$350.00 for your Liberal vote.

[Reverend Blair]

The NDP, Liberal, and Green parties have tried debating this before and have gotten no where. It would take away the need for Social Assistance, Employment Insurance, and food banks. I have yet to see the problem with this or why the debate never turned into an actual law.

Since WW2, our government has been helping the elderly that don't have any other income. This seemed to help and to make sense.

Perhaps the idea of guarunteed annual income seems costly...

Wouldn't a GAI save money? There are too many people that abuse our current system of helping the unfortunate. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't really help, as they don't give these people enough money to live, and therefore are stuck on the system, and getting paid with taxpayers money, for what seems like forever.

It seems that this topic should be debated once again.

It would likely raise costs minimally in the short term, but a guaranteed annual income has some advantages in the long-term. It frees people up to go back to school which raises overall productivity. It allows people to try to start their own businesses. It gives artists, volunteers, and others who make contributions to our society that isn't rewarded with cash to earn a living. It allows the working poor to contribute more to the economy and to take steps to advance their careers.

If we could get a guaranteed annual income, it would save a lot of money in other areas, like the ones you mentioned.

That the Liberals and Conservatives refuse to even discuss the idea shows a certain narrowness of thought. That the first thing they bring up is that people wouldn't work shows a distrust of Canadians and a discounting of any contribution that doesn't directly benefit their corporate backers.

 

[CanadianPrincess]

It would likely raise costs minimally in the short term, but a guaranteed annual income has some advantages in the long-term. It frees people up to go back to school which raises overall productivity. It allows people to try to start their own businesses. It gives artists, volunteers, and others who make contributions to our society that isn't rewarded with cash to earn a living. It allows the working poor to contribute more to the economy and to take steps to advance their careers.

If we could get a guaranteed annual income, it would save a lot of money in other areas, like the ones you mentioned.

That the Liberals and Conservatives refuse to even discuss the idea shows a certain narrowness of thought. That the first thing they bring up is that people wouldn't work shows a distrust of Canadians and a discounting of any contribution that doesn't directly benefit their corporate backers.

I do somewhat agree that people would take advantage. Although your right that this shows distrust in Canadians, as I said before, people abuse the system we already have. What's to stop those certain people from abusing the GAI?

Perhaps some qualifications...such as, being over 18 (or independant of your family), candidates must work a minimum of so many hours per year (provided they are capable), people with an income above say $35000 would not be in need of such assistance, and if they were, can they prove it? (special needs family member at home, etc.).

There are things that they could do that would make the idea work. It just needs to be looked at on a deeper level.

 

[MMMike]

The tax burden in this country used to be split about 50/50 between corporations and Canadian people. Now the corporate share is about 25% and we have to pick up the rest. We have a lower corporate tax rate than the US, plus it's cheaper to do business here because they don't have to pick up the healthcare expenses.

Any tax levied on corporate income is simply passed on to consumers. Besides, corporate profits eventually find their way into people's pockets where it is taxed as income.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: $350.00 for your Liberal vote.

yea but the lottery is a tazx on the poor

...and the mathmatically challenged! :lol:

 

[sj007]

lucky u dont need to spell for it only tht crossword thingy

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: $350.00 for your Libe

Excellent point, Karlin. This country needs a guaranteed annual income that meets reality.

The NDP, Liberal, and Green parties have tried debating this before and have gotten no where. It would take away the need for Social Assistance, Employment Insurance, and food banks. I have yet to see the problem with this or why the debate never turned into an actual law.

Since WW2, our government has been helping the elderly that don't have any other income. This seemed to help and to make sense.

Perhaps the idea of guarunteed annual income seems costly...

Wouldn't a GAI save money? There are too many people that abuse our current system of helping the unfortunate. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't really help, as they don't give these people enough money to live, and therefore are stuck on the system, and getting paid with taxpayers money, for what seems like forever.

It seems that this topic should be debated once again.

Raising minimum wage to a liveable level would also ease the burden on the social programs, and make a guaranteed minimum income a more achievable goal. Artificially low minimum wages are a form of corporate subsidies.

 

[sj007]

whell whats a livable level i think its around 25000 per annum what about u

 

[MMMike]

That depends on your personal circumstances.... for a single person living in a small town, $25,000 is waaayyyy more than 'liveable'. For a family with kids in a big city, its probably about right.

 

[sj007]

whell then how do u regulate minamum wage for a prov then? or should it be city jurisdiction with minimum standards?

 

[Durgan]

The Ant and the Grasshopper

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter,the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.


THE END


THE CANADIAN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. So far, so good, eh?

The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving.

The CBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.

Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.

The NDP, the CAW and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant's house. The CBC, interrupting an Inuit cultural festival special from Nunavut with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall Overcome."

