Service in some kind of Canadian peace corps? I don't now, there might be better ideas, but this is my contribution to a brainstorm.
To end poverty, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year.
- Thread starter Unforgiven
- Start date
Service in some kind of Canadian peace corps? I don't now, there might be better ideas, but this is my contribution to a brainstorm.
Some people already have those opportunities. Some don't. Society is made better when everyone gets that chance.
Well, you should really answer the question first.
I will give you a couple of reasons.
Compassion for one, fellowship for another and we're stronger together than we are separate. It's in our nature to help others and in so doing, we better ourselves as humans. For example, finding a person who has had an accident and in need of help. We could choose to simply rob them of any valuables they have, ignore them completely or help them get the help they need. Calling for rescue, administering first aid if able, or simply being with them until help arrives so they are not feeling alone.
I don't know if you have kids or not, but in the hypothetical, if one of them had an accident, and I happened upon them, what do you feel you would want me to do of the three possible things I've mentioned?
Why?
By making mistakes we learn. Since we started looking out for each other, we have collective learning based on the experience of others. This has been one of the most important tools of humankind since the wheel.
When we invest in people, some of the investment is lost. But we make far more profit off of those who do make good from that investment that it is worth while even with the loses.
I would still like to hear why you feel it is better not to expect or assume any responsibility of and for those around us.
Well, it's either that or you price 'em out of the market. That's why the minimum wage is usually bad no matter how you look at it. Now, I think John Stuart Mill was on to something with his ideas of economic democracy. This way workers and management could work together on common interests to ensure a fair outcome for both sides, unlike minimum wage which in some cases could lead to unemployment. If the issue is with the person not being worth minimum wage, then sure we could send him back to school to upgrade his skills to make him worth a decent salary. Or if we are going to have a minimum wage, we need to be committed to those who lose their jobs as a result.
I think if they get no money but only room, board, and education, along with other essentials (including school uniform, toileteries, etc.), then they'll surely want to get an education just so that they can finally get a job and actually earn money.
Yes, and giving them a school voucher that guarantees room, board (with healthy food), quality education, along with school uniform and necessary toiletteries (heck, we can even through in free health care into the mix), they'd get the same opportunity, no?
Quite honestly, education is about as far as any socialistic streak in me goes. All ought to have a chance at a quality education. In fact, it's our obligation to our compatriots. But opportunity is not the same thing as money.
In fact, let's say a person is an addict. He'd probably appreciate the fact that we don't give him money which he'd just waste anyway, when education, not money, is what he really wants.
To be fair though, not all poor are poor strictly of their own doing. I remember one guy who got cought up in Canada's immigration bureaucracy owing to his wife who was declaring refugee status. He found out later that she'd married him for his citizenship, and that had devastated him. Looking at it that way, though he may have been at fault for various decisions he'd made, he was also used unfairly by a vicious woman, who in turn was encouraged in part by the rules of the immigration system to seek out a sucker to marry.
So whose fault is it then? I'd say all are responsible for his troubles to varying degrees.
On another occasion, I knew of a friend of a friend who had become an alcoholic after the death of his son. Prior to that, he was a social drinker. Needless to say, with alcohol readily available in the house, it only took a trauma of that kind to turn him to alcohol. So, was it ihis fault? Well, in part it was in that had he bene a non-drinker and so never had alcohol in his house, alcohol would never have crossed his mind in his moment of crisis. So was it his fault? In part, yes. That said, I'm sure any compassionate person could understand his trauma.
Of course we could go on with all kinds of other examples of where they may be partially at fault, but in some cases so are we by the various laws we create that they then get tangled up in.
On the one hand, we want to be cautious in how that money is spent. But to take the attitude that it's all their fault is somewhat arrogant too. In the end, we all affect each other in this world.
I can also add those who come from abusive or neglecive families. They lack guidance or might want to get out of home early to ecape the familial pressure cooker. With little educaiton, if they fall through the crack of immigration buraucracy later or other as in the example of a friend above, or other scenario, it would be easy for them to just crack and give up under the pressure. Without some kind of support, they risk never getting back up on their feet.
If you guarantee everyone any annual sum, all you do is debase your currency. Non-productive payment always results in inflation. If you were to guarantee everyone $20,000 a year, this would drive inflation to new heights, making everything more expensive, and end up not helping anyone.
Have you never heard of the old expression: "Feed a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."?
Providing welfare for those capable of working does not help them at all. It merely teaches them that they can sponge off of society. Where do you think that government gets its money from? It has to tax people to get any income. In order to do this, taxes would rise significantly, and this would also cause inflation.
There are simple answers to the problems of the world, if you are simple minded. If you are not, the complexity of the many problems that we all have boggles the mind.
Have you never heard of the old expression: "Feed a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."?
Providing welfare for those capable of working does not help them at all. It merely teaches them that they can sponge off of society. Where do you think that government gets its money from? It has to tax people to get any income. In order to do this, taxes would rise significantly, and this would also cause inflation.
There are simple answers to the problems of the world, if you are simple minded. If you are not, the complexity of the many problems that we all have boggles the mind.
It is my opinion that we all are responsible for the decisions and actions that we take and as such, individually, we should face the consequences or enjoy the rewards that result. In terms of a society in it's entirety, it is more than reasonable and expected that the society take care of those persons that are infirm, incapable, down on their luck, etc... This is not always a result of poor decisions (although it is not an uncommon thing).
You mention humanitarian and compassionate ideals. Certainly that is a necessity for any society, however, in going with the plan to guarantee a minimum income level to all does not eliminate the need for a social safety net. There will always be a segment that will need that societal safety net regardless if you give them cash monthly or not. In this circumstance, you are potentially doubling your costs for that individual.
For the most part, I would assume that the (vast) majority of people make decisions based on what they feel are good ideals. Sometimes the decision has positive ramifications, other times, the consequences are bad... Many people learn from these mistakes and don't repeat the mistake, however, the welfare scrolls are filled with recipients that either haven't learned or don't want to... As the article suggested, there was a demographic recognized as "work-shy".. Perhaps the lesson that is learned is that it is easier to receive funds than it is to work to earn.
Everyone makes decisions and by in large, everyone has made their share of good ones and poor ones, however, I think that it is fair to say that guaranteeing a minimum cash balance (ie 20k per year) without having any kind of expectation attached to the funds is a mistake. It is not outside the realm of possibility that a person that has made poor decisions and will not have to suffer any consequences is less likely to learn and progress than if the consequence is attached.
I agree with much of what you have to say, however we have all made poor and irresponsible decisions- that is the best way to become wise and unless you have to live with them for awhile you won't learn much, but there comes a time when you have to look ahead and forget about the past. Like if a guy is stupid and squanders a pay cheque, he should suffer a little until the next pay cheque by which time hopefully he's learned a lesson and if he has that should be the end of it. There's no way able bodied people should be given something for nothing. Even a woman with a dozen kids if she needs help from the food bank, on Saturdays she can take a few kids with her and help out at the food bank.
The Old MedicHave you never heard of the old expression: "Feed a man a fish said:
JLM, I can add to the above that some people might not want certain kinds of help. Just to take an example:
If I were an opium addict, I can tell you that I would not want the government to give me money. Addiction counselling and help of the sort, education, room, board, etc.? Most certainly. Money. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that I would not want the government to give me money, seeing that I'd be an addict and would want help to kick the addiction, not feed it!
I bet you can buy a fair bit of opium on 20k a year!
I'm sure the Taliban would appreciate the profits.
If I were an opium addict, I can tell you that I would not want the government to give me money. Addiction counselling and help of the sort, education, room, board, etc.? Most certainly. Money. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that I would not want the government to give me money, seeing that I'd be an addict and would want help to kick the addiction, not feed it!
I bet you can buy a fair bit of opium on 20k a year!
I'm sure the Taliban would appreciate the profits.
Nothing is fool proof, severe druggies and alcoholics will flog meal vouchers, bus tickets, what have you for 10 cents on the dollar.
This is you as a rational person stating how you would think as an addict...if you're an addict you aren't rationalizing things in the same frame of mind as you are right now.
But if you offer room and board and ecucation on-campus, with the school voucher being an eloctronic voucher in their name only, then that voucher would be totally useless to anyone else.
Now one problem is that after a day he might not be able to take it anymore and so run away again. But at least our taxes would not be feeding his habit. Sooner or later, with no money left, he'd eventually go through the withdrawals and then come back for help. Or heck, I could even see the possible option of 'voluntary impresonment', whereby an addict could request to be put in jail until he goes through the withdrawal simptoms. This would mean more cost to taxpayers for prison cells, but I'd assume in most cases they'd go through withdrawal within a couple of days. That's far less costly than a violent robbery to get what he needs. Add to that that he'd be showing himself a responsible citizen by willingly turning himself in.
I don't know. I've seen videos of addicts actually stating how they detested their addiction. So there is still a rational mind in their behind the impulses. I'd imagine they wouldn't want money to feed their habbit, deep down inside of course, even though their addiciton would push them to ask for money. There is a difference between wanting help and seeking out harm out of addiciton. One is a deeper wish, the other a form of slavery against their will.
Now of course I'm not going to go out and take any opium tonight to test my theory. I've heard of cases of people getting addicted on the first try. If that's true, then it must be bloody potent stuff.
A couple of points.
Let's take addicts off the table right now. Poverty isn't the addicts problem, the addiction is and so it's not germane to this discussion.
Next I am not sure I understand the reason behind refusing to take a step incase something bad might happen.
As was pointed out in the article and as I've said previously, so few abuse it, that it still makes a more efficient impact than forcing people to jump through hoops to get a welfare cheque. So it costs less to provide than workfare or welfare. Not to put to fine a point on it, why if it costs less, do you still refuse to accept it as an alternative to what we have now?
I should point out that for the vast majority of people that get welfare, it is a temporary thing lasting only a few months. That there are people who remain on welfare for years, some generations, this is not even close to being the average welfare recipient.
Also a voucher system voids any market place regulation of pricing which renders the voucher grossly under valued as opposed to cash. Cash also goes directly back into the pockets of society as recipients become consumers regardless of what is purchased.
Let's take addicts off the table right now. Poverty isn't the addicts problem, the addiction is and so it's not germane to this discussion.
Next I am not sure I understand the reason behind refusing to take a step incase something bad might happen.
As was pointed out in the article and as I've said previously, so few abuse it, that it still makes a more efficient impact than forcing people to jump through hoops to get a welfare cheque. So it costs less to provide than workfare or welfare. Not to put to fine a point on it, why if it costs less, do you still refuse to accept it as an alternative to what we have now?
I should point out that for the vast majority of people that get welfare, it is a temporary thing lasting only a few months. That there are people who remain on welfare for years, some generations, this is not even close to being the average welfare recipient.
Also a voucher system voids any market place regulation of pricing which renders the voucher grossly under valued as opposed to cash. Cash also goes directly back into the pockets of society as recipients become consumers regardless of what is purchased.
Then the question becomes: how much can we trust the poor?
Honestly, I think you're right. We probably could give each poor person 20k a year and most would take advantage of it to better themselves in some way. And as for those who do abuse it, then I suppose we could always deal with them later on an individual basis. And those who do have other problems could be dealt with then.
Another issue is an understanding of its purpose. Let's say an unemployed person decides to collect the 20k a year and stay home and study. Well, we can't really say he's lazy, granted. But then would that be the purpose of the voucher? Or would it depend on what he's studying? Or let's say he decides to take the opportunity to research a subject matter at the library to write a book. Well, to write a waulity book could take many months or even a couple years of research. Heck, he could even become rich off of it. Or he could lose all because he misjudged the market. Or he didn't care for the market and created the book out of some belief that society would benefit from it whether it recognizes it or not. How do we judge or define abuse of the systme in such cases. Certainly I wouldn't call such a person lazy, but clearly he's pushing the limits of the purpose for the system, falling into a very grey area here.
So, would there be any kind of official definition of the purpose of the system? Or are you talking about giving it out indiscriminately? Certianly different people will have different notions of how such a system is to be used, including regarding the definition of self-improvement, looking for work, starting a business, etc.
I do agree that such a system would be less bureaucratic. But I guess I'd have to see the details of any kind of controls before I could agree to such a system.
And if we did agree to such a ssytem, and found that it would in fact be beneficial to society overall, then I'd hope that if it should cost more that the government would also have the balls to raise taxes to pay for it and not just borrow and spend like Trudeau did when he'd built up the social system only for it to collapse later. It would need to be a sustainable system more along the lines of Paul Martin economics.
This is actually a very old idea so far as Canada is concerned. The now defunct Social Credit Party floated the idea back in the 1960s. More recent studies dealing with the cost of poverty in Canada and the United States have shown that many social problems are caused by many people simply not having a place to live. A guaranteed wage might solve this problem in that it would enable many of the homeless and impoverished to get off the street; resulting in fewer costly trips to hospital emergency rooms. What needs to be looked at is not whether or not some of the poor deserve $20,000; but whether or not this is the most cost-effective way to deal with the problems caused by poverty. Thinking of it as a dollars and cents issue rather than a moral one, and ignoring the fact that some of those receiving a guaranteed annual income may not deserve it may make more sense in the long term.
Bar Sinister; [B said:
I suppose many could find this to be a moot point, as they may think most of our politicians don't deserve $150 thousand a year. :smile:
No doubt that we have all made bad decisions at many points in our lives, however, as you suggested, we learn a "lesson" and move on. That said, there will always be a small group that doesn't benefit from life-experience in an effective manner.
In the end, it's not the 20K that is being allocated to those that need it, but how it is delivered. I would see much more long term benefit if the monies were applied to building apartments dedicated to housing that could possibly have facilities for daycare, cafeterias, employment counseling, computer facilities, etc..
The purpose is to provide all of the necessities that will allow someone to develop their existing skill sets or education and pursue independence outside of this environment. For those that are "work-shy", the expectation is that they will have to secure employment in order to qualify for this benefit (which will also decrease as their income rises above specified thresholds) For those that are subject to substance abuse, they will have to be dealt with on an entirely non-monetary basis... The expectation being that the individual will achieve that functionality, move on and make room for another person/family to employ that space.
I just reread the OP and it brought back memories of The Social Credit (Crédit Social)party under Réal Caouette or Douglas out west and the basic tennents of that party were very similar in concept to the OP.....
But would it work in a global economy?????
Edit: By the time I was old enough to vote....they were out of the picture in Northern Ontario.:smile:
But would it work in a global economy?????
Edit: By the time I was old enough to vote....they were out of the picture in Northern Ontario.:smile: