Personal Finance

[DEAD] Ontario to roll out basic income in three cities - Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 12th, 2018 1:04 am
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
16314 posts
5567 upvotes
unknownone wrote: Lower corporate taxes encourage more business to come to the province.

The labor market works in the same way as any supply/demand equation. As demand for employees increases, the price of employees (wages) goes up, and/or the employer gets desperate enough that they are willing to hire employees that previously would have not been considered worth hiring.

Lowering corporate taxes isn't at all about giving money to the rich.

You're enticing people with the carrot of potentially benefitting from lower corporate taxes, but the end result that is desired is an overall situation that benefits everyone who is willing to make some effort and work. Only people who wouldn't benefit are those who aren't willing to make any effort at all. And they are the ones that *shouldn't ever benefit*. They should wake up one day, say to themselves "man, being unemployed is horrible. I'm going to make things better" and then do whatever it takes to get a job, even for minimum wage.

I know that in the farming industry, thousands of people are flown in from other countries every year, in order to fill minimum wage positions. Many of these people aren't great employees and don't even speak English. Remember that, the next time someone tells you they can't get a job. Truth is, they just don't want a job badly enough to accept what they could get. The trick is to put them in a situation where they change their mind, you need to make them want to get a job. You don't do that by handing them cash.

Possibly the fact that we have to fly people in to accept positions is proof that more positions don't need to be created. Maybe you use that as an indication that corporate taxes don't need to be lowered. But you're still left with the fact that there are many people who could take these minimum wage farming jobs that require no skill, but choose to just sit at home instead. How do you entice them to make some effort? Certainly not by handing them more free cash. You need them to wake up and say to themselves "my life isn't as good as I want it to be, I am going to go take that minimum wage job because that will make my life better". Life without a job needs to be hard and 'painful', to provide sufficient encouragement to get a job. Heck, that's why any of us have jobs. Except some people have a higher threshold for the 'pain' of not having a job and require more 'pain' for them to finally make the effort.

Some people wake up and say 'if I can't buy a new luxury car that would be horrible, so I'm going to work" (low threshold for pain - implying that not having a fancy new car is a minor pain in the big scheme of things but it's still incentive enough for many people to work because their threshold for pain is low in this regard) where as others need to be provided sufficient motivation such as "if I can't afford Kraft dinner, that would be horrible, so I need to work" (they have a high threshold for pain, you need to put them in a real painful situation where something basic is being denied so they feel great amounts of pain and decide to make effort). You don't fix the problem by handing them free Kraft dinner or handing them the 'basic wage' to buy what they want without working.
So i was being disparaged for writing essays as replies, it seems beyond double standards and ignoring reality your side also can't stand by its own insults.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2009
1127 posts
697 upvotes
nevyn1234 wrote: The study is underway. Costs have been incurred and promises made. And in the election Ford supported its continuation. And now it is being suddenly stopped.

The arguments you make could equally be made in a couple years when the pilot is done. If your ideas on economics were to bear out, the study would actually make that only more clear. In other words, even if you believe all that, you still shouldn't support suddenly shutting it down, and certainly not lying about your intent to do so and then immediately flip flopping once in power.
4000 people costing tax payers ~24 million per year assuming each one is averaging $6000 in free hand-outs in addition to their standard free hand-outs. Sounds like good reason to end it now instead of later.

You don't throw good money after bad for the sake of making good on a few words spoken during an election. After further evaluation, he realized he had to break the 'promise' for the greater good. Sounds reasonable to me. He realized he was wrong to make that promise and took corrective action.

Complaining about the semantics of it all certainly isn't worthwhile. This is a minor cut that he can easily make that saves some cash, sounds great to me.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2009
1127 posts
697 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote: So i was being disparaged for writing essays as replies, it seems beyond double standards and ignoring reality your side also can't stand by its own insults.
No double standards, they're cutting taxes for low income earners to zero, reducing the middle tax bracket as well, and cutting corporate tax.


