Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Town Without Poverty?
The Dominion ^ | 9/5/2011 | VIVIAN BELIK

Posted on 11/09/2012 6:38:06 AM PST by ksen

WHITEHORSE, YK—Try to imagine a town where the government paid each of the residents a living income, regardless of who they were and what they did, and a Soviet hamlet in the early 1980s may come to mind.

But this experiment happened much closer to home. For a four-year period in the '70s, the poorest families in Dauphin, Manitoba, were granted a guaranteed minimum income by the federal and provincial governments. Thirty-five years later all that remains of the experiment are 2,000 boxes of documents that have gathered dust in the Canadian archives building in Winnipeg.

Until now little has been known about what unfolded over those four years in the small rural town, since the government locked away the data that had been collected and prevented it from being analyzed.

But after a five year struggle, Evelyn Forget, a professor of health sciences at the University of Manitoba, secured access to those boxes in 2009. Until the data is computerized, any systematic analysis is impossible. Undeterred, Forget has begun to piece together the story by using the census, health records, and the testimony of the program's participants. What is now emerging reveals that the program could have counted many successes.

Beginning in 1974, Pierre Trudeau's Liberals and Manitoba's first elected New Democratic Party government gave money to every person and family in Dauphin who fell below the poverty line. Under the program—called “Mincome”—about 1,000 families received monthly cheques.

Unlike welfare, which only certain individuals qualified for, the guaranteed minimum income project was open to everyone. It was the first—and to this day, only—time that Canada has ever experimented with such an open-door social assistance program.

In today’s conservative political climate, with constant government and media rhetoric about the inefficiency and wastefulness of the welfare state, the Mincome project sounds like nothing short of a fairy tale.

For four years Dauphin was a place where anyone living below the poverty line could receive monthly cheques to boost their income, no questions asked. Single mothers could afford to put their kids through school and low-income families weren't scrambling to pay the rent each month.

For Amy Richardson, it meant she could afford to buy her children books for school. Richardson joined the program in 1977, just after her husband had gone on disability leave from his job. At the time, she was struggling to raise her three youngest children on $1.50 haircuts she gave in her living room beauty parlour.

The $1,200 per year she received in monthly increments was a welcome supplement, in a time when the poverty line was $2,100 a year.

“The extra money meant that I was also able to give my kids something I wouldn't ordinarily be able to, like taking them to a show or some small luxury like that,” said Richardson, now 84, who spoke to The Dominion by phone from Dauphin.

As part of the experiment, an army of researchers were sent to Dauphin to interview the Mincome families. Residents in nearby rural towns who didn't receive Mincome were also surveyed so their statistics could be compared against those from Dauphin. But after the government cut the program in 1978, they simply warehoused the data and never bothered to analyze it.

“When the government introduced the program they really thought it would be a pilot project and that by the end of the decade they would roll this out and everybody would participate,” said Forget. “They thought it would become a universal program. But of course, the idea eventually just died off.”

During the Mincome program, the federal and provincial governments collectively spent $17 million, though it was initially supposed to have cost only a few million.

Meant to last several more years, the program came to a quick halt in 1978 when an economic recession hit Canada. The recession had caused prices to increase 10 per cent each year, so payouts to families under Mincome had increased accordingly.

Trudeau's Liberals, already on the defensive for an overhaul of Canada's employment insurance system, killed the program and withheld any additional money to analyze the data that had been amassed.

“It's hugely unfortunate and typical of the strange ways in which government works that the data was never analyzed,” says Ron Hikel who coordinated the Mincome program. Hikel now works in the United States to promote universal healthcare reform.

“Government officials opposed [to Mincome] didn't want to spend more money to analyze the data and show what they already thought: that it didn't work,” says Hikel, who remains a strong proponent of guaranteed income programs.

“And the people who were in favour of Mincome were worried because if the analysis was done and the data wasn't favourable then they would have just spent another million dollars on analysis and be even more embarrassed.”

But Forget has culled some useful info from Manitoba labour data. Her research confirms numerous positive consequences of the program.

Initially, the Mincome program was conceived as a labour market experiment. The government wanted to know what would happen if everybody in town received a guaranteed income, and specifically, they wanted to know whether people would still work.

It turns out they did.

Only two segments of Dauphin's labour force worked less as a result of Mincome—new mothers and teenagers. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies. And teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families.

The end result was that they spent more time at school and more teenagers graduated. Those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did.

“People didn't have to take the first job that came along,” says Hikel. “They could wait for something better that suited them.”

For some, it meant the opportunity to land a job to help them get by.

When Doreen and Hugh Henderson arrived in Dauphin in 1970 with their two young children they were broke. Doreen suggested moving from Vancouver to her hometown because she thought her husband would have an easier time finding work there. But when they arrived, things weren't any better.

“My husband didn't have a very good job and I couldn't find work,” she told The Dominion by phone from Dauphin.

It wasn't until 1978, after receiving Mincome payments for two years, that her husband finally landed janitorial work at the local school, a job he kept for 28 years.

“I don't know how we would have lived without [Mincome],” said Doreen.“I don't know if we would have stayed in Dauphin.”

Although the Mincome experiment was intended to provide a body of information to study labour market trends, Forget discovered that Mincome had a significant effect on people's well being. Two years ago, the professor started studying the health records of Dauphin residents to assess the impacts of the program.

In the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 per cent. Fewer people went to the hospital with work-related injuries and there were fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. There were also far fewer mental health visits.

It's not hard to see why, says Forget.

“When you walk around a hospital, it's pretty clear that a lot of the time what we're treating are the consequences of poverty,” she says.

Give people financial independence and control over their lives and these accidents and illnesses tend to dissipate, says Forget. In today's terms, an 8.5 per cent decrease in hospital visits across Canada would save the government $4 billion annually, by her calculations. And $4 billion is the amount that the federal government is currently trying to save by slashing social programming and arts funding.

Having analyzed the health data, Forget is now working on a cost-benefit analysis to see what a guaranteed income program might save the federal government if it were implemented today. She’s already worked with a Senate committee investigating a guaranteed income program for all low-income Canadians.

The Canadian government's sudden interest in guaranteed income programs doesn't surprise Forget.

Every 10 or 15 years there seems to be a renewed interest in getting Guaranteed Income (GI) programs off the ground, according to Saskatchewan social work professor James Mulvale. He's researched and written extensively about guaranteed income programs and is also part the Canadian chapter of the Basic Income Earth Network, a worldwide organization that advocates for guaranteed income.

GI programs exist in countries like Brazil, Mexico, France and even the state of Alaska.

Although people may not recognize it, subtle forms of guaranteed income already exist in Canada, says Mulvale, pointing to the child benefit tax, guaranteed income for seniors and the modest GST/HST rebate program for low-income earners.

However, a wider-reaching guaranteed income program would go a long way in decreasing poverty, he says.

Mulvale is in favour of a “demo-grant” model of GI that would give automatic cash transfers to everybody in Canada. This kind of plan would also provide the option of taxing higher-income earners at the end of the year so poorer people receive benefits.

A model such as this has a higher chance of broad support because it goes out to everybody, according to Mulvale. GI can also be administered as a negative income tax to the poor, meaning they'd receive an amount of money back directly in proportion to what they make each year.

“GI by itself wouldn't eliminate poverty but it would go a heck of a long way to decrease the extent of poverty in this country,” says Mulvale.

Conservative senator Hugh Segal has been the biggest supporter of this kind of GI, claiming it would eliminate the social assistance programs now administered by the provinces and territories. Rather than having a separate office to administer child tax benefits, welfare, unemployment insurance and income supplement for seniors, they could all be rolled into one GI scheme.

It would also mean that anybody could apply for support. Many people fall through the cracks under the current welfare system, says Forget. Not everybody can access welfare and those who can are penalized for going to school or for working a job since the money they receive from welfare is then clawed back.

If a guaranteed income program can target more people and is more efficient than other social assistance programs, then why doesn't Canada have such a program in place already? Perhaps the biggest barrier is the prevalence of negative stereotypes about poor people.

“There's very strong feelings out there that we shouldn't give people money for nothing,” Mulvale says.

Guaranteed income proponents aren't holding their breaths that they'll see such a program here anytime soon, but they are hopeful that one day Canada will consider the merits of guaranteed income.

The cost would be "not nearly as prohibitive to do as people imagine it is," says Forget. “A guaranteed minimum income program is a superior way of delivering social assistance. The only thing is that it's of course politically difficult to implement.”


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: basicincome; libertarian; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
A Basic Income Guarantee results in more mothers staying with their children, more teens graduating high school, better health, and higher wages.

It doesn't result in the Freeloader myth or tyranny.

And before you scream, "SOCIALISM!!!! :doom:" just understand that Freidrich Hayek was for a Universal Basic Income as a necessary part of a great society (see Law, Legislation and Liberty vol 3 page 55)

1 posted on 11/09/2012 6:38:09 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ksen

IB4Z


2 posted on 11/09/2012 6:49:02 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Knock yourself out. . .just don't take MY hard-earned money to pay for it.

I earned MY money, I earned my standard of living. I earned everything I have. . .and being a middle-class white male, it wasn't easy.

For every Canadian (”America's Hat”) example of the greatness and goodness of socialism, history is chocked full of dismal (and lethal) failures.

And I'll bet the small community in the Canadian study was more of a ethnically homogenized "community" sharing common cultural standards than an urban jungle where feral thugs prowl and prey. Try that minimum income thing in, say, Wash DC or Detroit and see where it gets you.

3 posted on 11/09/2012 6:51:21 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

This lasted for only four years. The article cites the case of a man who finally got a job as a janitor and thenwent on to hold it for 28 years, without the GAI. Only four years does not really show the effects. People were still living on the ‘cultural capital’ of a society that taught work is good, self-sufficiency is good, being married n order to raise children is good, etc.

For the effects after a few more years, another generation, look at Native American reservations both in Canada and the US, also the white working class of Britan, also the African American populations of large cities which in effect have a GAI. Native Ameicans live almost completely on public monies. the results in all these cases are alcoholism, (also: Russia) violence, people without internal controls, fatherless children and the pyschic distortion of women-only families, and I could go on but people already know this.

So this stdy of only four years has no relevance.


4 posted on 11/09/2012 6:52:00 AM PST by squarebarb ( Fairy tales are basically true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

and I bet the other half of the ton paid high taxes to support this?

Oh wait, the money came from outside of town? So how is this experiment worth anything?

The town itself cannot afford to fund this program, the state and federal levels could not afford it either.

Today we spend a trillion bucks and distribute about $300 billion to the “poor” while the rest pays for bureaucracy. We should just merge all welfare into one program for the truly poor, heck add unemployment to it- why make it a seperate program?... Just hand out cash monthly if they show up in person monthly. Abolish 90% of the welfare bureaucracy.

Liberals would never agree to that of course.

Mincome for all is retarded though


5 posted on 11/09/2012 6:54:47 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

” A Town Without Poverty...”

...is a town without democrats.


6 posted on 11/09/2012 7:02:57 AM PST by lowbridge (Joe Biden: "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Knock yourself out. . .just don't take MY hard-earned money to pay for it.

You do realize don't you that your response is why government assistance is need since your too damn stingy to help out people who need it.

I earned MY money, I earned my standard of living. I earned everything I have. . .and being a middle-class white male, it wasn't easy.

Cool story bro. Us white guys have had it real rough.

For every Canadian (”America's Hat”) example of the greatness and goodness of socialism, history is chocked full of dismal (and lethal) failures.

You're so deluded that you're really going to call a program advocated by libertarian hero Hayek as socialist?

And I'll bet the small community in the Canadian study was more of a ethnically homogenized "community" sharing common cultural standards than an urban jungle where feral thugs prowl and prey. Try that minimum income thing in, say, Wash DC or Detroit and see where it gets you.

Hahaha unbelievable . . . wait, it's actually not.

7 posted on 11/09/2012 7:03:06 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ksen

” During the Mincome program, the federal and provincial governments collectively spent $17 million, though it was initially supposed to have cost only a few million.”

Typical.


8 posted on 11/09/2012 7:04:16 AM PST by lowbridge (Joe Biden: "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

From my observances getting off welfare is about as hard as getting off of drugs and liberal politicians make it that way.

I don’t know the answers but it is way too easy to slide by on welfare than work. A woman with a couple of kids gets everything from health care to housing to food and then she can shack up with a guy who works and not tell the authorities and get that extra cash.

One of the problems is that if you get a full time minimum wage job you are in worse shape than when you weren’t working so there is no incentive.


9 posted on 11/09/2012 7:06:47 AM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

$1200 per year. Probably Canadian dollars. Convert that to US dollars, adjust for 2012 inflation and try offering that sum to the welfare bums in the United States.

They would shreik in protest at being ripped off. Probably 1/10 of what they normally get from Uncle Sugar.


10 posted on 11/09/2012 7:08:58 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
I'm sure it did make things better for the recipients. And, maybe the recipients mostly did continue to work. But who pays for it? If the value of work is not supported by market economics, then whatever the difference is is being taken from someone else - redistributed as it were.

Two problems with applying this to today. Recipients continued to work because they always did work - work was a habit and part of their culture. Not so with much of todays' American dependent class. Also, paying someone more than the value of their labor is unsustainable if applied to large swaths of the economy. The money either has to come from punishing taxation (a disincentive for productive workers), consumption taxes (regressive) or borrowing and money printing (Like we are doing now - in the long run terminal.)

I'm sure there are legions of post-graduate level puppeteers, avante garde performance artists and street corner stand-up comics who'd love to pursue their vocations and be provided a comfortable income level guaranteed by the Federal Gubmint. I'm sure that the street corners would be more colorful and entertaining as a result. Right up until the whole thing goes bust and we get this:

But, come to think of it, that's pretty entertaining too.

11 posted on 11/09/2012 7:09:24 AM PST by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
In America, if you're paid not to work - you don't.
People from around the globe come here for their "free gift."

In this study, people were EXPECTED to do well, in fact, encouraged to improve their lives. In America, people are encouraged to VOTE for free stuff so they never have to get out of bed in the morning.

In America, sloth is rewarded at the tune of $40 - $60,000 annually. The average tax payer, who makes an average of only $40,000, is being asked to work harder, longer, and pay more. (Workers in America are severely punished for their disobedience.)

This is why America is broke. The freeloaders and their annual freebies have outnumbered and out-scrounged the laborers. The grasshoppers are bleeding the ants dry, and everyone is about to starve.

A temporary safety net is fine for those who find themselves in financial dire straights, but in America, that safety net broke a long time ago, and it's been replaced by millions of freeloading condos.

Today, those who need the temporary net can't get it, because they're not part of a left wing voting block. They made the mistake of actually trying to work for a living (they "acted stupidly").

12 posted on 11/09/2012 7:10:59 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“Conservative senator Hugh Segal has been the biggest supporter of this kind of GI, claiming it would eliminate the social assistance programs now administered by the provinces and territories. Rather than having a separate office to administer child tax benefits, welfare, unemployment insurance and income supplement for seniors, they could all be rolled into one GI scheme.”

In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman said the same thing-abolish all welfare programs etc and provide cash income to the poor. On FR a few days ago we spent $60,000 per person for those in poverty.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MILTON FRIEDMAN BORN 100 YEARS AGO THIS YEAR. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO HIS BOOK CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM
PUBLISHED 50 YEARS AGO. His book helped launch the conservative revival.


13 posted on 11/09/2012 7:11:05 AM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
You're so deluded that you're really going to call a program advocated by libertarian hero Hayek as socialist?

 

I'll go further than that. Number 1. Libertarians are not heroes. They're scum. 2. Hayek was no conservative. How do we know that? He wrote a damn book!

Why I Am Not a Conservative

by F. A. Hayek
by F. A. Hayek

 

 

In The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960)

Number 3. I don't care if you are a class of '98. I add a dittoes to what was posted upthread: IBTZ

14 posted on 11/09/2012 7:18:59 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Hulka
hulka->Knock yourself out. . .just don't take MY hard-earned money to pay for it.

ksen->You do realize don't you that your response is why government assistance is need since your too damn stingy to help out people who need it.

He never said he was too stingy to pay for it. He said don't steal his money to do it. Charity is a free will offering. If he doesn't want to give, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to FORCE him to give.

Prior to the welfare state we had less problems with poverty in this country than we do now. People who really needed help went to the churches and got help. That allowed someone to make sure they really needed help and the churches saw to it that they didn't become junkies for free money.

Cool story bro. Us white guys have had it real rough.

We have. We've been carrying most of the non-whites for decades. When do we get to enjoy the fruit of our labor rather than have it confiscated at the point of a gun?

You're so deluded that you're really going to call a program advocated by libertarian hero Hayek as socialist?

If it involved taking money by force from some people in order to give it to others than it is socialism. If Hayek advocated this then he betrayed libertarianism. (Now if he advocated taking up a voluntary contribution to do this it would be OK. That's what we had before the welfare state)

15 posted on 11/09/2012 7:20:02 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner

If you don’t want workers able to unionize in order to get more negotiating power then I think this is the next best way to empower workers. If you don’t NEED to take that crappy $7.50/hr job to do things like eat and live then you can hold out for a higher paying job or if enough people refuse to take bad jobs for even worse wages then it will force employers to raise wages.

It reminds me when people would say that mexicans do jobs americans don’t want to. Well, to be accurate the statement should have been mexicans do jobs for wages that americans wouldn’t do them for.

A Basic Income leads to more liberty and more happiness for society.


16 posted on 11/09/2012 7:21:04 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“Mincome” sounds like something from a dystopia novel.


17 posted on 11/09/2012 7:23:59 AM PST by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Do you burn copies of The Road to Serfdom?

Is Milton Friedman scum too?

18 posted on 11/09/2012 7:25:10 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ksen
You do realize don't you that your response is why government assistance is need since your too damn stingy to help out people who need it.

If the government wasn't robbing the tax payer blind - so freeloaders can skate through life without working one day of their miserable, lazy lives - people would have 50% more income and a lot of extra cash for charity.
Through charity, those in WANT would not be served, but those in NEED would be given a cup that runeth over. They would have more than they could ever dream of.

When money is confiscated by the government through force, people rebel. When money is given to charity through the heart, people are very generous.

The problem with the "poor" in this country is democrat sloth. They never do anything for anyone - not even themselves. They lay around in bed all day eating Twinkies and demanding more. There are very few truly needy people in this country, and they're barely getting squat. The lazy freeloaders are devouring it all, and every four years they vote for more.

19 posted on 11/09/2012 7:27:08 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb

dido...”they wanted to work”... ain’t so here, mcgee... 2 yrs? how about generations? lest Forget forgot.


20 posted on 11/09/2012 7:28:08 AM PST by rusureitflies? (A person becomes a lost fool when they reject the Holy Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John O
Taxes are not theft. They're the agreed upon price to live in our society. We don't have non-elected overlords whimsically determining how much to take from us. We have elected representatives that make these decisions and are able to be replaced if enough of us don't like it.

If it involved taking money by force from some people in order to give it to others than it is socialism.

You've just made the argument that military, police, fire and rescue wages are socialism.

21 posted on 11/09/2012 7:29:13 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ksen
HAND OVER YOUR MONEY!!!

That guy over there doesn't have as much as you.

22 posted on 11/09/2012 7:29:27 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Do you burn copies of The Road to Serfdom?
Better question. Do you burn copies of the Constitution?
Is Milton Friedman scum too?
Yes.

23 posted on 11/09/2012 7:35:18 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ksen
“You do realize don't you that your response is why government assistance is need since your too damn stingy to help out people who need it. “

Non-sequitur.

Ever hear of charity. Only democrats and freeloaders want forced government charity at the point of a government “gun”

“Cool story bro. Us white guys have had it real rough. “

You bet we did. .. and continue to suffer and be discriminated against, from popular media and movies, to academia and the work-place. We are the ONLY demographic that can be insulted, patronized, mocked and insulted. . .without sanction. Affirmative action, ‘bro,’ ever hear of it?

“You're so deluded that you're really going to call a program advocated by libertarian hero Hayek as socialist? “

Calling you a socialist fits, as you FEEL (not THINK) that socialism works just great. . .based on one small, single example, somewhere, and paid for by makers, not takers.

“Hahaha unbelievable . . . wait, it's actually not.”

And you prove my point. Thanks.

Now, here's the situation. Further exchanges are moot. You said what you feel and I said what I think. People can make up their own mid about the subject (unless, of course, you are for forced re-education).

So, your choice is to a) act as a child, to “get the last word,” or b) you can simply let thinking people decide who's argument they back.

I'm betting “a” is your choice. And I will laugh when proven right.

24 posted on 11/09/2012 7:37:29 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator
Am I in some alternative universe here? Has FR been hacked by DU?

Maine Mariner says (post 13) we should give $60,000 per person to the poor (A Milton Friedman idea.)

ksen is all over this thread touting Friedman and anti-conservative Socialist ideas in support of a guaranteed minimum income. "A Basic Income leads to more liberty and more happiness for society."

25 posted on 11/09/2012 7:37:35 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ksen
If it involved taking money by force from some people in order to give it to others than it is socialism.

You've just made the argument that military, police, fire and rescue wages are socialism.

No, these people are willing to pay us back - with their lives.

Now ask a scrounging welfare freeloader what they're doing to serve those who feed them. You won't get an answer. There isn't one. They ll just try to pick your pocket.

26 posted on 11/09/2012 7:40:54 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Maine Mariner says (post 13) we should give $60,000 per person to the poor (A Milton Friedman idea.)

ksen is all over this thread touting Friedman and anti-conservative Socialist ideas in support of a guaranteed minimum income. “A Basic Income leads to more liberty and more happiness for society.”


Maine Mariner said no such thing. Go read it again.

And has FR gone so far around the bend that talking about ideas touted by Friedman and Hayek are bannable now?


27 posted on 11/09/2012 7:44:57 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Give people financial independence and control over their lives and these accidents and illnesses tend to dissipate, says Forget.

Financial "independence" = getting a guaranteed income from the government? Um, doesn't that mean making people financially DEPENDENT on the government?

Fail.

28 posted on 11/09/2012 7:45:58 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
You've just made the argument that military, police, fire and rescue wages are socialism.

And you just made the argument that the military, police, fire and rescue responders are no better than welfare cheats freeloading off the the taxpayer. In other words you can't see a difference between a Maker and a Taker.

Let me give you thanks for one thing though. I HATE Libertarians. (See tagline). They are liberals who support open borders, pro-dope laws, pro-abortion ideals and all sorts of other liberalistic crap. But until now, I never realized the full extent of how you Libertarians and your Libertarian heroes (Hayek and Friedman) are in full support of the Welfare State.

Classic Libertarianism (such as Hayek and Friedman) or modern day Libertarianism such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson is just bat-bleep crazy. Unbelievably Insane!

29 posted on 11/09/2012 7:46:28 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
And I'll bet the small community in the Canadian study was more of a ethnically homogenized "community" sharing common cultural standards than an urban jungle where feral thugs prowl and prey. Try that minimum income thing in, say, Wash DC or Detroit and see where it gets you.

You don't even have to go that nuts.

Everyone seems to forget American history. When the Pilgrims first landed on the Massachusetts coastline, their first societal experiment was a communal one. No private property. Block houses where everyone lives. Crops were planted, tended, and doled out communally. Basically, it was a collectivist's wet dream, and you cannot get a more homogenized community, perhaps, than the first sect of dissenters who first left England for Holland and then Holland for the New World so they could practice their particular form of religion.

The result? Epic failure. Because of collectivism, in the harsh environment of the New World, they almost starved to death.

30 posted on 11/09/2012 7:53:32 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Maine Mariner

Maine Mariner said no such thing. Go read it again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I read it again. (post 13) Maybe MM better reconfirm his support of or denouncement of the BS Socialist/Welfare State ideals. $60,000 per person is on the table here. Who supports that and why? Is there links to that thread he spoke of?


31 posted on 11/09/2012 7:53:32 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ksen

You again. One question: who was guaranteeing the income for these people?

Oh, and one more: why are you on this site?


32 posted on 11/09/2012 8:23:16 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Military, police, firefighters, courts of justice and select other types of government work and workers are needed to maintain a civil society by protecting it from external threats and enforcing contracts between parties without vigilantism and vendetta. These all used to be functions of volunteers (and in the case of firefighters, much of this country still is dependent on volunteers.) However, like so much else, technological and legal complexity, and public expectations of service have forced these to become professions rather than yeomanry.

These are among the LIMITED legitimate functions of government. These have been abused, to be sure, and their powers and responsibilities need to be significantly dialed back. However few will argue that they are unnecessary. Purists here will argue that a social safety net is un-Constitutional and should not be provided. I do not subscribe to this view. I think we should provide for the care of truly feeble, the profoundly disabled, and temporarily for victims of disease and disaster.

What I do not and never will subscribe to, however, is the notion I should subsidize a lifetime of bad choices, of engaging in criminal activity, of substance abuse, of a lack of a work ethic, or of a selfish and narcissitic juvenile insistence of following ones dream to become a street poet to the exclusion of goods and services productive employment.


33 posted on 11/09/2012 8:34:59 AM PST by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Sir, I said no such thing.

We spend $60,000 on each person in poverty on various programs-most of which trickles down to the low income people. Most of that $60,000 is spent on administrative expenses. Friedman argued that we would save a tremendous amount of money if we eliminated all welfare programs and paid everyone directly. He certainly never advocated paying anyone $60,000 (in today’s dollars) back in 1962. He looked at it as a way to save money. He wanted one program not hundreds to help people in poverty.
To suggest that I don’t belong on FR is absurd. I have been a loyal supporter of this site with time and contributions.


34 posted on 11/09/2012 9:09:35 AM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner

Thank you for clarifying. Sorry to have missed your point the first go round.


35 posted on 11/09/2012 9:22:06 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Understandable. Milton Friedman was no bleeding heart liberal. He wanted small government as I think most of us here do. That is why he wanted school vouchers for low income people. Eliminate or greatly reduce the public school system-give vouchers to low income people and let them choose their children’s school-and eliminate the huge educational
bureaucracy that has grown because of state and federal
funding.


36 posted on 11/09/2012 9:52:32 AM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I’m not a libertarian.


37 posted on 11/09/2012 10:31:16 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

Everyone seems to forget American history. When the Pilgrims first landed on the Massachusetts coastline, their first societal experiment was a communal one. No private property. Block houses where everyone lives. Crops were planted, tended, and doled out communally. Basically, it was a collectivist’s wet dream, and you cannot get a more homogenized community, perhaps, than the first sect of dissenters who first left England for Holland and then Holland for the New World so they could practice their particular form of religion.


No, I remember the story about what the Pilgrims first did. But that has nothing to do with the Dauphin experiment. It wasn’t an experiment in communalism it was an experiment in basic income support.


38 posted on 11/09/2012 10:39:29 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Responsibility2nd
It wasn’t an experiment in communalism it was an experiment in basic income support.

"Basic income support" is communism. Where the hell do you think the money comes from to provide that basic income support UNLESS you take from those who "have" and give to those in "need"? In your world, does money grow on trees?

"Basic income support" is anathema to those who hold anything but progressive political principles. And I'm saying that as a libertarian . . . someone who somebody like Responsibility2nd detests.

Honestly, dude, that dog don't hunt. Don't try to pass it off here as an idea worthy of consideration.

39 posted on 11/09/2012 11:14:48 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ksen
“There's very strong feelings out there that we shouldn't give people money for nothing,” Mulvale says.

And that is probably the way it should be. Perhaps that issue could be overcome by expecting something from them, some kind of community service that would make all concerned feel better.

40 posted on 11/09/2012 1:23:08 PM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
The fact is that we are supporting these people already (Obamaphones, Welfare, Food Stamps, SS Disability, etc.), and doing it very inefficiently with hundreds of different programs which require many thousands of extra bureaucrats.

It would make a lot of sense to integrate all that into a single program that would be much more efficient, and could be much more transparent regarding exactly how much we are spending.

41 posted on 11/09/2012 1:28:09 PM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

Good point.


42 posted on 11/09/2012 1:56:37 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

Basic Income Support is not communism. Stop being ridiculous.


43 posted on 11/09/2012 2:04:43 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: expat2
So, instead of addressing the issue of giving people money for doing nothing, you propose a "solution" of giving people money for doing nothing more efficiently?

Sweet Jesus. This is the Free Republic website, no?

44 posted on 11/09/2012 2:23:43 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ksen

You’ve lost your grip on reality. Seek professional help.


45 posted on 11/09/2012 2:26:43 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb

Precisely. Furthermore, the tax burden necessary to support this on a widescale basis would act as a disincentive to work.


46 posted on 11/09/2012 3:29:47 PM PST by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

You have to live with what is, not what you would like it to be. First of all, once the different program spending levels are aggregated into a total, it will become clearer how much we are spending for this. Secondly, there will always be some level of support for the poor by the rest of us, if only to avoid outrageous levels of crime, and the issue is ‘how much’?


47 posted on 11/09/2012 3:30:09 PM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ksen; All

To be clear, Hayek didn’t actually advocate that such a basic minimum income be implemented in modern Western societies, because he believed that such policy would attract too many immigrants from other nations who’d overwhelm the system. Not an unreasonable assumption, obviously.

Hayek’s intention with the minimum basic income idea was to undercut specious “social justice” arguments which pit the claims of one group against other groups under pretext of ‘fairness’, and so on (Hayek detested “social justice”). Ergo, in a society where every individual is guaranteed a min. basic income floor regardless of their demographics, then questions per how the haves vs. have-nots are going to divide up the loot, become less relevant.

At least that’s the intention—I make no claim as to whether it would actually accomplish this aim. This link explains more: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income/

I can think of ways a minimum basic income standard could be beneficial, if it were used to streamline all the other welfare spending we already do. No medicare, no social security, no food stamps, no housing assistance, etc. Just throw it all under a guaranteed basic income, and then let people make their own choices from there. If they still can’t be responsible, at least nobody can say ‘society’ wasn’t doing anything for them.


48 posted on 11/09/2012 4:52:15 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Taxes are not theft.

Taxes for any non-constitutional purpose are theft. If the government has no authority to spend the monies then taking them at all is theft.

They're the agreed upon price to live in our society.

I don't recall our Founding fathers ever agreeing to support a class of parasites. Nor did I.

We don't have non-elected overlords whimsically determining how much to take from us.

You've not been following the "election" have you? We have elected representatives that make these decisions and are able to be replaced if enough of us don't like it.

49 posted on 11/09/2012 8:04:04 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ksen
A Basic Income Guarantee results in more mothers staying with their children, more teens graduating high school, better health, and higher wages.

It means more lottery tickets being sold.

50 posted on 11/09/2012 8:07:17 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson