Ontario basic income pilot - prepare your wallets | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ontario basic income pilot - prepare your wallets

They better implement this quickly. The economic migrants are done their first year of free money from Johnny Taxpayer. The welfare offices are swamped with claims.
Large swaths of them are illiterate in their own language and have little hope of learning english. At least if they get enough free (tax payers) money they might stay in their newly created no-go zones and refrain from raping and pillaging.
This is the only reason they're even entertaining the idea of universal basic income...that and the rise of the machines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
They better implement this quickly. The economic migrants are done their first year of free money from Johnny Taxpayer. The welfare offices are swamped with claims.
Large swaths of them are illiterate in their own language and have little hope of learning english. At least if they get enough free (tax payers) money they might stay in their newly created no-go zones and refrain from raping and pillaging.
This is the only reason they're even entertaining the idea of universal basic income...that and the rise of the machines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

As interesting as that particular subject is, we have plenty of threads already on it. This particular program would benefit a far greater number of Ontarians than just the recent refugees. They're a drop in the bucket, frankly.
 
As interesting as that particular subject is, we have plenty of threads already on it. This particular program would benefit a far greater number of Ontarians than just the recent refugees. They're a drop in the bucket, frankly.

Actually you're right. Migrants are really only viewed as future Liberal votes.
The real long game of this Farce government is to get us all comfy on the dole because they know exactly whats going to happen to all the jobs when they sell us out with these bogus global trade deals.

There's no such thing as free money. Our grandchildren will be footing the bill for Trudeau's self balancing budget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Beyond all the alt-righties on here crying victim... sooner or later as automation takes over it may become an absolute requirement in some shape or form. There are cost reductions in policing, healthcare, no more welfare, EI, CPP, etc. that if done right will offset much of the cost, give it to everyone and claw it back in taxes for the higher brackets...

Short term I would rather see them raise the personal deduction to 25K. At 15% federal tax rate (this bracket) this will put ~2K (more if the province does it as well) in almost every workers pocket and it will give a big bump in GDP growth as this money hits the streets over and over. This would cost the federal government ~30B a year in income tax revenue if nothing else is done. Increase GST back to 7% (to get some back) and start clawing it back at 100K with everyone making 150K plus basically paying the full amount back in taxes--most of the lost 30B is recovered and our GDP gets a big boost. Minimum wage workers get an income boost with no extra cost to the employer (without raising min-wage), middle class also gets the boost with no cost to the employer. Wealthy pay it back in taxes (even Steven), with no cost to the employer.

Sort of the opposite of the now thoroughly dis-proven supply side economics (trickle down) that the conbots still think will work (just cranks up national debt). Difference is, there is no trickle down from the rich (who save "hoard" the cash), instead trickle up from the poor who spend, spend, spend the cash.
 
Last edited:
Beyond all the alt-righties on here crying victim... sooner or later as automation takes over it may become an absolute requirement in some shape or form. There are cost reductions in policing, healthcare, no more welfare, EI, CPP, etc. that if done right will offset much of the cost, give it to everyone and claw it back in taxes for the higher brackets...

Short term I would rather see them raise the personal deduction to 25K. At 15% federal tax rate (this bracket) this will put ~2K (more if the province does it as well) in almost every workers pocket and it will give a big bump in GDP growth as this money hits the streets over and over. This would cost the federal government ~30B a year in income tax revenue if nothing else is done. Increase GST back to 7% (to get some back) and start clawing it back at 100K with everyone making 150K plus basically paying the full amount back in taxes--most of the lost 30B is recovered and our GDP gets a big boost. Minimum wage workers get an income boost with no extra cost to the employer (without raising min-wage), middle class also gets the boost with no cost to the employer. Wealthy pay it back in taxes (even Steven), with no cost to the employer.

Sort of the opposite of the now thoroughly dis-proven supply side economics (trickle down) that the conbots still think will work (just cranks up national debt). Difference is, there is no trickle down from the rich (who save "hoard" the cash), instead trickle up from the poor who spend, spend, spend the cash.

Neat post. Except they're not fiddling with income taxes, they're literally planning to give 'free money' to people. Not every discussion has to devolve into partisan BS..

I believe currently we have about 4M folks in the province under the $25k/year income level. Suppose the program is judged a success and eventually leads into widespread use. How many Ontarian's will fit the criteria? 1 or 2 million? At $17k, that's potentially north of $30B annual expenditure. Will they do away with social assistance entirely? Eliminating welfare would claw back about $6B if I'm not mistaken - but that's not nearly enough? Where else is the money made? We all know that governments tend to favour tax increases over budget cuts..
 
Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh would pay $7.
• The eighth would pay $12.
• The ninth would pay $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
• The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
 
If the situation on the ground shows a genuine lack of opportunity due to automation and so forth then the country should use it's natural resources in a way to benefit the rightful owners of those resources: the citizens. The country's a fricken goldmine.
 
Neat post. Except they're not fiddling with income taxes, they're literally planning to give 'free money' to people. Not every discussion has to devolve into partisan BS..

I believe currently we have about 4M folks in the province under the $25k/year income level. Suppose the program is judged a success and eventually leads into widespread use. How many Ontarian's will fit the criteria? 1 or 2 million? At $17k, that's potentially north of $30B annual expenditure. Will they do away with social assistance entirely? Eliminating welfare would claw back about $6B if I'm not mistaken - but that's not nearly enough? Where else is the money made? We all know that governments tend to favour tax increases over budget cuts..

My point is they can do more good with tax changes first... It solves most of the current problems without any real risks.

Guaranteed min income has many pitfalls if not done right. Lets say we only give 1500 per month to people who have no income or we top up to 1500 for people who make less. Min wage does not get one much more than that (plus they need to pay to get too and from work) so it creates an incentive to not work (so do we then need to jack min wage to get workers, extra costs for businesses?).

To fix that, we need to give it to EVERYONE under some earning number. So now I get 1500 per month to do nothing or I get 1500 or more from a job and another 1500 from the taxpayers for 3K+ total (36K+ per year). Now most will want to work but those that don't/won't/can't can sit at home. At some point (income point) either people don't get it, it gets reduced or easier yet we just give it to them (everyone) and claw it back in taxes (say starting at 50K, full claw back at 100K). Min wage should also be lowered a couple of bucks (does not need to be as high).

For it to really work, it will lower economic related crime so policing costs need to drop by my guess 20%. Healthcare costs will drop (lower incomes have higher needs, worse diets, etc.), maybe 10% here? No more CPP, EI (eliminating both is good for business costs, they will no longer be needed and not deducted) or welfare. All give some saving for the government, or at least different paths for the money to flow.

Next, lower income people spend and don't save/hoard (why they are there in many cases) so the money will get dumped right back into the economy, the requirement would be for the GDP growth to make up the difference. In reality it will be the highest income brackets also kicking in. When it comes to the flight of the wealthy, the dumb ones yes. In reality with all the spend spend spend that will come with this type of thing there will be lots more money to make, covering the extra taxes (for the smart ones). Increasing customer base and per customer spending is almost always very good for business.

And BTW, the way the provincial liberals are doing it is not the right way...
 
Last edited:
If the situation on the ground shows a genuine lack of opportunity due to automation and so forth then the country should use it's natural resources in a way to benefit the rightful owners of those resources: the citizens. The country's a fricken goldmine.

Yes we should push in this area but we also need to learn from our mistakes. Under Trudeau Sr (PET) we put too much reliance on natural resources and got burned. Then Harper did the same thing as PET, and we got burned. Problem with resources we do not control global market share, we do not consume enough internally to protect from global fluctuations and when the global market drops we have economic problems. It is why we need a diverse economy.
 
Last edited:
Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh would pay $7.
• The eighth would pay $12.
• The ninth would pay $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
• The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

or...they get put in jail for avoiding paying taxes
 
My point is they can do more good with tax changes first... It solves most of the current problems without any real risks.

Guaranteed min income has many pitfalls if not done right. Lets say we only give 1500 per month to people who have no income or we top up to 1500 for people who make less. Min wage does not get one much more than that (plus they need to pay to get too and from work) so it creates an incentive to not work (so do we then need to jack min wage to get workers, extra costs for businesses?).

To fix that, we need to give it to everyone under some earning number. So now I get 1500 per month to do nothing or I get 1500 or more from a job and another 1500 from the taxpayers for 3K+ total (36K+ per year). Now most will want to work but those that don't/won't/can't can sit at home. At some point (income point) either people don't get it, it gets reduced or easier yet we just give it to them (everyone) and claw it back in taxes (say starting at 50K, full claw back at 100K). Min wage should also be lowered a couple of bucks (does not need to be as high).

For it to really work, it will lower economic related crime so policing costs need to drop by my guess 20%. Healthcare costs will drop (lower incomes have higher needs, worse diets, etc.), maybe 10% here? No more CPP, EI (eliminating both is good for business costs, they will no longer be needed and not deducted) or welfare. All give some saving for the government, or at least different paths for the money to flow.

Next, lower income people spend and don't save/hoard (why they are there in many cases) so the money will get dumped right back into the economy, the requirement would be for the GDP growth to make up the difference. In reality it will be the highest income brackets also kicking in. When it comes to the flight of the wealthy, the dumb ones yes. In reality with all the spend spend spend that will come with this type of thing there will be lots more money to make, covering the extra taxes (for the smart ones). Increasing customer base and per customer spending is almost always very good for business.

If it was given to everyone under $35k income you'd have to cover roughly 4-5M Ontarians.. at $17k/pop that's $85B annually, or almost our entire provincial budget. I don't see how the numbers can possibly line up, even under best case scenarios of massive drops in crime, health related spending, and elimination of programs like CPP, EI, welfare etc.
 
Just realized I said 'budget' up there, I meant total Ontario revenues.
 
If it was given to everyone under $35k income you'd have to cover roughly 4-5M Ontarians.. at $17k/pop that's $85B annually, or almost our entire provincial budget. I don't see how the numbers can possibly line up, even under best case scenarios of massive drops in crime, health related spending, and elimination of programs like CPP, EI, welfare etc.

