Tzatziki Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Thoughts?? :) IS THE FIX FOR POVERTY AS SIMPLE AS A CHEQUE IN THE MAIL? Coming to an Ontario city near you: cheques for every resident as part of a "mincome" experiment to reduce income inequality Back in the 1970s, a pilot in Dauphin, Manitoba met with reasonable success. Recent months have seen mincome once again garnering attention from the feds. Justin Trudeau?s Liberals have resolved to develop and deploy a mincome experiment, potentially in Prince Edward Island. Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi endorses the idea, as does Alberta?s finance minister, Joseph Ceci. A trial project would provide experimental data, but Toni Pickard, a mincome supporter and professor emeritus of law at Queen?s University, cautions that a pilot could stand in the way of progress. ?Pilots risk delaying implementation,? she says. She points to successful basic income initiatives in other countries, like Brazil?s Bolsa Fam?lia grant program, which supplements the incomes of families with children (provided kids attend school and get vaccinated). Brazil wants to universalize the grant, which has not only helped the poor, but the economy as a whole ? for every Brazilian real spent, the government receives a 178 per cent return. ?Our economy is supposed to be driven by demand,? says Regehr, but if people don?t have money to spend, their demand means little. ?That?s why a basic income has such a profound effect. You?re not just giving individuals or families a basic income ? you?re actually providing the basis of an economy.? https://nowtoronto.com/news/is-fix-for-poverty-as-simple-as-cheque-in-the-mail%3F/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giourkas Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Who pays for this? I'm all for socialism done right, but this seems dangerous... I hope Canada doesn't mimic Europe's path to insolvency.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzatziki Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 The idea would be that all other welfare type social programs like unemployment would be replaced by "mincome". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzatziki Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) It was done in Manitoba I believe for a few years with positive results until eventually being scraped by a new conservative Premier. Holland and I think Finland also have such programs at about 800 euros per month to every citizen/resident. If we are to believe the quote in the original post the economic impact is quite positive. Edited March 8, 2016 by Tzatziki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giourkas Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) ^Every citizen despite income? So, we are basically taking away all motivation for people to find jobs and better themselves correct? I don't know... It seems to me like the Liberals are buying votes at the cost of Billions to taxpayers... Will taxes be hiked? How does the country handle debt? Alberta was a special case IMO... When the oil money was flowing, they were untouchable... Could this system work there now? Or any other province? Say Ontario, Quebec.... Not so sure... Edited March 8, 2016 by Giourkas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzatziki Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 For some people it is likely, but in Quebec for example, there are over a hundred thousand people that have been on welfare for ten or more years consecutively. I don't personally think that people will suddenly stop working and live off of this pittance but rather keep working in general as they currently do, and use the extra money as extra disposable income. I think if done right this can really give an electro shock to our economy that is pretty flat. It could also have other benefits with petty crime and perhaps homelessness. This type of plan makes much more sense to me than the bail out of the banks. The average joe will pump the money right back into their local economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giourkas Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 The welfare systemis indeed plagued by inefficiencies... A major overhaul is needed... Again, which party is brave enough to do it and risk the rath of voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzatziki Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 This is the idea with the pilot project which will begin in Ontario. If this is meant to simplify and replace existing welfare programs and other forms of social assistance, it could very well be cost effective i.e. not incur extra gov. expenditure than what is being spent at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 This idea would have Austrian economists turning in their graves, but if the conditions are suitable it can work. The biggest impediment would be the 1% who would see their share so to speak ... watered down. Their would be outcries of Germanic style hyperinflation. But I don't see any reason why in theory it couldn't work, you just need to be careful how you implement it. In fact, I think it's the only way you could rebalance the world economy and spur growth. Right now there is a lot of idle productive capacity that isn't being used because "the economy is weak" which is really just fancy talk for "people are broke". Give those people a "living wage" and you absolutely get the economy moving. But again, "helicopter" money is only taken seriously when it's given to big banks who do nothing with it because" the economy is weak" and it just sits there not getting into circulation. Apparently, this is sober and responsible economics. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korisos Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 This is the Liberals joke of the day. Funny it's Ontario trying this. If they were a sovereign country, their finances would be worse than Greece. It will end in another Liberal disaster to be covered off by the tax payers of course coupled with the highest energy costs and soon a mandatory pension plan, Ontario is F***ed financially. Quebec keeps opposing the new pipeline and can go F*** themselves too as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nea Bafra Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 You can pretty much gauge the response to this program by people's geographic location In the end it comes down to what you believe a government's function is. To listen to some of the more radical US Republicans it is that the government shouldn't exist or at the very least should not interfere in their lives at all [which always strikes me as funny when they also believe the government has the right to torture people in order to protect them]. Then you have hardcore communists who want the government to control everything [do these people even exist any more, I assume they do]. Surely there is a happy medium somewhere where the government takes a portion of everyone's money [citizen and corporation] and in exchange provides basic coordinated services like education, health care, clean water, power, roads, public transport and keep me safe with a police force. I'm happy to give the government my money if I can see what I get back in return. Look after the sick, the elderly and the young, if not then really what's the point, because if you can't do that there is not a lot left to be hopeful for the human race, go ahead and dismantle the government and let anarchy reign [PAOK might actually win the league in a world like that] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzatziki Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 This will pile more weight on the upper middle class and drive down living standards as the cost of living continues to rise, although it will serve as a bit of a steam valve for those at the bottom of the societal pyramid. It certainly a good way to buy more votes for Ontario's provincial government. By any stretch of the imagination, these types of schemes amount to a trend towards the radical, the net result of which will mean a good many Ontarians will need to live with ever more so modesty and with ever less so autonomy. The proverbial cat really gets out of the bag when anyone takes a cold hard look at Ontario's energy policies to really grasp the big picture of what is happening. How is putting money in every persons pocket a bad thing? or how do you see it drive down their living standards? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzatziki Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 I could write up a thesis on it, but I'll try to focus on one key consideration. Let's consider for a moment a person in Ontario who barely makes enough money to get by or has no job at all, what type of stuff would this person buy? Quality goods/services? Or lower end goods/services? Chances are lower end. So producers will be signaled to meet the demand of lower end consumers. That means taking away resources that would otherwise be produced for meeting higher quality living standards. Also, now this person is guaranteed income there is less incentive for this individual to help in the production of goods/services (i.e., contribute back to the economy in some form or another). Furthermore, there are people who live in different regions who will be attracted to this arrangement and may consider moving to Ontario to take advantage of it since it may not be available to them where they currently reside. All this reinforces a negative/downward pressing effect overall, although it does alleviate some of the pressures felt by those on the bottom end of the social spectrum. Those are some good points you bring up 1789, I'll try to address them from my perspective as clearly as I can. Your first point was that a low income recipient of this government handout would be inclined to purchase low end goods and services. I'm not sure how you can know this to be true, but I will assume that you are correct. I don't see the correlation between the production of high end goods and services directly impacting living standards. For example, if I drink RC Cola and you drink Coca cola, does that mean that you necessarily have a higher living standard? For me standard of living is measured more along the lines of, do I have access to medical care? Food, decent housing, clothing etc. not necessarily goods or products per se. Another point you made was the incentive to contribute to the production of goods and services. I think that people once they have a guaranteed basic income will still want to supplement that by being employed. I'm going to speculate and say that they might be a little more choosy in their employment, which would not necessarily be a bad thing. People who like their jobs are better employees and do better work, I think we can agree on that. Finally, about people moving to Ontario solely to benefit from this program I think that will not be an issue. I say this because the program is said to be a pilot project for now, and if it works well, the idea is to implement it country wide. Hope this was reasonably clear and not a bunch of rambling. :tup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzatziki Posted March 18, 2016 Author Share Posted March 18, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyros Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 This can only work in Dubai or some other country that has too much money and they start building ski slopes in a desert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now