off my own labour. And that is why i will never be poor again.

[Azure]

I know there are people out there that make bad decisions financially and end up 'poor' as a result. Throwing money at them obviously might create a problem.

But there are thousands of people that would benefit from direct income much more than they would from the slew of social programs they might or might not have access too.

As a taxpayer, I am more than willing to give this a go. Like I said, pick out 500 people on federal scale, and try something like this.

Flash is right. If you give them $1,000/month, which basically amounts to rent....they might not cost the government $10,000/month instead. And over time they can hopefully work up the status ladder to the point where they don't need much help.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by Azure

But there are thousands of people that would benefit from direct income much more than they would from the slew of social programs they might or might not have access too.

Disagree

Originally Posted by Azure

Flash is right. If you give them $1,000/month, which basically amounts to rent....they might not cost the government $10,000/month instead. And over time they can hopefully work up the status ladder to the point where they don't need much help.

Doesnt this already exist in the form of welfare, AISH, LTD ect.. But with the added benefit of the hands on social programs.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Disagree

I'm sure you'll convince Azure of the error of his ways with such a carefully thought-out and brilliantly articulated rebuttal complete with supporting evidence.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm sure you'll convince Azure of the error of his ways with such a carefully thought-out and brilliantly articulated rebuttal complete with supporting evidence.

I already posted the reasons but thanks for the drive by.

[CaptainCrunch]

In my mind there would need to be some kind of monitoring or counseling or schooling training job search requirements and assistance.

I don't think that you can just right checks and hope that they handle it properly

Just my two cents

I would also think that there has to be monitoring to keep the housing available for those that need it. there have been a bunch of stories of people making 6 figures who are still getting assisted housing.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

If you go to bed every night knowing that when you wake up you will have food, shelter and clothing, that goes a long way to changing someone's mentality from one of desperation, anger, stress and depression, to one of hope. That goes all across the spectrum. Nobody has sleepless nights because they can only afford a 40" TV instead of the new 80". People lose sleep because they worry that they cant pay their bills and might lose their homes. Or not have enough to feed themselves or their family. A living income can go a long way. $1500/month is plenty for one person in terms of paying for the things you need. Instead of that person being homeless, potentially an addict, committing crimes and putting a strain on the system. That person might be able to spend time going to school or looking for work.

You realize that by giving everyone $1500/month base income, you will just raise the costs of everything. Rent and House prices will sky rocket. Unless you plan on crippling the businesses and working people with super high taxes.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Red John

Would love to see a basic living stipend though; an extra $18k a year would be awesome to invest and put to work for me. It won't solve any problems though, as those whom it was designed to help will just end up blowing it and putting it back into the hands of business owners (best case scenario) or drug dealers (worst case scenario).

Thing is, would you get the BLS? If you are making more than that already, what would you get it for? I can't think of anyone who would turn down an extra 18k a year or so...but are we talking that money for everyone, for for everyone who is making LESS than that per year?