It's hopeless, a five year old could tell us that. This is surely a case of the cure being worse than the disease. Normally I believe in minimal government business oversight but in a dire world changing economy where, to a large degree, the have nots have not thru no fault of their own you need the .gov to administer the value of all natural resources on the citizens behalf if the concept of country means anything. Private interests funnelling profits? Out! Think of all the oil rich middle eastern countries, the vast majority of citizens who can't get good jobs. Yet their benefit of the wealth extracted from under their feet they see very little of. That's plain wrong and it's happening here. That's like sucking all the water out of the ground and trucking it across the border in bottles. What right does the .gov have to sell water rights to private interests? None as far as I can tell. So, you want minimum garanteed income in desperate times? The numbers don't line up? A major shift in how we think about natural resources needs to happen. Norway oil legacy fund comes to mind.
 
If it was given to everyone under $35k income you'd have to cover roughly 4-5M Ontarians.. at $17k/pop that's $85B annually, or almost our entire provincial budget. I don't see how the numbers can possibly line up, even under best case scenarios of massive drops in crime, health related spending, and elimination of programs like CPP, EI, welfare etc.

yes it does not entirely add up today (why I prefer the federal tax change approach I mentioned earlier, many of the same benefits for the country, much less $$$$ risk). With 14M people in the province my guess is we have 9M adults (all would get it in a workable plan, not the current prov plan), but some would be clawed back so 4 to 5M seems reasonable. The claw back income level will determine how much the total cost is... Also, if it is in addition to work earnings it does not need to be as high as 17K per year (although I used 1500/month--18K per year just as an example). The question is how much is enough???

I workable plan also removes many federal and city programs so it really needs to be a partnership (and funded) at all levels.

In the end it is wealth redistribution and a safety net with a decent bump in GDP (which will increase revenue in other sectors). Someone has to pay for it. Long term with the automation revolution jobs are going to be more and more of an issue, so what do we do just spend the same amount on welfare? When we compare to say people who want super low or zero taxes it is still a better outcome.

Or we need new revenue streams, I just don't think resources will solve the entire problem because the global market is too volatile. (not that we don't do it, just don't rely too much on it).

But again, defer this for now and raise the personal (federal) deduction to 25K, much better first step the to problem.
 
Last edited:
If it was given to everyone under $35k income you'd have to cover roughly 4-5M Ontarians.. at $17k/pop that's $85B annually, or almost our entire provincial budget. I don't see how the numbers can possibly line up, even under best case scenarios of massive drops in crime, health related spending, and elimination of programs like CPP, EI, welfare etc.
If the 4000 in the study are a representative slice of the province, then scaled up to 4-5 million means the cost would scale up proportionally, from 50M in the study to 50-63B.

The idea is it needs to cost less than all the various managed programs currently it displaces, which may be not just welfare but health care, incentives, tax breaks and whatnot. A lot of Libertarians like the idea over managed programs because it takes the government out of micro managing the money and lets people decide for themselves.
 
Last edited:
If the 4000 in the study are a representative slice of the province, then scaled up to 4 million means the cost would scale up proportionally, from 50M in the study to 50B.

The idea is it needs to cost less than all the various managed programs currently it displaces, which may be not just welfare but health care, incentives, tax breaks and whatnot. A lot of Libertarians like the idea over managed programs because it takes the government out of micro managing the money and lets people decide for themselves.

The problem with the current provincial plan is it is just boosted welfare (conceptually), so it creates a disincentive to work. This will raise the costs for businesses (they need to pay more wages). Being a non-workable solution at large scale means it will not scale up that way.
 
The problem with the current provincial plan is it is just boosted welfare (conceptually), so it creates a disincentive to work. This will raise the costs for businesses (they need to pay more wages). Being a non-workable solution at large scale means it will not scale up that way.
I guess so. But increased wages as far as I can tell are only a problem for businesses when those jobs compete with areas with depressed wages. Meaning McDs and the like wouldn't be impacted as their min wage burger flippers wouldn't be competing with lower wage workers in, say, NY. Within the high-wage area, all it does is raise the salary floor, dragging up some other wages in the lower end with them.

So if implemented across Ontario it would contribute to making us less competitive against the rest of the world, but there are other variables at play like tax rate and exchange rate and so on. I have no idea what the sum of all these impacts would be, but nobody knows except ideologues who've already decided they know everything. The three study areas might be big enough to be able to decipher some clues about the impact on the competitiveness of those areas versus their neighbours?
 
If the 4000 in the study are a representative slice of the province, then scaled up to 4-5 million means the cost would scale up proportionally, from 50M in the study to 50-63B.

The idea is it needs to cost less than all the various managed programs currently it displaces, which may be not just welfare but health care, incentives, tax breaks and whatnot. A lot of Libertarians like the idea over managed programs because it takes the government out of micro managing the money and lets people decide for themselves.

$50-60B would put it well over our annual cost of healthcare alone. That's astronomical. No amount of cuts would make up even half the amount needed, and that's being very generous.

As usual the top 20% would be on the hook, out of pocket.
 

Back
Top Bottom