# Ontario testing Basic Income

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 25, 2017.

1. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,140

"The three-year study will test whether this basic income is better than current social welfare programmes.

Randomly selected participants living in three communities in Ontario will be given at least C$16,989 ($12,600, £9,850) a year to live on."

The idea of basic income guarentee is to replace all welfare with just giving everyone a checks. Clearly such a radical idea needs to be tested.

3. ### Beer w/StrawTranscendental Ignorance!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,302
Maybe, Kathleen Wynne, should run for election in Las Vegas - make the concept of 'BUMFIGHTS' less profitable.

Last edited: Apr 25, 2017

5. ### JeevesValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,595
One decent politician can't create a better culture. People need to think before they'll change an attitude.
It's not all that radical and not at all new. Been tested before in Canada, very successfully. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html
Which is why the the-incoming conservative administration buried the records.
https://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea (2).pdf

7. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,778

this homeless man was willing to donate a kidney to this stranger. i'll tell you the truth, many times the homeless end up that way because they can't compete in this dog eat dog world/society or they are not good at artificiality or don't want to be part of it. many times the most wise don't end up on top either because society doesn't want it or the humility. i'm not blaming anyone in particular because it is a complicated issue and yes, there are bad homeless but most have a tragic or dysfunctional past or upbringing. they are broken on the inside and can't cope even with basics. society should consider how it damages souls/minds and when that happens, people don't feel a sense of competition, ambition, ego etc that is required to play the game or even care. the only driving force left is basic survival and maybe a vague sense of hope in themselves. low self esteem and especially depression added is a deep issue too. it's like a deep shell shock.

one of the most misunderstood aspects of the problem of homelessness is how people who are less damaged or unaffected tend to think that 'straightening' them up is the answer or expecting them to meet regular standards. that putting them in shelters, cleaning them up, asking them to look for jobs and find housing etc and manage their lives in some normal linear fashion is the answer. it rarely works because most homeless have very deep, complicated inner issues/turmoil and some with mental illness. it's like a complicated fracture and they need to heal in their own time and especially find purpose/meaning in themselves in order to sustain it, otherwise the efforts are shallow/fake or an irregular fit. a flash in the pan.

Of course they can't, it's like a five year old! if you talk to most homeless people, they are childlike. some have good hearts and some don't, of course. some are scum just like any other human but that difference seems to be that they are rather simple in some way. in some its just stupidity and in some it's a kind of unadulterated wisdom.

Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
8. ### wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
This is not that radical. I came up with that idea years ago. It came to me from looking at the cost of a welfare mother in northern cities. The state and fed spend over $45,000 per year in some cities. The question was why not give that mother that same amount of money, directly, so she is not longer considered poor, but middle class. This would reduce the poverty rate and giving her back her dignity as a middle classer all at the same costs. The reason is Democrats like big government and all the waste and power associated with expensive middlemen and overhead. The war on poverty is over 50 years old was never designed to be won, even after spending$20 trillion. It is designed to perpetuate and expand poverty and dependency, so they can justify the expansion the government at the level of the leftist middlemen. The liberals like the middleman waste and power, since they can use those positions to leverage their propaganda, through the game of being the mother who feeds the needy children, just enough never to be able to leave. You can blame the other side for stealing candy from the baby, even if the goal is to get rid of middlemen and maintain end user money.

For this new idea to occur, you need more conservatives in there, who prefer smaller government and more benefits to the end user. The end user will now have enough to escape the evil liberal mother, who is in it for herself, under the guise of caring. This experiment may take a while to work, since 50 years of poverty dumb down to support the middlemen, will impact the ideal goal.

A child who has had their life controlled by the mother, will need to learn how to care for themselves, with old habits not easy to break. You will ned to give them enough to live on, but let them be hungry, if they waste their resources. They will learn the hard way. Eventually many will find the path of self reliance. Liberal propagandas will try to undermine this by pretending to care, since the loss of propaganda control, will hurt them at the voting booth.

9. ### Beer w/StrawTranscendental Ignorance!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,302
The premiere of Ontario is an open lesbian liberal you dumbass.

10. ### JeevesValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,595
Two facts in the way of that notion:
1. Liberals and socialists have been advocating GBI for a century, and conservatives routinely block or shut down any such initiative.
2. Conservative say they want smaller government, but once in power, invariably find or make jobs for their cronies, increase "security" - even to the point of creating one or more new
agencies - increase spending on the military, vote themselves more pay and perks and multiply their personal staff; award more private contracts.
While decreasing benefits to the "end user" - if by that, you mean the public, not the top 0.01% at the top.

Have you any idea who this "liberal mother" is supposed to be?
What is "she" supposedly getting for herself?
Name one conservative administration that enacted major legislation to help the poor, unemployed, old, sick or disabled.
Okay, that's too hard. Name one that didn't oppose a welfare initiative by a socialist or liberal administration.

Who was dumbed down and how?
Who was supported and how?
Affect. And, no, it won't.

11. ### JeevesValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,595
What child? Have you actually spoken to the people who are made redundant by the closing of factories or homeless by the raising of interest payments,
or destitute by the desertion of an irresponsible father?
Which, the children? Letting 'them' be hungry will only 'dumb them down'.
Right. Hunt and eat the rich.

12. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,354
Who are you addressing here, and why is this relevant?

Are you calling another member of sciforums a dumbass?

13. ### Beer w/StrawTranscendental Ignorance!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,302
Last edited: Apr 29, 2017

Messages:
3,302
15. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,354
I see.

"Dumbass" is a technical breach of our site rules, though, so be careful.