>Ontario to experiment with Basic Income
NEETS > wageslaves
>>66761428
>be NEET
>have barely enough money to pay for rent, doritos, and steam games
>have no friends except for loser because successful people dont hang out with NEETS
>are lowenergy cucks that dont accomplish anything like a man would
>get friendzoned by any decent woman because mediocrity is not attractive
>eventually after a few years of being a NEET they get depressed and want to turn their lives around
>they cant find jobs because they have a 5 year gap on their CV that everyone else filled with work experience
>kill themselves
this is the average NEET
If everyone gets basic income why would anyone from the working class ever work?
>>66761691
Because basic income won't be enough to buy nice things like gaming PCs, kayaks, the newest fragrance by Thierry Mugler or a Nendoroid collection that weighs more than a car. There will always be a reason for people to want more than they have, and for that they will need to work.
>>66761906
NEETs seem pretty content with what little they have, and make no efforts to change that situation.
Besides, has it ever occurred to you that some people are just working so they can survive? Try and guess what happens when you remove the only reason they want to work.
>>66762223
I'm a 23 year old making 62k/yr in financial services. I would go full neet in a second if I had a basic income. Maybe pick up a part time job for spending money, but not do much.
>>66762223
>NEETs seem pretty content with what little they have
They're not the majority.
>has it ever occurred to you that some people are just working so they can survive?
Yes, and it's a fucking shame. No-one should have to struggle just to live. Having the freedom to use their money for something they WANT instead of something they NEED will improve their lives.
>>66762391
>Maybe pick up a part time job for spending money
See? The system works.
I'm from Ontario and I didn't hear about this - OP do you have a source?
Also - I want some serious replies/discussion please, this is an interesting topic and one that I've mulled over many times as an Economics major.
Right now we have a labyrinth of welfare systems - there's straight up welfare, and unemployment insurance, disability, public pension, etc, etc. What if we consolidated it into one basic income plan, like a negative income tax where anyone who doesn't work would get just barely enough money to survive?
There would be fewer/no homeless people, no street people, less crime, we wouldn't have to hire as many cops/paramedics, and we wouldn't need to hire an army of civil servants and social workers to hand out welfare.
Working class people who made min. wage would see the money clawed back, but at a reasonable rate and so the working poor would still get a small boost.
There seem to be a lot of benefits to this system. What about the downsides? I honestly wonder how many people would just be NEET faggots and mooch off the system and never work, satisfied to get just the very minimum amount of money to barely survive. But then again, I also wonder if these faggots are actually doing any better than that in our current society. So what I mean to say is, there is always a small percentage of society made up of lazy fucks who don't work, that exists now, I wonder would it actually get much worse under a basic income system? We aren't going to execute these people, I know it doesn't seem fair to give them, like 500 bucks a month, but maybe it's easier to just do that rather than pay social workers at welfare offices to make them jump through hoops and just get the money anyway.
Does /pol really believe the number of NEETS would go up that much? I'm not sure myself. I think it's all about the person. Most people really do not want to be a NEET fagot, even if they did live in a society with basic income.
>>66762831
>What if we gave away free money for no reason?
No. Money has no value if it isn't given in exchange for work hours. Say hello to Depression-era Weimar Republic levels of inflation if basic income becomes Canada-wide.
Our debt is our top concern right now. We need to focus on getting rid of that, or at the very least setting up a plan that will kill it in the coming decades. Only then should we experiment with these kinds of policies you ask about.
Our society is too lazy and unmotivated and uninspired to take advantage of a basic income in a productive way. It would require a paradigm shift in order to not ruin us. Nationalismbro here, btw.
>>66761691
> neet
> working class
I bet you think Greenland is green too
>>66762831
Also, where would all of those former homeless move to once they get money? Living infrustructure doesn't pop out of the ground, my friend.
>>66763464
>basic economics
basic income won't cause inflation, derp master, only increasing the money supply causes inflation. If you remove all welfare programs, and your basic income program only adds up to the amount you removed, the money supply has remained the same.
We're already handing out hundreds of billions of dollars every year in welfare payments under different systems. All this basic income thing is is a different way of organizing it, it's not paying out more.
