please check out the anti-mandate news »

« prev   random   next »

0
0

Free Money Eh? Yeah I'll Take Some!

By rigidmember follow rigidmember   2017 Apr 25, 12:32pm 4,182 views   17 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share      


Make sure everyone is on the same level playing field in life. We just need to make sure they know that we support them so they don't get their feelings hurt. Wouldn't want anyone to have to work or do anything difficult to live. Where's the fun in that?

"A person in the trial can receive up to $16,989 a year, though the equivalent of 50% of any additional earned income will be subtracted from that figure. So a person who makes $10,000 a year at their job, for example, would receive $11,989 in basic income, for a total income of $21,989.

Eligible recipients, who must be between 18 and 64 and considered low-income, will be chosen through a randomized selection process.

Wynne says one goal of the pilot is to reassure people that their government supports them.

"It says to them government is with you," she said. "Ontario is with you.""

http://www.businessinsider.com/ontario-announces-basic-income-plan-2017-4

1   someone else   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 25, 12:58pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The only thing that would make this reasonable is if the basic income replaces all other government benefits.

So no unemployment, no welfare, no social security, no obamacare subsidies, just a monthly cash payment.

But even then, like @"Bellingham Bill" points out, landlords would probably just take most of it as rent.

2   FuckCCP89   ignore (6)   2017 Apr 25, 2:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So, what's required to qualify? Just an Ontario address and no income in Canada? This is not hard to do at all... The "randomized selection process" is a bummer, though.

3   someone else   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 25, 3:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hey, good idea. Let's all get that sweet Canadian bacon!

4   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 25, 4:25pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rigidmember says

"A person in the trial can receive up to $16,989 a year, though the equivalent of 50% of any additional earned income will be subtracted from that figure.

That's same as a 50% tax rate. Major discouragement to work.

5   curious2   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 25, 4:37pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says

landlords would probably just take most of it as rent.

If you have a large enough area where people can build more housing, that would not happen. To the contrary, if the dole is enough for a person to live, enterprising developers would buy cheap land and build communities where residents could live on it.

A bigger risk is what happens if the starting age begins at zero, especially if you have something like the British dole where a jihadi can have four wives and any number of kids and put all of them on the dole and control all the benefit money. You'd end up running a jihadi farm, deliberately breeding jihadis like rabbits, as the UK is currently doing. Consider the math at $10k/year, tax free:
Jihadi + 4 wives = $50k/year, tax free
Jihadi + 4 wives + 12 kids = $170k/year, tax free
A guaranteed income can only make sense after a certain age, and in place of other government benefits, and somebody has to figure out what to do about Islam before the whole thing blows up (literally).

6   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Apr 25, 4:44pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says

The only thing that would make this reasonable is if the basic income replaces all other government benefits.

So no unemployment, no welfare, no social security, no obamacare subsidies, just a monthly cash payment.

But even then, like @"Bellingham Bill" points out, landlords would probably just take most of it as rent.

Unemployment and Social Security are both insurance, not government benefits.

It's not your fault that you confuse one with the other, many do. It's not happenstance that everyone bitches up a storm about paying taxes and "government benefits ", yet nary a peep about Insurance. I pay more a year for insurance than I do in taxes, and i get an order of magnitude more in return for the tax dollars. I get pretty much nothing in return for all the insurance, aside from harmful adverse effects. It's just another sign that ours is not a Capitalist Nation. No sane Capitalist would willingly pay so much in Insurance and then bitch about what they get in return for their tax expenditures instead.

7   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 25, 4:46pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

A bigger risk is what happens if the starting age begins at zero, especially if you have something like the British dole where a jihadi can have four wives and any number of kids and put all of them on the dole and control all the benefit money. You'd end up running a jihadi farm, deliberately breeding jihadis like rabbits, as the UK is currently doing. Consider the math at $10k/year, tax free:

Jihadi + 4 wives = $50k/year, tax free

Jihadi + 4 wives + 12 kids = $170k/year, tax free

A Jihadi has no incentive to work under those Jizya circumstances. He can spend all day praying and recruiting for ISIS, and when night falls he jumps in bed with four wives.
What an awesome life.

