http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

Sounds pretty reasonable; guarnteed minimum income leads to 8.5% less hospital visits...

You Commie! :O

Too think of what would happen if that plan went through.

no comment? lol...

Everyone knows that social safety nets are in the best interest of society and that minimal investments greatly increases quality of life across the board... but it would cost some billionaires an extra $1k in investment income (it has no real practical effect on the rich because the uber wealthy mostly just hoard their money). These people would rather spend millions on fighting giving up a few thousand because now that they have milked some money out of society they don't want to be a part of society anymore... but again... something we already know...

There has been all kinds of research showing that funding health and minimum income is cheaper in the long run than not doing so (because you fund prisons/police/organized crime instead).

So we just need to bring it up again? heh

because prisons and shiny weapons are sexxxxxxy

In Canada we don't have foodstamps. Pretty much if you are poor/broke there are food banks and soup kitchens (run by various volunteers and donations).

Welfare depends on the province but in ontario for an individual you get $700/month provided you go to the government job search/employment centers once a week and show you are looking for a job. There are also additional things for people who really cannot work (or can convince the system that they can't) which is slightly more generous.

I think part of the difference is that basic medicare (not drugs) are covered for everyone anyway so there's no advantage to not working just to get health coverage although people are known to do it to keep prescription drug benefits for their kids. There is actually a "scale back" of these benefits where for every dollar you earn you lose less than $1 of these benefits (assuming your job doesn't have 'em) but it works less than perfectly.

Our unemployment benefits are far less generous than yours if you live in more prosperous (or politically less influential) areas. We have serious issues with our system too, they just are different than in the US. Our equivalent of "social security" isn't in financial trouble and probably never will be.. not entirely for the right reasons mind you...


I guess we don't have fragmented programs in the sense that the provinces administer welfare/disability benefits under one umbrella per province. "unemployment insurance" is federal and that has to run out before you can get provincial help (usually).

If you are single and on welfare in Canada in general you are really S.O.L. without external non-governmental help.

That's also the argument for tax cuts for the middle class. And the same folks pushing for this GI would oppose the middle class tax cuts.

If America moved to a GI model then I would walk into work demanding my salary + the GI. The reality is that eventually I'm going to be taxed to pay for the GI therefore my best bet is to demand the higher salary as soon as it happens. Those arguing for a redistribution of wealth from only the 'rich' (which is a whole other debate in America because of the way our tax system is structured) will soon find the rich have the means to change their residency and to shelter their assets. Hence I don't think this is a wise plan.

Heh you just have to pass legislation to disable asset sheltering and offshoring without first paying their fair share.

Really interesting. Please follow up whent he data has been analyzed!

I think there are already laws about asset sheltering, though I could be wrong. Of course there are loopholes, but considering the boundaries presented by international borders, I really don't see any additional legislation working to close those loopholes up. On the other hand, Swiss banks agreed to be less secretive with their account holders' information a few years back, so international pressure on other governments apparently has some value to it...

Well if some folks get their way here then I'm going to be the one buying a chain of islands and inviting the world's wealthiest to become residents. The tax rate is only so much as to sustain the immediate infrastructure required, defense and emergency services. They will be expected to furnish the rest for themselves. Wallah, I will have a waiting list miles long of billionaires.

trumper: yes but...

a) America taxes foreigners based on income made in America; you can't "make money" from america in a foreign country without paying tax in america. Most millionaires/billionaires in america make their money from business in america.

b) It would be easy enough to tax assets of people who moved, to discourage such practices.

You can continue to make the US a less and less friendly place to do business or invest in, but that won't help my hypothetical situation--it will actually spur it.

A) Sure, but who says you're going to be 'earning' the money rather than receiving dividends from your corporation? Or better yet, receiving dividends from the fund with the majority stake in the company you started. Etc.

B) If it were so easy then the US State Dept wouldn't spend time pressuring Switzerland (and more so, Swiss banks) to turn over records on folks trying to escape taxation.

There will always be caveats--especially in a country such as the US with divided political power. And, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing as it makes the US into an attractive location to innovate, incubate and invest within.

But we're cycling around the main point, which is that the more you discourage investment the less investment you will receive unless of course you discover oil beneath your feet (then you will just have rampant corruption).

"B) If it were so easy then the US State Dept wouldn't spend time pressuring Switzerland (and more so, Swiss banks) to turn over records on folks trying to escape taxation. "

It's not as hard as you make it out to be either.. of course you can't eliminate the issue..