Sven Robinson rants in an interview with Pamela Wallin that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share".

In response to polls, the Liberal Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant's taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers.

Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed
retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The ant moves to the US, and starts a successful agribiz company.

The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food, though Spring is still months away, while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain it.

Inadequate government funding is blamed, Roy Romanow is appointed to head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000.

The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the Toronto Star blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity.

The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders,
praised by the government for enriching Canada's multicultural
diversity, who promptly set up a marijuana grow op and terrorize the community.

THE END

 

[MMMike]

:lol: :thumbright:

 

[Reverend Blair]

Any tax levied on corporate income is simply passed on to consumers. Besides, corporate profits eventually find their way into people's pockets where it is taxed as income.

That argument may have had some validity at one time, MMMike, but with so much foreign ownership, the ever-increasing demand for growing return on investment, the insanely high wages and bonuses for CEOs, and the extreme reluctance of corporations to make capital investments, it completely falls apart.

The money that large corporations save on tax cuts does not get returned to Canada's economy. It flees to the US, builds sweatshops in the developing world, or dives into the accounts of the already wealthy. The spending habits of the very rich does little to provide more than low-paying service jobs to Canadians.

Perhaps some qualifications...such as, being over 18 (or independant of your family), candidates must work a minimum of so many hours per year (provided they are capable), people with an income above say $35000 would not be in need of such assistance, and if they were, can they prove it? (special needs family member at home, etc.).

I agree, although the definition of "work" should be expanded. It needs to take into account the things that are currently unpaid or low-paid.

Charity work is an example...a lot of people do that kind of work to build resumes and gain experience. Many of them need to take time off from their charity work to return to school, others take night courses.

Further education is another example...our adult ed programs now are geared to giving minimal skills to get people into low-wage jobs where they are trapped. To take a course that means anything, you have to be able to pay out of your own pocket and still have enough left over for food and shelter. Many cannot afford that.

The arts is another example...most people in the arts (everything from painting to writing to folk arts) need other jobs to supplement their incomes. Those jobs generally pay subsistence wages since those in the arts tend to be educated for the arts and aren't really looking to advance their careers in their other jobs.

All of those areas are worthwhile and have value. There are a lot of similar areas as well. It would also have the effect of pushing wages and benefits up in low-paying jobs, since it would give options to those not in the traditional workforce.

Raising minimum wage to a liveable level would also ease the burden on the social programs, and make a guaranteed minimum income a more achievable goal. Artificially low minimum wages are a form of corporate subsidies.

I don't think the minimum wage can be used in that way anymore, MMMike. The corporations simply won't stand for it, and too many provincial Conservative governments in Canada would refuse to cooperate. A guaranteed annual income for all Canadians would bypass the provincial governments and the corporations would lose a good chunk of their corporate clout as a result.

 

[GL Schmitt]

Re: RE: $350.00 for your Liberal vote.

The Ant and the Grasshopper

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter,the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

THE END

The trouble with the Ant and the Grasshopper is that it only works in a hunter-gatherer society. When the wealth must be produced, and one segment has their hands upon the controls of that production, Ant Versus Grasshopper philosophy turns out a bit buggy.




The Ant and the Grasshopper, The American Version


The Grasshopper, who was born to a wealthy family, did nothing but dance and sing and snort dandelion pollen, until a friend of the Ant’s father bought him a couple of jobs he could fail at without going broke himself.

Meanwhile, the Ant worked hard day and night getting himself an advanced education, then worked hard all his life to put away a few crumbs for his retirement.

When a cloudburst occurred, one of the Grasshopper’s buddy who was off singing and dancing, could not be bothered to ensure that the measures the Ant had paid the Grasshopper a weekly crumb to do, were done. Thus the Ant's crumb investment was not protected against being ruined in just such a catastrophe.

Neither were the crumb investments of millions of other Ants, and so all the Ants' crumb investments dissolved in the rain.

When the Ant went to the Grasshopper to borrow back a couple of crumbs to tide him over until he could start gathering again, the Grasshopper turned the Ant away, exclaiming, “I saw you coming out of an Ant Hill with a crumb in your hands. Just be happy you weren’t shot as a looter!”

“Oh, and don’t worry about what went wrong,” the Grasshopper added, “because, each month, I am paying more than you ever saved, so that my friend, Greenie, can analyse what went wrong, when you lost your savings.”

And so, the two Grasshoppers lived very luxuriously on the collected crumbs of all the Ants who had depended upon them, while the Ants withered and died over a long, cold winter.

. . . $25,000 . . .For a family with kids in a big city, its probably about right.

Just how long has it been since you woke up, Mr. Van Winkle? :?