Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Canadians Talking About A Guaranteed Annual Income (Citizens Income)

Recommended Posts

Support was highest in Quebec at 55 per cent and lowest in Alberta at 38 per cent.

French vote for free money shock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple solution - vote for independence.

Canada is basically a country where the English and Asians work to give money to the French, and I think most of us would be happy to chuck them out. Sadly, they only ever give the French a vote, and they don't want to give up the free money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If outsourcing and automation continue to erode pay and employment some kind of generic redistribution system will be required to avoid a catastrophic collapse in demand- a CI would create a more flexible solution than some vast welfare state- it would allow people to be far more flexible in responding to the work that was available and to take the risks of creating the kind of 'micro business' that might lead to growth in the long term but not support them in the short.

Anyone who argues that a Citizens income would lead to people not working must also agree that low taxes will have a similar demotivating effect- since in both cases the claim is being made that when people have 'enough' they instantly lose their appetite for 'more'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If outsourcing and automation continue to erode pay and employment some kind of generic redistribution system will be required to avoid a catastrophic collapse in demand

Why?

Oh, because you're an industrial-era Luddite who is desperately trying to maintain it.

Factories exist to serve demand. If there's no demand, the factories go away. Factory owners do not benefit from giving their money to other people to buy the stuff their factory produces. Retaining factories just for the sake of having factories is pure Luddism.

Anyone who argues that a Citizens income would lead to people not working must also agree that low taxes will have a similar demotivating effect- since in both cases the claim is being made that when people have 'enough' they instantly lose their appetite for 'more'.

Only if they don't understand what they're talking about.

Edit: oh, and if we could get $22,000 a year for doing nothing, one or both of us would definitely quit work. $44,000 a year would pay all our bills and more, after we've paid off the mortgage.

Edited by MarkG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Edit: oh, and if we could get $22,000 a year for doing nothing, one or both of us would definitely quit work. $44,000 a year would pay all our bills and more, after we've paid off the mortgage.

So people aren't motivated to earn more money then? I presume that's why executive pay stops around the $22k mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So people aren't motivated to earn more money then? I presume that's why executive pay stops around the $22k mark.

From my experience of talking to people I work with if you gave them enough money not to work they wouldn't work.

I think only about 5% of people would work, this begs the question who will produce things to pay for all the people not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience of talking to people I work with if you gave them enough money not to work they wouldn't work.

I think only about 5% of people would work, this begs the question who will produce things to pay for all the people not working.

i simply dont believe that, id wager you are getting confused with they wouldnt choose to work if they didnt need to and arent seeing the benefits of that effort which is the current system in the UK for alot of people

Edited by Maria Gorska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience of talking to people I work with if you gave them enough money not to work they wouldn't work.

I think only about 5% of people would work, this begs the question who will produce things to pay for all the people not working.

Ignoring the anecdote, you're missing the point of a CI:

  1. It removes far more perverse incentives than it creates

  2. The problem CI is trying to solve is not one of production but of consumption

Simply put, if only a percentage of the working population's available man-hours are required to produce all we need, how do we maintain the population's access to essentials and basics? The classic capitalist response is to say that people will create new industries and jobs, but this assumes that infinite, never-ending growth is both possible and desirable. Welfare to some extent solves the problem, but it's unfair, complex and tends to create disincentives to work. CI is fair, simple and allows people to top-up a basic income without penalty, seeking opportunities wherever they're available.

<pedant>Oh, and it doesn't beg the question... </pedant>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this happened in the uk, I'd be very wary of the law of unintended consequences.

And seeing how this is HPC, you can bet any money from CI would go directly back

into the uk's favourite ponzi....housing.

Imagine how fast houseprices would rise and how fast rents would rise if people

had a spare £500/month? Also I dread to think of the inflationary impact of all this

money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What many young people would consider a cool lifestyle would be having the bills paid plus enough to go pubbing and clubbing.

I really can't see those pubbers and clubbers staying home most nights just because CI covers their basic needs. imo they're going to be doing some form of work to pay for the extras.

I think 25% of NAW would be a fair basis for CI. Meaning £6625pa or £127 a week. The most important part of CI for me is not that people get the right to do nothing but rather they are given the right and the opportunity to sort their own lives out. (Anathema to the lefties.) 2 couples could take on a 2 bed flat and do ok without any extra income. Or they could go for it and earn as much as they could. It would also mean that family and long term friendships once again become important as there might be a time you need a support system on top of your CI.

How many forumites are going to quit work because as a couple they have £13250 CI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Factories exist to serve demand. If there's no demand, the factories go away. Factory owners do not benefit from giving their money to other people to buy the stuff their factory produces. Retaining factories just for the sake of having factories is pure Luddism.

Demand = income- so in aggregate business owners do indeed benefit from giving money to people- in the form of wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And seeing how this is HPC, you can bet any money from CI would go directly back

into the uk's favourite ponzi....housing.

It's generally taken as given that CI could not work without significant changes to prevent just this. Increased supply, rent-controls and some basic social housing at fair rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience of talking to people I work with if you gave them enough money not to work they wouldn't work.

I think only about 5% of people would work, this begs the question who will produce things to pay for all the people not working.

This is something I've always wondered about. I'm not sure the number is as low as 5% but it's certainly a lot less than 100%. The question is where the envy factor cuts in I think. If there's enough people around you who seem to have much more stuff, then there's a strong incentive to work but, otherwise, maybe not. This is the thing that's never explained in Star Trek - in a society that's so rich it doesn't need money but where the only work seems to be as crew for Star Fleet, what happens to the feckless majority who, presumably, just laze around getting sh1t-faced all day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in the UK but I'm a Canadian citizen. I don't see Canadians voting for this in my lifetime.

I live in Canada but I'm a British citizen - and agreed, I don't see people here voting for this. This is a Toronto Star article after all - a newspaper that often makes the Guardian look a bit right wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had a sort of CI here. Before JSA, anyone could sign on every fortnight and not have to anything for their money. The only proviso was that you did no paid work without telling the dole office.

Dole then was just under the spending power of £100 a week now, close to suggested CI rates. iirc, unemployment was never higher than 10%, so why did the other 90+% work?

So I dispute the only 5% will work if they get CI, imo it would be at most 10% not wanting to work.

Edited by John51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had a sort of CI here. Before JSA, anyone could sign on every fortnight and not have to anything for their money. The only proviso was that you did no paid work without telling the dole office.

I remember signing on during the summer holidays once and getting double dole for some reason. I told the dole office and they said "keep the money, we have no way of taking it back". They did used to hassle you a bit even back then to look for work although us students were not expected to do much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The Swiss are proposing 1750ukp / month. I'd stop work for 1000 quid a month.

My wife's pensions would be around that amount each month. Even though she is eligible for the state pension she is still in employment. So even though some would choose not to work there are many who would continue to work.

I still plan to keep my business going after I become eligible for the state pension for as long as I am able.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And seeing how this is HPC, you can bet any money from CI would go directly back

into the uk's favourite ponzi....housing.

Imagine how fast houseprices would rise and how fast rents would rise if people

had a spare £500/month? Also I dread to think of the inflationary impact of all this

money?

Disagree assuming that CI is an alternative to all other benefits, and if it isn't then there's no way that it's affordable at all. Remember that CI doesn't create any new money it just changes who's got it.

Take away HB and you'll put a bomb under the housing market.

We had a big CI thread a few months back, basically when you look at it carefully it transpires that CI really amounts to a huge cut in benefits for the unemployed/low paid to fund a huge tax giveaway for the better off.

Edited by Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CI = HPC?

I couldn't afford to live on CI as is. At the £127 per week I suggested earlier, I'd have about £25 left to live on after paying rent and council tax. So I'd have to get a couple in for the main bedroom to share rent and bills or give this place up and get a flatshare. Might even find some work. Single mothers would double up or find a boyfriend to move in.

What this current system is giving us is more and more solo living, not healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CI = HPC?

I couldn't afford to live on CI as is. At the £127 per week I suggested earlier, I'd have about £25 left to live on after paying rent and council tax. So I'd have to get a couple in for the main bedroom to share rent and bills or give this place up and get a flatshare. Might even find some work. Single mothers would double up or find a boyfriend to move in.

What this current system is giving us is more and more solo living, not healthy.

So why not just have the CI be a universal housing benefit ? We're heading towards universally unaffordable housing anyway, well perpetually heading as presumably with no money left over the economy tanks first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree assuming that CI is an alternative to all other benefits, and if it isn't then there's no way that it's affordable at all. Remember that CI doesn't create any new money it just changes who's got it.

Take away HB and you'll put a bomb under the housing market.

We had a big CI thread a few months back, basically when you look at it carefully it transpires that CI really amounts to a huge cut in benefits for the unemployed/low paid to fund a huge tax giveaway for the better off.

Personally i'm wondering if CI should not be funded via debt free money created by the gov-central bank under a full reserve system, rather than via taxation. After all, under full reserve banking new money would still need to be created and enter the system somehow, and I can't think of a fairer, more democratic way, than CI. Above all this would remove the "special flower" system that is so obviously in play right now, with those with early access to newly created money reaping huge rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.