Guarantee everyone a basic income of $20,000

[fuji]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...you-willing-to-trust-the-poor/article1806904/

It's an interesting idea.

I would support it only if it meant disbanding all the variety of agencies that disburse cash to people:

Shut down CPP, shut down OAS, shut down all the welfare and EI administrations, and every other similar government agency, saving the taxpayer the expense of all of those administrations.

Replace it all with a single, simple, small agency that gives everyone $20k.

It could be an add-on to CRA, say, so that it was integrated with tax collection. They already have the apparatus for tracking incomes and making payments.

Still a controversial idea that is likely to get the backs up of people with particular ideology. Out will come claims of inflation, and so on, but if in the end we're pumping the same number of dollars into the economy through this scheme as through those that it replaces then that's actually not likely the case.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Yes, given our current national debt and deficit, there's no way we could do this without making cuts elsewhere.

However, the article mentions guaranteeing a basic income for the 'poor', and then a minimum income for all, so it's a mish mash of ideas.

If it's just for the 'poor', there are two questions: Can we trust the 'poor', AND can we trust the government to properly administer this?

People with cash incomes, can fake being poor, so disclosure of assets and checks are mandatory with penalties for lying, etc.

 

[Eric Blair]

Yes, given our current national debt and deficit, there's no way we could do this without making cuts elsewhere.

However, the article mentions guaranteeing a basic income for the 'poor', and then a minimum income for all, so it's a mish mash of ideas.

If it's just for the 'poor', there are two questions: Can we trust the 'poor', AND can we trust the government to properly administer this?

People with cash incomes, can fake being poor, so disclosure of assets and checks are mandatory with penalties for lying, etc.

The entire point of a Guaranteed Annual Income is to get more money to people at less cost to the government and the tax payers.

 

[Aardvark154]

Out will come claims of inflation, and so on, but if in the end we're pumping the same number of dollars into the economy through this scheme as through those that it replaces then that's actually not likely the case.

The entire point of a Guaranteed Annual Income is to get more money to people at less cost to the government and the tax payers.

Of course this is a major part of it, will it cost less, and will it not be inflationary.

Further, not everyone is like the woman in the article struggling to better herself. There are a certain number who are going to be willing to "rest on the oars". There are certain others who without limits will be perfectly willing to spend it all on drugs and drink.

 

[Eric Blair]

Of course this is a major part of it, will it cost less, and will it not be inflationary.

Further, not everyone is like the woman in the article struggling to better herself. There are a certain number who are going to be willing to "rest on the oars". There are certain others who without limits will be perfectly willing to spend it all on drugs and drink.

The point is, they are already getting the $$$ from welfare, EI and other supports that would all be abolished.

 

[blackrock13]

Hey. I'd get a raise. Suuuurrrre!

 

[fuji]

Ideas like this are often combined with a flat tax scheme. You pay everyone $20k (or whatever) and then charge a flat tax on all income. Although it's a flat tax, the guaranteed minimum income makes it a fairly progressive tax regime.

The benefit is tax collection becomes so simple that in addition to firing everyone who works for EI/CPP/welfare/OAS you can also fire 3/4 of the people who work for CRA.

For example, most people wouldn't have to prepare tax returns. Most sources of income could deduct at source the exact proper amount (it's flat, they get it 100% right).

Wages, dividends, interest earned, all could have the flat tax deducted at source. The only time you'd have to file a return is if you had income earned through a non-institutional source like a cash business, rental income, and so on. Corporations and institutions would obviously have to file, but even there the returns would be greatly simplified.

So at that point you achieve both the left wing dream of giving everyone a guaranteed dignified minimum standard of living, and the right wing dream of flat tax.

 

[someone]

The main economic argument made is that such schemes remove the disincentive to work in most income support programs. When it comes to welfare, EI, etc. any earnings you make are heavily deduced from your payments. However, if you give everyone this money up front, they have no reason not to go out and work to make more money. Thus, they end up paying some taxes, producing goods and services, etc.

 

[fuji]

The main economic argument made is that such schemes remove the disincentive to work in most income support programs. When it comes to welfare, EI, etc. any earnings you make are heavily deduced from your payments. However, if you give everyone this money up front, they have no reason not to go out and work to make more money. Thus, they end up paying some taxes, producing goods and services, etc.

