|
Mincome works by giving you a minimum income that should be enough so that you aren't at the risk of starving if you are jobless. When you get a job, your Mincome is reduced by 50 cents for every 1 dollar you earn. If monthly Mincome is pegged at $2000, then you'd need to be making $4000 (a roughly entry level job! who knew) before you would be seeing 0 Mincome. That's not counting benefits, of course, which you wouldn't have if you were living off Mincome or part time. So what this does is incentivize a number of behaviours. First, the number of people working minimum wage just to get by would be drastically reduced. Minimum wage jobs would be taken mostly by part timers, which in my opinion is the best possible outcome. So poorer families can focus on raising children/going to school/training/whatever instead of spending all of their time just trying to get by which theoretically would improve upward mobility for these people. Second it allows people to take more risks (~entrepreneurism~) as they don't run the possibility of not paying rent or not having food to eat. Of course there are going to be layabouts but that's hardly the majority of people and perfect is the enemy of good and all that.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Ikantski posted:Liberals to announce that changes to federal tax brackets won’t add up Its almost like they say one thing during the campaign only to do something opposite once elected. Hmm...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
You guys need to re-read the article. It's saying that all adult fins are going to receive 800 euros a month. Period. No mention of employment status. So the choice is not sit at home and collect 800 or work 40 hours a week for a 1000. It's sit at home for 800 or work 40 hours a week for 1800. Edit: the article mentions 800 euros a month tax free. So I don't think there's going to be a explicit claw back. Just a steeper income tax system. Gorau fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Cocoham posted:As someone that barely knows anything about mincome, can someone explain why anyone would work a borderline minimum wage job over taking advantage of mincome? If the choices are work are 0 hours for $800, or work 80 hours for $1000, I can't imagine much working those hours for such little gain. Wouldn't that than raise the price of living, which would force whatever the mincome level is to raise? There are plenty of ways to implement mincome, and this is the stupidest one. The smart proposals usually involve a gradual clawback rather than a 1:1 clawback like you're assuming. For example, you could simply treat mincome as actual income and essentially tax it back from the rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:As I understand it -- and Pinterest Mom can probably either confirm or deny this -- every riding association in the conservative party has an equally strong vote regardless of how many active members it has, meaning a CPC riding with three active members in Montreal gets just as much sway over the next leader as a riding in rural Alberta with 100 active members. As a result there's potential for Quebec based conservatives to exercise a disproportionate impact on the leadership race. It's one of the reasons that Jean Charest could conceivably become the next Conservative leader, if he so desired. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08i9kvCJvJ0
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Eej posted:When you get a job, your Mincome is reduced by 50 cents for every 1 dollar you earn. Because it totally makes sense for poor people to have a 50% marginal income tax rate. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
The no snow tire using OLP transport minister announces the Lexus lane details coming out today with ... a vine of a song about a guy who left the city. https://twitter.com/StevenDelDuca/status/673586821339570176
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Eej posted:Mincome works by giving you a minimum income that should be enough so that you aren't at the risk of starving if you are jobless. When you get a job, your Mincome is reduced by 50 cents for every 1 dollar you earn. If monthly Mincome is pegged at $2000, then you'd need to be making $4000 (a roughly entry level job! who knew) before you would be seeing 0 Mincome. That's not counting benefits, of course, which you wouldn't have if you were living off Mincome or part time. That's one form of mincome. Studies and experiments done on it in the past have also just paid everyone, job or not a minimum income tax free. Finland is giving everyone 680 Euros(about 990 CAD) a month no matter what. Cocoham posted:As someone that barely knows anything about mincome, can someone explain why anyone would work a borderline minimum wage job over taking advantage of mincome? If the choices are work are 0 hours for $800, or work 80 hours for $1000, I can't imagine much working those hours for such little gain. Wouldn't that than raise the price of living, which would force whatever the mincome level is to raise? Mincome is guaranteed income, anything you do on top of that is added income. senae posted:As someone who has spent a period of time unemployed but with enough money that I didn't need to find a job right away, I can field this: unemployment is a miserable existence and brings on crippling depression. I mean, I hope that changes to some degree in a post mincome world because we can automate a ton of low education jobs right now. 3 years ago I was deemed surplus in my ~management~ position at a large company, given a 6 month severence and show the door. It shouldn't of been a big deal, but I was making a really good wage(just over 70k) and I was ready to carve out a career. I was incredibly depressed and I found that every management/supervisory job I applied for saw me as a 23 year old with 3 years experience and wouldn't give me a shot and every minimum wage/entry level position saw me as an overqualified 23 year old who was unhirable. I ended up relying on a friend to get me in the door of a Call Centre and things have been okay, but gently caress. Automation of low education jobs is going to happen fast in the next few years and the number of employable people is going to quickly outgrow the number of jobs available. In fact it may have already, but we haven't had a decent census since 2011 so we don't really know right now. To your second point you still want minimum wage, you don't want corporations to see mincome as a reason to pay people only 3-4 dollars an hour because they have their ~Government Money~, it would be mostly funded through sharper progressive tax curves, sales tax and corporation taxes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Functionally with a mincome you'll end up with some people being paid below minimum wage anyway but it won't be at a structured job, it'll be people who quit their jobs to pursue their dreams of being a writer/artist/graphic designer or whatever and end up putting in more time than they get back in equivalent money from commissions or selling articles or whatever it is they do. There's no need to allow companies to pay their employees $2/hour, the market will take care of a lot of it on its own--if your company sucks so much that people don't want to do your crappy job for minimum wage once they're no longer in danger of starving to death, either you improve working conditions or you raise wages until people are willing to take the job. Alternate non-joke answer, you lobby the government until they give you TFWs who don't get mincome, and your lovely management of your Tim Hortons franchise continues unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
On thing that is different here compared to Finland is the physical size of our country, the small size of our labour force, and our rip-and-ship economy. The changes from UI (Unemployment Insurance) to EI were to a greater or lesser extent to encourage people to move to where the jobs were. This was a particular concern in areas of seasonal work like Newfoundland. You have to be able to starve the lazy fuckers out of their ancestral homes otherwise no one will go scrape tar out of Alberta's arsehole. I suspect if the Koch brothers had a financial interest in Finland they wouldn't be getting Mincome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
quote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/guy-turcotte-trial-verdict-1.3330322 Next up in NCR fairyland is Howard Richmond.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
There were whisperings that his NCRness was bestowed upon him by a not entirely ethical medical evaluation by someone who felt some kind of allegiance to a fellow doctor who murdered his own children, and that Turcotte was never insane. Richmond was, but the part about it making him more murdery than he should've been was demonstrably bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Hexigrammus posted:You have to be able to starve the lazy fuckers out of their ancestral homes otherwise no one will go scrape tar out of Alberta's arsehole. Say what? People my age were dropping out of high school to go chase six-figure rig pig salaries all along even as everyone was screaming at them that it was a terrible, terrible idea. No "starving out" was necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
quote:Good Monday morning to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Say what? People my age were dropping out of high school to go chase six-figure rig pig salaries all along even as everyone was screaming at them that it was a terrible, terrible idea. No "starving out" was necessary. Well before your time, my son. It wasn't the entire discussion during the 80s, but it was definitely a consideration the (second to) last time the Conservatives were in power. And then the Northern Cod stock got crashed and offshore oil became a Thing. All very complicated. CanCon from 1981ish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS4HDMSOwH4
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Where do you think King Klein got the idea to buy bus tickets for the poor out of the province in the 90's?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
jm20 posted:
So wait, the defense raised a possible defense cause the guy guy drank windshield washer fluid and stabbed his kids, the jury didn't buy it, found him guilty, and this is a case of NCR being a verdict totally out to lunch? Pretty sure this is the perfect example of the criminal justice system working.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
I think a real interesting case for NCR will be the eventual trial of Matt de Grood. I'm one or two degrees of separation away from him, and some of his victims, and from all accounts he just had a complete psychotic break with no warning. On the other hand, I can imagine that if he gets an NCR verdict for killing five people, there are going to be a lot of angry people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Newfie posted:
I think that was a comment on Turcotte's first acquittal for NCR, which mystified basically everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I think that was a comment on Turcotte's first acquittal for NCR, which mystified basically everyone. Correct. The timeline was murder you kids, drink some fluids, claim NCR, get acquitted. PT6A posted:I think a real interesting case for NCR will be the eventual trial of Matt de Grood. I'm one or two degrees of separation away from him, and some of his victims, and from all accounts he just had a complete psychotic break with no warning. On the other hand, I can imagine that if he gets an NCR verdict for killing five people, there are going to be a lot of angry people. NCR? more like bring back the rope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:That might matter to the four or five remaining red tories, but the average bitter ender Conservative party member is a total loving poltroon, who would gladly flip off Quebec and vote for Canada's Sarah Palin if they thought she was the right combination of "electable" (read: sheltering them from being accused of sexism), and right wing. As I've posted before, the main issue with Clark running is the simple fact that she's a big time federal Liberal, to the point where the last time this came up, her ex-husband (and still her main political advisor) and the reporters who cover the leg in Victoria were calling it stupid. https://twitter.com/marissenmark/status/659056603698626560 https://twitter.com/keithbaldrey/status/656694787882418177 https://twitter.com/keithbaldrey/status/656619679998341120 The Senate thing isn't a surprise. As much as people bash her, Christie Clark is a very good politician. And endorsing a senate that gives BC 6 seats of 104 is just begging for NDP attack ads next election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
jm20 posted:NCR? more like bring back the rope. I agree, killing mentally ill people sounds like a very, very good idea! Can't see any problem with that, nope!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I agree, killing mentally ill people sounds like a very, very good idea! Can't see any problem with that, nope! Yeah you missed the point big time there. He was making fun of your idiotic implication that people being pissed at a verdict should have any effect on the verdict itself. Why should anyone care what the ignorant think about the concept of social justice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Yeah you missed the point big time there. He was making fun of your idiotic implication that people being pissed at a verdict should have any effect on the verdict itself. Why should anyone care what the ignorant think about the concept of social justice? I didn't say it should impact the verdict. I'm of the opinion that, based on what I know about the case so far, NCR is absolutely the correct decision. That doesn't change the fact that people are going to be really pissed, and unfortunately there's a non-zero chance that will influence the decision. Further, jm20 has a nasty history of being very pro-punishment when it comes to criminal justice, so I was just taking him at his word (being largely consistent with the other opinions he's espoused).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Arabian Jesus posted:Its almost like they say one thing during the campaign only to do something opposite once elected. Hmm... Except it looks like they're doing it anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
This threadPT6A posted:I agree, killing mentally ill people sounds like a very, very good idea! Can't see any problem with that, nope! That thread PT6A posted:I don't know what causes it. I just know there's never an excuse to assault your partner or any other member of your family. Or anyone at all, really, but domestic violence is that much worse because it's committed against someone in their own home, by someone they presumably love and care for. You're a lovely person if you do it, and if you can't stop yourself from being an abusive prick, and you're unwilling to seek whatever treatment is necessary, yes, you should kill yourself. On one hand you advocate for the rights of the mentally ill, on the other you push for them to take self harm as a form of treatment 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Abacus polled Conservative supporters on their preferences for the party's leadership: CBC News posted:Among those who say they currently support the Tories, however, MacKay still leads with 35 per cent. Wall comes second at 17 per cent. Kenney (12 per cent) and Charest (10 per cent) were the only other candidates to score in the double digits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
