
To end poverty, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year. - steveklabnik
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/to-end-poverty-guarantee-everyone-in-canada-20000-a-year-but-are-you-willing-to-trust-the-poor/article1806904/singlepage/#articlecontent
======
AlexC04
Can I vote this up twice?

A little over a year ago, I moved returned to Canada (Toronto) after five
years in the UK. One of the most striking things I noticed was the difference
in homelessness between here and there.

I later read Gladwell's article about homelessness. The story of Million
Dollar Murray <http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html>

A homeless man who they had to repeatedly pick up off the street because he
kept drinking himself into a stupor and falling down. (Hospital bills, etc..)

Apparently he cost the state 1 Million Dollars over 10 years.

So $20,000 per year $100,000/per year? Suddenly that low end guarantee is a
serious cost savings.

Now certainly - "Murray" wouldn't get away with costing _ONLY_ $20,000 per
year ... but in a safe, (partially) supervised area, he'd have cost a lot less
than $100k.

Gladwell also mentions that the data shows "most people" won't leech off these
programs forever. Most have an innate drive to want to improve themselves.

Some will but actually - it's probably still cheaper than "Murray".

I am 100% in favor of a program like this - in principle.

Now try and introduce it at a Texas town hall meeting :) With FOXNEWS cameras
in attendance.

~~~
bretthopper
>One of the most striking things I noticed was the difference in homelessness
between here and there.

So what is the difference?

~~~
AlexC04
I'm not entirely sure what the UK is doing differently. I didn't even notice
that it "wasn't there" until I got back. It was only after I returned that I
realized the difference.

I know that in Toronto, I sometimes get the feeling that the streets are paved
with the homeless.

Maybe it was the Socioeconomic status of the area I was living in, but it just
seems so much more prevalent here.

The UK does however seem to have 'council housing' projects that I think act
as a buffer for many. The jobless and those on very low income, can obtain
housing from the local council (municipal government). Essentially the risk of
becoming completely homeless was very low.

The only reference to their housing program I could find quickly was an
article about why landlord shouldn't take DSS tennants
[http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/reasons-
why-...](http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/reasons-why-
landlords-shouldnt-accept-dss-tenants/)

But essentially it's a program where the municipality pays the rent directly.

I think the level of social assistance must cover quite a bit of the
difference.

I really must add the caveat that I didn't study the problem while I was in
the UK and am certain that there must be some homelessness there somewhere -
but - it really isn't anything like what's in Toronto (and Ottawa that I've
seen).

~~~
willyt
A council house in the UK is a dwelling that is provided by the local
municipal authority. Rents are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the lowest market rent.
They are generally set by the local council. In addition to this you can
receive housing benefit to pay most of this if you are out of work, the rules
for this are quite complicated.

The concept dates back to postwar reconstruction in the 1950s when they were
originally built at a large scale to replace bomb damaged and run down private
'slum' housing. I think I remember a lecturer saying that in the 1970's as
much as 60% of the British population lived in council houses. In the 1980's
Margaret Thatcher introduced 'right to buy' legislation which forced local
councils to offer tenants the opportunity to buy their council house for well
below the market value. This lead to a large decline in the number of people
living in council houses. I think the proportion is more like 20% of the UK
population now.

There has been a big cultural shift in Britain in the last 30 years; living in
a council house was considered 'normal' but is now stigmatised. The quality of
the accommodation can vary widely.

<http://bit.ly/c3JuFb> <http://www.flickr.com/groups/londonsocialhousing/>

Council houses are not always in housing estates ('projects' in US) they can
be normal houses intermingled with private housing that just happen to be
owned by the council and rented out to council tenants. However this is rare
now because of the 'right to buy'

There is a shortage of council housing, if you want to get one you have to be
assessed as being in need of one and you go on a waiting list. Your position
on the waiting list is based on points. The points are allocated based on
criteria like: how long you've been waiting; how many kids you have; if you
are being threatened; if you have disabilities etc.

By the way, I'm not totally sure about the percentage figures, they are based
on a memory from a lecture about 10 years ago. I'll try and find some
references to back them up.

~~~
parenthesis
Here in Scotland, our Parliament recently voted to end the 'right to buy':

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11675185>

Incidentally, I live in an ex-council flat, which was 'right to buy'ed by a
previous owner. In the whole block of 30 or so flats, very few are still
council-owned.

------
gojomo
Worth a test on a small scale. I'd be most worried about very long-term multi-
generational effects, given that such a program could be impossible to undo or
adjust once people get used to it -- like other broad-based entitlements.

For example, the first generation to enjoy such a guaranteed minimum income
might still have the traditional ambitions... but over time and with practice,
the bohemian ideal of making-do on just the guarantee could grow in
attractiveness. And, the discretionaty time offered by the stipend could be
directed chiefly at lobbying/politicking/mass-protesting for ever-larger
benefits. After a few generations, might we get a combination of the worst
stereotypical qualities of both the 'underclass' and 'trust-funders'?

It's the sort of positive-feedback loop that -- like financial leverage tricks
and other forms of moral hazard -- can build on itself until disasterous
collapse.

~~~
philwelch
The only solution would be a tradeoff no one would agree to--guaranteed
minimum income, but no franchise for net negative taxpayers.

~~~
melvinram
By that you mean "The right to vote". Here in the US I haven't ever heard of
the word used in that context so I thought other's would find it useful to
know what you meant.

[http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&q=franch...](http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&q=franchise)

~~~
philwelch
It's the root word of "disenfranchised", which is the form most people are
familiar with.

------
_delirium
It's interesting that this has never seriously gone anywhere, given that a
number of prominent people on both the left and right have proposed it. Among
many other people, supporters of a minimum income in some form include: Thomas
Paine, Richard Nixon, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Milton Friedman, George
McGovern, Friedrich Hayek, Paul Samuelson, etc.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Friedman proposed a negative income tax, which is not the same thing. A
negative income tax often increases the marginal utility of work (if the rates
are not too large), a guaranteed minimal income _always_ reduces it.

Assume a utility function U(P) (P is take home pay) which is downward sloping
(i.e., dU(x)/dW < dU(y)/dW whenever x < y). This is just the law of
diminishing marginal returns.

Negative income tax: take home pay is P = A x W, where A > 1 and W = wages.
Marginal utility = dU(AW)/dW = A dU(AW)/dW. If A dU(AW)/dW > dU(W)/dW,
negative income tax creates an incentive for work.

Basic minimal income: take home pay is P = BI + W (BI + basic income).
dU(BI+W)/dW < dU(W)/dW. This is _always_ a disincentive for work.

I'd really be curious, do you have more information on Hayek's support for
minimum income?

~~~
_delirium
That's a version of the "negative income tax", like the current EITC, but not
the one that Friedman proposed. His version refunds a proportion of unused
deductions, and bottoms out at a guaranteed minimum income equal to the
standard deduction times the refund rate.

In his version, there's an allowance calculated by family size, dependents,
etc., and a "subsidy rate", which is the proportion of any excess allowance
that's refundable. He proposed a 50% subsidy rate. If the allowance for a
given taxpayer is $20,000, and the taxpayer earns $15,000, that leaves $5,000
in unused allowance, of which 50% is refunded, so the taxpayer gets a $2,500
transfer payment. If the taxpayer earns no income at all, the entire $20,000
is unused, of which 50% is refunded, so the taxpayer gets a $10,000 transfer
payment.

So, if A is allowance, S is subsidy rate, and W is wages, the taxpayer earns W
if W >= A, or W + S * (A-W) otherwise. The guaranteed minimum income is when
W=0, and equal to S * A ($10,000 in the above example).

For Hayek, here's one of several places he discusses his rationale:
[http://books.google.com/books?id=nclLLOfnGqAC&pg=PA55](http://books.google.com/books?id=nclLLOfnGqAC&pg=PA55).
One reason is that, unlike many libertarians, he's strongly _against_ private-
sector safety nets through e.g. church charities, because he feels those
inhibit human freedom by making people scared to leave their
ethnic/religious/racial/social group for fear of losing its safety net, which
he views as a variety of collectivism. So he sees a guaranteed minimum income
as a way of promoting individual freedom and undermining the power of
tribalist collectives.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'm not sure what makes that a negative income tax. That's just a flat out
subsidy, and it always creates a disincentive for work (it reduces marginal
utility of work by (1-S)[dU((1-S)W+SA)/dW ] / [ dU(W)/dW] ). But you are right
- this is what Friedman proposed.

But I get Friedman's rationale - he wanted to replace the the "ragbag" of
assorted other welfare programs with this. It does have the advantage that
dP/dW is always positive (just reduced by (1-S) if you are poor), which is not
necessarily the case for the existing system.

So I'm not sure it's fair to say Friedman advocated it - he just proposed
replacing a much worse system with it. Do you know if he considered it _good_
policy, as opposed to merely _better_ policy?

~~~
_delirium
I think you're right, that Friedman viewed it as a least-evil approach: that,
if we're going to have social welfare programs, the least distorting and least
bureaucratic approach is to just pay out cash.

------
JSig
As you hand out more free money you just cheapen the money in everyone's
pocket and make them poorer. The 20k you just gave away won't even buy the
amount of goods it would have before you created the program. This is just
some redistribution of wealth gimmick. Giving away money does not address the
source of poverty. Would you patch your code this way?

To end poverty you must fix the education system. Perhaps vouchers would
encourage competition and force schools to compete for students by improving
the quality of education. Perhaps someone would have to balls to end the
process by which bad teachers are transferred from school to school because
the union and public admin refuse to do something about it.

To end poverty you must cut the costs of education. There is no reason a 4
year college should cost what it does today. Look at what some administrators
and professors make compared to what they do. Look at the quality of what you
can learn on the internet for free. These need to come in line. State
universities don't need water parks.

To end poverty we must educate on safe-sex.

To end poverty we must encourage healthful eating choices. We must get
partially hydrogenated oils and all the other crap out of are food.

To end poverty people in the US must realize that left/right blue/red
republican/democrat foxnews/msnbc is a false paradigm. People must not be
divided by these things. People must see past all of this noise and see who is
working against the best interest of people in favor of the people who hold
the most money. People must see that all policies we have are in fact creating
more poverty. To end poverty, we must fix the source of the problem - the
united states congress and the federal reserve.

~~~
ugh
I’m not sure whether a program financed by taxes (either existing tax revenue
by cutting other spending or additional tax revenue by raising taxes or both)
has to lead to inflation. Could you elaborate on that point?

It’s certainly possible for certain tax increases to affect everyone or nearly
everyone and consequently lead to a rise in the cost of living and inflation.
Increasing the sales tax would certainly seem to increase the cost of living,
making the stipend worth less. That is not the only way to finance such a
program, though.

~~~
JSig
Your right. I concede that without knowing the parameters of this program I
can not claim that it will create price inflation.

In an environment in which a private entity (federal reserve) is printing
money willy-nilly it makes you pretty cynical.

~~~
davidj
no, your original assertion is absolutely correct. This will create price
inflation, and this is exactly what happens every year in Alaska. Alaskans
receive a dividend check every year for about $1500 to $3500 dollars, and
every year around the time people begin to receive checks prices go up. I try
to explain this to people up there and they don't seem to understand.

------
bryanlarsen
We owe the existence of Linux to something very much like this. Finnish
students not only do not have to pay tuition, they also receive a basic living
supplement. Therefore Linus was in no hurry to finish his degrees, and spent
his time doing Linux instead / as well.

We'd also end up with more entrepreneurs. Under this scheme, your startup
would be "ramen profitable" without any income.

Currently, Canadian welfare pays $3 to bureaucrats for every $1 given to
recipients. Most of the money to fund it comes from there.

I'm a huge proponent of this scheme -- I like to combine it with a "flat
income tax" -- give everybody $20,000, and tax all income at a flat rate. The
resulting curve is nice and progressive, as well as nice and simple, saving
even more money on bureaucrats.

~~~
gruseom
_Canadian welfare pays $3 to bureaucrats for every $1 given to recipients._

That's exactly the kind of irrationality it would be a pleasure to see swept
away.

 _I'm a huge proponent of this scheme_

Who in Canadian politics is actually advocating it? The article mentions Hugh
Segal. This is not someone with much power. So I guess my question is, of
those advocating it, who has the most power?

If nothing else, it would be a counterexample to the principles that nothing
in Canadian politics ever changes or is ever interesting. Hey, we could even
call it Worthwhile Canadian Initiative!
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_Lewis>)

------
melvinram
I'm not convinced. I'd pay extra taxes for a limited time to see if this would
work but I suspect it wouldn't.

My conclusion is based on one assumption: The source of financial problems is
either bad money management or lack of enough earning capacity. Giving away
free money fixes neither in the long term (this is another assumption.)

If their problem is bad money management, giving them more money and hoping
that they'll fix their money management habits sounds like a very ineffective
approach to fixing the problem.

If their problem is lack of earning capability, that needs to be addressed
through education and job creation. Giving a single mother with 2-3 kids an
extra $1500 per month might make her life a lot easier but it won't allow her
to begin earning an extra $1500 on her own unless she uses the extra money to
make very smart choices. Given the real world demands that she would be under,
it seems that probability is not likely in her favor and again seems like an
ineffectively approach to solving the problem.

The article really boiled down to: give people free money and they'll make
wise decisions to help themselves. It didn't provide enough arguments to
support that thesis and from just my understanding of human nature, I can't
see this being an effective approach to solving the problem of poverty.

~~~
smithbits
But what if those aren't the only two causes of poverty? I don't know if the
idea has merit or not, but I think poverty is much more complicated than that.

~~~
melvinram
I fully acknowledge that the two causes I listed may not be the only reasons
for poverty.

I guess my main point was that it's important to understand and treat the
causes, not the symptoms.

------
karzeem
Milton Friedman advocated an interesting, soft version of the minimum income
called the negative income tax.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax>

~~~
dreeves
An equivalent way to describe Friedman's negative income tax proposal is that
everyone pays their taxes as normal and then $20k/year (or however much) is
given back to literally everyone, regardless of income.

I like that version because it makes more clear that you don't have perverse
incentives with respect to working: you never get more money by working less.
The $20k/year is guaranteed unconditionally and you can supplement it with a
job if you choose.

~~~
foobarbazoo
That's also the same as the FairTax, which is a major policy proposal in the
US. And it involves sending _everyone_ a check each month.

So this idea is actually not that far out for the US, at least.

I should also point out that the FairTax is primarily supported by
conservatives at this point, though from my point of view, liberals should be
even more supportive.

~~~
philwelch
The FairTax is a sales tax, not an income tax. It's quite different from an
income tax, negative or no.

~~~
patio11
The FairTax as I have heard it advocated included a _huge_ annual transfer
payment to redress the highly regressive aspect of all consumption taxes. (If
you are poor, you consume 100% or more of income, resulting in paying taxes on
all of it. Richer individuals consume a fraction of their income, thus paying
a much lower overall rate.) It would instantly be the most extensive wealth
transfer program in the world.

------
waterside81
As a Canadian, I'd be willing to pay an extra $X in taxes just to see if this
would work or not. They should probably roll it out provincially in isolated
areas first rather than going the full 9 yards (or metres as the case may be.)

~~~
olalonde
You wouldn't necessarily have to pay an extra if we cut down on public
services and let people manage their money.

~~~
rapind
While this is a perfectly logical statement, there's absolutelty no chance it
would reduce the cost of public services in reality. We don't fire government
workers, they just get new titles / department names.

If anything the public service costs would increase as new oversight commities
and other completely useless entities were created to manage the migration
from our current system.

------
steveklabnik
... think of the startup you could bootstrap, if this happened.

~~~
maxharris
This is ultimately self-defeating. Following the principle breached by this
and countless other abrogations of individual rights, what right does anyone
have to keep or reinvest the profits from a startup when that money could be
taken and spent on exactly this sort of minimum income program?

~~~
steveklabnik
It's quite possible that this could end up _cheaper_ than the current welfare
system, due to cutting through the bureaucracy and red tape needed to manage
such a system.

It sounds to me like you're posing a philosophical question about the nature
of the problem, and I'm talking about a specific scenario if this was actually
implemented.

~~~
philwelch
Don't bother arguing with this guy. Just take everything you say and put it
through the "what would Ayn Rand say?" filter and you can pretty much generate
most of his ideas by yourself.

~~~
foobarbazoo
Interesting. Are you saying that Ayn Rand's ideas are so obvious that anyone
could come up with them?

~~~
philwelch
I'm saying that if you've read Ayn Rand at all, or for that matter run into
Randroids on the internet at any other point in your life, you can pretty much
predict what they're going to say within a given context. As a result,
Randroids don't really add much to a conversation once they join in; rather
than presenting original ideas, they just harp on the same Randian talking
points everyone who's argued with a Randroid or read an Ayn Rand book is
already well familiar with.

~~~
Benjo
If they are so predictable then you must know how they will respond to being
provoked with condescending names such as "Randroids?" Is there a specific
response you want to see? Are you trying to exploit some known stack overflow
bug in this specific Randroid model?

Why be so dismissive and insulting and then respond to the same poster you
advised others to ignore?

I'd much rather read the predictable respectful discussion than a presumptive
judgement designed to prevent discourse.

Edit: removed a redundant adjective.

~~~
philwelch
When the topic is government assistance to the needy, it's indeed trivial to
predict what one of Rand's disciples would argue about the subject.

My point (which you can view either as a tangent, or as a point of order) is
that most of us are contributing original thoughts from our own perspectives,
not simply adopting and commenting from the perspective of some novelist with
some admittedly seductive ideas. If we were interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, we
could read Ayn Rand herself. It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to
us.

~~~
Benjo
Again, "some novelist" and "disciples" are dismissive terms that you're using
to shut down the conversation by belittling the source of one poster's ideas.

If you think the discussion is not useful, make an argument to support that
claim. Link to criticism. Or demonstrate that the Randputer is not arguing in
earnest.

If you don't consider the fact that you might be wrong, that there might be
something useful about the discussion in question, then how are you any better
than someone who won't consider that Rand might be wrong?

------
tokenadult
Book about a similar plan for the United States:

[http://www.amazon.com/Our-Hands-Replace-Welfare-
State/dp/084...](http://www.amazon.com/Our-Hands-Replace-Welfare-
State/dp/0844742236/)

------
LostInTheWoods2
This is the dumbest and most dangerous idea I've heard in a while. Go ahead
and vote me down, but I hope some on this site have the common sense to see
how bad this idea is. This is essentially welfare, and in the US, we've been
down that road and we know exactly where it leads.

~~~
orangecat
_This is essentially welfare_

Yes, and? The point is that we're already providing welfare, just often in a
convoluted, inefficient, and counterproductive manner. The unfortunate fact is
that some people can't provide for themselves. We can either ignore them,
establish fifty government agencies to "help" them, or give them money. Option
1 isn't on the table, and 3 makes a lot more sense than 2.

------
petercooper
Amusingly, the UK is trying to backstep out of this sort of system (though a
less generous one) that has bred a "workless class" who find it pays better to
not work rather than start working and both pay taxes and lose "valuable"
recreation time smoking and watching Jeremy Kyle.

~~~
mdda
But part of the problem in the UK is that the highest tax rates paid are those
by the working poor : As more money is earned, benefits are subtracted at an
alarming rate. That means there's a huge disincentive for getting off the
couch.

The idea of this 'flat payout' is that it provides a baseline - and any money
earned thereafter is a pure win (even after you pay taxes on the money
earned).

------
neworbit
It seems like this would cause a lot of low-end inflation as rental prices of
cheap housing and such adjusts to the fact that people can now pay more
reliably for such things.

Equally important, it seems like it'd suddenly be hard to hire someone to a
position making (say) $27,000 a year when their alternative is to simply
collect $20,000 a year - so a lot of lower-paying jobs will vanish... and the
ones that adjust $ to compensate will of course have to pass on the costs to
their customers. I'd expect an abrupt spike in the prices of restaurants,
grocery stores, and the like.

It's an interesting thought experiment but sure to cause some social upheaval.

------
davidj
The is absolutely the most horrible idea ever, and on so many levels morally
and ethically wrong. First off, the $20,000 has to come from taxes; so this
means higher taxes for people who are productive and produce in society.
Probably would require atleast more than 51% taxes; what is the purpose of
working if the government is just going to steal from you more than you make?
Second, what is the incentive to better yourself, train for better skills, and
get an educate when you are guaranteed a basic income -- there are no
incentives. Third, politicians love the dependent mentality this creates:
voters will never ever vote against the welfare state and so this lets the
politicians to do all sorts of draconian legislation, because they can always
threaten to reduce welfare if the citizens don't go along with the state --
and the citizens will always vote for more welfare. Fourth, this creates a
bureaucratic state that can pick and choose winners and losers: instead of
your quality of life being based on if you are a hard worker, your time and
money investment and your risks/rewards, your quality of life is based on a
central planning state sponsored bureaucracy. This can be politically
motivated. Fifth, this keeps the poor poorer and the rich richer by
eliminating the incentive to better oneself.

------
jhrobert
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee>

------
mml
This seems like a great way to drive up rents. Poor people don't tend to hang
on to their money, they're awfully tempted to do things like pay rent, make
car payments, and buy things to eat. Not that I blame them, I do these things
too.

Such a scheme would essentially be an indirect subsidy to all those the poor
do business with. A rising tide lifts all boats.

~~~
abalashov
Which is basically another way of saying "printing money," which, as we know,
causes inflation. Money can be flooded into the economy by means other than
cheapening interbank lending rates.

~~~
mthoms
Except we are not talking about creating money, we're talking about re-
allocating that which already exists (via taxes). Not the same thing.

------
Kilimanjaro
Most people will spend it on drugs, alcohol and gambling. I say give them some
money for basic food and shelter and some more (plus training) to start their
own business so they can learn to be self sufficient and not to depend on the
government.

As the saying goes, give them a fish...

~~~
jhrobert
give them a fish... and they can start thinking.

One cannot think with an empty stomach

~~~
Kilimanjaro
"I say give them some money for basic food and shelter and..." == start
thinking

"start their own business so they can learn to be self sufficient" == learn to
fish

------
yummyfajitas
Reading the article, it sounds like they already have some version of the
basic income guarantee already in place. According to the article, Nicole Gray
(the subject of the article) already subsists on government provided income.

Currently, if you want to avoid work and take advantage of income support, you
must navigate an unpleasant bureaucracy and perhaps endure suffer feelings of
shame. If you get a job instead, you can avoid this unpleasantness. This is an
incentive for work. The only thing that the proposal seems to add to the table
is removing this incentive for work.

Why would we want to do that?

~~~
AlexC04
Doesn't it also reduce the cost of that bureaucracy?

The article also argues that people actually have an intrinsic motivation to
work (to get nice things for themselves and their children).

Notice the bits about the findings in Nimibia?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Is the bureaucracy of welfare distribution a significant portion of the cost?

 _The article also argues that people actually have an intrinsic motivation to
work (to get nice things for themselves and their children)._

If your sole motivation for work is to get nice things for you/your kids, and
someone hands you free money, why bother working?

As for Namibia, it doesn't seem that Namibia replaced a welfare system with
work incentives by a welfare system without. All they did was create a welfare
system. News flash: giving money to poor african villagers can help.

~~~
xilun0
Should there not exist an amount of money which can help you to live in decent
conditions, yet not be spoiled?

------
jgoewert
I first read of a similar idea 7 years ago in a piece by Marshall Brain.

<http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm>

Skip down to "Capitalism Supersized" for the meat of the idea. It is one of
those experiments I would love to see in reality, as I believe I would still
be inventing and trying to better myself and the lives of those around me
without having to worry about that pesky "job" thing. Though, the main risk I
see isn't the people blowing their money, but the inflation and greed this
would cause.

------
burgerbrain
How about instead of offering everybody $20,000 a year, we offer everyone a
government job that pays $20,000 a year?

There's no sense in paying people without receiving something in return and
there are always infrastructure improvements that could be made.

~~~
gojomo
With a stipend, the money is theirs. With a government job, some of their
salary would go to a politically-potent union that constantly lobbies for
raises. Might not be worth the 'work' they're doing!

~~~
burgerbrain
>With a government job, some of their salary would go to a politically-potent
union that constantly lobbies for raises.

That sounds like a separate unrelated issue. Hand each worker a check for
$1,666 each month they work, and leave it up to them how to spend it. It would
(obviously) be untaxed...

------
foenix
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(the+population+of+cana...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=\(the+population+of+canada/10\)+*+$20,000)

------
known
Will you pay $20,000 extra taxes to prevent crime i.e you don't need police
force?

------
maxharris
Where will the $20,000 (times millions of recipients) come from?

~~~
gruseom
The cost would be partly offset by dismantling much of the welfare apparatus
(Edit: as semanticist already pointed out here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1926049>). It wouldn't even be too
surprising if the measure largely paid for itself in this manner, especially
if you consider side-effects like health care and prisons. It would be
interesting to see some reasonably objective numbers on this.

~~~
watmough
Another benefit, wages and living standards would rise, since there would be
increased competition for workers.

Increased wages likely would drive better education and training, leading to a
German-style skilled workforce. In turn, a skilled workforce is much less
likely to be arbitrarily fired, look at German unemployment during the
slowdown of the last two years.

For an analysis on one reason why the US is in such a mess, take a look at
this article by Citi: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-
Oct-16-2005-Plut...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-
Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1)

~~~
gruseom
We'd probably get better art too!

------
Towle_
To end prosperity, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year.

------
phlux
With ~300MM people in the US, to provide everyone of them $20K would cost $6T.

Assuming you get the maximum draw off EDD of $450/week - that is equal to
$23.5K per year.

So, for those '99ers' (Those on EDD for ~99+ weeks), they are already
receiving greater than the $20K this article states.

However, assuming the current unemployment rate of 9% -- we are spending
~$600B per year on unemployment at this time. (unless I screwed my numbers)