You could also remove the minimum wage, since the $20k guaranteed income means that you don't have to pay $12/hr to ensure they can lead a decent life. You could pay them $5/hr, if they're willing to take the job and it would only add to the $20k they already have.

 

[onthebottom]

I think this could work, but I'd only implement it for women (you notice how often single mothers are used as the example) and I'd require drug testing. I'd let the guys starve unless they have sole custody of a child.

OTB

 

[HOF]

Fuji, we already have a basic income of minimum wage. What you're suggesting is a communist approach. No matter career you choose, you get 20K annually, the rest goes to the government. Thanks Fidel.

 

[fuji]

Fuji, we already have a basic income of minimum wage. What you're suggesting is a communist approach. No matter career you choose, you get 20K annually, the rest goes to the government. Thanks Fidel.

I suggest you try re-reading post #1, read it over and over, until you actually understand what it says.

 

[HOF]

I suggest you try re-reading post #1, read it over and over, until you actually understand what it says.

Easy Fuji, I read your post and the article. I wasn't criticizing you, just stating my opinion of what that article and your post can lead to. There is no need for you to insult me by saying that I didn't understand the post. Let's not get into a pissing match because you don't like my opinion.

 

[fuji]

Easy Fuji, I read your post and the article. I wasn't criticizing you, just stating my opinion of what that article and your post can lead to. There is no need for you to insult me by saying that I didn't understand the post. Let's not get into a pissing match because you don't like my opinion.

No point, other than that you didn't understand it.

Here are some examples of things from your post #11 that demonstrate you failed to understand:

"we already have a basic income of minimum wage"

"No matter what career you choose, you get 20K annually, the rest goes to the government"

Once you demonstrate you understand I will stop mocking you, ok?

 

[HOF]

Actually, it`s not okay. #3 & #5 apply, and you`ve intentionally stated you`re mocking me.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?62083-TERB-Posting-Guidelines Do you understand?

Because I don`t subscribe to your opinion, you want to mock me.

 

[fuji]

Actually, it`s not okay. #3 & #5 apply, and you`ve intentionally stated you`re mocking me.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?62083-TERB-Posting-Guidelines Do you understand?

Because I don`t subscribe to your opinion, you want to mock me.

No, because you failed at comprehending, and I haven`t insulted you, or called you any name. I`ve mocked you.

p.s., you still haven`t demonstrated comprehension of the article.

 

[HOF]

No, because you failed at comprehending, and I haven`t insulted you, or called you any name. I`ve mocked you.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?62083-TERB-Posting-Guidelines
3. Differing points of view are welcomed as long as everyone acts with the appropriate respect and decorum. Yes, tempers may be raised but remember to act like responsible adults. Respect for differing opinions

5. No abuse, name calling, derogatory statements or insults that are not OBVIOUSLY given and received with good humor will be tolerated. Derogatory statements or insults which you certainly didn`t present and I didn`t receive as humourous. Your inferences to comprehension and intentional mocking were not called for. We have a differing view of what that article is about. Now, I won`t be responding again.

 

[fuji]

Still not demonstrating that you comprehend the article. I'll take it that you don't.

 

[K Douglas]

I'm all for giving people a hand up but just giving someone $20K with no strings attached isn't my idea of that. I have sympathy for this woman who feels dehumanized, I'm sure the agents can do a better job in treating her as a human being. What I'd like to see is welfare amounts given out on a case by case basis. The receipient sits down with a case worker and prepares a monthly budget and then they design a payout scheme based on that. It should also take into effect the cost of living geographically i.e. why should a welfare recipient in Sudbury get the same benefit as one living in Toronto.

My other concern would be the inflationary effect of this policy, which doesn't seem to be addressed in the article.

 

[fuji]

My other concern would be the inflationary effect of this policy, which doesn't seem to be addressed in the article.

Would you agree that if government spending remains the same, or actually declines, then the policy is not inflationary?

The government would be able to fire so many government workers, cutting the size of government so dramatically, and saving all of those salaries, that you might realistically see a decline in government spending as a result of this: EI, CPP, welfare, OAS, perhaps even OSAP, and many others. These are not small agencies, and they would all vanish, saving loads, and loads, and loads of taxpayer dollars.

Those case by case assessments you demand are expensive and time consuming, represent inefficient central planning of people's lives, and offer dubious benefit to the economy, with respect to the large amount of money spent on the government administrations that prepare them.