[Joekerr]

Was just reading some discussions about Canada instituting a minimum income (numbers being thrown around are $15K per person).

I think this is very much in the fledgling stage and probably actually will never come to reality, despite the Green Party and the NDP seemingly proposing the idea - neither are really a force in Canada. NDP maybe a little, the Green Party is a joke though. Thankfully.

As for me, I'm going to lose it if fricking Turdeau or that crook Wynne institutes it in Canada. It's a lousy idea. And the proponents go further to say it should be in ADDITION to all the other welfare programs we have.

Precisely how much do I, as a contributing member of society need to pay someone else, who doesn't contribute meaningfully to society, to reach this magical political correctness goal that the Liberals have set forth for us?

It is crap - either do something that society values and reap the rewards, or don't, but don't expect society to kick in and support you in that case.

Edit: Do other countries have this already? Is it working?

[RABAUKE]

I'm with you on Zoolander and Horseface. I think Sweden was working on a similar plan, not sure if they implemented it yet. And FTR by the time my wife and I pay our federal and provincial income tax, property tax, HST on every single purchase, healthcare supplement, all the user fees and other hidden taxes one level of government or another is taking about 60% of our gross income. I have no issue with paying for public safety, health care, education and infrastructure but I am so effin' sick of those two ass hats reaching into my pocket every time they get a pet project or realize that they have over spent.

I'd say that's my two cents but I'm a little short right now.

[Delta0311]

Let me post this shit again


Look if you are 30+ and making minimum wage than that is your own damn fault. If that is your situation than it is safe to say you made a lot of bad decision in your life.

[Dang3r]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Was just reading some discussions about Canada instituting a minimum income (numbers being thrown around are $15K per person).

Is this meant per anno?
I wont raise a leg outta my bed into the morning for this...

But: To avoid that ppl are buying some things which are not absolutely necessary, I would work with coupons.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Dang3r

Is this meant per anno?
I wont raise a leg outta my bed into the morning for this...

But: To avoid that ppl are buying some things which are not absolutely necessary, I would work with coupons.

Yeah, per year. But if they gave all Canadians this regardless of income, it would probably cost $500B. Whereas they figure if they only give to low income people (not sure what the cutoff is to make them low income), it would be an extra $35B.

Just not needed as I see it.

You want to not study in school and party all the time - go ahead. But there are consequences, and I'll be darned if I'm going to have to turn around and pay you for those decisions now. All about maturity.

Frick it has me worked up and its not likely to even come into reality. Anytime though that I start hearing crap about Trudeau and Wynne's plans to further trash the economy I get really upset.

I never used to care this much 10 years ago. Then again, I also didn't pay as much as I do in taxes back then either. Likely a direct correlation.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by RABAUKE

I'm with you on Zoolander and Horseface. I think Sweden was working on a similar plan, not sure if they implemented it yet. And FTR by the time my wife and I pay our federal and provincial income tax, property tax, HST on every single purchase, healthcare supplement, all the user fees and other hidden taxes one level of government or another is taking about 60% of our gross income. I have no issue with paying for public safety, health care, education and infrastructure but I am so effin' sick of those two ass hats reaching into my pocket every time they get a pet project or realize that they have over spent.

I'd say that's my two cents but I'm a little short right now.

I'm with you there. My wife and I now use two corporations to shelter our income a little and only declare a salary of what we really need so that we don't have to pay top bracket taxes on the excess. Mostly so we don't have to give those two more of our hard earned money so they can blow it on the latest pet project to strike their fancy.

The positive note is there is no way Wynne will be re-elected - at an 11 or 14% approval rating, she has to be one of the lowest rated premiers ever. My fear though is that people will still vote Liberal anyways and they'll put in an equally ridiculous candidate who thinks the public purse is there to fund whatever "she" wants or thinks is important.

[Axius]

If there is a minimum shouldn't there also be a maximum?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Axius

If there is a minimum shouldn't there also be a maximum?

And anything you make above the maximum goes to increase those only getting the minimum.... right?

Nice job Bernie.

[JasonCSU]

I recall reading an opinion article a little while ago about the possible future need for a minimum income in society. The reasoning for it was due to a lack of low skilled jobs of which many have been, or will be automated. Those opposed to the article stated people will then need to learn new skills and/or get a higher education to find jobs elsewhere. That is of course, assuming there are high skill jobs out there to be filled. Another issue is there will always be people who are only capable of menial labor.

Supposedly many high skilled white collar jobs are ripe for automation as well, which the article mentioned will further the need for some type of minimum income because there won't be enough jobs to go around for the entire growing world population, which is a scary thought in my opinion. Some people supposedly see a utopia with a world full of jobs being automated because in theory it frees up mankind to enjoy much more leisure time. Personally, I think a situation like this would lead to chaos. It was a pretty fascinating read with the discussion it spurred. I'll see if I can find it again.

[Taskmaster]

Agree with it, it's inevitable.

