Castanet

Its coming whether anyone likes it or not .site c guarentees it

These guys do a good job, again:

Maybe try to balance the budget then pay off the borrowed money then we could look at this.

christopher wrote:Maybe try to balance the budget then pay off the borrowed money then we could look at this.

I do not think we should expand welfare. Look how many lazy people there are already. Heck some people spend all day on here complaining. No i think instead of welfare the lazy should be given hard labour.

Just a way to buy votes with tax dollars

Jflem1983 wrote:I do not think we should expand welfare. Look how many lazy people there are already. Heck some people spend all day on here complaining. No i think instead of welfare the lazy should be given hard labour.

The idea of guaranteed income is not to expand welfare, but to replace it with a universal payment that's efficient AND provides more incentive to work for those on Welfare. The current welfare system punishes you big time merely for getting a minimum wage job.

Glacier wrote:

Jflem1983 wrote:I do not think we should expand welfare. Look how many lazy people there are already. Heck some people spend all day on here complaining. No i think instead of welfare the lazy should be given hard labour.

The idea of guaranteed income is not to expand welfare, but to replace it with a universal payment that's efficient AND provides more incentive to work for those on Welfare. The current welfare system punishes you big time merely for getting a minimum wage job.

The solution to being punished for getting a minimum wage job would be to reduce welfare to 10% less of what minimum wage is. Since minimum wage will be moving toward $15 an hour, welfare should be equivalent to $13.50 an hour. Now there would be an incentive to get a job, couple extra thousand a year.

The idea of guaranteed income is not to expand welfare, but to replace it with a universal payment that's efficient AND provides more incentive to work for those on Welfare. The current welfare system punishes you big time merely for getting a minimum wage job.[/quote]

The solution to being punished for getting a minimum wage job would be to reduce welfare to 10% less of what minimum wage is. Since minimum wage will be moving toward $15 an hour, welfare should be equivalent to $13.50 an hour. Now there would be an incentive to get a job, couple extra thousand a year.[/quote]

Honestly. There should be no welfare at all for young men.
My generation has some of the laziest most useless people that have ever lived. I do not feel sorry for the ones too stupid and lazy to steal. I actually think if we let a few starve the rest might get off their backsides

Jflem1983 wrote:
Honestly. There should be no welfare at all for young men.
My generation has some of the laziest most useless people that have ever lived. I do not feel sorry for the ones too stupid and lazy to steal. I actually think if we let a few starve the rest might get off their backsides

Wow thats cold. No welfare for who? Just the group of people with the highest rate of mental health issues, homelessness and suicide. Forced manual labour for who? Just the group of people with the highest rate of accidental job related deaths (during manual labour).

Lets get some things out of the way here; first lazy deadbeats shouldn't be part of the argument. Why? Because there always has been and always will be some portion of people that don't want to participate in society. This happens regardless of systems in place.

You want to put these people into manual labour? Half the people I met doing manual labour (largely degenerate scum bags mind) already are the wrong kind of people to be doing dangerous work that if done improperly usually puts people at risk. For one thing your kind of suggesting slavery light (which we already have in prison though slightly less light), for another the people your suggesting putting in there will just be terribly slow and accident prone. The whole thing would be a mess.

Last I'm not sure which generation your in but that sounds really extreme and you may be working of some anecdotal evidence there. I mean I'm in my 30s and there are a lot of industrious people trying to get ahead in unorthidox ways in my age bracket. I used to work with a lot of people in their early twenties and up and they generally worked their *bleep* off. The rest of them teenagers I worked with are all some of the hardest working people I've ever met in my life, I wasn't going to school full time and working 20-30 hours a week in grade ten.

Now if your talking about the people older than myself, absolutely a lot of them seem laze as f#

Glacier wrote:The idea of guaranteed income is not to expand welfare, but to replace it with a universal payment that's efficient AND provides more incentive to work for those on Welfare. The current welfare system punishes you big time merely for getting a minimum wage job.

This is true. There is just not enough incentive to get off of welfare if you have only low income alternatives. Same goes for people in later stages of life who deliberately quit working for fear of not qualifying for free everything due to their low income status, especially drugs etc.

MrBrocksEgo wrote:Lets get some things out of the way here; first lazy deadbeats shouldn't be part of the argument. Why? Because there always has been and always will be some portion of people that don't want to participate in society. This happens regardless of systems in place.

Agreed. Too many of these conversations focus on the minority of crazy people who will take advantage of anything. We should be focusing on the 90% of people who will benefit.

How many people don't continue education past grade 12 because they know they'll be essentially living in a cardboard box and eating dented cans of crap? Probably a lot i'm guessing. A guaranteed income could change that and help people be more educated and benefit society more.

The Green Barbarian wrote:

Glacier wrote:The idea of guaranteed income is not to expand welfare, but to replace it with a universal payment that's efficient AND provides more incentive to work for those on Welfare. The current welfare system punishes you big time merely for getting a minimum wage job.

This is true. There is just not enough incentive to get off of welfare if you have only low income alternatives. Same goes for people in later stages of life who deliberately quit working for fear of not qualifying for free everything due to their low income status, especially drugs etc.

The problem is how to structure such a concept so that:

A) you don't provide a disincentive to work
B) don't provide a disincentive for people to better themselves (night school etc.)
C) don't set it up so as to be open to "gaming" by either employers or employees

For example: if you say that the GMI is $24,000 (pick a number), where is the incentive for a part time worker to accept more hours that would take their income $10,000 to $11,000? They would be working for nothing.... or to step up to harder job, same hours, another $1/hr? Doing more to make the same.....

I see it as a nice notion, but how do you make a guaranteed minimum income work in practice?

MrBrocksEgo wrote:Wow thats cold. No welfare for who? Just the group of people with the highest rate of mental health issues, homelessness and suicide. Forced manual labour for who? Just the group of people with the highest rate of accidental job related deaths (during manual labour).

Lets get some things out of the way here; first lazy deadbeats shouldn't be part of the argument. Why? Because there always has been and always will be some portion of people that don't want to participate in society. This happens regardless of systems in place.

You want to put these people into manual labour? Half the people I met doing manual labour (largely degenerate scum bags mind) already are the wrong kind of people to be doing dangerous work that if done improperly usually puts people at risk. For one thing your kind of suggesting slavery light (which we already have in prison though slightly less light), for another the people your suggesting putting in there will just be terribly slow and accident prone. The whole thing would be a mess.

Last I'm not sure which generation your in but that sounds really extreme and you may be working of some anecdotal evidence there. I mean I'm in my 30s and there are a lot of industrious people trying to get ahead in unorthidox ways in my age bracket. I used to work with a lot of people in their early twenties and up and they generally worked their *bleep* off. The rest of them teenagers I worked with are all some of the hardest working people I've ever met in my life, I wasn't going to school full time and working 20-30 hours a week in grade ten.

Now if your talking about the people older than myself, absolutely a lot of them seem laze as f#

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

hobbyguy wrote:The problem is how to structure such a concept so that:

A) you don't provide a disincentive to work
B) don't provide a disincentive for people to better themselves (night school etc.)
C) don't set it up so as to be open to "gaming" by either employers or employees

For example: if you say that the GMI is $24,000 (pick a number), where is the incentive for a part time worker to accept more hours that would take their income $10,000 to $11,000? They would be working for nothing.... or to step up to harder job, same hours, another $1/hr? Doing more to make the same.....

I see it as a nice notion, but how do you make a guaranteed minimum income work in practice?

But they wouldn't be doing more to make the same. In your example above, their income would be made on top of the GMI. So, $24,000 + $10,000 = $34,000, or $35k if they pick up the extra hours. The incentive to work more / increase earnings would be no different than today, increased income.

Rider59 wrote:
I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Perspective or anecdotal evidence for both of us I guess.

Personally I prefer data, so...

Stats Canda says the youth unemployment rate is lower than its been since we started collecting data

Or this one showing that people between 15 and 24 average 25 - 30 hours per week

Or this one showing that while youth participation isn't a record high its very high historically. If you keep reading you'll see that the only area youth are seeing less work is full time. Which really shouldn't be held against them since they aren't responsible for there being over all proportionally less full time jobs. Plus all the old people that are unable to retire for various reasons staying in the workforce, often slipping back into the easy low skill service jobs young people usually occupy.

Unfortunately for these youth the coming wave of automating service jobs will likely leave most of them high and dry.

PS: If one person says that automation is a long way off you apparently haven't read any tech news in five years, because thats when the automation started we're just waiting for it it to finish being tested by the large companies that will be using it (walmart, mcdonalds, starbucks). If you look a little bit now theres already loose automation in the form of online grocery shopping (save on foods), restaurant ordering and pick up (save the dishes app), ride sharing, etc.