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 The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:00PM (1 child)
Right there. That is your problem. You assume that wealth and earning is a zero-sum game. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wealth is created from the void every time a human being puts forth effort that either they or someone else desires, or makes the effort necessary to accomplish a desired task easier.
If you have issue with how much wealth remains in your hands when you are implementing the ideas of someone else, bargain better. Hell, bargain collectively. Just make sure you don't cut your own throat while doing so. If labor is too pricy a commodity to continue doing business, they won't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:30PM
I think we agree on more than we disagree about, and your analysis skills are great, but we don't have a common language or set of definitions because here you go on a THIRD orthogonal topic, this being wealth as a social status signal and the attainment thereof as a lifestyle and all that.
So my point of view is there's about three orthogonal topics and are getting incorrectly mixed leading to problems.
1) There's the social contract thing. I'll be a member of your economic system and culture if you keep me alive better than the alternatives. Otherwise its armed rebellion, refugee time, join a motorcycle gang or commune and drop out time. Its hard to rally people around a system that involves their kids dying while another system lets them live. You can't collect anything cool this way like #2, what is the cool collection of "has great police protection" or "hasn't died of poor/no drinking water yet"? You probably can't get rich or cool off the same commodity as everyone gets see #3, nobody cares about my drinking water other than its there and doesn't make you sick.
2) There's the ancient capitalist game of cornering a monopoly commodity market. Harmless if limited to non-basic living issues. Someone collects all the non-meaningful tokens? Good for them, completionism is a perfectly good compulsion. Got all the MtG cards? Cool! Seen all the pr0n on the internet? Cool!. I'm the go to guy at $employer for ETL and system integration I've cornered that market, Cool! Just don't corner the market for drinkable water like #1 or you get the guillotine as you very rightly should. And don't turn it into a rich guys playing field like #3 or people will be unhappy (real estate, collectible cars, maybe)
3) Finally there's social status points, someone wealthy won't stay wealthy for long when playing game #2 if they're collecting black velvet Dale Earnhardt paintings or elvis memorobilia. Maybe it works well if they collect real estate and ETF shares. They won't be wealthy for long if their profit maximization strategy along the lines of #1 above involves killing the villagers children, because the villagers will put the wealthy dude in a guillotine right where he belongs. But if he got social status for good investments or being a really good rock star singer, well, cool!
Its best for a culture and society and economic system to keep those three systems as separate as possible, more important even than separation of church and state. Virtually any cross mixture eventually ends up F-ed up. Needless to say almost anything functional about western civ in 2017 involves those being separate and most things Fed up involve mixtures.