jm20 posted:This thread Beating women isn't caused by mental illness, it's caused by being a piece of poo poo. If you're mentally ill and/or you have desires to do disgusting criminal things, you should get help before you do them. If you prefer to do those things instead, you should remove yourself from society so you can't harm people. Edit: I'd also like to add that there's a difference between being mentally ill and being so ill that you lack the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Except it looks like they're doing it anyway? Maybe the increased tax on the 1%ers will cover the tax break for the 45k-125k people but we'll be borrowing money to give the tax break to the 125k-200k folks. Which seems a little silly, there are probably better things to borrow for. I don't think they announced details today though, they might still change implementation details?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Beating women isn't caused by mental illness, it's caused by being a piece of poo poo. If you're mentally ill and/or you have desires to do disgusting criminal things, you should get help before you do them. If you prefer to do those things instead, you should remove yourself from society so you can't harm people. Ah yes, the old "What I personally believe to be true makes it true" argument. Mental illness isnt a binary switch that turns off and on in very set ways in any given person. Stop being so loving dense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:Abacus polled Conservative supporters on their preferences for the party's leadership: Oh thank god Charest's not winning. Seriously, he was the worst Prime Minister we had since Duplessis (Duplessis still king of poo poo mountain forever though).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
McKenna apparently announced Canada wants to target 1.5C as the uncrossable threshold rather than 2C.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Beating women isn't caused by mental illness, it's caused by being a piece of poo poo. If you're mentally ill and/or you have desires to do disgusting criminal things, you should get help before you do them. If you prefer to do those things instead, you should remove yourself from society so you can't harm people. Would you support selectively implemented eugenics to purge our society of such actions like domestic violence?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Would you support selectively implemented eugenics to purge our society of such actions like domestic violence? No, I don't support the death penalty either. However, if you do something like kill someone, or gently caress a kid, or abuse your wife or child, I'm going to be well-pleased if you kill yourself and save us all a lot of time and trouble. There's a big difference between saying "these people should kill themselves" and "we should kill these people." Also, as far as I know, being a piece of poo poo isn't genetic. Who knows what causes it? Does it matter when all is said and done?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Maybe the increased tax on the 1%ers will cover the tax break for the 45k-125k people but we'll be borrowing money to give the tax break to the 125k-200k folks. Which seems a little silly, there are probably better things to borrow for. I don't think they announced details today though, they might still change implementation details? I agree it's not the best policy, I'd rather they raise that top rate and leave the other one alone. Or offset it with more brackets or a higher rate on the top bracket. But they're in a hard place now because they'll be criticized no matter what they do: if they keep the changes to exactly what they said then they'll lose revenue, if they make it revenue-neutral they'll be breaking their promise. I'd prefer the latter because I feel it's more in the spirit of what was promised but I suspect they'll go with the former. Or maybe they'll do something in between and please no one. Anyway I guess we'll find out soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:I agree it's not the best policy, I'd rather they raise that top rate and leave the other one alone. Or offset it with more brackets or a higher rate on the top bracket. But they're in a hard place now because they'll be criticized no matter what they do: if they keep the changes to exactly what they said then they'll lose revenue, if they make it revenue-neutral they'll be breaking their promise. I'd prefer the latter because I feel it's more in the spirit of what was promised but I suspect they'll go with the former. Or maybe they'll do something in between and please no one. Anyway I guess we'll find out soon. Mulcair will get a snappy "I guess it was your math that didn't add up" when they announce it at least. Pretty sure it was a promise that it'd be revenue neutral so it'll be broken either way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
