Category Archives: Basic Income Guarantee

Elon Musk is the most wholesome visionary our era has produced. He is a benign idealist; a guy with his eyes on a horizon beyond money. Money? Musk doesnt care about that. He hopes only to elevate our minds, our bodies, and our roads to other planes.

Businesses, says the man who has founded so many of them, dont really exist. Capital, says the man with so much of it, is of no consequence to him. The main reason Im personally accumulating assets, he says, is to fund a multi-planetary future. I really dont have any other motivation.

Musk comes across as a tech monk who sees money as a means only to a good end. He claims to gather it only to rid the world of the blight of emissionsand to rid us of the problems of life on Earth at all. To help untether ourselves from those mortal chains and speed us through a tunnel unto paradise, he proposes a world with universal basic income.

UBI is a policy gift that Musk and so many others in the C-suites of Silicon Valley offer us as part of their vision of a sustainable economic future. UBI, says Facebooks Zuckerberg and eBays Omidyar, is the patch for the economic problems of everyday people. But what Musk and his colleagues tend to leave out of their compassionate public speech is that UBI is also a patch for their problems. Of course Musk, son of the neoliberal era, wants UBI to be instituted: Its just peachy for him and his businesses, as it means his consumers will have more income to spend on his goods. (Not that he cares about money, of course. Its all about innovation!)

UBI is just bedtime story that helps the super-wealthy sleep.But lets suspend our judgement for a minute. Lets overlook the fact that the man who says he couldnt give a hoot about money was once the CEO of PayPal. Lets also overlook that this committed environmentalist benefits by the sale of green credits and that Tesla posted profits due to industrial emissions.

Instead, lets believe that he, and the rest of Silicon Valleys elite, are ultimately acting in the public interest. Lets allow them all to appear as they would prefer: good liberals who want to use their money only to make the world a better and more automated place. They champion diversity (despite its lack in their own employee records), and they advocate for generous work conditions in California (while taking a markedly different approach to the labor they outsource to the Global South). Lets believe themlets say that their billionaire habits of capital accumulation, labor exploitation, and their reluctance to pay their taxes are all a means to a good end.

But lets not let them all off so easily when it comes to their determined and growing support for UBI. After all, this policy is not one confined to their own business practice, but something they wish to impose on states and nationson us. UBI is a hack that may well benefit its Silicon Valley advocates in the short-term, but itll compound income and social inequality for the rest of us for decades (especially if its applied in the gloriously simple spirit in which it is largely understood).

Heres the shameful secret not uttered in our favorite futurists TED-style presentations. The reason they adore UBI isnt to do with their commitment to lift a growing underclass out of poverty; thats just a bedtime story that helps the super-wealthy sleep. Instead, its more to permit spending on their goods by what remains of the American middle class. No one on a stagnant wage can currently buy the things that Muskand the rest of Silicon Valleywants to sell them. These billionaires champion a scheme whose prime result will be their profit.

UBI is an old economic proposition and one with some very different champions. The revolutionary Tom Paine proposed a version of it, as did Milton Friedman, the best-known architect of neoliberalism. The idea that an identical sum be paid by the state to all citizens as a right and not as a form of welfare or reward is one, were told, whose time has come.

Part of UBIs appeal for many everyday advocates lies in its apparently post-ideological nature. The fact that this prescription can come from both former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum and former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis stands to some as proof of its inherent theoretical strength. If an erratic Marxist, a neoconservative, and the guy who wants to send us all to Mars can agree, then partisan consensus for policy enactment is likely. It looks like a centrist solution.

If an erratic Marxist, a neoconservative, and the guy who wants to send us all to Mars can agree, then UBI enactment is likely.While it may be a solution that works to the advantage of the capitalist class and their friends in policy, it is likely to win our endorsement, too. Most of us in the West know very well that our incomes are dwindling along with our future job prospects, which will be lost to automation or the fluid global labor practice created by the neoliberal policy era. If we did not already know during 2007s global financial crisis that an economic regime change is needed, we know it now, just by looking at our bank statements.

This thing stands a real chance of being passed into national economic policy. And, if no other ideas are put forthsay, old-fashioned things like nationalizing ownership of companies, redistributing surplus to workers, or transforming corporate super-profits into health or education or bridgesit retains its shine. UBI now has fans from the material left, the right, and, in the form of Canadian prime minister (and poster-boy for photogenic progressivism) Justin Trudeau, the absolute center. Were liable, in the absence of any other proposals, to become fans ourselves. But most importantly, beyond the support of people and politicians, UBI has our eras true leadersthe billionaires of Silicon Valleyon its side.