>>66763710
there aren't that many homeless people, bro. There are more than enough vacant spaces for them. Toronto's got tens of thousands of vacant units and there are nowhere near that many homeless here
>>66762704
>graduate high earner leaving his high paid, tax contributing job occasionally work in a shop whenever he is too bored to live on neetbux
This is a functional system to you?
>>66762704
That's not sustainable in the slightest.
I don't think the economy would enjoy the fact that its backbone would start providing it with less profit than usual. People would spend less of their own money and more of the government's money, making it unreliable.
>Literally communism on steroids
Why would anyone not quit their job to just get free money
How the fuck is this supposed to work
You guys are fucking retards, enjoy paying hundreds of dollars for a carton of eggs
That would be nice. Work's hard to find. I'm disabled enough I can't do most jobs but not disabled enough to actually get disability.
>>66763847
Basic economics. Free money inflates. High taxation discourages the taxed item. Government subsidising causes more of the subsidised to occur.
What will go wrong if we levy more tax from taxpayers, subsidise neets further, and throw in conjored up government money?
>canadians literally want to crash the economy to be able to sit on their fat asses smoking weed for a few years before they all end up starving to death
>they will sit here in this thread and try to grasp at straws at how this will not happen, when deep down they know it will and do not care because if they could care that far ahead about their future they wouldnt need any of this in the first place
>>66764231
look, faggot, don't pretend you know what you're talking about because you don't
the money supply is what matters to inflation. If you take money from one hand and give it to another that does not cause inflation, because you're just moving it around, you're not printing more money.
We're talking about replacing one welfare system with another. Do you get it? Don't answer until you fucking understand, and if you can't understand stfu
>>66764206
because the basic income would be about 500-600 a month, just enough to rent the shittiest room in the shittiest house and eat ramen noodles every day - basically just enough to not be homeless. If you wanted to actually do anything in life, including having a computer and internet to shitpost on 4chan, you'd need to get a job. Most people aren't lazy niggers, is that hard for you to believe?
>tfw goverment imported 150.000 thousands doctors and engineers into my country
>tfw can just sit on my ass all day while day work
>>66764455
right, because the american system of high taxes, super low wages, paying out food stamps to workers, and spending gov money on corporate bailouts and corporate welfare/bankruptcy is such an amazing system
>>66764739
Meanwhile everyone in the third world is raping and killing each other just to survive, and canada thinks its a good idea to just let unlimited foreigners into the country
So enjoy your hordes of lazy/criminal scum coming to have their lives handed to them on your dime
>>66764455
>implying there is any future
>>66762831
As long as the basic income amount is not greater than the money saved by stopping all welfare and benefits program (AKA full consolidation) then it should be OK.
I doubt anyone other than NEETS will quit working if the overall amount isn't too high. Even those who are struggling will not quit working just because they can. It would make more economic sense for them to save their working income or spend it on the nice shit they could never afford before.
>But muh NEETs leeching muh system.
Those are all the same people who already get tons of money for "disabilities" and "mental health issues". Nothing changes for them anyway, if anything they may actually see cuts depending on how the system is leveraged.
Only thing is that this will either cause some price increases. Not across the board but adding lots of purchasing power to the people may raise the prices of low level non-essential goods.
>muh HOTDOGS!
>>66764989
>I doubt anyone other than NEETS will quit working
>I doubt anyone other than people who already dont work will quit working
>>66762831
Well, what you propose is what Hayek already proposed, a substitution of current welfare to introduce a negative income tax. Although he firstly advocated for total free market, and then, rescue whoever can't find a place in it.
The downsides are, just like when college is free, that a disconnection is created between demand of jobs and supply, people will work in whatever they want instead of working in what society wants, this will obviously lead to a commercial deficit and a raise in expenses (lower supply+high demand) for things that aren't really productive, and don't increase an economy's added value production.
There are effects that are harder to calculate, UBI is zero sum, the transfer from someone's production towards another person, basically, I will be able to access to society's production without giving society anything in return. This may lead to a bad allocation of resources, perhaps with harder financing conditions, less saving, this can affect economies in unpredictable ways, but everything seems to point out that societies that allocate their resources in the proper places are the ones that thrive faster.
The sustainability under the current circumstances may be debatable, but I think it's obvious that the UBI results less and less sustainable as more and more people decide to change their behavior and reduce their production because of the UBI. Perhaps in Ontario it won't lead quick to general poverty, but it will lead to comparative poverty, for sure.
