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 Addict
User avatar
Feb 14, 2002
1543 posts
348 upvotes
Toronto
Poverty costs lots of money, in terms of strain on social programs, CPS, healthcare, crime prevention, and more.

If the money saved per person is > $18k/yr. (maximum), then I'm all for it.
How I try to save money: Zoomer Wireless $36 4GB LTE / Teksavvy rCable $64 100 / Freephoneline $0 / No TV! / Flipp
How I try to make money: Stack Mastercard / Amex Biz Plat & Cobalt / GCR / Rakuten / Paytm / Plastiq / Paymi
Jr. Member
Jul 12, 2015
125 posts
16 upvotes
TO
Disclaimer: This is all just coming out of my uneducated behind, and is just based on what I have heard, with no sources checked and what not.

If this actually ends up helping those in need, gives them enough freedom to lift them out of poverty (having the freedom to pursue lifestyle changes in education, work and whatever else), then great. However, there will be cases of where it doesn't work, it doesn't improve one's life and they just suck money away. These are the cases that will probably make the news. Whenever someone says this has worked in other countries, I roll my eyes. I am only 27 year old, but my faith in humanity has shrunk so much, that I believe so many people are straight up lazy and do not want to improve themselves and just want free handouts.

I hate politics, I don't see how changing governments every few years because public opinion has changed is a good thing for us. It keeps governments in check, in a way, but god damn...every time we switch, we take one step forward, two steps backwards.
Banned
Jul 18, 2016
2014 posts
780 upvotes
Purplenim wrote: Disclaimer: This is all just coming out of my uneducated behind, and is just based on what I have heard, with no sources checked and what not.

If this actually ends up helping those in need, gives them enough freedom to lift them out of poverty (having the freedom to pursue lifestyle changes in education, work and whatever else), then great. However, there will be cases of where it doesn't work, it doesn't improve one's life and they just suck money away. These are the cases that will probably make the news. Whenever someone says this has worked in other countries, I roll my eyes. I am only 27 year old, but my faith in humanity has shrunk so much, that I believe so many people are straight up lazy and do not want to improve themselves and just want free handouts.

I hate politics, I don't see how changing governments every few years because public opinion has changed is a good thing for us. It keeps governments in check, in a way, but god damn...every time we switch, we take one step forward, two steps backwards.
You're going to have lazy people whether or not you're handing them money. There may be real value to helping people to be in a position where they're no longer destitute as a result of their laziness. Desperation caused by your own laziness, traps you in a cycle where you can't easily get out of it. The result of this is a strain on the system in many other ways - crime, violence, substance abuse etc. My hope, is that some of this additional strain will be reduced, but who knows, you may be right.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 19, 2004
8790 posts
1755 upvotes
Cambridge, ON
quanta wrote: Poverty costs lots of money, in terms of strain on social programs, CPS, healthcare, crime prevention, and more.

If the money saved per person is > $18k/yr. (maximum), then I'm all for it.
Agree. If this works out as tax neutral, or even some savings due to reduced administration from discontinued social programs, then it sounds good. If people can count on an income instead of dealing with bureaucracy in social programs, it could provide some stability.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
33058 posts
3474 upvotes
Winnipeg
onlineharvest wrote: You guys have clearly never been to many reserves.
You guys have clearly never been to 3rd world countries.
1. It's up to the reserves to manage themselves, that is what they want, they call themselves nation, so act like one. the government don't have hands in managing them, nor do they want to. The government is respecting their right to self govern.
2. I don't believe the feds funds first nation less $$$ on a per capita basis.
3. A lot of our citizens are immigrants and refugees who didn't even have running water, and didn't speak the language, and many died trying to come in to this great country, they would love to trade places with anyone who is born here. I'll let you read through the google results.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 15, 2008
7041 posts
2951 upvotes
don242 wrote: Have you seen kids growing up in homes that are supported by welfare where the parent(s) drink their money away and fail to even feed their children? Kids that show up hungry everyday at school? Kids subjected to alcoholism and drugs? How are these kids any more advantaged than someone growing up on a reserve?

The reserves are just more obvious, while those not on a reserve have the same disadvantages but are hidden in plain sight.
Yeah, I have a bit of fear at the thought of pumping an extra $ into a household where there is addiction. +$740 for a single, you wonder if that would make their life better or ruin them.
Deal Addict
May 18, 2015
1439 posts
453 upvotes
Ottawa,Ont
moofur wrote: This is actually on top of other social assistance and free dental and drugs. Oh and there is also free tuition. Ridiculous.
Where do you see the free tuition? Although 17k will definitely pay for tuition+dorm for students at many schools in Canada
Banned
Jul 18, 2016
2014 posts
780 upvotes
lecale wrote: Yeah, I have a bit of fear at the thought of pumping an extra $ into a household where there is addiction. +$740 for a single, you wonder if that would make their life better or ruin them.
People with true addiction problems find a way to satisfy that addiction whether or not its coming from employment, or the government purse. I'd rather it came from the government purse than through illegal activities.
Member
Feb 8, 2017
448 posts
235 upvotes
what about all the people working cash under the table? no reported income stream so it looks like they don't earn anything and qualify for all kinds of handouts. one issue with these programs is they are income based, not asset based. if you have kids, have a million in the bank, and choose not to work or work cash you would qualify for some pretty generous gov't handouts which doesn't seem right.
Banned
Jul 18, 2016
2014 posts
780 upvotes
aubgray1 wrote: what about all the people working cash under the table? no reported income stream so it looks like they don't earn anything and qualify for all kinds of handouts. one issue with these programs is they are income based, not asset based. if you have kids, have a million in the bank, and choose not to work or work cash you would qualify for some pretty generous gov't handouts which doesn't seem right.
I actually don't have a problem with that. More time would actually be spent with those kids, in theory. We have a system now where it as become almost unaffordable to live with only one income. As a result, kids are shoved into daycares, and the older children are left idle after school. Furthermore, this might open unavailable jobs to people who actually want the job. People are much more productive if they actually want that job. Furthermore, most people don't leave 1 million in a low interest bank account. There would certainly be income generated from that 1 million. And if they do, you get an indirect benefit since the banks redistribute that money through loans and their own internal investing.
Last edited by bewiseman on Apr 25th, 2017 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 15, 2008
7041 posts
2951 upvotes
bewiseman wrote: People with true addiction problems find a way to satisfy that addiction whether or not its coming from employment, or the government purse. I'd rather it came from the government purse than through illegal activities.
Yeah, if you're from Cambridge, you know what goes on around here ;)
aubgray1 wrote: what about all the people working cash under the table? no reported income stream so it looks like they don't earn anything and qualify for all kinds of handouts. one issue with these programs is they are income based, not asset based. if you have kids, have a million in the bank, and choose not to work or work cash you would qualify for some pretty generous gov't handouts which doesn't seem right.
You can be a home owner and still collect OW or ODSP, so that situation already exists.

But: for cash under the table there is a Welfare fraud hotline http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/progr ... fraud.aspx They are like hornets, on it within 24h of a report. Piss someone off, get reported, the enforcement will go greet you at your day job the next day.
Member
Feb 8, 2017
448 posts
235 upvotes
lecale wrote: You can be a home owner and still collect OW or ODSP, so that situation already exists.
huh, i thought you had to provide a listing of assets as well as income when applying for social assistance. but i'm not too familiar with the process so maybe i'm mistaken.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 15, 2008
7041 posts
2951 upvotes
aubgray1 wrote: huh, i thought you had to provide a listing of assets as well as income when applying for social assistance. but i'm not too familiar with the process so maybe i'm mistaken.
Yes you do, they will make you cash out RRSP's and insurance but they don't force anyone to liquidate their home. You can get "shelter" portion payments to pay mortgage and interest and taxes. I have encountered people who have bought a home and then gone on social assistance and had the government pay off their property for them. Sad, true.

Rules: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/progr ... index.aspx
Banned
Jul 18, 2016
2014 posts
780 upvotes
lecale wrote: Yes you do, they will make you cash out RRSP's and insurance but they don't force anyone to liquidate their home. You can get "shelter" portion payments to pay mortgage and interest and taxes. I have encountered people who have bought a home and then gone on social assistance and had the government pay off their property for them. Sad, true.

Rules: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/progr ... index.aspx
Yes, I've seen that trick too. Fill the house of full of welfare bums, fail to report the rental income, and get your mortgage paid by the government. Nice, illegal, scam.

Top

Thread Information

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