If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canadian Social Research)   Remember that Swiss free-money-for-all poverty plan? Yeah, Canada tried it in the 90's and it was a disaster   (canadiansocialresearch.net) divider line 67
    More: Followup, Switzerland, GST, social support, cohesion, poverty, effective tax rates  
•       •       •

4508 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Oct 2013 at 6:31 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-12 04:21:46 PM
holy balls. can we get a tl dr here?
 
2013-10-12 04:38:59 PM
Apparently the submitter has never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

And why the hell was this greened?!
 
2013-10-12 04:44:06 PM
Free money?

Where the hell was I?
 
2013-10-12 05:05:14 PM
*Clicks link*

Wall-o-text.

*^F disaster*

Phrase not found
 
2013-10-12 05:26:16 PM
Did you hear about the woman that backed into the airplane propeller?

Disaster.
 
2013-10-12 06:35:49 PM
It was tried once and didn't work, therefore it should never be attempted again under any circumstances and Sarah Palin is automatically president of the Moon.
 
2013-10-12 06:39:08 PM
Not sure how this ended up on the Geek tab.
 
2013-10-12 06:39:41 PM
Tl;DR Version:

Policy makers have been motivated by many different and sometimes incompatible objectives in considering a GAI. The main objectives have been to:

- provide more money for the poor to contribute to eliminating poverty in society;

- provide more choice and less stigma. Basic needs would be met without the stigma of needs-tested social welfare or, potentially, the classification of the population into employable and unemployable groups;

- simplify the current system of programs and services. (Many of these programs and services would be integrated and harmonized into a single benefit that would require a smaller infrastructure to administer and would make it easier for the client to receive government benefits.);

- cost less than current programs and services;

- provide better incentives to work than the current system of taxes and transfers which imposes conditions and limitations on the receipt of benefits and the level of earnings; and

- allow for a faster and more efficient adjustment process to structural economic change. If all Canadians could be assured of a base income that doesn't penalize work effort, then the willingness and ability to adjust to changing economic circumstances would improve.


The historical review of the GAI (Guaranteed Annual Income) proposals indicates that although any one of these objectives may be feasible, combining several objectives into the same program requires trading off one objective against the other.
 
2013-10-12 06:43:20 PM

geek_mars: Not sure how this ended up on the Geek tab.


I assume the Politics tab was full.

/of shiat
//WTF, auto sound ads? Is this 1995?
 
2013-10-12 06:43:39 PM

SirVagTheTighty: holy balls. can we get a tl dr here?


Sure, it's a white paper detailing and comparing two methods of distributing a guaranteed annual income (GAI) to citizens: the negative income tax (NIT) which is essentially an earned income tax credit that only applies to the very poor; and the universal demogrant (UD) which is a check the government cuts to every citizen, regardless of socioeconomic status.

The white paper finds that, in Canada's case:
While the UD design yields favourable results in terms of winners and losers and substantially reduces poverty, it requires enormous increases in federal and provincial/territorial income taxes and in overall expenditure levels. The NIT design produces far more losers than winners, particularly among families without children, and only slightly reduces the incidence of low income. However, it is affordable without additional tax rate increases and significantly reduces the depth of poverty.

The results seem disappointing. The significant disruption associated with implementing any of these designs would make it difficult to advance the GAI as the centrepiece of social security reform.

The bottom line is that both these models are too expensive.


Pretty fascinating article, Subby. How the hell did such a well written and thoughtful paper get greenlit on Fark, of all places?
 
2013-10-12 06:47:51 PM

Elegy: Pretty fascinating article, Subby. How the hell did such a well written and thoughtful paper get greenlit on Fark, of all places?


It was paired with a bullshiat headline.
 
2013-10-12 06:54:34 PM

Sid_6.7: Apparently the submitter has never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

And why the hell was this greened?!


Republicans don't read anything, they're lured by sexxay anti-socialism headlines. And there is probably at least one Republican on Fark.
 
2013-10-12 06:56:17 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: It was tried once and didn't work, therefore it should never be attempted again under any circumstances and Sarah Palin is automatically president of the Moon.


Oh sure, now you're going to be 3D printing moons now.  Why not 3D print a potato so you can count to it?
 
2013-10-12 07:40:43 PM
In Quebec City on September 18, 1994 the Prime Minister outlined four key components of the government's jobs and growth agenda:

...we think.  It was Chretien, so he could have said just about anything, for all we know.
 
2013-10-12 07:48:27 PM
The difference being that Canada doesn't have the richest people in the world hiding their money there to avoid taxes so the banks can invest it and make a shat-ton of profit.
 
2013-10-12 07:55:23 PM
So?
 
2013-10-12 07:58:09 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: It was tried once and didn't work, therefore it should never be attempted again under any circumstances and Sarah Palin is automatically president of the Moon.


I'm not sure about the moon, but she is definitely President of Heranus.
 
2013-10-12 08:01:21 PM
I don't remember that Swiss plan, and sure I don't remember the Canadian plan, and I live in Canada.
 
2013-10-12 08:06:33 PM

geek_mars: Not sure how this ended up on the Geek tab.

Not sure how this ended up on the Geek tab.
 
2013-10-12 08:11:08 PM
Weird, you'd think that being Canadian I'd remember this, particularly since I was only making $5-8/hr through most of the 90s.

After a quick search, it seems the headline is completely accurate...if by Canada subby means part of Manitoba, by 90s s/he means 70s, and by disaster s/he means the experiment was ended prematurely (when Conservatives stopped funding) and most of the data never examined.
 
2013-10-12 08:12:29 PM

apoptotic: Weird, you'd think that being Canadian I'd remember this, particularly since I was only making $5-8/hr through most of the 90s.

After a quick search, it seems the headline is completely accurate...if by Canada subby means part of Manitoba, by 90s s/he means 70s, and by disaster s/he means the experiment was ended prematurely (when Conservatives stopped funding) and most of the data never examined.


And if by remember he means we don't care about.
 
2013-10-12 08:20:45 PM
I read the conclusions section.  I'm sold on the NIT approach.
 
2013-10-12 08:28:29 PM

Sid_6.7: Apparently the submitter has never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

And why the hell was this greened?!


Because some rightie-tighties shat their Reagan Underoos at the idea that some foreign country may do something nice for all it's people, and quickly needed some way to make the 'Murkinz have doubts about trying any of that "caring for the poor" nonsense here.
 
2013-10-12 08:29:10 PM

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: *Clicks link*

Wall-o-text.

*^F disaster*

Phrase not found


Should've searched for the more academic term "clusterfark."  It's all over the place.
 
2013-10-12 08:29:12 PM
I do not know what the Swiss were trying to do but the Canada proposal is designed to be a substitute for a plethora of other income distribution techniques that already existed. The left hand is giving but the right hand is taking away. Naturally enough, if you take away more than you give more people are going to wind up poor. D'oh. So as I understand it the the Canadian program was actually a program designed to reduce government spending gussied up under the slogan of "free money", Neat trick, that.
 
Juc
2013-10-12 08:30:36 PM
If I remember this thing right it was only one town in the middle of nowhere and it seemed to go adequately but no conclusions can really be made because the program was shiatcanned prematurely.
 
2013-10-12 08:31:36 PM
I still don't get how to pay for everyone getting an income from the government. Taxes for that must be insane...
 
2013-10-12 08:41:13 PM

machoprogrammer: I still don't get how to pay for everyone getting an income from the government. Taxes for that must be insane...


We are already paying taxes on foodstamps, unemployment, etc. This, while potentially more expensive than the combined weight of most our social programs, will save money by shrinking the bureaucracies that are needed to organize and execute those programs and is much simpler.
 
2013-10-12 08:41:35 PM
I had no idea what Canadian Social Research was, so I hit the main site.  They seem pretty lefty and fond of facts and reports and things, but the first thing I noticed is that they haven't updated their site design since it first went online in 1997.  Do yourself a favour and check out that vintage eye-watering layout.  We'll not see its like again.

Give that it's a quasi-professional site, it doesn't commit the worst sins of mid-90s web design, but it's still hideous compared to something from today.
 
2013-10-12 08:43:11 PM
 
2013-10-12 08:56:55 PM

New Farkin User Name: machoprogrammer: I still don't get how to pay for everyone getting an income from the government. Taxes for that must be insane...

We are already paying taxes on foodstamps, unemployment, etc. This, while potentially more expensive than the combined weight of most our social programs, will save money by shrinking the bureaucracies that are needed to organize and execute those programs and is much simpler.


I think Nixon proposed that we do away with all programs and just give everyone in the country a stipend that was remarkably well-off, yet still saved the country a ton of money.
 
2013-10-12 09:19:35 PM
Whatever the faults of Subby's headline, the study is worth reading.

What they found was that a Negative Income Tax (NIT) did not necessarily require raising taxes but did not generate enough money to do a lot for the poor, while it, like other plans, eliminating tax benefits to pay for the NIT, produced winners and losers.

At the moment the Canadian personal income tax deduction is over $10,000. Eliminate it and everybody pays higher taxes, including, of course, people who make less than $10,000. Not much of a help then. But easy to turn into a small credit instead of a larger deduction.

In Canada about two thirds of the people who file income tax forms do so to get money or because they are required to by law, not because they have taxes to pay. They do not owe income tax but can get various credits only if the request them or file a tax form.

One third of tax filers pay additional taxes to what was deducted from their wage or salary payments, and quite a few are quite close to the cusp, paying more in some years and getting a little back in others.

During his prime earning years, my Father paid income tax in installments and then received an enormous tax bill for more money on top of that. His installment payments were larger than my pre-tax income and I'd have felt myself rich if anybody had given me the amount his additional payments amounted to. My own income would scarcely have been improved by a GAI or a NIT, but it would have put me over the poverty level in the hardest times, so it would have been an occasional and modest help. But, of course, people like my Father would be paying even larger taxes, which might have discouraged them from being honest or even Canadian for that matter.

As for a guaranteed annual income (GAI), these have to be pitched quite low if they are not to cost a lot of money. They do help a fairly large percentage of low income people, especially those with children, but quite a few people would be worse off after the dust settles.

In short, GIA and NIT programmes can help many or some, but are a bit disappointing for those who think you can abolish poverty without spending more money gathered by higher taxes.

The richest high-tax countires ("all the usual suspects" as I call them and as many other people call them) do more to fight poverty and particularly child poverty than our systems, but there are limits to what you can do and keep the insanely, obscenely low tax rates that America applies to the rich and well-to-do Americans at home and abroad.

The rational conclusion to draw is that you can't get something for nothing, but you can get a bit more if you are willing and able to decide between contradictory goals and are willing to pay a bit more.

In the USA, where there are so many very, very rich people, these measures would work better. The reason is clear: MO' MONEY.

So the study explains why Canada has not got a large GAI but does not explain why the USA shouldn't have a small GAI.

I'm thinking that maybe we could get somewhere with something like a Guaranteed Income Supplement that would replace all the other support programs. You'd be entitled to full support if you were permanently unemployed (retired, disable, sick, unemployable) but would only get a small lump sum or monthly payment otherwise and this would be clawed back from those who don't need it.

It would be a pension that is there for even the very rich should they go broke, but not there for those earning well above the poverty line or those endowed with wealth and family support, at least during those periods of life when they don't need help.

Most people on welfare are only on benefits for a few months at most. Others work the system and get more than their fair share instead of trying to find work. But because this is so, there is little to be gained by taking this money away from the few who are eligible and spreading it thinly to everybody.

Welfare should be targeted to the needy. As society grows richer, it can afford more socialism, until, at some point it might be rich enough to go whole hog Communist and provide everybody with ample funds and leisure, expecting work only from those who love it or are particularly productive, such as scientists, artists, creators, designers and builders.

Beats the Hell out of a dystopian world where selfish capitalists screw everybody out of their money, their lives, and their jobs while turning the work and inventiveness of generations of workers into capital that benefits only the few who own all the robotic factories.

Karl Marx forsaw that possible and particular Hell, and Libertarians and  Republicans are intent on creating it, while Democrats are OK with it as long as they are shareholders, professonals, and CEOs in the Republican nightmare worlds.

We can choose between being progressive, just, and liberal on the one hand, and being chemical fodder for the machines on the other. No good comes from the concentration of wealth once there is enough to build hospitals, libraries, schools, parks, etc., at the expense of the philanthropic and the public wealth.
 
2013-10-12 09:20:00 PM
umm bullshiat. It didn't happen .
 
2013-10-12 09:27:01 PM
lost in the whole discussion


'merka, supposedly the greatest example of why capitalism rules, has a net median household income that is LESS than what a married (or couple) in switzerland would receive in govt subsidy alone.
 
2013-10-12 09:29:35 PM
How is it working for Alaska
 
2013-10-12 09:31:08 PM
Why is this in the Geek tab
 
2013-10-12 09:39:49 PM

brantgoose: We can choose between being progressive, just, and liberal on the one hand, and being chemical fodder for the machines on the other. No good comes from the concentration of wealth once there is enough to build hospitals, libraries, schools, parks, etc., at the expense of the philanthropic and the public wealth.


We're going to just continue with our misguided attempts in the meantime until post-scarcity hits, which is coming up sooner than we'd like to admit, and the growing pains from that are going to make communist revolutions look like a sunny day at the park. It'll start slowly, of course. You'll start ordering your food from a touch screen, then your food will be cooked by one of those robot arms that puts cars together, and finally your customer service call will be done by some AI/VI who can read the appropriate scripts and note the relevant information.

Hell, I work in automation, and I've said "Man, I wish this program would automate its own writing. Then it could just do everything on its own." It's going to start with the lowest rung, and people will say "It's their own fault they didn't get an education and get a better job," but it's going to very quickly spiral upward. There are very few jobs that can't be done cleaner, quicker, and more efficiently by a machine. When that hits critical mass, hold on to your butts.
 
2013-10-12 09:40:24 PM
Why is a direct link to a public policy white paper being greened?
Why is it in the Geek tab?
Why am I pleasantly buzzed right now?

No wait I know the answer to that last one.
 
2013-10-12 10:20:41 PM
Wait wait wait wait. Are you implying that policies that work in one country, might not work in another country?????


It's almost like..they're different countries or something!
 
2013-10-12 10:20:59 PM
No we didn't, Subby.
 
2013-10-12 10:29:33 PM

Begoggle: Why is this in the Geek tab


Politics tab is shut down until teabaggers quit trying to hold the country for ransom.
 
2013-10-12 10:54:14 PM
I think paying losers to be losers is BRILLIANT policy. It almost guarantees democrats in power forever.
 
2013-10-12 10:58:32 PM
SevenizGud: I think paying losers to be losers is BRILLIANT policy. It almost guarantees democrats in power forever.

I have nothing of value to add, so instead I will threadshiat with a piss-poor, unfounded insult aimed at Democrats, even though the article is about Canadians and Swiss, who do not have a party identical to our Democrats.


FTFY
 
2013-10-12 10:58:52 PM
Only way to find out if it works is to implement it. I assume there will be stringent immigration controls since having an influx of illegal aliens could strain the system.
 
2013-10-12 11:31:56 PM
Roads need repair,bridges need repair. Sidewalks need repair. Daycares need staffing (make sure background checks are properly done, of course). Pay the people fairly, give benefits.
 
2013-10-12 11:49:39 PM
So, failboats all around?
 
2013-10-12 11:52:41 PM
Headline is shiat, submitter.
 
2013-10-13 12:06:36 AM
weknowgifs.com
i3.kym-cdn.com
i1.kym-cdn.com
i1.kym-cdn.com
i1360.photobucket.com

Many GIFs died to bring you this information.  Because of Fark's shiatty 512K limit...oooo, it's at 1MB now.
 
2013-10-13 12:33:10 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: It was tried once and didn't work, therefore it should never be attempted again under any circumstances and Sarah Palin is automatically president of the Moon.


Communism didn't work in Russia either, does that mean they should try again?
 
2013-10-13 01:02:18 AM
Poor people are poor because they make horrible decisions with their money.  News at 11.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report