Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Similar to Ontario, shoud Vancouver launch Basic Income pilot project?

kurtzfan

By kurtzfan
in Off-Topic General

Recommended Posts

kurtzfan Abbotsford Regular

kurtzfan

Posted
Posted

https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot

 

What is a basic income

A basic income is a payment to eligible families or individuals that ensures a minimum income level, regardless of employment status.

Different than social assistance, a basic income can be:

  • given to anyone who meets the income eligibility criterion
  • given to someone who may be working but earning below the basic income level
  • generally simpler to administer

 

Participants

Participants must be:

  • invited to join the pilot
  • 18 to 64 years old
  • living in one of the selected test regions for the past 12 months or longer
  • living on a low income

We will be randomly selecting people to apply and will be sending out invitations and application packages in the mail shortly.

Seniors

Seniors are not included in the pilot because most seniors (65+) receive more money through the current seniors’ benefits including:

  • Old Age Security
  • Guaranteed Income Supplement
  • Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income System

What will be measured

The government will test how a basic income might help people living on low incomes better meet their basic needs, while improving their education, employment, and health. It will measure outcomes in areas including:

  • food security
  • stress and anxiety
  • mental health
  • health and healthcare usage
  • housing stability
  • education and training
  • employment and labour market participation

The design of the pilot

The first phase of the pilot will begin in late spring 2017 in Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County and Thunder Bay. The pilot in Lindsay will begin by fall of 2017.

Payment amount

The payment will ensure a minimum level of income is provided to participants. Aligning with the advice of Hugh Segal, payments based on 75 per cent of the Low Income Measure (LIM), plus other broadly available tax credits and benefits, would provide an income that will meet household costs and average health-related spending.

Following a tax credit model, the Ontario Basic Income Pilot will ensure that participants receive:

  • Up to $16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income
  • Up to $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income

People with a disability will also receive up to $500 per month on top.

Working and going to school during the pilot

Participants can go to school to further their education or begin/continue to work while receiving the basic income. The basic income amount will decrease by $0.50 for every dollar an individual earns through work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toews Canucks Franchise Player

Toews

Posted
Posted

Nope, just take a looksie at the results of their project and see if it there is any benefit to it.

 

Edit:Just found an article on similar study done in Iran. 

 

Quote

Iran tried its own basic income scheme - and people didn't give up working

One of the biggest criticisms of basic income, a system of giving people modest salaries just for being alive, is that it discourages people from working.

 

A new report on an ongoing cash-transfer program launched in 2011 in Iran may cast some doubt on the claim.

 

Published by the economists Djavad Salehi-Isfahani and Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooei, the paper finds no evidence to support the idea that people receiving cash transfers take themselves out of the labor force. Some workers even expanded their hours, the report found.

 

Iran's nationwide cash-transfer policy emerged out of heavy cuts to gas and bread subsidies made by then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in late 2010. The monthly transfer amounted to 29% of median household income, or about $1.50 extra per head of household, per day.

 

(In the US, that would be an extra $ 16,389.64, well above the standard scheme of $1,000 a month proposed by many basic income advocates.)

 

Despite reports in local press that the poor were forgoing their jobs to spend the extra money, the investigators found no such evidence.

"Our results do not indicate a negative labor supply effect for either hours worked or the probability of participation in market work, either for all workers or those in the bottom 40% of the income distribution," they wrote.

 

They did find people in their twenties tended to work a bit less. But "this is not surprising since the attachment of Iranian youth to the labor market is weak," they wrote, and many young people may have used the money to enroll in higher education they otherwise couldn't afford.

 

In other cases, the extra money appeared to increase how much time people spent working. Service workers, such as housekeepers, teachers, and deliverymen, upped their weekly hours by roughly 36 minutes, "perhaps because some used transfers to expand their business."

 

Despite the apparent benefits to Iran's labor force, the investigators discovered the public and federal reaction to the program has been intensely negative. Empirical evidence should help change people's minds at least regarding the question of whether free money makes people lazy, they say.

 

"As more oil exporting countries decide to remove energy subsidies, or for political economy reasons decide to transfer a part of their oil wealth unconditionally to their citizens," they wrote, "the question of how such transfers affect the incentive of their citizens in working and acquiring skills become more important."

http://www.businessinsider.in/Iran-tried-its-own-basic-income-scheme-and-people-didnt-give-up-working/articleshow/58813263.cms

 

Obviously more research needs to be done. Iran also isn't the same culture wise as Canada. Maybe may not be a bad idea to try a similar project in BC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theminister Canucks All-Star

theminister

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Toews said:

Nope, just take a looksie at the results of their project and see if it there is any benefit to it.

 

Edit:Just found an article on similar study done in Iran. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.in/Iran-tried-its-own-basic-income-scheme-and-people-didnt-give-up-working/articleshow/58813263.cms

 

Obviously more research needs to be done. Iran also isn't the same culture wise as Canada. Maybe may not be a bad idea to try a similar project in BC.

The Iran case shows that it had a positive correlation to work. That it encouraged people to work more. 

 

Wouldn't that be the point?

 

It's an interesting idea IMO. What effects it has on a macroeconomic level on the cost of living would need to be better understood. While some uptick in prices would be expected, the greater liquidity of the market and velocity of money should have some inverse affects as well as increased volumes drive down others. 

 

Where the money comes from, though most should be buffeted by sales taxes collected by more transactions, would be the major question. If they would need to rob Peter to pay Paul. 

 

This concept is far more complicated than the simplest economic dogma will suggest IMHO. The main stagnation in economics is static money, and the system works best when those at the lower tiers are conducting more transactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JM_ Canucks Hall-of-Famer

JM_

Posted
Posted

maybe? lets wait and see the results in ON.

 

It may be better for people with disabilities tho, as right now the system for them is very stupid. I know a guy who's a quadriplegic who can work, but if he does he loses his income assistance at a very low salary level and won't be able to afford the home care workers he needs for is basic daily needs, so he doesn't work. If a guaranteed income system comes in he'll be able to actually get a job. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JC2 Abbotsford Prospect

JC2

Posted
Posted

I don't understand something, so the idea is the government will give a single person 16000$ per year even if they were making say 25000$ a year already? Or would they simply just give the amount to the meet the minimum like the minimum being 30000$ so they give 5000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HerrDrFunk Canucks Star

HerrDrFunk

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, JC2 said:

I don't understand something, so the idea is the government will give a single person 16000$ per year even if they were making say 25000$ a year already? Or would they simply just give the amount to the meet the minimum like the minimum being 30000$ so they give 5000?

No. With Ontario's program it's up to $16,989, minus 50% of any earned income. So if someone makes $20,000 a year, they would get an additional $6,989 from the government. 

 

3 hours ago, Johnny Shotgun said:

Just another source of free money to those immigrants that line up to come here for the good life with no intention of ever adopting Canadian values.  And our government welcomes them with open arms.

:picard:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JC2 Abbotsford Prospect

JC2

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

No. With Ontario's program it's up to $16,989, minus 50% of any earned income. So if someone makes $20,000 a year, they would get an additional $6,989 from the government. 

 

:picard:

If that's the case then anyone making 16$ an hour and up essentially get nothing while those who don't work get almost 17k to do nothing. I'm all for a basic income as long as it doesn't benefit those who don't want to work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HerrDrFunk Canucks Star

HerrDrFunk

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, JC2 said:

If that's the case then anyone making 16$ an hour and up essentially get nothing while those who don't work get almost 17k to do nothing. I'm all for a basic income as long as it doesn't benefit those who don't want to work. 

Fortunately the majority of people out there actually do want to work. I can't say if this plan will be a net benefit or not but the number of people who would be content to get $17,000 a year and do nothing is relatively low. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted

As automation becomes more prevalent, this sort of system (or similar) is going to be needed IMO.

 

As @theminister noted, one of the worst things for the economy is static, stagnated money. Ensuring the poorer/lower middle class have money to spend on rent, food, etc (which gets taxed) is what keeps the rest of us employed and earning our money. Ensuring people at the bottom have money is like fertilizer to an economic (and tax) system.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForsbergTheGreat Canucks Franchise Player

ForsbergTheGreat

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, J.R. said:

As automation becomes more prevalent, this sort of system (or similar) is going to be needed IMO.

 

As @theminister noted, one of the worst things for the economy is static, stagnated money. Ensuring the poorer/lower middle class have money to spend on rent, food, etc (which gets taxed) is what keeps the rest of us employed and earning our money. Ensuring people at the bottom have money is like fertilizer to an economic (and tax) system.

No thanks, not quite how the economy works.

 

You want to get paid, then develop a skillset that has value and earn that money.  Competition for jobs is what grows the economy and pushes it to advance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No thanks, not quite how the economy works.

 

You want to get paid, then develop a skillset that has value and earn that money.  Competition for jobs is what grows the economy and pushes it to advance. 

 

 

On 5/24/2017 at 6:24 AM, Toews said:

Despite reports in local press that the poor were forgoing their jobs to spend the extra money, the investigators found no such evidence.

"Our results do not indicate a negative labor supply effect for either hours worked or the probability of participation in market work, either for all workers or those in the bottom 40% of the income distribution," they wrote.

 

They did find people in their twenties tended to work a bit less. But "this is not surprising since the attachment of Iranian youth to the labor market is weak," they wrote, and many young people may have used the money to enroll in higher education they otherwise couldn't afford.

 

In other cases, the extra money appeared to increase how much time people spent working. Service workers, such as housekeepers, teachers, and deliverymen, upped their weekly hours by roughly 36 minutes, "perhaps because some used transfers to expand their business."

Try understanding the big picture of the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...