>>66761537
I know this feel, pretty much. Live on my own, not with parents. What do I do to get out of this shitty state?
>>66764872
refugees and new immigrants can't qualify for welfare
>>66765097
You know what I mean. Most people who aren't already trying to scam the system will keep working.
>>66763682
I bet you think you have reading comprehension.
>>66764989
welfare is already 600/month, so if basic income is 600/month and it replaces welfare, the government would actually save money by closing down welfare offices
>>66765102
How would that increase comparative poverty?
Also don't worry about all those hard jobs nobody will want to do. We have immigrants for that.
>>66765368
How much do you think welfare offices cost exactly?
>>66765457
not much, but it's still probably 5-8% of the total program costs. Remember, we're talking about the government here
>>66765119
Go to trade school and become a wagecuck. There are jobs out there for everyone, you just gotta lower your standards
>>66763847
>derp master
>muh economics major
Hmmm...
Here is some math for you. 16.2 million Canadians are of working age. So they all get basic income, right?
A basic income that would suffice as a living wage would need to be around $1000, counting for rent, bills, and other expenses. As well as emergency money.
Giving 16.2 million people $1000 a month would cost us $1.62 trillion. Giving them $500, even, would be $810 billion. Without even looking up stats I can guarentee that's way over your budget. Not to mention getting rid of CPP and EI would be unacceptable.
Pay attention in your classes.
>>66763891
So you're saying we flood the cities with people that A. Will destroy the property values anywhere they go and B. Cannot afford the high rent anyway on their basic living wages.
The only way you are going to make this insanity even possible is if you made Canada a communist dictatorship, but seeing as you are in university I can only assume that is your goal anyway.
>>66761428
>ontario proves to the world NEETs are worthless
if only marxism would be so easy to throw away
>>66765368
I doubt it because not everyone is on welfare, far from it.
Running the numbers by dividing the entire social assistance budget versus the population over 18 does not leave a lot for anyone.
>>66765569
I missed out on our apprentices. I think I'd need to go back to university to go to a trade school or something. I could check a college though but it's usually full of 16 year olds so I'm going to be the creepy 26 year old if so
Am I eligible this neetbux if I have income but not from a job? Would be cool so I could afford VR.
I.E. mommy and daddy support me because they think I'm autistic and can't handle myself in the real world.
>>66762704
>Having the freedom to use their money for something they WANT instead of something they NEED will improve their lives.
Of course to do this, you need to remove this same freedom from people who work by taxing them to the moon in order to pay for these directionless faggots
>>66762831
huffpo since you're too lazy to google
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/26/ontario-basic-income_n_9328264.html
>>66765556
The money that will be lost due to a lack of incentive to work brought by basic income is a kajillion times greater than the money required to maintain welfare offices.
>>66765838
>I.E. mommy and daddy support me because they think I'm autistic and can't handle myself in the real world.
You have reached the pinnacle of humanity in this era. There is no reason to work if you are white, all you do is support minorities to breed like rabbits.
>>66764455
you realize almost everyone in this thread thinks this is stupid, right? Ontario is in a ridiculous amount of debt: $308,000,000,000.00. It's horribly mismanaged.
>>66765849
>rich people will literally be left destitute and starving by a nominal tax increase
No, but thanks for playing.
>>66765584
I imagine the UBI scheme would be something like this.
Linear decrease to boost income up to a certain minimum level, then it tapers off to boost the income of people earning about this point to discourage people from working less to earn the same amount.
>>66765742
I got an apprenticeship at 26 after dropping out of highschool and floating around working shit jobs. I make low 50k range now working full time. You don't have to be a NEET aon
>>66766351
What did you get an apprenticeship in? How long did it take?
>>66766263
Literally not at all what I said.
As a working class wage earner my taxes will increase to pay for more losers to sit around doing nothing. Now I have less economic freedom, but Jamal and his friends get $12k a year on top of their drug dealing income to sit on the stoop and yell at white women all day. Great system.
>>66766442
i did a three year apprenticeship as a baker, now im a manager at a big wholesale bakery.
when we bail out and annex Canada I call dibs on Algonquin. Dibs.
>>66766521
That's amazing. I can't bake for shit. I'll ring up a few colleges and see what I can do.
>>66766319
So it's just welfare under a different name and giving even more to the same dregs of society so they will forever stay in their ghettos and piss me off with their bitter, ignorant attitudes.
>>66766521
>3 year apprenticeship as a baker
Just call it work, man. You worked for 3 years and now you have a better job
>>66766469
>Of course to do this, you need to remove this same freedom from people who work
It literally is what you said. Your freedom to buy nice things is reduced, but not eliminated - and in no way is it reduced so low as to match the pittance tossed to the NEETs.
>>66766645
I literally had to go to trade school and take government board tests and shit. Then I got $4k in grant money for completing an apprenticeship.
>>66766642
Yeah pretty much, but principally it's more efficient so you give less of your taxes to Jamal and the seven hoes
>>66761428
Gordon has already schooled you faggots on UBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pAWlxQM8bM
>>66766751
Though it would actually be less to the dredges of society since now Jamal doesn't qualify for welfare, 2 cases of disability, and 5 instances of child care benefits. It would be the same across the board making it harder to game the system.
>>66766751
>>66766923
You are also for consolidating all of the welfare programs to pay for this ridiculous system? So no CPP or EI or disability?
Why should the vast majority of good Canadians have to lose out on good support systems simply to make it easier and more beneficial for leeches to leech?
This system will never be anything more than insanity.
Basic Income wouldn't produce inflation. Inflation requires more currency in circulation - Basic Income is ust the redistribution of money already there.
>>66767364
We don't use a gold standard buddy, money doesn't work that way.
>>66767364
Okay but redistributing it from which pool or pools? And who qualifies for that basic income? If it's not everyone it's just another name for welfare.
Inevitably inflation would occur because no feasible or beneficial UBI could be set up without printing more money. At the best inflation could be avoided but the UBI would have to dip into other funds.
It won't work. There's not enough money in any Western nation's welfare programs to consolidate into a realistic UBI. Like I said further up, it would cost Canada $810 billion A MONTH to give everyone just $500 a month. That doesn't even cover rent.
>>66767260
I doubt CPP and EI will get folded in as these are. Welfare, I has a disorder now gibsmedat money, child "care" benefits would get consolidated. Disability will sadly likely be folded in but it is ripe with abuse, don't think only those with the best intentions claim disability.
I believe it can work, but I know it will fail. But if they insist on trying it then they better do it as right as possible.
Honestly instead of playing with this system they should have just reformed the welfare system to prevent abuse from the caucasionally challenged and manchildren with self diagnosed autism.
My opinion on the matter:
Society is like one big family, whether you like it or not. Poverty breeds crime and social disintegration.
Give people a basic income to pay for basics like food and shelter and nobody needs to live in poverty or suffer long hours working jobs they hate that trap them.
With more time and more stability, people are free to be more entrepreneurial, thereby enhancing Capitalism and productivity.
>>66765696
this is not how UBI works. People who earn over a certain amount don't get the money
>>66767618
Child care benefits help people with children continue to advance in life. You would say maybe they should have waited to have kids but be real... some people will always be lower class and "poor". There's just no way around it. And telling them they can't have kids, then, is an ugly thing, because we otherwise need to replace the dying Baby Boomers with immigrants.
You seem to think it's fair to punish everyone because of some wrongdoers. Instead the better solutions is to create positions in the welfare system for watchdogs to keep an eye out for fraud and abuse. It creates more jobs, which costs the government money obviously, but with stricter penalties for welfare abuse and with watchdogs catching more and more of the people red handed, the money should be balanced out due to how much will be saved.
>>66768205
finish high school, don't have kids out of wedlock, get a job, any job at all.
You'll be successful if you just follow these 3 rules.
>>66768205
?
Or maybe the marxists could not have such high taxes on everything, and stop deliberately increasing costs of essentials like housing/food/electricity
>>66762704
>No-one should have to struggle just to live.
that's what life is about, jackass
>>66767785
There is no "society" anymore
this is 2016
>>66768340
3 rules for the poor:
1. Stop breeding
2. STOP breeding
3. Stop FUCKING breeding
kids are a privilege not a right
The Canadian tax code is something like 700 pages long, the American one is much more than that. We have hundreds of different deductions and rules for all manner of nonsense and bullshit.
Add to that the dozen different welfare programs we have.
Enough is enough. Get rid of all of this shit. All of it. Get rid of all tax deductions, simplify the tax code to two rates at most with a huge personal exemption rate.
Get rid of all welfare systems and replace it with a basic personal income system. No government bureaucracies and departments needed. That way, if you want to be a bitch living in a hole in the wall and living off cans of tuna, and not work, you can, but if you want to have any semblance of a life at all, you go out and work, and when you do, you don't pay any tax at all until you make about 30K, and even then your marginal tax rate is very low.
How's that for incentive to work? Fuck our shitty system.
>>66768340
This would work if humans were robots.
>>66768386
You'll need to prove all of that before I'll take it seriously.
>>66768672
Yes, yes. And let our population continue to grow by importing more foreigners who will dilute our culture even more.
>>66761428
figures. everything else here is already "basic"
>>66769079
>let our population continue to grow by importing more foreigners who will dilute our culture even more.
never said I approved of loose immigration buddy boy
>>66768205
>Honestly instead of playing with this system they should have just reformed the welfare system to prevent abuse from the caucasionally challenged and manchildren with self diagnosed autism.
Read you illiterate nigger
>>66764040
Good point.
But when productivity skyrockets and robots start replacing most basic jobs, basic income is inevitable. Most jobs humans will have left will be maintaining the robots (which can also be maintained by other robots) and scientific research.
>>66761691
Because most working class jobs pay double or so more than basic income
At least in the Finnish model t: Finn in London
/pol/ edginess aside.
Basic income is a fantastic idea. With less time spent at work, earning money for someone else people can focus on things that make them happy.
>inb4 muh spoiled generation and "the road to happiness must be littered with the corpses of your hopes and dreams"
When people are happy, they make the world around the better. Less people will be dicks to others and, not being constrained by a working schedule or money concerns, the quality of life of everyone will increase. This is the first step into post-scarcity. People will fight it because muh socilizm, muh traditional values, and muh work ethics, but ultimately it'll happen unless we nuke ourselves out of this universe.
People will still be working, but not for money, it will be for pleasure.
Ideally we go full automation, let technology take the reigns while we live like kings, and people focus on life as they want to live it as opposed to how society wants you to live it.
>inb4 muh libruls and muh welfare leeches
I don't believe for a second that even one of you would throw out his basic income if it came in the mail. Not one.
We basically have 2 paths ahead:
a) Google completes AI and robots before the Giant Economical Collapse
We get UBI, robots do shit work. Those who work do creative/social jobs and research.
b) Google is not fast enough
GLOBAL CRASH
ITS HAPPENING
GLOBAL RACE WAR NOW
Then we get full blown commies/fascists, then after a long while, corrupt democracy again, then we roll the dice again
>>66769476
This guy gets it.
>>66768814
It's long because making it complex is how you deter abuse and limit loopholes.
It's easy to understand if you take a minute to breathe, think, and call the appropriate government offices to ask for clarifications. Take a few hours on your day off to figure out your taxes online... don't pay money to get some shitheads at H&R Block to short change you.
You sound emotionally charged about this issue and I think it stems from your own personal grivance. Logically, however, making the tax system that simple would be foolish. Too much room for abuse.
>>66764231
Free money in the economics term means the expansion of monetary supply without corresponding change in productivity. Basic income wouldn't do this, as it is a redistributive system that moves money through taxation rather than creating new money.
> What will go wrong
We literally don't know. There's a load of economic theory, but about zero empirical data to test it with. The Nordic, Dutch and Canadian basic income tests allow us to evaluate the performance of the policy, but before that, being all spooky about side effects makes no sense for a sound minded person who understand economics.
>>66762831
It would be nice, but economically we can not sustain that kind of spending without a big tax.
Lose 70 bucks and get 50 bucks back.
It really isn't a good deal, and printing money is also retarded if the everyone in Canada had 100000000 dollars the price of goods and services would skyrocket.
Canada simply can not sustain basic income without dropping EI, welfare and possibly even disability.
>>66769664
emotional grievance? Nigger do you even economics? Do you even basic conservatism? Our conservative party and its predecessor was arguing for the simplification of the tax code the entire time it was in opposition, then as soon as Harper became PM he gave every fucking faggot and his dog a tax cut and tax break of some sort for his niche politics bullshit. And it's not just a Harper thing, every politician wants to give a "tax break to for children enrolment in gender studies courses" and every goddamn special interest under the sun. It's all horse-shit.
The tax code is complicated because of politics, not because of what you say. There's no need for our ridiculous system. Tear it up, get rid of it.
>>66761428
>Basic Income
How was this never a thing from the start?
Your natural birthright to fix your labour on a piece of land and be self-sufficient has been usurped by the government's artificial system of life. Clearly they are responsible for non-participants in their failed experiment.
>>66761691
Most working people are cucks that would work for free if they could.
>>66769227
So if you do not approve of loose immigration, and you approve of Canadians not having enough kids to replenish the dying population, are you saying you also approve of the essential suicide of this nation? Because strict immigration could never, ever replenish a population. There are too few worthy immigrants then.
>>66769241
So you are saying you agree with me or not? If so then what was the point of having an argument?
You were doing so well until you let your emotions flare there.
>>66761537
>>get friendzoned by any decent woman because mediocrity is not attractive
That's bullshit.
I've seen the typical 'lazy artist' kind of guy get women
Being mediocre has no influence on attraction
>>66761691
Because basic income is just that, it covers your essentials
of you want nice clothes or the latest iPhone you're going to have to work
>>66770106
>Being mediocre has no influence on attraction
It does when you want to date girls that are older than 20 and isn't mentally deranged
>>66770086
Aside from Japan, underpopulation isn't a problem in this century m8
>are you saying you also approve of the essential suicide of this nation?
Yeah, that would be fine, too.
>>66769830
actually, if you get rid of welfare,disability, CPP, EI, all tax credits and deductions, you come to about 110 billion annually. That's like 8 thousand dollars per year for every working age Canadian, or more than 600/month, which is currently what welfare pays.
I'd much rather have a system like that. Right now I earn 1850/paycheque and 140 goes to EI, which I will never use because it's a broken system. Another 180 goes to CPP which is an unnecessarry system if you have UBI. I don't use welfare. As for our tax code, fuck it, I'd rather get 500/month than have to file bullshit taxes every fucking year to get a lot of money back at the end of the year, after paying some jew to do my taxes because when I try to do them myself I end up making a minor mistake because the whole thing is just ridiculously complicated.
>>66764538
Yes but your leaving out so many intricacies of how the system would work and the real world effects of completing such a system. You are forgetting one very important thing it's people's emotions. Right the welfare system is designed covertly to mimic actual work to obtain the reward. Most govt programs require work programs and other things if you take this away and just hand out the money it becomes easier to spend aka eventually worthless. The people that are receiving straight up cash in the mail right now are disabled people that actually can't work a basic income wouldn't affect them. Secretly the welfare system is designed to weed out the unfit it's Darwinism played out in a beurocratic way. That's America and why we are "running" things.
>>66767785
>Poverty breeds crime and social disintegration.
>Give people a basic income to pay for basics like food and shelter and nobody needs to live in poverty
Your only giving people money to spend on things what have already been produced. That doesn't improve wealth or standard of living, what we need production to create a superfluous amount of material wreath.
blame low interest rates.
>>66764758
Underrated sven.
>>66769457
More money doesn't translate into necessarily more happiness so your theory is flawed from the getgo.
I would accept a basic income if they sent it, sure. Throwing it away or letting then keep it would not fix the problem. I would instead continue to use my money wisely and help the country by working hard and raising my family properly.
>>66769940
Simplification and oversimplification are two different animals. Making the tax code just two lines is about as juvenille as a kindergartner saying he wants to be Barney the dinosaur when he grows up.
>>66770318
the way our current welfare system works is that the person on welfare is supposed to go to the welfare office every day and use their dialup internet to "job hunt" and prove to the army of social workers in the office that they're trying, by showing the resume they sent to job ads. We don't give them money for clothes for interviews or actually help them find jobs in any real way. It's all a stupid waste of time.
Lazy shitlords can game that system, and they do. If someone is a lazy shitlord, and we're not going to just gas them, fuck it, send them the fucking 500 bucks a month in the mail and close the welfare office and lay off all the case workers because it doesn't matter. For the vast majority (95%+) of people who ever go on welfare, they are not lazy shitlords and do actually want to get a job again. Don't waste their time with stupid government games, just give them money so they can pay their rent and not get evicted, and let them go and get a fucking job.
I swear every government dept spends 70% of its time just justifying its existence. Fuck the ministry of welfare, fuck it all.
>>66770772
I said 2 rates. One rate for the middle class, one rate for the super rich, oh, and one basic personal exemption amount. That's it. There's no need for ANYTHING else.
>>66770021
Basic income existed once before and it was called the feudal system. There wasn't much basic about it though as it involved you being a peasant for your entire life for a small piece of land and some bread crumbs.
Is that what you want? I'm not sure, your point was lost on me.
>>66770231
Underpopulation means your country won't exist eventually.
>>66770232
I realize now my previous math was off by a lot, so a UBI is actually financially possible. You have a point friend. I will have to look at this issue more closely but I don't believe in simplifying the tax code as much as you advocate for. 100 lines is a good number.
>>66765119
Are internships a thing in the UK? Probably a dumb question to ask, also if you took one would your NEETBux still come in? If so, then shit dude the world is your oyster, go find a "unpaid" internship/slave job and get the experience needed in literally whatever job field you want. You name the industry there are free coffee-fetchers building their resumes
>>66771816
I definitely thing UBI is worth a shot
but let's be honest....pffft.... the Wynne government is going to do this? You just KNOW they are going to fuck it up royally, and I say this as a faggot who has voted Liberal several times. The Mcsquinty/Wynne gov has the fecal midas touch
>>66765742
Again, no clue how your systems work but here in the US there are definitely academic opportunities no matter your age
You might not be getting into Oxford but Western Oxford State Tech will take ya
do y'all have colleges and universities named like that?
>>66771304
Maybe in La La Land that work. In the real world, no country is made up of just the middle class and the super rich. There are so many intricacies that your simple tax code would miss.
I assume then that you just want to tax income and that's it? No sales taxes? No deductions of any kind?
That's less money for the government unless you make the income tax Scandinavian-tier. Then we are just back to square one.
>>66772046
Wynne will do whatever it takes to maintain power. Her insane, far left supporters would probably advocate for mandatory one Syrian refugee per household if they fucking could.
>>66772526
dude I'm talking about the income tax code. The income tax code is its own code and has nothing to do with any other form of taxation. Of course we need a sales tax as well (which should also be simplified, but that's another topic)
>>66772699
That makes more sense them. But even then I would say it needs to be more complex than just two rates. A percentage that goes up based on amounts made up to a million, let's say, and then flat amounts will be taken.
So if you make five million a year you owe 30% plus one flat yearly fee of 800, 000, or something.
Where abouts are you in Ontario? Are you someone who would be interested in working in politics?
>>66771816
The most modest of living arrangements would be fine with me as long as I can smoke weed.
>>66773096
well I did my undergrad in political science and economics, so yeah. I'm in Toronto, went to U of T.
>>66773833
Oh cool. I'm planning on going to the Queen's business school here in Kingston. Not sure what I'll end up taking specifically though.
How you liking Toronto? It's pretty famous for its SJWness.
>>66774207
yeah, it is, but so is every big city. The things I am into require me to be in a big city so it is what it is. I love it and hate it. Where are you from?
>>66774615
I live in Kingston at the moment but I'm from the east coast originally. I'm an army brat so, I've come and gone, so to speak
>>66775043
same here
25 field ambulance, 7th battalion
>>66770772
The point went way over your head.
If people aren't worried about money, they can focus on things they like doing/things they would not be able to do if they constantly focused on making money to pay off this or that debt. This feeling of freedom will lead to more happiness.
Ideally there would be no money and we would move into a post-scarcity economy, but this would require a huge shift in social/political/economic understanding/belief.
Basically this sort of lifestyle will only rise in two ways; either there is an enormous war and the survivors are not absolute retards, or we keep on pushing the way we currently are until technology allows for true automation and we get something on par with replicator technology readily available for everyone.
>>66768570
It doesn't have to be that way forever. Things change. But really, we aren't advanced enough for this yet. Let's see what happens when automation really takes off. Because, unfortunately, if the working class is replaced by a cheaper-in-the-long-term, artificial workforce, then a basic income will be needed or there will be blood in the streets.
Don't have workers making pay? No customers. Projections for unemployment when automation really picks up may just exceed 40%. That level of unemployment means that there will be violence and death.
A solution would need to be created to make things stable again especially as entire industries, including creative and white-collar industries are automated.