[sirdaft1]

I'm sorry, but thank you for being the test dummy for the sh** show that the world can sit back and watch. That said, how do I establish dual residency in Canada and collect $15K/yr? (eh.. that's only $11k USD per yr, but I'll still take it)

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Axius

If there is a minimum shouldn't there also be a maximum?

Communist!!

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

And anything you make above the maximum goes to increase those only getting the minimum.... right?

Nice job Bernie.

While I would generally agree with those who say certain CEO's / CFO/ etc of companies make way more than they should for what they do, it has never really bothered me either that they are getting paid obscene amounts of money well in excess of the tangible value they bring.

The reason for that in my mind is that it gives everyone something to strive for. To say, if I work hard and excel above others, I too could have that kind of job and make that kind of money. To me, that helps drive the economy, as we've then got all these people striving to outdo the other, meanwhile, we are all theoretically getting excellent service / value therefore out of them.

If we cap at both ends, then it seems to me we are on a slippery slope where we are heading towards a generally even pay field regardless of skill...communism. Which has been shown not to work. Mostly because we are all greedy at heart and the excess gets stolen by those in power.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Was just reading some discussions about Canada instituting a minimum income (numbers being thrown around are $15K per person).

I think this is very much in the fledgling stage and probably actually will never come to reality, despite the Green Party and the NDP seemingly proposing the idea - neither are really a force in Canada. NDP maybe a little, the Green Party is a joke though. Thankfully.

As for me, I'm going to lose it if fricking Turdeau or that crook Wynne institutes it in Canada. It's a lousy idea. And the proponents go further to say it should be in ADDITION to all the other welfare programs we have.

Precisely how much do I, as a contributing member of society need to pay someone else, who doesn't contribute meaningfully to society, to reach this magical political correctness goal that the Liberals have set forth for us?

It is crap - either do something that society values and reap the rewards, or don't, but don't expect society to kick in and support you in that case.

Edit: Do other countries have this already? Is it working? Lups

I am not fucking touching this. We have a test group here and I seriously do want to say that there are huge benefits to this, BUT the whole idea is so fucking stupid to pull off in finland, I seriously hope you in countries with less benefits don't even bother with this argument.

[RickFLM4]

I approve if it will encourage deadbeat Americans to move to Canada like they promised they would before last November's election.

[capo180]

It will happen eventually, less and less people are working every year due to technological advances.. I'm not a fan myself as it doesn't help me at all, would probably cost me more in taxes... But that's just me being selfish.

[fecurtis]

AFAIK no one has ever tried universal basic income on a large scale. As someone who studied economics, I'd be interested in seeing what happens when somewhere that's not America tries it first.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

I recall reading an opinion article a little while ago about the possible future need for a minimum income in society. The reasoning for it was due to a lack of low skilled jobs of which many have been, or will be automated. Those opposed to the article stated people will then need to learn new skills and/or get a higher education to find jobs elsewhere. That is of course, assuming there are high skill jobs out there to be filled. Another issue is there will always be people who are only capable of menial labor.

Supposedly many high skilled white collar jobs are ripe for automation as well, which the article mentioned will further the need for some type of minimum income because there won't be enough jobs to go around for the entire growing world population, which is a scary thought in my opinion. Some people supposedly see a utopia with a world full of jobs being automated because in theory it frees up mankind to enjoy much more leisure time. Personally, I think a situation like this would lead to chaos. It was a pretty fascinating read with the discussion it spurred. I'll see if I can find it again.

I do believe that a universal basic income will be needed in the future.

Low income jobs are disappearing and so are white collar jobs due to automation. The future of employment is not as it is today. Even if you wanted a job, you wouldn't be able to find one unless you have a very high education and skill set. (scientists, engineers, doctors etc.) Everything else will be done more cost effectively and better by automation. So even if you wanted to work for McDonalds, McDonalds wouldn't want you. In the future, there will be a lot less jobs than people who want a job. Since the population of the world is increasing, you'll end up with mass unemployment.

The big question is, how will this minimum income be paid for? Bill Gates has a good idea - tax the companies that automate jobs. For the jobs being replaced, tax them the same as income tax earned by the employee. The idea needs some refinement but it is a good idea. It'll make companies think twice about replacing humans and it'll provide funding to help those who are displaced.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by capo180

It will happen eventually, less and less people are working every year due to technological advances.. I'm not a fan myself as it doesn't help me at all, would probably cost me more in taxes... But that's just me being selfish.

It will cost EVERYONE who actually works and contributes more. The government by itself does not make any money. The people do and they fund the government. Therefore, the money has to come from somewhere.

I'm totally ok with being selfish here. So am I.

I'm down with helping legitimate cases get back on their feet. But that is on a case by case basis. What will happen in reality I fear is that we will have more and more unemployed youth hanging around, smoking joints, and causing trouble because they have nothing else to do, and no motivation to do it.

I would hate to see this implemented. Fortunately, I don't think it will be.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by Z K

I do believe that a universal basic income will be needed in the future.

Low income jobs are disappearing and so are white collar jobs due to automation. The future of employment is not as it is today. Even if you wanted a job, you wouldn't be able to find one unless you have a very high education and skill set. (scientists, engineers, doctors etc.) Everything else will be done more cost effectively and better by automation. So even if you wanted to work for McDonalds, McDonalds wouldn't want you. In the future, there will be a lot less jobs than people who want a job. Since the population of the world is increasing, you'll end up with mass unemployment.

The big question is, how will this minimum income be paid for? Bill Gates has a good idea - tax the companies that automate jobs. For the jobs being replaced, tax them the same as income tax earned by the employee. The idea needs some refinement but it is a good idea. It'll make companies think twice about replacing humans and it'll provide funding to help those who are displaced.

Penalizing companies who automate may seem like a solution, but then again it may force them to move overseas or lose business to foreign competitors. Not everything can move overseas, of course, but there will certainly be a response by those who can. That response is not necessarily hiring humans. It may be to move or pass on higher costs to consumers (if they can do so).

Perhaps minimum wage laws, requirements to provide health insurance, employer FICA, a litigious society and labor laws in general should be revisited to encourage employers to employ people rather than rush to automation. Automation isn't free. Aside from R&D costs, automation typically requires significant capital investment. Sometimes it is makes sense no matter what the employment conditions. However, sometimes employers are pushed to automate when they believe the cost of employing humans is too high and has too many risks. Using your McDonalds example, will it always make sense to pursue an army of robots to make burgers and fries? Maybe, maybe not. But start talking about a $15 minimum wage for low skilled labor (with protests outside corporate offices), requirements for large franchisees to provide health care to employees, a Labor Department that wants to treat McDonalds as the employer even though franchisees are the employers and a country full of attorneys willing to pounce on any employment litigiation they can find and robots start looking a lot better.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Penalizing companies who automate may seem like a solution, but then again it may force them to move overseas or lose business to foreign competitors. Not everything can move overseas, of course, but there will certainly be a response by those who can. That response is not necessarily hiring humans. It may be to move or pass on higher costs to consumers (if they can do so).

Perhaps minimum wage laws, requirements to provide health insurance, employer FICA, a litigious society and labor laws in general should be revisited to encourage employers to employ people rather than rush to automation. Automation isn't free. Aside from R&D costs, automation typically requires significant capital investment. Sometimes it is makes sense no matter what the employment conditions. However, sometimes employers are pushed to automate when they believe the cost of employing humans is too high and has too many risks. Using your McDonalds example, will it always make sense to pursue an army of robots to make burgers and fries? Maybe, maybe not. But start talking about a $15 minimum wage for low skilled labor (with protests outside corporate offices), requirements for large franchisees to provide health care to employees, a Labor Department that wants to treat McDonalds as the employer even though franchisees are the employers and a country full of attorneys willing to pounce on any employment litigiation they can find and robots start looking a lot better.

I get the argument against basic income. As I said, right now, I wouldn't say its necessary or a good idea. But in the future, it will be needed.

What you say about not increasing min wage and providing health care is only a temporary stay on not replacing workers. In the future the cost of automating will be cheaper than even what you'd pay in 3rd world countries for labor.

The cost of automating jobs is pennies on the dollar. A company pay spend millions today to do it but they reap the benefits for decades to come. How cheap is cheap labor? $5 an hour? Why pay a guy $5 an hour to do something when a machine can do it for $1 or less? Oh, and the machine can work 24/7. Can a human work 24/7 for years for $1 an hour?

You can argue, fuck the min wage workers they're screwed anyway. But what will you say when automation starts replacing bankers? nurses? lawyers? accountants? engineers? doctors? It's going to happen, it's just a matter of time.

[other_evolved]

If all other welfare programs were scrapped, and a GBI (Guaranteed Basic Income) program were implemented that ended up being cheaper than all of the welfare programs combined....I could maybe get on board.

If this were to ever occur, and I think it eventually will, it's like a long ways off for large countries like the US.

[bimmer456]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Was just reading some discussions about Canada instituting a minimum income (numbers being thrown around are $15K per person).

I think this is very much in the fledgling stage and probably actually will never come to reality, despite the Green Party and the NDP seemingly proposing the idea - neither are really a force in Canada. NDP maybe a little, the Green Party is a joke though. Thankfully.

As for me, I'm going to lose it if fricking Turdeau or that crook Wynne institutes it in Canada. It's a lousy idea. And the proponents go further to say it should be in ADDITION to all the other welfare programs we have.

Precisely how much do I, as a contributing member of society need to pay someone else, who doesn't contribute meaningfully to society, to reach this magical political correctness goal that the Liberals have set forth for us?

It is crap - either do something that society values and reap the rewards, or don't, but don't expect society to kick in and support you in that case.

Edit: Do other countries have this already? Is it working? Lups

I think they are doing it in Switzerland but the amount isn't enough to survive on, something like $8K a person. But I agree it makes everything more costly for everyone and will raise prices.