Basic Income (aka Guaranteed Annual Income)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fire

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.

It would basically be 414,000,000,000 if we paid 70% of our population (everyone over 18) its unaffordable since our federal budget is I think 719 billion right now and we're in a deficit.

[Oil Stain]

Quote:
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.
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not opposed to this, but the article appears to sell the comparison of it costing $100,000 to support a homeless person versus $35,000 to supply them housing.

In reality I would bet because of the mental issues faced by many homeless, the taxpayer would end up paying the $35,000 in addition to health, emergency, and justice system services. In some instances the cost could end up being $35,000 + $100,000 per year.

If this program can turn even 5-10% of the homeless into productive citizens it is probably worth it, but it seems like the facts are being misrepresented a little.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

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

The whole point is you eliminate parts of these programs in favor of direct payments to the recipients instead of just giving them access to a program which might or might not help them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It would basically be 414,000,000,000 if we paid 70% of our population (everyone over 18) its unaffordable since our federal budget is I think 719 billion right now and we're in a deficit.

You don't need to pay everyone. Only those we consider to live in poverty and have a chance of getting out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Quote:
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.
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not opposed to this, but the article appears to sell the comparison of it costing $100,000 to support a homeless person versus $35,000 to supply them housing.

In reality I would bet because of the mental issues faced by many homeless, the taxpayer would end up paying the $35,000 in addition to health, emergency, and justice system services. In some instances the cost could end up being $35,000 + $100,000 per year.

If this program can turn even 5-10% of the homeless into productive citizens it is probably worth it, but it seems like the facts are being misrepresented a little.

How do mental issues turn into $65,000 worth of 'care' per year? I mean sure, the support services probably cost extra on top of the $35,000, but I highly doubt it comes close to the $65,000 you mentioned.

We do need more conclusive studies done, obviously....but it seems like it can work if administered properly. Which is a whole other problem.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

How do mental issues turn into $65,000 worth of 'care' per year? I mean sure, the support services probably cost extra on top of the $35,000, but I highly doubt it comes close to the $65,000 you mentioned.

We do need more conclusive studies done, obviously....but it seems like it can work if administered properly. Which is a whole other problem.

Doesn't seem that high to me.

From http://www.calgaryunitedway.org/main...ool-completion

The cost of a high school drop out is considerable, not only on the individual, but to society overall. Individuals who do not complete high school tend to have lower levels of civic participation and considerably higher consumption rates of health care and social assistance. The actual cost of a single drop out, in Canada, is $15,850 annually, for their entire lives.

If someone costs an extra $15k for just not graduating high school, I can would think adding mental issues which make someone completely unable to work would cost much more with higher incarceration rates, more medical resources required and an even lower earning potential, and direct payments from programs like AISH.

The main contributor would be prison. It costs, on average, $110k a year to house someone in jail. I am guessing that those costs go up for people with special medical/mental issues that require specialized treatment or detainment measures.

[Red John]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

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?

It should be for everyone but won't be; problem is though it means everyone making 20-25k a year is basically working for free so what's going to push them to continue to do so.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

You don't need to pay everyone. Only those we consider to live in poverty and have a chance of getting out.

I get that, I was arguing against someone else that was saying that the 1500 a month for him would be great even though he was making far more.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Red John

It should be for everyone but won't be; problem is though it means everyone making 20-25k a year is basically working for free so what's going to push them to continue to do so.

Well you would obviosly have some kind of weaning off of the benefit to encourage people to take minimum wage jobs. Perhaps you keep 75% of the first 5k and 50% of the next 5k and so on until you are off the benefit.

The big key here is that the majority of people will use this money to help themselves be less of a burden and we wouldnt see it happen.

A small minority will flush all of the money away and do it in a visable manner. We need to accept that a cost of a program like this is abuse and thats okay because the cost of preventing that abuse costs more.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Disagree



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

At one point of my life (for two months), I had no choice but to go on AISH, since I had just switched jobs, and broke my arm in a cycling accident, before my work benefits kicked in. This was nearly a decade ago, when I was not so well off. Do you have any idea how little you get from AISH in a month??? I had $475.00 to pay for a bus pass, clothes, food, rent, etc. How on earth can you manage to live on less than $500 in Calgary???

I had to sell my bike, TV, and be loaned $50 from my roommates just to get through the 6 weeks I could not physically work. Try working with a broken, and see how many jobs you can hold, especially if you do physical labor.

I was lucky. I have always been in good physical shape. Even though I returned to work two weeks earlier than the doctors wanted me to, I had no money, and my arm was healed enough to do 90% of my routine tasks. Imagine how it's like for people with chronic physical ailments, mental health conditions, etc. than cannot work?

You mention that you have never needed government programs, since you have been working from the time you were 15? Did you move out and work 40+ hours and go to High School/College? Just curious, since many truly vulnerable (especially in abuse cases) don't have the luxury to live at home until they are finished high school/college.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Azure

You don't need to pay everyone. Only those we consider to live in poverty and have a chance of getting out.

I can imagine all the abuse that would take place. I would rather see all levels of governments encourage cheaper housing. The city should force the developers to build a certain percentage of their developments in the low cost housing category.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fire

I can imagine all the abuse that would take place. I would rather see all levels of governments encourage cheaper housing. The city should force the developers to build a certain percentage of their developments in the low cost housing category.

The best way to lower the cost of housing is to increase the supply of housing. Forcing developers to build uneconomic housing in every development will raise housing costs for those not "on the list" by making less developments economic. Lower supply = higher price.

If gov't wants to supply extra affordable housing, it should buy it at the market price, not mandate its construction.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Doesn't seem that high to me.

From http://www.calgaryunitedway.org/main...ool-completion



If someone costs an extra $15k for just not graduating high school, I can would think adding mental issues which make someone completely unable to work would cost much more with higher incarceration rates, more medical resources required and an even lower earning potential, and direct payments from programs like AISH.

The main contributor would be prison. It costs, on average, $110k a year to house someone in jail. I am guessing that those costs go up for people with special medical/mental issues that require specialized treatment or detainment measures.

Good find.

The prison thing is a bit of a separate issue, but the amount of money Canada could save is pretty staggering. Not sure why we are so intent on throwing every single person who has ever committed a 'minor' crime into prison at $110,000/year or whatever it costs.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

You mention that you have never needed government programs, since you have been working from the time you were 15? Did you move out and work 40+ hours and go to High School/College? Just curious, since many truly vulnerable (especially in abuse cases) don't have the luxury to live at home until they are finished high school/college.

Yes i worked two jobs while i finished high school and lived on my own.
You are misrepresenting what i said about government programs. I think the programs are a larger help then just giving someone a cash allowance on its own. Add to the fact that a replacement of government programs by a cash allowance would lead to many people being worse off in the short and long term negating any savings you think you might have.
Finally, it wasn't breaking your arm that left you without any money. It was the hundreds of poor financil decisions before your injury that put you in a position where you couldn't look after yourself. That likely wouldn't have changed even with extra money coming in every month from the government.

[Azure]

Low income housing is a bit of a problem, actually. I deal directly with Manitoba Housing on a weekly basis and some of the requirements they have for low income housing are a bit wonky. Minor issue though, and if you get some common sense involved it could be easily solved.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fire

I can imagine all the abuse that would take place. I would rather see all levels of governments encourage cheaper housing. The city should force the developers to build a certain percentage of their developments in the low cost housing category.

The abuse will happen regardless. The point still is to find a more efficient way to help people get out of poverty while at the same time getting rid of the ridiculous administration costs and red tape that it takes to actually receive those benefits.

[Vulcan]

Finally, it wasn't breaking your arm that left you without any money. It was the hundreds of poor financil decisions before your injury that put you in a position where you couldn't look after yourself.

That's a leap.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

That's a leap.

If you dont have enough money to last a couple of months when things go sour then you need to re-evaluate how you approach spending and saving. When you make better life decisions, you protect yourself from being vulnerable to negative circumstances.

[Locke]

When has handing out free money ever worked?

What will people do for this guaranteed income? Queue up for bread and vodka? Gather wheat for the motherland?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

If you dont have enough money to last a couple of months when things go sour then you need to re-evaluate how you approach spending and saving. When you make better life decisions, you protect yourself from being vulnerable to negative circumstances.

Oh grow up.