|
Like, the great thing about it is it creates an expectation of society. To a lot of people, there's a certain element of humiliation to a lot of the current support systems. Like they're treated like a weird exception who has failed as a person. They're scrutinized, monitored, and all their failures are brought up to some faceless bureaucrat who will, in their mind, judge them for it. I mean hell, I know people to whom any acceptance of charity is unacceptable. It makes them feel weak. But go to the hospital for free with universal health care? They're fine with that because it's normal in Canada. Getting sick could happen to anyone at any time, and that's why we have universal health care. Nobody would look down on them for it any more than the fire department showing up to their house because of a accidental fire. It's expected. In my view, Mincome helps turn poverty into a similar thing. There's no tests or scrutiny, just for whatever reason you're not making the minimum needed to live you get enough to live. It makes society view poverty as a normal, unfortunate thing that could happen to anyone. Something people will expect society to fix without fanfare. e: I concur with whoever said gently caress John Calvin forever. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Dec 3, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Mincome, like all socialism stuff, is designed to keep the poors in line and prevent them from crashing the gates of the truly wealthy. Seriously socialism is ideal if you are actually wealthy, not just a high earner. You contribute so little of your accumulated wealth relatively and get some great benefits like a stable, educated, healthy workforce and all kinds of infrastructure, largely paid for by the higher earners in your organizations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Mincome, like all socialism stuff, is designed to keep the poors in line and prevent them from crashing the gates of the truly wealthy. Haha yea right, like a wealthy person would give a poo poo about any of those things. You don't need to treat your workforce well when there's about a billion people ready and willing to replace them at a moments notice, motivated by the terror of homelessness and starvation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Like, the great thing about it is it creates an expectation of society. To a lot of people, there's a certain element of humiliation to a lot of the current support systems. Like they're treated like a weird exception who has failed as a person. They're scrutinized, monitored, and all their failures are brought up to some faceless bureaucrat who will, in their mind, judge them for it. I mean hell, I know people to whom any acceptance of charity is unacceptable. It makes them feel weak. But go to the hospital for free with universal health care? They're fine with that because it's normal in Canada. Getting sick could happen to anyone at any time, and that's why we have universal health care. Nobody would look down on them for it any more than the fire department showing up to their house because of a accidental fire. It's expected. I look down on my neighbours making the fire department show up because they did something stupid, as it inconveniences me and everyone else in the building. I don't want to be woken up by the fire alarm at 7 just because you're too big of a retard to cook breakfast without setting something on fire, damnit! I agree that universal mincome is great for rich people. It's also great for good businesspeople because it increases the number of potential customers for pretty much everything! It's bad for bad businesspeople because people don't want to buy their poo poo as much and they won't be able to mistreat their employees by hanging the threat of poverty over their head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Haha yea right, like a wealthy person would give a poo poo about any of those things. You don't need to treat your workforce well when there's about a billion people ready and willing to replace them at a moments notice, motivated by the terror of homelessness and starvation. You seem like a bitter, miserable son of a bitch. Please seek help for your sadbrains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Are you saying I'm wrong about any of these things or just that I'm a dick about it? Because I think you'd have to be a drat fool to think that many wealthy people would give up a single million of their spare billions of dollars to help even a single one of the people they exploited to make all that money in the fist place. Pretty much anyone can see that a guaranteed minimum income is not only a good idea for everyone but also necessary to avoid eventual catastrophe, but there's no loving way it's ever going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
jm20 posted:This isn't state sponsored socialism whereby you get a guaranteed paycheque for no labour provided. If you don't work, you don't get a top up by the state. This redistributes wealth from professionals like me so custodians or people in precarious work (basically all the new jobs created) won't need to work 80 hours a week to survive. jm20 posted:You also raise the minimum wage, which creates inflation (which isn't necessarily bad). The cost is not entirely borne by the state. Even aside from vyelkin showing that your understanding of mincome is incorrect, the slightest amount of thought given to your weird implementation should show that it's completely nonsensical. If you're raising the minimum wage along with implementing mincome then, instead of creating massive amounts of paperwork so that the government can end up paying that last $2 a hour that the business won't cover, why not just simply raise the minimum wage to a living wage? Mincome should be for those who don't or can't work, and those who can't work full time hours for the aforementioned living wage, so that there's a guaranteed baseline in our society instead of a yawning pit to Hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Are you saying I'm wrong about any of these things or just that I'm a dick about it? Because I think you'd have to be a drat fool to think that many wealthy people would give up a single million of their spare billions of dollars to help even a single one of the people they exploited to make all that money in the fist place. Well not with that attitude it won't! Wealthy people often do use their money to help people; ironically the greatest opposition to mincome would likely come from the upper middle class (because MAH TAXES!!!), and the lower middle class (because they want to remain comfortably ahead of the working class). You know as well as I do that we live in a democracy, and there aren't nearly enough wealthy people to prevent an idea that they, alone, don't like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Mincome is the one where we basically cancel all the specialized government support programs with the idea that if we take that money plus the money we're paying the bureaucracy to administer these plans, we can just split the money evenly and the previous recipients will be better off? If that's mincome, I love it, so simple. How do we convince all the financial aid government workers that we're better off without them? I imagine we could lay off a shitton of CRA peeps too, we wouldn't need them calculating a million different benefits anymore because they'd all be cancelled. One page tax return, how much did you make? Sweet, pay this much tax. quote:The SAMS social assistance computer system is $40 million over budget and will cost $290 million. Ontario could have saved $290m right out the gate. The amount we spend on the software alone to manage this stuff is huge, axe it all and spread the savings to everybody just like Harper was doing with the UCCB. Harper even had the right idea that the
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
While it's true that the wealthiest people in our country don't have the kind of complete control over our government as their American equivalents do, I still can't see any realistic way for mincome to ever become something that exists in real life here. What party would ever propose such an idea? Our leftmost party chickened out and acted like a bunch of center-right dipshits last election, and their utter failure will only be remembered as a failure of the left. I certainly don't see the Liberal "cut taxes for the rich and pretend it's for the poor" Party of Canada going for such an extreme idea any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This sounds like it could go very, very wrong indeed. I find it funny that people honestly believe a dictatorship would significantly differ from what democracy has declined to. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Even aside from vyelkin showing that your understanding of mincome is incorrect, the slightest amount of thought given to your weird implementation should show that it's completely nonsensical. If you're raising the minimum wage along with implementing mincome then, instead of creating massive amounts of paperwork so that the government can end up paying that last $2 a hour that the business won't cover, why not just simply raise the minimum wage to a living wage? Sorry I was talking about negative income tax, which is what I personally support. Edit sort of modeled on the U K Income Support, which is a separate social benefit than say ei/jobseekers allowance. There should be stipulations to state money, and this would obviously be an easier political plan over something like mincome or basic income. Pushing for an modest expanded benefit over a "dream" of a basic income would get far more traction from people that lean right. Risky Bisquick fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Everyone should just get $X from the government every year for being a Canadian citizen or permanent resident (with a lesser amount for minors). If you make enough income that you pay more than that amount in tax, then it's simply a discount off your taxes. Otherwise, the government actually gives you money. No bullshit, no potential for fraud. Edit: also, there is no compulsion to work, nor any disincentive to work. PT6A fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Everyone should just get $X from the government every year for being a Canadian citizen or permanent resident (with a lesser amount for minors). If you make enough income that you pay more than that amount in tax, then it's simply a discount off your taxes. Otherwise, the government actually gives you money. No bullshit, no potential for fraud. That's just UCCB but more and for everybody instead of just people with kids. Most of the left leaning people in this country just voted to banish the UCCB idea because "writing cheques to millionaires" or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:That's just UCCB but more and for everybody instead of just people with kids. Most of the left leaning people in this country just voted to banish the UCCB idea because "writing cheques to millionaires" or something. Yes, because it's stupid to give it only on the basis of one's success at procreating, and because it didn't actually address the taxation problem. Sharp progressive taxation would, of course, be a necessity for the scheme I mentioned to actually work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, because it's stupid to give it only on the basis of one's success at procreating, and because it didn't actually address the taxation problem. Sharp progressive taxation would, of course, be a necessity for the scheme I mentioned to actually work. a) Mincome would be impractical to roll out all at once because of the sheer amount of money needed ($700b or 3 full years of federal tax revenue to pay every canadian $20k). Why not take the first step by mincoming parents? You get the additional economic relief of helping them get back to work and you can prove that writing cheques to millionaires is more efficient than setting up a bureaucracy to means test every parent (twice because they're already tested by income tax). b) It does take care of the tax problem. UCCB mails you a cheque every month whether you have a job or not. It does count as income. If you don't have a job, you're in the minimum tax bracket and don't pay any tax on it. If you make 100k a year from your job, you pay the 100k tax rate on that extra UCCB income. Or looking at it another way, it helps offset the other tax you pay. It's better to pay it to people monthly than annually though because uh canadians and money. c) You improve it from there. Make tax progression sharper, add seniors to the recipients, cut welfare, add everybody, cut pensions, increase the amount.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:While it's true that the wealthiest people in our country don't have the kind of complete control over our government as their American equivalents do, I still can't see any realistic way for mincome to ever become something that exists in real life here. What party would ever propose such an idea? Our leftmost party chickened out and acted like a bunch of center-right dipshits last election, and their utter failure will only be remembered as a failure of the left. I certainly don't see the Liberal "cut taxes for the rich and pretend it's for the poor" Party of Canada going for such an extreme idea any time soon. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...life-in-alberta
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
quote:In another case in 2013, the government decided to convert a coal-fired plant in Thunder Bay to biomass in order to keep the plant going after the province stopped burning coal for electricity. Energy experts at the OPA told the government the conversion was not cost-effective, but the government told them to do it anyway. As a result, power from the plant costs $1,600/megawatts per hour, which is 25 times more than the cost at other Ontario biomass plants, Ms. Lysyk found. What’s more, some of the biomass burned at the plant is actually imported, which undercuts part of the rationale to keep the plant going to help Ontario’s forestry industry. This is some very serious Libbing here. The sad part of all of this is that there doesn't seem to be any grand purpose or at least scheming corruption in any of this. Yes, $2 billion or so were wasted in that Mississauga gas plant scandal to win a byelection, but what's the point of the rest of this poo poo? Surely there are more effective methods to benefit from cronyism and buy votes? PS in case you were wondering, it costs $50 million to rename a hospital after your dead child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
eXXon posted:The sad part of all of this is that there doesn't seem to be any grand purpose or at least scheming corruption in any of this. Yes, $2 billion or so were wasted in that Mississauga gas plant scandal to win a byelection, but what's the point of the rest of this poo poo? Surely there are more effective methods to benefit from cronyism and buy votes?  The purpose is to generate work for the revolving door consultancies that propose, lobby, and implement these plans, and the necessary costs involved in bringing the associated businesses onsideThe system works spectacularly well. Remember, people are concerned about the environment, people want green energy, people want jobs. The OLP found a way to provide all of that while massively benefiting consultants, lobbyists, and businesses connected to the OLP. It's a Wynn-Win you see infernal machines fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, because it's stupid to give it only on the basis of one's success at procreating, and because it didn't actually address the taxation problem. Sharp progressive taxation would, of course, be a necessity for the scheme I mentioned to actually work. No one cares about the single person vote, absolutely no one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
eXXon posted:The sad part of all of this is that there doesn't seem to be any grand purpose or at least scheming corruption in any of this. Yes, $2 billion or so were wasted in that Mississauga gas plant scandal to win a byelection, but what's the point of the rest of this poo poo? Surely there are more effective methods to benefit from cronyism and buy votes? 2013 was right before the provincial election and Thunder Bay is a couple thousand votes from going NDP so that one makes sense. Lower Mattagami, well quote:Construction of the $2.6 billion Lower Mattagami Project is complete and site restoration is underway. OPG's partner in the project is the Moose Cree First Nation. The First Nation has a 25 per cent equity share in the new generating units. Extra electricity is that they're hell bent on building as many windmills as possible. When the opposition opposes, you can call them rich NIMBY environment hating global warming deniers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:2013 was right before the provincial election and Thunder Bay is a couple thousand votes from going NDP so that one makes sense. This is also the behind the scenes story of how the Scarborough subway was revived, zombie-like, to menace Toronto once again. Ikantski posted:Extra electricity is that they're hell bent on building as many windmills as possible. Yes, Samsung made out like bandits on that one
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Yes, Samsung made out like bandits on that one They sure did but I can't even call them bandits. They did what global corporations are supposed to do, saw a profitable opportunity and took it. I know it's only a few hundred million and it's from 2004 but the one that still gets me the most was the Mike Crawley, lifelong Liberal party guy getting a $500m sole source wind contract in 2004. quote:http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2004-12-09&Parl=38&Sess=1&locale=en
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
jm20 posted:No one cares about the single person vote, absolutely no one. Bizarrely short-sighted, considering more people are staying single for longer these days (also, you can be in a childless relationship/marriage either due to choice or fertility issues). Very few people in my social circle are even married or otherwise in a long-term relationship, and even fewer actually have kids (and I can't think of anyone in the overlap of that Venn diagram...)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Bizarrely short-sighted, considering more people are staying single for longer these days (also, you can be in a childless relationship/marriage either due to choice or fertility issues). Very few people in my social circle are even married or otherwise in a long-term relationship, and even fewer actually have kids (and I can't think of anyone in the overlap of that Venn diagram...) So you're saying that you're under 30 (no political party cares about you) or cohabitation couples are no longer considered single?  Again, no one courts the single voter. Edit: NVM WEED
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
jm20 posted:So you're saying that you're under 30 (no political party cares about you) or cohabitation couples are no longer considered single? Most policies that benefit "families" are actually based on having children, not having a long-term partner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:They sure did but I can't even call them bandits. They did what global corporations are supposed to do, saw a profitable opportunity and took it. I know it's only a few hundred million and it's from 2004 but the one that still gets me the most was the Mike Crawley, lifelong Liberal party guy getting a $500m sole source wind contract in 2004. And yet people still think Canada is a bastion free from corruption. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Most policies that benefit "families" are actually based on having children, not having a long-term partner. Also having a partner to raise said children. Single parents don't get a ton of support (except through OSAP, the ontario student opportunity grant is loving absurd and definitely the only way I'm getting out of university debt free).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Also having a partner to raise said children. Single parents don't get a ton of support (except through OSAP, the ontario student opportunity grant is loving absurd and definitely the only way I'm getting out of university debt free). Very good point. I think it's wrong that our tax code both reflects and in a very real way encourages the traditional notion of "what a family ought to be."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
In no small part because the traditional idea of the 'nuclear family' is bankrupt and unworkable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
I love AG report week.quote:The vast majority of Ontario’s corporate welfare goes to a select group of companies who are quietly invited to apply, the auditor general has found. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/vast-majority-of-ontarios-corporate-welfare-goes-to-small-favoured-group-of-companies-ag
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Who missed Hydro One chat? Curious, what's your solution to reducing electricity costs in this province without burning fossil fuels? Something lucid without shitposting about Wynne would be appreciated, tia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Isizzlehorn posted:Curious, what's your solution to reducing electricity costs in this province without burning fossil fuels? Something lucid without shitposting about Wynne would be appreciated, tia. Doing it without corruption, which is a possible thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
quote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Doing it without corruption, which is a possible thing. Funny how this comes out the same day as a Guardian article about how Uruguay has shifted to 95% renewable energy while also reducing electricity costs. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy quote:There are no technological miracles involved, nuclear power is entirely absent from the mix, and no new hydroelectric power has been added for more than two decades. Instead, he says, the key to success is rather dull but encouragingly replicable: clear decision-making, a supportive regulatory environment and a strong partnership between the public and private sector. It's funny because theoretically this is a similar system to what the OLP are doing, namely long contracts with fixed electricity prices. The difference appears to be, as Kafka Esq. said, that in Ontario it's corrupt as gently caress and used as a way to funnel public money into the hands of chosen corporations, whereas in Uruguay they're actually doing it as an open bidding process which means corporations actually compete with each other and drive prices down. Who knew. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Is there an actual reason for the GA to exist? From what I've gathered in those reports it seems like purely a profit centre.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I look down on my neighbours making the fire department show up because they did something stupid, as it inconveniences me and everyone else in the building. I don't want to be woken up by the fire alarm at 7 just because you're too big of a retard to cook breakfast without setting something on fire, damnit! PT6A posted:You seem like a bitter, miserable son of a bitch. Please seek help for your sadbrains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
I came in ready to poo poo all over him for that, but he's not wholly wrong. According to the NFPA, the most common causes of house fires are, in order: 1. Cooking (42%) 2. Brush/grass/forest fire (37%) 3. Home heating system 4. Kid playing with fire 5. Arson T-6. Lightning T-6. Wiring and lighting 8. Smoking 9. Candles flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
i stand by my snark
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I came in ready to poo poo all over him for that, but he's not wholly wrong. According to the NFPA, the most common causes of house fires are, in order: And smokers who are too dumb to use an ashtray properly or otherwise safely extinguish their smoking materials can go get hosed too. One other note: every kitchen should have an easily accessible dry chemical fire extinguisher so your carelessness (or a simple accident) doesn't become everyone else's problem. I should also note that in the case I was referring to, which happened last week, the smoke was only a problem for the entire building because the resident did not follow the instructions to vent the smoke with the hood fan, and instead vented it into the hallway where it tripped the alarm system for the entire building. God forbid we expect people living by themselves to be minimally competent at basic life skills such as cooking, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:15
|
|