Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Canada Government The Almighty Buck

Canada's Ontario Government Ends Basic Income Project (www.cbc.ca) 575

Lisa MacLeod, Progressive Conservative member and Children, Community and Social Services Minister of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, said Tuesday that she would end the city's basic income pilot project, calling it expensive and "clearly not the answer for Ontario families." Few details are available as to how the project will come to an end, but MacLeod said her government will end the program "ethically" for anyone who is currently enrolled. Slashdot reader kenh shares an excerpt from a CBC.ca report: Close to 4,000 people were enrolled in the basic income pilot program in Thunder Bay, Lindsay, Hamilton, Brantford and Brant County. The pilot project started in April 2017. It was originally set to last three years, and explore the effectiveness of providing a basic income to those living on low incomes -- whether they were working or not. Under the project, a single person could have received up to about $17,000 a year, minus half of any income he or she earned. "A couple could have received up to $24,000 per year." People with disabilities could have received an additional $6,000.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada's Ontario Government Ends Basic Income Project

Comments Filter:
  • Translation. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @09:07PM (#57053670)

    We ran out of other people's money.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Translation: we can afford to create a leisure society but it hurts people's egos.

    • Re:Translation. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @10:05PM (#57053946) Journal

      And yet we never run out of other people's money to bail out banks, GM, or get new toys for the military.... (eyeroll)

      • Re: Translation. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 )
        âoeBut Billy hit me firstâ is not a good argument if you want to be taken seriously. We should not have bailed out those failed financial institutions either, but making a mistake once should not mean that we become more accepting of making that mistake twice.

        Of course the politicians love the finger pointing because both sides can continue to get away with bad behavior as the citizens anger will be focused on the other side rather than the newest example of bad behavior.
        • Re: Translation. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @04:36AM (#57055194)

          It's not a justification, it's a question: How comes that there's always money to save the rich from having to go a year with less than a million bucks to blow on shits and giggles, but never any to save those that actually need it to survive?

        • âoeBut Billy hit me firstâ is not a good argument if you want to be taken seriously.

          Are you sure about that? [wikipedia.org]

      • I mean the main point of most basic income programs (including the one in Finland) that have been or are being tested right now along with those that had a real chance of being tested is to make it easier for poor people to take up part time work without having to worry about earning too much to get unemployment benefits, but not enough to actually live on their salary alone. That and simplifying benefits so you don't have to apply for a load of different ones based on things like disability or living expen
    • They realised.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thesupraman ( 179040 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @10:19PM (#57054022)

      Translation:

      'We realised that UBI reduces governments ability to grow its control over peoples lives, grow is bureaucracy, and make small changes every electoral round therefore trumpeting how we have fixed everything this time. With this in mind we have dropped this like a hot potato, because its not best for US'

      Totalitarianist governments, left and right, HATE UBI because it reduces their power, hence it will never happen.

      • Re:They realised.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tbannist ( 230135 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @08:13AM (#57055900)

        No, you can say many things about Doug Ford [wikipedia.org] but he's definitely not a Totalitarian. He's closer to a small government conservative. He ordered the program cut because it was doing the unthinkable, it was giving money to poor people and it appears that it was actually working.

        It had to be shut down before it produced conclusive results that the new Ontario Progressive Conservative government would have to cover up because it doesn't fit into their preferred narrative that the government can never help anybody for any reason.

      • It's worth noting that this pilot was not UBI; there was a means test for getting the money, and the amount of money received directly corresponded to income. It was basically a welfare reform pilot using the hot trendy words of the day: https://www.ontario.ca/page/on... [ontario.ca]

        Also it was killed because there was an election, a different party got in, and said different party has been killing every program the previous government instituted on principal.

    • Re:Translation. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ahodgson ( 74077 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @10:25PM (#57054046)

      Ontario ran out of other peoples' money over 400 billion dollars and nearly 30 years ago.

      What they ran out now of was people willing to vote for the Liberals.

      • Re:Translation. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@NoSPam.gmail.com> on Thursday August 02, 2018 @07:05AM (#57055600) Homepage

        Don't forget that Ontario's deficit went from 100B(2000) to 340B(2018) under a single party who threw the money at any social program that they thought would keep them elected. Threw money at whatever any environmentalist group dangled before their eyes. Ignored low income housing, ignored people on disability, ignored the gigantic scandal at workmans comp.

        People are so angry that when a person running for I think it was mayor or counselor claimed that Toronto should be it's own province, people started cheering for it. Oh it wasn't the people in Toronto, they have this idea that us rednecks will starve to death without them. It was rural, and rural-urban voters who were cheering this idea on, after nearly a generation of being literally fucked over by a single city getting all the money they wanted because it's such a gigantic voting block.

  • by Target Drone ( 546651 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @09:21PM (#57053734)

    "clearly not the answer for Ontario families."

    Except it isn't clear that this isn't the answer. That's why this was a pilot project in the first place. Ontario should just spend the money (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget) and prove whether this works or not. If it fails then move on and try something else.

    ... Unless of course you don't care if UBI works or not you just oppose it on philosophical grounds. Then the best thing to do is cancel the pilot.

  • by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @09:24PM (#57053754)
    What you did is not a basic income. It's a garden-variety welfare program, with all the stupid overhead that comes with it, that you called a basic income. This way you can point to this bad joke and use it to discredit anyone actually advocating a basic income. You are deceitful garbage and I hope one day a mob of homeless push you into the sea.
    • 50% income tax (Score:5, Insightful)

      by l2718 ( 514756 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @09:34PM (#57053806)
      Indeed, the program imposed a 50% income tax on working participants: for any $1.00 they made working, the "basic income" was reduced $0.50. That defeats the point of the whole programme.
      • Oh what the fuck. That's exactly the "deal" I get from being on disability. Spoiler alert: until just a few months ago, I never even tried to work for more than decade because that system is such garbage. And now that I am working, the SSA isn't accepting my attempts to report that income, so I'm scared I'm going to have my whole ass stolen from me.
        • by l2718 ( 514756 )

          One of the points of a properly constituted "basic income" scheme is that the income is supposed to be unconditional, exactly to remove such perverse incentives.

          That you receive a rotten deal doesn't mean others should also

          .

          • You don't need to convince me, I'm a UBI advocate. What I've been pissed off about is that this bullshit in Ontario isn't UBI.
    • by lazarus ( 2879 )

      Don't go recruiting your mob of homeless people just yet. Your anger is directed at a minister who just walked into the job, and she is killing a project that you disagree with. Perhaps you should let her live.

      • No, the homeless people definitely need to get moving. I just need to figure out who the actual architect of this huge scam was and send them that way instead.
    • Exactly, this was not even distantly related to UBI, it was simply being labeled that for political reasons.

  • by quenda ( 644621 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @09:32PM (#57053796)

    Doesn't "minus half of any income he or she earned" replicate the biggest problem with existing welfare programs, and defeat any purpose of the trial?
    This is not basic income.

    50% marginal tax rate for a minimum-wage worker is a massive disincentive for formal work.
    It is a huge incentive for cash-in-hand work. Or for using your time for non-taxable work.
    Minimum wage in Ontario is only $14/hour, so this drops it to $7.

    Do you work for $7/hr, or use that time to find clothes in thrift stores, do all your own repairs and maintenance, etc. ?
    You can save a lot of money buying quality second hand goods, and DIY, at the expense of time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ahodgson ( 74077 )

      No. Existing welfare systems actually cause you to get less money if you work, either by completely killing income or getting rid of other benefits like free dental / vision / childcare / all the other things we do for people on welfare. Getting to keep half of what you make on top of the UBI means it's actually worthwhile to work, at least up to a certain point where it would make more sense to get off the welfare completely.

      • by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @10:47PM (#57054128)
        If it's UBI, there is no reason to get off it ever because it's UNIVERSAL.
  • Who thought just handing out money was cheap?

  • I think it's more constructive to have the data ourselves, so it can be assessed independently. A politician may define success very differently than we would, and I'd prefer my own judgment.
  • ...not a city

  • Dont give money to people with jobs.
    Means test people and support them. "Social programs in Canada" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    Support people who are not working.
    The amount of people who then need support is kept low and a normal advance nation with a set number of people needing gov support can be covered by a normal tax rate.
    Citizens who cant work, doing education. Retired citizens.
    The rest of a nations citizens work and pay tax. No new payments needed for them as they are "working", pay ta
  • by LostOne ( 51301 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:38AM (#57054502) Homepage

    Let me prefix this by saying that I don't necessarily support implementing a UBI system. However, I have yet to see anything called a "basic income" or "universal basic incomie" pilot program actually do things at all correctly. As other commenters have suggested, these pilot programs seem to be designed so that they must necessarily fail and be examples the politicians can point at and say, "See? We tried it and it failed." I'm not convinced UBI can actually work, but it definitely won't work if it isn't done right.

    To do UBI correctly, it has to go to everybody. And it has to *replace* any income support programs. That is, it has to replace government programs such as (un)employment insurance, government pension plans not funded completely and directly by member contributions (because everyone would get UBI, the pension plan wouldn't be required, would it?). There also can't be any clawback because someone earned some money outside of the program. Doing that just adds administrative cost to the program and discourages recipients from working. Also, every person should get the same amount regardless of age, marital status, etc., though maybe with a minimum age before it kicks in. Otherwise, you recreate existing complex administration processes.

    Now, here's the absolutely critical component. This UBI must not be set at a level where the recipient can afford a car, nice television, nice house, 127 cats, and the like. It should provide for *healthy* subsistence in a reasonable market and require careful management of money to do so (which encourages those who won't work to move out of the expensive cities like Vancouver or Toronto and those who want a nicer standard of living to work). It needs to be set such that if you want a nice living, you have to earn additional money, on which you pay taxes. (Also, under a proper UBI system, only the UBI itself would be income tax exempt. There would be no need for low end tax brackets under such a system.)

    Limited pilot programs just aren't going to demonstrate anything because they're not going to work exclusive of existing income support programs and are going to potentially unbalance the labour force because the people getting free money can work for less. (That's probably why the clawback had to be there in this case.) To truly demonstrate whether such a system can work, it has to be tried at a fairly large scale and *existing* income support programs must be suspended for anyone participating in such a test.

    Now I do understand that there is always going to be someone who isn't well served by such a program. But that's true of all the current options, too. If you're going to insist that it has to be perfect for everyone, then are you willing to give up all the existing social programs that you currently benefit from on that same principle? I thought not. So let's not create strawmen out of extreme edge cases since *every* system has those.

  • Welfare for Farmers (Score:5, Informative)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:38AM (#57054506) Journal

    Here in the United States, we have apparently found enough of "other people's money" to give new welfare for farmers.

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/po... [foxbusiness.com]

    Our President, who has a very good brain, will be paying farmers who have been hurt by his tariffs by giving them money that's borrowed from very same countries he levied tariffs against.

    That is some 39-dimensional chess shit right there.

  • by FabioA ( 1978348 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @03:49AM (#57055094)
    It says something about the politicians involved, that such experiments are being shut down before they come to a end. It already happened in Finland, now in Canada: it almost feels like they're afraid of what the results might tell, doesn't it?
  • by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Thursday August 02, 2018 @07:39AM (#57055724)

    People today probably just don't like it being called UBI.

    Point in case: I do web development which these days means simply maintaining massive blobs of very complicated pieces of software that are available for free or some silly minimal annual fee. It mostly involves clicking on links and watching the WordPress Update Spinner go in circles. My deployment server is a rented service because I really can't be bothered fiddling with Jenkins or Travis for months on end till I get it right when I can get a nice and shiny UI ready to run my tasks for 5$/Month. That's 10 Minutes of "work" per month at my current rate for someone employed with healthcare, national pension and such.

    I'm required to be at the office, but I can do this job on the side, remotely, and not even break into a sweat. I'm employed part time and earn more than most people. I do get to work on mission critical stuff that no one else in a radius of 5 kilometers can do, but that's 40 hours per quarter, maximum.

    I'm now moving to automate most of my remaining manual work with custom scripts.

    On the other side I have an abundance of spare time, am going to college on the side (College is free in Germany), planning a surf trip and couldn't even be bothered to update my smartphone because it's so powerful. I'm writing this on a refurbished laptop that costed little more than the refurbishment work and shipping +extra RAM & SSD and my main concern is if I will finally manage to get my exercise regime that I have planned going.

    The robots are coming ever more and it's only a matter of single digit years until someone replaces starbucks with coffeebots and robots drive our cars and sew our t-shirts and jeans.

    Bottom line:
    Post scarcity abundance is happening as we speak and - to be honest - I think that's pretty fucking great. If you choose to live a "minimalist" lifestyle like I do (single room appartment, no car, PT & bike, focus on health, education and fun) you can feel it already every day.
    And it feels awesome.

    My 2 eurocents.

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes

Working...