SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Liberal premier of Ontario announced details of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot. The provincial government issued a press release saying
Three regions will take part in the study. Pilots will start in late spring in Hamilton, including Brantford and Brant County; and in Thunder Bay and the surrounding area. The third pilot will start by this fall [autumn] in Lindsay.
The Basic Income model Ontario has developed will ensure that eligible participants receive:
Up to $16,989 per year for a single person, less 50 per cent of any earned income
Up to $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50 per cent of any earned income
Up to an additional $6,000 per year for a person with a disability.
[...] The three test regions will host 4,000 participants eligible to receive a basic income payment, between the ages of 18 to 64. By late spring, people in these areas will begin receiving information about the pilot and how to participate. The province is partnering with these communities and other experts to make sure that the Ontario Basic Income Pilot is fair, effective, and scientifically valid.
additional coverage:
- Canoe (editorial)
- The Globe and Mail
- globalnews.ca
- The Guardian
- Business Insider
- BBC News
- Canadian Press via City News
- Reuters via NASDAQ
- Toronto Star
- CHCH-TV
- CBC
- CNN Money
related story:
Ontario is Starting a Universal Basic Income Pilot
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:19PM (8 children)
There are around 7.5 billion people; if each had $120 that would be $900 billion.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ [worldometers.info]
From a January 2016 article, I see that the 50 wealthiest people were estimated to have assets of $1459.4 billion.* Were they all to (somehow) pay a 62% tax, there would be your $900 billion--and the poorest among them would still have $5.5 billion.
http://www.businessinsider.com/50-richest-people-on-earth-2016-1 [businessinsider.com]
*arithmetic:
14.3+14.3+14.4+14.4+14.5+16.3+16.4+16.5+16.7+17+17.1+18.3+18.5+18.7+18.9+19.5+19.7+20.9+21.7+22.2+22.5+23+23.5+24.8+25+25.7+26.3+26.5+26.7+28.6+28.6+28.6+28.9+29+29.2+33.2+33.5+34.8+37+38.5+39.3+42.1+42.8+45.3+46.8+47.4+56.6+60.7+66.8+87.4
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:23PM (7 children)
Heh not bad for a number completely pulled out of my ass. The whole point is that there are a lot of poor people. The burden of supporting the rich is relatively small. That's not what the problem is. The problem is the disproportionate say in how the world is run that the rich have over the poor. If only rich = smart, but it doesn't. But concentrated money is certainly equivalent to power.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:50AM
Having wealth disparity is not a huge problem: income disparity is a problem.
With large income disparity, you are no longer rewarded for hard work, or punished for being careless.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:47AM (5 children)
Heh not bad for a number completely pulled out of my ass. The whole point is that there are a lot of poor people. The burden of supporting the rich is relatively small.
The richest 1% of the world population own more than half of the world's wealth. If you were to take it from them and distribute it proportionately among the remaining 99%, then everyone else's wealth would double. If you distributed it unevenly skewed towards the poorest, then you'd end up in a far less inequality. If you kept repeating the process, then you'd very rapidly hit diminishing returns, because the next 1% owns far less than the top 1%.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:04PM (4 children)
then everyone else's wealth would double
But you just said everyone else's wealth is practically nothing. Twice nothing is still nothing. OH WOW MY WEALTH DOUBLED I AM NOW ONLY $70,000 in debt! (Average household debt is now $138,000)
As for "taking it from them" - just stop. Do you really think rich people have a massive pile of coin sitting in a vault somewhere that no one can touch? Their money is invested in shares, bonds, land, fancy cars, fancy clothes, jewelry, etc. So their MONEY is actually in circulation. The only thing you would do by "taking their wealth" is changing ownership of all those mansions, Ferraris, Apple shares, etc from them to you. The economy (not to mention the whole population) would not improve one bit.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:18PM (3 children)
But you just said everyone else's wealth is practically nothing
No I didn't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
Do you really think rich people have a massive pile of coin sitting in a vault somewhere that no one can touch?
No, I think that they're using it to extract income from other people's work via rents and so on. You seem to be projecting a lot today.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:32PM (2 children)
No I didn't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
Yes you did. You said "The richest 1% of the world population own more than half of the world's wealth". Which means 99% of the world population own less than half of the world's wealth. Which, when you slice it up into 7.5 billion pieces is practically nothing.
You seem to be projecting a lot today.
Frustrated with an argument so I attack the person I am arguing with. Well played?
The problem with anyone arguing against wealth is that they always the first in line to grab a piece of that wealth if they can, and shut the door behind them. History is on my side. There are no selfless wealth redistribution campaigns. Perfect communism is a fallacy. There will always be rich, and there will always be poor. But let me tell you that poor people in America still fare a HELL OF A LOT BETTER than poor people in Somalia or Haiti. And even poor people in India or Haiti fare a HELL OF A LOT BETTER than poor people anywhere 500 years ago. So I'm in no rush to rock the boat and flip it upside down to see if it sails faster.
(Score: 2) by G-forze on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:20AM (1 child)
This makes no sense. So you're saying that half the wealth of the world is nothing? Because that is what your statement leads to.
FYI, half the worlds wealth divided by 7 billion is still an enormous sum. Even for me, but especially for someone living in poverty somewhere in the third world.
If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday April 27 2017, @10:19AM
FYI, half the worlds wealth divided by 7 billion is still an enormous sum.
It is no more than what you have already. How could it be? It's half.