I realize this article has already been posted but I feel like it really calls out for a bit of annotation. Also Ikantski this is what you've been labelling a "progressive government" which, depending on how one thinks about it, either suggests progressive is a meaningless term that says more about how a party markets itself than how it governs or else that "progressive" is not the right label to be using for the Federal Liberals. quote:Liberals to announce that changes to federal tax brackets won’t add up (1) -- Bill Morneau was the chair of the C.D. Howe Institute until 2014. (2) -- This is exactly what happened at the beginning of Dalton McGuinty's first term as Ontario premier in 2003. (3) -- To reiterate: this is the agency that employed Bill Morneau up until last year! (4) a.-- Liberal economics 101: putting a couple hundreds bucks in the pockets of "middle class" Canadians is worth undermining the fiscal solvency of universal government programs like medicare. (4) b.-- That "middle class tax cut" is disproportionately going to favour the rich quote:Macdonald has forecast the benefits for what Statistics Canada calls “economic families,” which include couples, with or without children, and single parents. The roughly 1.6 million families making about $48,000 to $62,000 will see their tax bills trimmed by, on average, just $51, while those making $62,000 to $78,000 will save $117. The tax savings rise steadily with family income, to $521 on average for families in the $124,000 to $166,000 range, and $813 for those making $166,000 to $211,000. Above that level, the new, higher top tax bracket erases any savings the families got by paying less tax on income in the reduced middle tax bracket. (5) -- The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is a powerful and influential business lobby group founded in the 1970s. It's current Chair person is one Paul Desmarais Jr., Co-Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation of Canada and a native son of Canada's very own domestic oligarchy. The Desmarais family are notorious for their close relationship to federal politicians, especially in the Liberal party, and the aptly named Power cCorporation has lined the pockets of many Liberal (and other) politicians and operatives.: wikipedia, Power Corporation posted:Former Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, was hired in the 1960s to work for Paul Desmarais, Sr. by Maurice Strong. Martin became President of Canada Steamship Lines, a subsidiary of Power Corp., and in 1981 Desmarais sold the company to Martin and a partner. Martin went on to make his personal fortune as an owner of CSL. (6) -- John Manley, who is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Oh, he was also Deputy Prime Minister between 2002 and 2003 for the Liberals. Noticing a pattern yet? (7) -- Liberal campaigning 101: promise anything to get elected, especially if it involves "the middle class". Don't worry, after you're elected you can blame the previous government for running a secret deficit, or claim that international economic conditions were worse than expected. (8) -- Modern "Keynesianism" 101: nevermind what Keynes may or may not have said. Never mind the fact that the historical record shows that the middle class in Canada is mostly a byproduct of 1) direct spending by government through universal programs and 2) a strong labour movement. Instead rely on an empirically questionable and economically imprecise set of assumptions about "multiplier" effects, and claim that the hands outs you give to your business friends and / or a couple key ridings you'll need to hold on to are meant to stimulate the economy. Whatever you do don't actually establish any more universal social programs paid for out of general evenue, such as daycare, dental care, optometry, pharma-care, a guaranteed basic income, etc. because those might actually work, which would make people less reliant on market incomes, which in turn would make them less dependent on their masters in the private sector, and that would really not be in the interests of the Liberal party's real base base, would it? (Here's a pro read for those of you who want an old but still good source on why corporate executives will tend to oppose government transfers, even when it's seemingly in their own best economic interests.) tl;dr -- don't get fooled again So yeah, here we go again with the party that did more to cute the Canadian welfare state than Harper could have dreamed of -- the party that slashed our social programs and then ploughed the money into corporate income tax cuts. The party that promised to renegotiate our bad trade deals on the campaign trail and instead doubled down on them once in office. As I've repeated ad nauseum, it really doesn't matter what a party promises to do while campaigning. Actually look at who the party recruits, and check out where party members end up after serving their time in government. But hey, they're gonna legalize weed.  p.s. -- because I can't go one post without complaining about the NDP. Read over this post and if you feel outraged by anything here then take a long hard think on how you feel about Brian Topp or Bard Lavigne going to work for corporate lobbying / strategy firms. A social democratic party that lets it's top leaders and advisers sup at the trough of corporate corruption (and this is certainly corruption regardless of the fact it's technically legal) is a bad joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
I for one am cautiously optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
quote:https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/ #realchange is shifting the tax break trojan horse from children directly onto payroll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
jm20 posted:Would you support selectively implemented eugenics to purge our society of such actions like domestic violence? What about genetic engineering and gene therapy? If we can remove the root cause I'd be for it. Lord knows it would help with my short temper and alcoholism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:07
|
|