To be honest, I personally wouldn't reduce taxes on low income earners because their tax rate is already low, but this seems to have been a compromise to justify keeping minimum wage at $14 instead of raising it even higher. I've accepted that compromise.

Not sure what you mean about not standing by results... Save some money by cutting non sensible government hand-outs in order to help reduce the deficit and reduce taxes for everyone else who works? I certainly stand by those results.
Last edited by unknownone on Aug 3rd, 2018 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
16314 posts
5567 upvotes
unknownone wrote:
4000 people costing tax payers ~24 million per year assuming each one is averaging $6000 in free hand-outs in addition to their standard free hand-outs. Sounds like good reason to end it now instead of later.

You don't throw good money after bad for the sake of making good on a few words spoken during an election. After further evaluation, he realized he had to break the 'promise' for the greater good. Sounds reasonable to me. He realized he was wrong to make that promise and took corrective action.

Complaining about the semantics of it all certainly isn't worthwhile. This is a minor cut that he can easily make that saves some cash, sounds great to me.
24 million is not even a fraction of a down payment on the next round of corporate tax cuts... And corporate profits are healthy already...
Funny how giving money to the already rich is no problem.
The rich are already getting richer but we need to accelerate this because if we don't the unmentionables will not suffer enough.
unknownone wrote: No double standards, they're cutting taxes for low income earners to zero, reducing the middle tax bracket as well, and cutting corporate tax.


To be honest, I personally wouldn't reduce taxes on low income earners because their tax rate is already low, but this seems to have been a compromise to justify keeping minimum wage at $14 instead of raising it even higher. I've accepted that compromise.
As i mentioned a few bones to get your votes while the big money goes to those who already have most of it. But the fact they have most of it doesn't matter they need more.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2009
1127 posts
697 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote: 24 million is not even a fraction of a down payment on the next round of corporate tax cuts... And corporate profits are healthy already...
Funny how giving money to the already rich is no problem.
The rich are already getting richer but we need to accelerate this because if we don't the unmentionables will not suffer enough.



As i mentioned a few bones to get your votes while the big money goes to those who already have most of it. But the fact they have most of it doesn't matter they need more.
You are correct, 24 million (or whatever) is a drop in the bucket. But you need to watch the pennies, and this was an obvious and easy cut to make.

If minimum wage earners get a tax cut, middle earners get a tax cut, and corporations get a tax cut, that's not just a case of giving more to the rich. Sounds like an attempt to be pretty fair all around.

And you're also implying that corporations always make money and that anyone with a corporation is rich. Often they're just normal people with normal sized salaries, trying to make a buck. Reduced taxes gives them an extra carrot to aim for to take advantage of, which leads to them dreaming a big bigger, hiring more, etc but at the end of the day there are a lot of business' that don't make that much profit once they pay all their employees and pay the owner their salaries. It's very much an incentive to try though, and that effort is good for everyone else who benefits from the business' attempts to expand.

Also, I know that a lot of people probably don't really know how things work as far as corporate taxes on personal spending.. But lets pretend a corporation makes a bunch of bottom line taxable income, the corporation pays less tax because of the lower tax rate. But if the business owner wants to receive this to actually spend it on themselves, they would need to either issue themselves personal dividends or a bonus next year to themselves, or increase their salary. Now they're paying personal tax. Assuming they're 'rich' they're probably paying near 50% taxes or more.. You can't just spend corporate cash on yourself while benefitting from the lower corporate tax rate, it doesn't work like that. So the incentive of lower corporate taxes is an incentive, but it isn't some scary way of funneling cash into a rich owner's 'I need a new Ferrari' account. If they want a Ferrari, that's a personal dividend or bonus, and they're paying big tax on a personal level.
Last edited by unknownone on Aug 3rd, 2018 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
16314 posts
5567 upvotes
unknownone wrote: You are correct, 24 million (or whatever) is a drop in the bucket. But you need to watch the pennies, and this was an obvious and easy cut to make.
So we need to watch the pennies while giving away the farm...
Smart plan
If minimum wage earners get a tax cut, middle earners get a tax cut, and corporations get a tax cut, that's not just a case of giving more to the rich. And you're also implying that corporations always make money and that anyone with a corporation is rich. Often they're just normal people with normal sized salaries, trying to make a buck. Reduced taxes gives them an extra carrot to aim for to take advantage of, which leads to them dreaming a big bigger, hiring more, etc but at the end of the day there are a lot of business' that don't make that much profit once they pay all their employees and pay the owner their salaries. It's very much an incentive to try though, and that effort is good for everyone else who benefits from the business' attempts to expand.
Ontarios tax rate is lower then many other places, we are already competitive on goosing profits.
Thats not the point though, the real goal is to give more money to the already rich

Once again the rich are already getting richer, they re not hurting. Its everyone else that is paying the price...
You have no reason to acknowledge any of this because its the price of getting what you really want.\

Continually repeating nonsense may assuage your cognitive dissonance but it accomplishes little except wasting everyone's time.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Deal Fanatic
Nov 24, 2013
6059 posts
2794 upvotes
Kingston, ON
unknownone wrote: 4000 people costing tax payers ~24 million per year assuming each one is averaging $6000 in free hand-outs in addition to their standard free hand-outs. Sounds like good reason to end it now instead of later.

You don't throw good money after bad for the sake of making good on a few words spoken during an election. After further evaluation, he realized he had to break the 'promise' for the greater good. Sounds reasonable to me. He realized he was wrong to make that promise and took corrective action.

Complaining about the semantics of it all certainly isn't worthwhile. This is a minor cut that he can easily make that saves some cash, sounds great to me.
There’s more cost to a pilot program than the actual benefits hitting people’s hands. They’re administering it for those three localities, maintaining control groups, and studying the impact and outcomes. Without seeing a cost breakdown, I wouldn’t assume $6,000 extra to participants is what’s happening.

Also, to put $25M into perspective, that’s about what this government is about to waste on challenging the constitutionality of the federal government’s ability to duly impose a tax. It’s also likely far less than the potential benefits that could be realized if the pilot project proves better outcomes for people under a mincome/NIT. Better outcomes doesn’t mean higher cash in hand from the government; it means people on OW being able to take a job that’s only 20 hours a week to start without fear of losing their benefits, or people on ODSP being able to seek small hours of modified work without penalty, or people utilizing a temporary source of extra funds to take a night course and get a job that gets them above the poverty line.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2009
1127 posts
697 upvotes
Mike15 wrote: There’s more cost to a pilot program than the actual benefits hitting people’s hands. They’re administering it for those three localities, maintaining control groups, and studying the impact and outcomes. Without seeing a cost breakdown, I wouldn’t assume $6,000 extra to participants is what’s happening.

Also, to put $25M into perspective, that’s about what this government is about to waste on challenging the constitutionality of the federal government’s ability to duly impose a tax. It’s also likely far less than the potential benefits that could be realized if the pilot project proves better outcomes for people under a mincome/NIT. Better outcomes doesn’t mean higher cash in hand from the government; it means people on OW being able to take a job that’s only 20 hours a week to start without fear of losing their benefits, or people on ODSP being able to seek small hours of modified work without penalty, or people utilizing a temporary source of extra funds to take a night course and get a job that gets them above the poverty line.
If we cut all low income subsidizations then they wouldn't be afraid of losing benefits by working, right? I think we're on to something. Lets try a pilot program in which someone who is currently receiving subsidized earnings has their benefits cut by $6000 per year and see if they get a job to make up the difference. We should try it for a few years, make sure we keep it going until the end to see the results.

I'd rather go in that direction, it's a more financially responsible alternative. We save tax money, and hopefully these people decide that it's worth their time to get a job and/or increase their earning potential.
Member
Nov 28, 2017
473 posts
385 upvotes
unknownone wrote: No double standards, they're cutting taxes for low income earners to zero, reducing the middle tax bracket as well, and cutting corporate tax.


To be honest, I personally wouldn't reduce taxes on low income earners because their tax rate is already low, but this seems to have been a compromise to justify keeping minimum wage at $14 instead of raising it even higher. I've accepted that compromise.

Not sure what you mean about not standing by results... Save some money by cutting non sensible government hand-outs in order to help reduce the deficit and reduce taxes for everyone else who works? I certainly stand by those results.
You are talking about a tiny amount of the budget. And cutting it now means all the money not only given out but planning and administering the pilot has now become a complete waste because the program can't hit its goals.

Outright lies to voters callously revealed the moment one is in power are not semantics. If he thought it was a waste to be scrapped, just say so. You apparently would have voted for him regardless. And there is no new information for him to have changed his mind, and for a short term small budget program, he can't argue that he discovered he can't afford to see it through.

As for the money being "free hand outs" and the rest of it, and your estimate of the amount, part of what they were meant to be studying was how much more this really cost the government. In addition to the multitude of less efficient social programs these people qualify for, you also potentially get costs to government through increased healthcare, policing, etc. In other words, what it costs vs what it saves is part of what they were measuring. Instead we are left with your back of a napkin estimate because you are more caught up on the principle of a "handout" than concerned about what actually happens. You've decided it can't work in your mind, and thus written off all study as a waste.

And your stand on this is remarkably short sighted. Again, if you believe this can't work in principle, you should want the study to prove it. "Throwing away" a few million in the next couple of years would become an excellent investment, if it could convince government and voters that this cannot work, and guarantee no future government gives it a go. The political pendulum swings, and now you'll have one less study to point to when a future liberal or NDP majority decide to roll this out province wide (costing billions, not millions).
Member
Nov 22, 2017
459 posts
241 upvotes
This notion that tax cuts will bring back jobs is a massive propaganda machine by the uber rich. Don't you understand that in today's global economy even with those tax cuts Canada can't compete in attracting corps. Why? because the quality of life of a 2nd/3rd world country worker is so low that they are willing to work for "pennies". No matter how much tax cuts you give, large corps will be attracted to moving their factories/production to the 3rd world.

The only way for our economy to compete is through brain power/innovation/technology. How do you come up wth the next great idea? You have to provide GREAT social services to attract top talent from around the world. Canada has done a tremendous job by vetting immigrants allowing mostly highly educated people. The next step is to invest in education by making it accessible to everyone. You want everyone to focus on getting educated and not worry about their next meal because the next great scientist is more likely to come from a "poor" family than a rich one (reason: motivation).
Deal Addict
Jan 10, 2017
1247 posts
578 upvotes
GTA
So without basic income, all those single moms who were in the middle of going back to school to finish a college diploma can now go back to living paycheck to paycheck stressful life that was rip back to them.

No one cares about how people are actually using the money, just the bad apples who are receiving free money which is closely watched so Canada can strengthen and restrict workarounds preventing people from doing so, aka a pilot.
Information Security Analyst
---
Fido $15/3GB + voip.ms $1/M + 3cx PBX voip push client $0 + Google Server vps $0 = $16/Month voip solution with no battery drain.
Thread
Member
Jun 10, 2015
276 posts
58 upvotes
Mississauga, ON
MadCanadian wrote: So without basic income, all those single moms who were in the middle of going back to school to finish a college diploma can now go back to living paycheck to paycheck stressful life that was rip back to them.
Let's be honest here, none of those "single moms" are going to do anything worthwhile with their degrees anyways. Whats the point of dumping money into a pit?
Deal Addict
Jan 10, 2017
1247 posts
578 upvotes
GTA
howdydo wrote: Let's be honest here, none of those "single moms" are going to do anything worthwhile with their degrees anyways. Whats the point of dumping money into a pit?
If you really read what I said which was that these people are getting college diplomas, which are skill trades and jobs such as nursing and child care. These jobs are high in demand and not as popular as engineering in which you refer to as useless degrees.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-g ... -1.4036644

You must be naive to think that all post-secondary education is the same and that a minimum wage job in sectors that rely heavily on store/market traffic is the perfect long term solution for those trying to raise a family by themselves.
Millennials in this age can choose to take any degree because they have a lot of life ahead of them, but the older folks who never got that chance due to family issues or grown up in poverty can take this basic income to become better and secure something that's actually useful while they are being away from their family.
Information Security Analyst
---
Fido $15/3GB + voip.ms $1/M + 3cx PBX voip push client $0 + Google Server vps $0 = $16/Month voip solution with no battery drain.
Thread
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
5511 posts
512 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote: So we need to watch the pennies while giving away the farm...
Smart plan


Ontarios tax rate is lower then many other places, we are already competitive on goosing profits.
Thats not the point though, the real goal is to give more money to the already rich

Once again the rich are already getting richer, they re not hurting. Its everyone else that is paying the price...
You have no reason to acknowledge any of this because its the price of getting what you really want.\

Continually repeating nonsense may assuage your cognitive dissonance but it accomplishes little except wasting everyone's time.
Actually, the government takes quite a bit of money from the rich to finance programs like UBI and welfare:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies ... -in-canada
Measuring the Distribution of Taxes in Canada: Do the Rich Pay Their “Fair Share”? finds that this year, the top 20 per cent of income earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875—will earn 49.1 per cent of all income in Canada but pay 55.9 per cent of all taxes including not just income taxes, but payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes, among others.

The discrepancy is even more pronounced for the top one per cent of earners. While this group will pay 14.7 per cent of all taxes in 2017 (up from 11.3 per cent in 1997), it will earn a smaller percentage (10.7 per cent) of all income.

By comparison, the bottom 50 per cent of income-earning families in Canada earn 20 per cent of all income, but pay just 14.6 per cent of all taxes.

When looking at income taxes alone, the top one per cent will pay 17.9 per cent of all federal and provincial income taxes, while the bottom 50 per cent will pay nine per cent of all income taxes this year.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 8, 2010
2437 posts
866 upvotes
Wow, this has to be the most depressing thread on RFD.

As the catechism goes, "Conservatives lie awake at night worrying that someone not entitled to benefits is getting them; and Liberals lie awake at night worrying that someone entitled to benefits isn't".

Where does the rich person's money come from? There is no inheritance tax in Canada. There are some wealthy people that work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week - but even then, are they really 'worth' 100, 1000 times someone that cleans toilets 8 hours a day? There are plenty of wealthy people that inherited companies, or were lucky/in the right place at the right time, started working in the right industry during a boom (and decided not to fritter what money they did make away).

IMHO some kind of UBI is the perfect way to deal with the automation of so much. As others have said, there are quite simply fewer bodies needed these days - there is this massive schism between the minimum wage/crappy contract jobs and a stable desk job. It isn't fair. Again - right place, right time.

Now, I consider the Child Benefit to be massively generous, standing alone. But giving everyone a basic income so they can... you know, get a roof over their heads and hot food? No, that's a basic human right I think. We have to aspire to better things than poverty. Sure - some people are poor through their own bad choices. To fix this, we need better education (inc. sex ed, ffs). But "money" isn't what people think it is - it is flexible. The government (federal) can literally print more.

The most frustrating thing is that we are in the middle of an economic boom, and governments all over are doing the opposite of what they - and we all - should be doing; namely, paying down debt, not going further into it. Where is the money going to come from during the next recession? These people on the test scheme - perhaps they had a plan to put some money away in an emergency fund, to learn something, to generally pull themselves out of the hole and be able to move forwards.

Either way, stopping an experiment half way through is wasteful. Economists need data. AFAIK everywhere UBI has been tried, it has worked well.

We don't need tax cuts. We need tax increases, to pay down some debt, to prepare for whatever recession the future holds. The current path is folly. That doesn't change the fact that pulling the plug on an experiment half way through is also folly, especially when the numbers are so small. Cutting Toronto's councillors is folly. Having a sane plan to reduce complexity? Absolutely. Reduce waste? Absolutely.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)