Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the OBIPP? dept.

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:

related story:
Ontario is Starting a Universal Basic Income Pilot


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:38PM (3 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:38PM (#499650) Journal

    Scenario 1
    (Base + (Earned*.5)) as put forth by TFA. This tells me that the tax rate is 50% and that the base is tax free under this system.

    Scenario 2
    (Base + (Earned*.8)) is my effective tax rate last year. This assumes that taxes are not changed when this goes into effect and base is tax free

    Scenario 3
    ((Base + Earned).8) is the government giving you money to pay taxes on because the government doesn't know what they are doing

    Scenario 4
    Earned*.8

    Assuming the national average is 51,272 (Mar 2017) and the person is single
    Scenario 1: 42,625
    Scenario 2: 58,006.6
    Scenario 3: 54,608.8
    Scenario 4: 41,017.6

    So the change in tax rate is pretty significant between 1-3, but 1 is way more likely to be stable. 2 is less likely to piss off people who currently have jobs and money because they still make more than they used to and do not feel like their burden has gone up. Between 1 and 4 people will not really care if they are making the average or better because they end up with a little more and the general population is doing better because more people can get by.

    If we bump that up to 70k for a single person
    Scenario 1: 51,989
    Scenario 4: 56,000

    This is where the dissatisfaction will start to kick in. Not going to ever see a benefit from that 16,989 base and going to be stuck paying 30% more in taxes to cover a bunch of other people to make more money.

    ~~

    Some unknowns, with single at 17k and married at 24k, I would divorce my wife and have her quit her job. Her part time job makes somewhere around that so for now there is no reason for her to work, for now. What about kids? Do kids count as single people or nothing? Maybe I did not get far enough down in TFA. I guess common law marriages would fix this maybe.

    What about when inflation starts to get used to the idea of people having more money. Demand and supply will find a way to work themselves out, and in a world of scarcity it is never in the way that works out for the people.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:10PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:10PM (#499672)

    Scenario 1
    (Base + (Earned*.5)) as put forth by TFA.

    Jesus Fucking Christ, what the FUCK is wrong with you shitheaded morons who can't understand LESS means MINUS.

    You say you read TFA but you didn't read TFA you stupid lying motherfucker. THIS IS WHAT TFA SAYS:

    A single person earning $10,000 per year from a part-time job would receive an additional $11,989 in basic income ($16,989 less 50% of their earned income), for a total income of $21,989.

    Basic - (Earned * 0.5) you fucking scumfucker.

    Stoopid! Stoopid! Stoopid! You fucking fail it! Fuck you fuck you Fuck you!

    • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:30AM

      by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:30AM (#499751) Journal

      Scenario 1 corrected
      ((Base - (Earned*.5))+(Earned*.8) is your actual yearly income.
      (16,989-25,636)+41,017.6)

      Did it say anywhere what happens when you make more than 33,976 as a single person? Do you simply get zero back or do you now owe taxes? Going to assume it is zero. So anyone making more than 33,976 gets nothing back, anyone making less gets something. Will be interesting to see how they end up paying for it.

      Glad you felt the need to be an ass rather than providing something constructive.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
  • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday April 26 2017, @11:37AM

    by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @11:37AM (#499945)

    This is where the dissatisfaction will start to kick in. Not going to ever see a benefit from that 16,989 base and going to be stuck paying 30% more in taxes to cover a bunch of other people to make more money

    Except that the majority of the people who will actually benefit from basic income are already receiving welfare payments and services funded by your taxes. That's even the case in the US, and this is in Canada where I presume welfare payments are a bit more generous. The hope is that BI would be far cheaper to administer (no means testing, less policing of fraud: in a real BI system the whole thing would be assimilated by the existing income tax system) and less prone to poverty traps that discourage people from earning more from work (forget 50% of earned income being clawed back from your BI: the current situation can be earn 1$/week more, pass some threshold, loose a whole tranche of related benefits, end up with $5/week less).

    Finally - there would have to be some public waking up and smelling of the coffee: the large-scale mass employment of the 20th century is over. Existing welfare payments amount to a subsidy to industry - effectively letting them employ labour at below cost while the taxpayer pays for them to eat hot meals and sleep indoors. Previous governments (certainly in the UK) have used the "benefits scrounger" happily living off welfare as a scapegoat - the reality is a large tranche of welfare payments go to the "working poor" who's salaries don't otherwise cover housing costs.

    ...I mean, there's also an issue with the inflated cost/shortage of housing which needs to be addressed - but any realistic solution to that is going to mean some of the equity in your house vanishing, which isn't going to be popular, either.