8   curious2   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 25, 5:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Maybe certain politicians want to spread Islam partly because some of their corporate sponsors want to destroy benefit programs and force the workers to continue working.

Anybody who can do basic arithmetic can see that any benefit system guaranteeing a per capita basic income would quickly get overrun by jihadis. Most people don't want to submit to the jihadis, so they must toil endlessly for employers, and to pay government to protect against the jihadis. At the same time, the government is colluding with the employers and actually spreading the jihadis, creating more need for protection, and thus requiring more toil from the masses. It's a self-reinforcing racket subjugating the masses to endless toil in exchange for mostly illusory protection, basically neo-feudalism.

The drug war kept Americans killing each other and needing protection, but ambitious entrepreneurs want to grow, so how to expand on it? Obamneycare hooked more people on opiates and opioids, so that's one way, but the ambitious want always more. Spreading jihadis increases the killing and the resulting need for "protection", as anyone looking at the Islamic world can see, and it overruns and destroys benefit programs, so that's a perpetual exploitation growth model.

9   someone else   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 25, 5:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

Unemployment and Social Security are both insurance, not government benefits.

Insurance is voluntary, taxes are not.

So I'd say unemployment and SS are not insurance, because they are funded by mandatory withdrawals from your pay (ie, taxes).

And Obamacare's mandatory "insurance" is also a tax paid directly to private insurers, but is not insurance.

10   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 25, 5:26pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Didn't they have that in USSR and why it failed?

11   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Apr 25, 5:48pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says

errc says

Unemployment and Social Security are both insurance, not government benefits.

Insurance is voluntary, taxes are not.

So I'd say unemployment and SS are not insurance, because they are funded by mandatory withdrawals from your pay (ie, taxes).

And Obamacare's mandatory "insurance" is also a tax paid directly to private insurers, but is not insurance.

Well, words do have meaning.

The Supreme Court has said that Social Security is Insurance.

Unemployment is short for Unemployment Insurance, so I'm going to stick with that being an Insurance.

The Supreme Court has labeled 'Obamacare ' as a tax. And I agree, there's not much actual Insurance going on there.

The majority of Insurance that I pay may seem voluntary, however, I don't have the option to not buy them.

If you want to work in this country, you're compelled to purchase Private Health Insurance. I certainly wouldn't do it voluntarily

If you want to buy a house in this country, you're likely going to need a mortgage. If so, then you're probably going to be compelled to buy both Mortgage Insurance and Homeowners Insurance. Both are similar to a tax, in that you have to buy them, to insure the banks risk

If you want to drive a car in this country, you're compelled to purchase private Auto Insurance, which operates similarly to a tax, and it's to insure everyone else for your driving.

12   someone else   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 25, 6:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

If you want to drive a car in this country, you're compelled to purchase private Auto Insurance, which operates similarly to a tax, and it's to insure everyone else for your driving.

Driving a car is different from breathing though.

If you want to breathe in America, you have to pay the private health insurance cartel whatever they say you have to pay. And the government will enforce this for them.

13   NDrLoR   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 25, 7:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says

Didn't they have that in USSR and why it failed?

Hope in the free lunch never ceases.

"Wynne says one goal of the pilot is to reassure people that their government supports them."

Yep, that's what governments are for. You give me $1,000, I give you $1,000. What do you want to bet human nature makes a mockery of it all.

14   FuckCCP89   ignore (6)   2017 Apr 25, 7:15pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says

Didn't they have that in USSR and why it failed?

They had much, much less. Still failed.

15   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 25, 7:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Straw Man says

FortWayne says

Didn't they have that in USSR and why it failed?

They had much, much less. Still failed.

And the fools keep trying again and again expecting a different result.
Venezuela.

16   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 25, 7:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says

But even then, like @"Bellingham Bill" points out, landlords would probably just take most of it as rent.

That's why all zero-sum games and rent seeking must be eliminated from the economy. Otherwise subsidies will always be funneled to the rich.

17   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 25, 7:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says

And Obamacare's mandatory "insurance" is also a tax paid directly to private insurers, but is not insurance.

Exactly


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions