Ontario Moving Forward with Basic Income

[Jinentonix]

We already know how this will pan out. This is just another desperate act by a desperate party. They'll run the pilot project through to the next election and then if elected, will suddenly decide that the program isn't feasible. This is an attempt at vote buying if I ever saw one.
I have a very hard time believing that a govt who is incredibly stingy with ODSP and deeply in debt is suddenly going to give every Ontarian a minimum income that equals MORE than what an ODSP recipient currently receives. Right now, a couple on disability in Ontario receives a base amount of $1688/mo. That works out to just over $20,000/yr. And you get to keep going backwards while on it. For example, ODSP recipients get regular increases in their benefit but it's so small it really does nothing. In the last quarter of 2016 my buddy got a $10/mo increase on his ODSP. Unfortunately, two months later his rent was increased by $22/mo.
And yet after 14 years of marginalizing disabled people, I'm supposed to believe they'll see a 70% increase in their income.
If this govt can't afford to increase the benefits for disabled people to a livable amount, where the f*ck's the money going to come from to pay for this "Mincome" plan for all Ontarians.

 

[Murphy]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
---

Ontario launches basic income pilot for 4,000 in Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Lindsay

Participants in pilot, designed to test if a basic income is a better way to support people living in poverty than the current system, will be randomly chosen in project to begin as early as summer.

Ontario’s long-awaited basic income pilot project will include 4,000 low-income people in the Hamilton area, Thunder Bay and Lindsay, who will each receive up to $17,000 annually with no strings attached, starting as early as this summer.

Premier Kathleen Wynne announced the three-year experiment in Hamilton on Monday as part of a major speech on how the Liberal government plans to ensure all Ontarians, including those struggling in low-wage, precarious work, benefit from the province’s balanced budget and improved economy.

“It’s not an extravagant sum by any means. For a single person, we are talking about just under $17,000 a year, but even that amount may make a real difference to someone who is striving to reach for a better life,” she said.

“The project will explore the effectiveness of providing a basic income to people who are currently living on low incomes, whether they are working or not,” she said. “People participating in our pilot communities will receive a minimum amount of income each year — a basic income, no matter what.”

Under the plan, single adults between the ages of 18 and 64 will receive up to $16,989 annually and couples will receive up to $24,027. People with disabilities will receive an additional $6,000.

The rest here.

https://www.thestar.com/news/ontari...4000-in-hamilton-thunder-bay-and-lindsay.html

It's politics, but an Ontario MPP said on the news today that this was another example of Wynne trying to buy votes. Shameless, but so very political.

 

[White_Unifier]

I understand how a minimum basic income can streamline bureaucracy and deliver the money more efficiently, but some parts of the concept do bother me. For example, how can we trust that an addict would spend the money responsibly to better himself. Or how about this hypothetical example:

Someone in need of assistance shows up to a government office and says "I need help to fight an addiction since I'm spending all my money on my addiction."

The civil servant says "No problem. If you more money we can give you a minimum basic income."

Applicant: "No, no. I don't want more money. I want access to an addiction-recovery program to help me kick my habit so that I can finally start saving money and straighten myself out. Trust me, you don't want to give me money. You want to give me help."

Civil servant: "All we offer here is money. Take it or leave it."

 

[DaSleeper]

Sounds like the old Crédit Social (Social Credit)) national dividend thing ........Years after Douglas......
Not very original huh?

 

[Murphy]

This is where you would see money spent to monitor the distribution. As you have suggested, how do we know if the money is being used for its intended purpose? We have to spend more money in the form of case workers (and related expenses - offices, heat, hydro, etc) to keep an eye on things.

Are we really saving?

 

[White_Unifier]

This is where you would see money spent to monitor the distribution. As you have suggested, how do we know if the money is being used for its intended purpose? We have to spend more money in the form of case workers (and related expenses - offices, heat, hydro, etc) to keep an eye on things.

Are we really saving?

I guess I could support a minimum basic income in principle if, and a big IF, a person could opt out of it. In other words, if a person in need of financial assistance tells his case worker that he's an addict and that giving him money that he could spend as he wishes would do him more harm than good, that his case worker could offer him an alternative. For example, the government could arrange an agreement with the applicant's bank or credit union whereby they would provide him with a debit card to which the government would transfer the money but which could be used only with participating businesses. Participating businesses would be banned from selling any addictive product. This would mean that supermarkets that don't sell alcohol and tobacco and lottery tickets could participate and the card could be used there. apartment rental agencies might also choose to participate, etc.

Furthermore, there should be no turning back. For example, if an addict who has just had his fix and is now in a more lucid state tells his case worker that he's an addict and does not want the ability to spend his money too freely, he cannot go back on his word a few hours later as the withdrawal symptoms kick in. Once you admit to that and request to not have full freedom over the money, you're locked in for at least a year.

Furthermore, a case worker should be required to inform an applicant of the existence of this option before just giving him a minimum basis income. An applicant who goes in to apply for a minimum basic income but who is unaware of the option to have a more restricted income through a special debit card that his bank or credit union could issue him might jump on the opportunity once he's informed of that option of which he might not have been aware previously.

As for mobile telephony companies participating in the debit-card program, recognizing how internet-access is a double-edged sword (emails and websites can give access to employment and business opportunities or simply enable access to addictions, whether drugs, gambling, pornography and all kinds of other addictions including internet addiction itself, perhaps a rule could be that any participating company that sells mobile devices can sell only mobile devices with control apps like Mobicip and Screentime pre-installed. Sure the buyer could just delete the apps after he buys the device, but the fact that the apps would be pre-installed at purchase would at least make him aware of their existence and so give him the opportunity to consider whether these apps could help him in any way to access the internet for productive purposes but not otherwise.

In short, we want to ensure that any such program not harm the poor by just throwing more money at them but one designed to help the poor by giving them a hand up. Also, a case worker should be trained to not judge the applicant so that the applicant can feel comfortable admitting if he cannot handle his money responsibly at the time. This would not be an admission of eternal helplessness but just an admission to the present reality which we would hope to remedy.

Also, an applicant should have an opportunity to request to switch to a more controlled income at any time. If at the time that he applies, he isn't aware that he's addicted, but then once the monthly checks start coming in, he realizes that he just can't stop spending on his drug of choice, he should be free to return to his case worker at any time to inform him of his addiction and that he wants to switch to the controlled income through a special bank or credit-union debit card.

We could even require banks to have built-in features in these debit cards. For example, the cardholder could go online to program his account to block his card from a certain time each night to a certain time each day or even block it entirely on certain days of the week. Depending on the degree of addiction we're talking about, if it's determined that he could be trusted to take cash out of an ATM, then he should be able to program his account to limit the daily amount. Also, while he should be free to lower the amount or further restrict blocking times himself online, he should need to enter a bank during its open hours to have a bank teller to unlock his account.

these are just some ideas.

Furthermore, anyone receiving a minimum basic income should be protected by right to work legislation so that he not be forced to join a labour union. Also, he should be exempted from minimum-wage legislation. Sure any employer paying him below minimum wage should inform him of his right to apply for the basic minimum wage for example, or apply to participate in a government funded trades or professional education program and leave his job without penalty when the training program starts, but we should not legislate him out of the workforce by forcing his employer to pay him the minimum wage.

 

[Murphy]

Not every one that needs help is an addict, but if I'm giving out money, I want assurances that it will be used properly. Whether it's the unemployed or someone that is suffering from an addiction, there is no point giving them anything unless they can use it properly and rid themselves of their problem(s).

For example, alcoholics or junkies need medical help and cannot function on their own responsibly. Help costs money. Handing out money seems to be less productive, or even irresponsible, compared to spending the money on real medical services. In some cases, institutionalizing them. Clean them up and release them. Let the medical people work their magic.

The unemployed will need help to get back into the work force. That's counseling and education, not free money.

In the end, I believe that using money earmarked for a minimum living wage would be better spent on counseling, medical help and education. For the elderly, a different approach would be used, but the full $18000 would not be needed in this last case as they would be receiving CPP/OAS.

 

[White_Unifier]

Not every one that needs help is an addict, but if I'm giving out money, I want assurances that it will be used properly. Whether it's the unemployed or someone that is suffering from an addiction, there is no point giving them anything unless they can use it properly and rid themselves of their problem(s).

For example, alcoholics or junkies need medical help and cannot function on their own responsibly. Help costs money. Handing out money seems to be less productive, or even irresponsible, compared to spending the money on real medical services. In some cases, institutionalizing them. Clean them up and release them. Let the medical people work their magic.

The unemployed will need help to get back into the work force. That's counseling and education, not free money.

In the end, I believe that using money earmarked for a minimum living wage would be better spent on counseling, medical help and education. For the elderly, a different approach would be used, but the full $18000 would not be needed in this last case as they would be receiving CPP/OAS.

All good points. Of course byond counseling and education, there are also the more immediate considerations of food, clothing, shelter, etc. To micro-manage that could be expensive, but if the government transfers that money to a bank or credit-uion debit card with restrictions on what businesses can accept that card, that could be an efficient means of dealing with that. Then we could add to that the obligation to participate in an addiction-recovery program, a literacy program, a trades or professional education program, or something else as appropriate as a condition for continued receipt of that money. Again, to avoid micromanagement, we could consider school vouchers that could be cashed in at participating trade or professional schools or addiction-treatment centres or literacy-education schools, etc.

In fact, I'd rather spend more money per year to help a person become a self-sufficient taxpayer as quickly as possible than spend less-per-year to just keep him on financial life-support for the rest of his living days.

 

[Murphy]

Vouchers might be the way to go. More difficult to use them irresponsibly.

Walmart, Giant Tiger, etc are places where people can go to get food, clothing, school supplies, etc.

 

[White_Unifier]

Vouchers might be the way to go. More difficult to use them irresponsibly.

Walmart, Giant Tiger, etc are places where people can go to get food, clothing, school supplies, etc.

True. If the concern is with embarrassment, a controlled debit card through their bank would be discreet enough. It would look like a normal debit card but would just show not enough funds at most businesses (since most businesses do sell tobacco, alcohol, lottery tickets, etc.). To let them shop there but only to buy specific things would be a bureaucratic nightmare, so it's probably best to just say if the card works at the shop, then they can buy anything the shop sells, but the shop would not be allowed to sell certain categories of items if it wishes to be able to accept that card.

As for schools, medical clinics, etc., an electronic voucher would be discreet enough there since the applicant would be in an office with an administrator.

Another factor is psychological. A person in desperate need of help might also be too proud to ask for it and so starve and deprive himself. For them, an alternative option could be some kind of Canadian Peace Corps. There, they would get paid education in exchange for serving their country similarly to the military. However, while we would not want this program to be exploitative, we also would not want it to be too generous either we would still intend for it to serve as an employer of last resort.

Furthermore, since it would be an employer of last resort ans so might attract people suffering certain mental-health challenges, it too should offer the option of payment through a restricted bank or credit-union debit card for those who prefer that to money just being paid out to them.

We should not assume that all who want help necessarily want money. In fact, some who want help don't want money if they are aware that easy access to money can hurt them more than help them.

 

[Murphy]

If you are controlling the purse strings, you have to try to ensure that all the money is used properly. Part of that is assuming that everyone is out to get free money. Cynicism is part of the job. Restrictions have to be placed on the use of the money as well.

Vouchers or store cards for food clothing and other things are a good way to prevent illicit use. The technology exists to make them unusable for certain items or in certain stores. The anonymity of an Interact card goes a long way to protecting people from embarrassment.

It is impossible to get to everyone that would benefit. You cannot go door to door. The best you can do is to make the service known to agencies like the Sally Anns, churches and other government departments.

 

[White_Unifier]

This gave me an idea for a new thread. Thanks.

 

[Murphy]

Glad to have been of help.

 

[tay]

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Armine Yalnizyan writes that a $15 minimum wage is ultimately good for businesses as well as for people:

When higher income households see wage gains, some of it goes to savings. Additional consumption also often flows to vacations and luxury goods, often imported. In other words a non-trivial part leaks out of the local economy.

When lower income households see a sustained rise in incomes, they spend virtually all of it. Most goes to food (more nutritious food or eating out), better health care and more education. Sometimes it also goes to rent (moving to a better neighbourhood). Almost all of this spending stays in the local economy.

So boost the minimum wage and you boost the economy from the bottom up.

Jessica Carpinone highlights how an employer can thrive while paying employees a reasonable minimum wage.

And Geoff Dembicki discusses how extreme high-end retailers are raking in money compared to other businesses due to the growth of income inequality in Canada.
​

 

[Walter]

Utter crap and balderdash.

 

[mentalfloss]

This is a good move.

Hopefully they extend it to more municipalities.

 

[MHz]

Utter crap and balderdash.

Sounds like you should start a new thread Walnut.

 

[White_Unifier]

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Armine Yalnizyan writes that a $15 minimum wage is ultimately good for businesses as well as for people:

When higher income households see wage gains, some of it goes to savings. Additional consumption also often flows to vacations and luxury goods, often imported. In other words a non-trivial part leaks out of the local economy.

When lower income households see a sustained rise in incomes, they spend virtually all of it. Most goes to food (more nutritious food or eating out), better health care and more education. Sometimes it also goes to rent (moving to a better neighbourhood). Almost all of this spending stays in the local economy.

So boost the minimum wage and you boost the economy from the bottom up.

Jessica Carpinone highlights how an employer can thrive while paying employees a reasonable minimum wage.

And Geoff Dembicki discusses how extreme high-end retailers are raking in money compared to other businesses due to the growth of income inequality in Canada.
​

Have you ever heard of inflation?

 

[Walter]

Sounds like you should start a new thread Walnut.

Pourquoi?

 

[Danbones]

Somehow in the end, we will all find out
IT's MADE OF PEOPLE!!!