If the money saved per person is > $18k/yr. (maximum), then I'm all for it.
How I try to make money: Stack Mastercard / Amex Biz Plat & Cobalt / GCR / Rakuten / Paytm / Plastiq / Paymi
Apr 25th, 2017 9:01 am
Apr 25th, 2017 9:15 am
Apr 25th, 2017 9:31 am
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.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.
Apr 25th, 2017 9:42 am
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.
Apr 25th, 2017 10:07 am
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.bewiseman wrote: ↑ Here's one example:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget- ... -1.3883301
I'll let your read through the google results.
Apr 25th, 2017 10:38 am
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.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.
Apr 25th, 2017 10:44 am
Apr 25th, 2017 10:54 am
From her previous policy of providing free tuition to low income families.
Apr 25th, 2017 11:02 am
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.
Apr 25th, 2017 11:03 am
Apr 25th, 2017 11:13 am
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.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.
Apr 25th, 2017 11:16 am
Yeah, if you're from Cambridge, you know what goes on around here
You can be a home owner and still collect OW or ODSP, so that situation already exists.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.
Apr 25th, 2017 11:28 am
Apr 25th, 2017 11:37 am
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.
Apr 25th, 2017 11:43 am
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.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