UBI is a scheme whose intended consequences can be compared to what some economists have called the Walmart effect. When wages began to fall in the West in the market-friendly period we call globalization, Western workers had less money to spend. When these Western incomes diminished, profits for Western capitalists could have been threatened. Happily, for pre-Musk capitalists, labor exploitation was now occurring off-shore and the cost of many goods, along with the cost of labor, dropped. So sure, your wage may have remained stagnant for yearsbut you could still afford that set of discount linens upon which your nightmares of a Hunger Games future can quietly take place.

Now Musks beloved automation is taking jobs from both the West, where those soothing linens are now less affordable, and the Global South. The robotswhich are remarkable things, providing both the possibility of leisure and superabundance to us allwill take over many kinds of labor previously performed by humans throughout the world. This extraordinary moment in history will, almost certainly, make goods cheaper as the rate of investment in the variable capital of labor disappears. There will be far fewer pesky people demanding wage risesjust the constant capital of machines whirring along.

At this historic juncture, we have choices. We could, like Musk, encourage the state to pay us just enough UBI to keep innovative capitalists, who have made most of our labor redundant, innovating toward Mars. (Although, given the long habit of those who accumulate great wealth to avoid taxes, its not clear how this will be sustainable.) Or, we could find other ways to keep these now unemployed workers who accidentally innovated themselves out of jobs flush with cash. It was not Musk alone that produced these magnificent labor-saving devices, after allit was also our labor, and the labor of our ancestors. Maybe, if we look at things in a truly innovative way, the true and the sustainable social dividend we should be paid is not a few bucks of UBI, but a stake in Tesla itself. Perhaps he could offer us a wage, or even a dividend cheque, for our very useful assistance. If Musk does not, as he insists, care about ownership, then perhaps he could consider that a collective management of the companies built by the labor and innovation of the many is a better, more fulfilling, and long-term solution all around.

But just as the G20 members recently assembled to determine the future of nations not present to deliberate, Musk does not consult with those people who his public policies and private businesses will affect. If he wants to build a meaningful future for us, he might consider including us in that conversation. Our collective knowledge would be every bit as innovative as our collective labor has been in the past. Elon, surely, is not the worlds sole innovator.

But, this isnt going to happen. The powerful industrialists of the era will not admit that their innovations have impeded their own capacity to profit. They will not concede that we have a stake in a future that they feel entitled to manage.

UBI may guarantee that profits to the investment class will increase while creating a greater strain on the classes its most meant to benefit.We now hear plenty of talk about all the success small UBI pilot programs are having: over there in Finland, up in Ontario, even a privately funded program in Silicon Valley itself. But these isolated experimentswhich are usually moral rather than economic ones designed to prove that people who are in work will stay in work, even if their income increasescannot reflect the macroeconomic glitches the UBI patch may cause.

UBI inserted into our current economic software is likely to raise prices on many everyday goods. According to the late, noted US economist Hyman Minsky, one of these may be a rise in the cost of living. Even though there is UBI in your pocket, it is in everybodys pocket. Just as prices would be likely to rise with the introduction of a new basic wage, so they would with the introduction of UBI.

UBI absorbed into current conditions is therefore likely to provide no positive change for us. There is no way to guarantee that landlords or merchants will not raise prices to reflect the moderate gain in income. If youre already well-to-do, a price increase in the residential rental market or at the supermarket is of no great consequence to you. If youre one of the 51% of Americans earning less than $30,000 per annum, its likely to have a significant effect.

This may guarantee that profits to the investment class and merchants will increase while creating a greater strain on the classes its most meant to benefit. After all, the wealthier classes are also receiving UBI, which they dont need to spendthey can transform that extra cash into capital, as Musk would. This may have the effect of increasing wealth inequality, not eradicating it. The extra money (that Musk doesnt care about, remember) may well become meaningless due to UBI-led inflation.

UBI evokes, as do many of the phrases relished by Musk, a sort of realist utopia. It is certain, for a time, to safeguard the interests of a powerful few. But in the long-term, it is likely to diminish the purchasing power of the many. A true social dividend would not be a small state stipend whose terms are set by the billionaires of Silicon Valley.

The innovations produced not just by Musk but by centuries of human labor have made historys richest companies less likely to profit. The capitalism that Musk says he doesnt care about is crushed by the weight of its own contradictions, so he want to prop it up with a government subsidy. But coming from the guy who believes in Martian colonization, UBI, an old idea, is hardly the innovative thinking for which he should want to be known.

You can follow Helen on Twitter. Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

More:

UBI is just a bedtime story Elon Musk tells himself to help the super-wealthy sleep - Quartz

Kawartha Media Group

Basic Income Guarantee program moving forward for 2000 Lindsay residents Kawartha Media Group LINDSAY Eligible Lindsay residents who need a hand up are a step closer to a better quality of life as the Province's Basic Income Guarantee program continues to move closer to becoming a reality. Last January, a public consultation (one of many ...

View original post here:

Basic Income Guarantee program moving forward for 2000 Lindsay residents - Kawartha Media Group

In the May 23, 2017 edition of Basic Income News, Karl Widerquist laments the tendency of some basic income commentators to overstate the cost of a basic income. The typical methodology used to generate these overestimates is as follows:

As Widerquist points out, the reason this is an overestimate is that it fails to consider the fact that even though everyone would receive the amount referred to in b above, not everyone would be net beneficiaries of this amount.

Suppose the amount referred to in b were $10,000, meaning that under a basic income scheme, everyone would receive $10,000 per year. But in every basic income proposal Ive seen, although the basic income wouldnt officially be taxed, all other income would be. This means that at some income level, there would be those whod owe at least $10,000 in their annual tax bill. Since the amount theyd owe in taxes would be at least as large as the $10,000 basic income, they would no longer be net beneficiaries. Their basic income would, in effect, have been taxed back from them. Under a basic income scheme, there would also be those whod be net beneficiaries of a basic income but not of the full $10,000 amount. All of this might be easier to see if we did a bit of math.

Again, assume that our basic income comes out to $10,000 per year per person. Suppose all other income is taxed at a marginal rate of 25%. The use of one rate is to keep things relatively simple. Here is the key equation for the basic income system being described in this paragraph:

Net Income = $10,000 + (1 .25) * Other Income

Now lets play with this equation a bit. Suppose someone had no other income. Wed then end up multiplying $0 by (1 .25) which would give us $0. And $0 + $10,000 would mean this person would end up with a net income of $10,000. That is, theyd be a net recipient of the full basic income benefit level.

Now consider someone with other income of $30,000. Multiplying $30,000 by (1 .25), we end up with $22,500. Once we add this to the $10,000 basic income, theyd end up with a net income of $32,500. Lets look more closely at whats happened here. The person made $30,000 in other income. If they didnt have to pay taxes, wed have (1 0), which is just 1, instead of (1 .25). So theyd keep all $30,000 plus the $10,000 basic income for a net income of $40,000.

Looked at this way, we see that the tax on other income is effectively a tax on the basic income as well. That is, the fact that the person with $30,000 in other income only ends up with a net income $32,500 instead of $40,000 means that $7,500 of their basic income has been taxed back to the government.

Next, lets take a look at what happens to someone with other income of $40,000.

Wed have to multiply (1 .25) times $40,000, ending up with $30,000. And $30,000 + $10,000 is a net income of $40,000. If this person paid no taxes on other income, wed add their $40,000 in other income to the $10,000 basic income for a net income of $50,000. With taxation, their actual net income is $10,000 less than $50,000. That is, weve taxed back all $10,000 of their basic income. So this person would no longer be a net recipient of the basic income.

Finally, suppose someone had other income of $100,000. Wed end up multiplying (1 .25) by $100,000, which comes out to $75,000. Since $75,000 plus $10,000 is $85,000, this persons net income would be $85,000. Now if they didnt have to pay taxes, they end up with a net income of $100,000 plus $10,000 or $110,000. But with taxes, their income is only $85,000. We see that not only has their $10,000 basic income been taxed away, so theyre no longer a net recipient of a basic income, but theyre paying enough in taxes to help finance someone elses basic income, someone with much lower other income than they have.

If we think carefully about these examples, we see whats wrong with some cost estimates of a basic income: they assume the tax rate in the equation above is 0%. But as I said above, every basic income proposal Ive seen, assumes that all other income would be taxed at some positive marginal tax rate. This means, of course, that our net income equation will include a term where some positive marginal tax rate will be subtracted from 1. We used a 25% rate for illustration, but really any positive rate will do. This is because any positive marginal tax rate on other income, although not officially a tax on the basic income, is effectively a tax on basic income. And this means some people wont be net recipients of the benefit. Understanding this point is key to arriving at better estimates of the cost of a basic income guarantee.

Michael Lewis has written 6 articles.

Originally posted here:

Net incomes under a Basic Income system - Basic Income News

Magnify Money and Kalyn Wilson , KHOU 1:10 PM. CDT June 20, 2017

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: Phekthong Lee)

Having a monthly, tax-free, no-strings-attached income that would cover the basics for life may sound too good to be true, but its no fantasy. The idea of universal basic income (UBI) already has been implemented in some regions, such as Canada, Europe, and even Alaska, and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently revitalized discussion about the concept.

Zuckerberg endorsed UBI during his 2017 commencement speech at Harvard University as a means of leveling the economic playing field and opening the doors of entrepreneurship to everyone.

"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," Zuckerberg told graduates. Now its time for our generation to define a new social contract.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and other tech executives, including Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, have turned to this notion in response to the re-emerging concern about unemployment in the tech sector.

But the concept was originally developed hundreds of years ago as a way to lift citizens out of poverty.

Universal basic income (UBI) actually dates to the 16th century and the Renaissance, when the idea of a minimum income guarantee originated as a way to help poor people. Then in the 18th century, the idea of a basic endowment emerged to help alleviate theft, murder, and poverty in Europe.

The concept has changed through the years. When people talk about UBI today, theyre referring to an unconditional cash grant regularly distributed to all members of a community without any means test or work requirements, according to the Basic Income Earth Network. The concept means that everyone receives a set amount of money each period, no matter their circumstances.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: stevanovicigor, (C)2016 Igor Stevanovic, all rights reserved)

Despite its existence for even centuries, UBI did not take the stage like other social assistance programs, such as Social Security, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, which some critics believe would be outperformed by UBI, if implemented.

Jason Murphy, assistant professor of philosophy at Elms College in Chicopee, Mass., and U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) coordinating committee member, says UBI would remove the conditions placed on existing social assistance programs that limit who receives help and how. The program would better target communities that are especially vulnerable and overlooked ensuring that no one has to go hungry and everyone starts on equal footing, he adds.

Still, with UBI in place, Murphy says he thinks not only does it give everyone a chance to cover essential needs, but it also opens the door for others to invest, start businesses, and create more jobs for the economy.

Critics argue that UBI could cause inflation, cause people not to work, or be an unfair tax on the rich, but research shows this isnt likely. A study by MIT and Harvard economists found that "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work" in poor countries and, in some cases, encourage it.

Karl Widerquist, an economist, philosopher, Basic Income Earth Network board member, and visiting associate professor at Georgetown University-Qatar, says he thinks with a decent tax policy, the program would serve as an automatic stabilizer, alleviate income inequality, and help everyone financially.

The average worker is no better off than they were in the 1970s when you adjust for inflation, Widerquist says.

Some Places Are Already Benefiting

Regions around the globe including Ontario, Canada, and Finland, and, in the U.S., North Carolina, and Alaska are putting UBI to the test.

In the late 1990s, a tribe of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina began distributing some of the profits from the tribes casino to its 8,000 members, the New York Times reported. It amounted to about $6,000 per year for each member.

A long-term study on the tribes universal income experiment was published in 2016 by Duke University epidemiologist E. Jane Costello. She found that children in communities with a basic income experienced improvement in the education system, better mental and physical health, lower stress levels and crime rates, and overall economic growth.

Finland began a similar experiment in 2017, promising to give 2,000 citizens $600 per month through 2019. And Alaska has offered a basic income to its residents since the early 1980s.

With these small, pilot projects, social scientists and politicians are observing the effects of a basic income on the economic, social, and personal well-being of residents before launching large-scale programs.

Can UBI Really Level the Playing Field?

With a cushion, Widerquist says people will be less likely to settle for certain jobs and living arrangements, causing employers and property owners to cut better deals and prioritize clients, customers, and employers.

I think it will promote growth, Murphy says.

The rich and well-off may use the extra money to invest, and possibly begin investing in low-income communities, which works in favor of those in both social classes, Murphy says. He also says it could revitalize local economies, because those who rely heavily on the cash grants are more likely to spend locally.

Whats the Catch?

Murphy says the tax reform needed to make UBI a reality must be progressive. That way, it will avoid a major concern for the middle class the upper class will evade taxes, and the middle class will have to fit the bill for the non-workers of the world.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: utah778)

Widerquist argues that implementing this program requires open minds that are willing to move away from an economic system where the upper class maintains control over the flow of cash through ownership and stringently structured government programs. Instead, he thinks the government and society should first focus on eradicating poverty, and the roads to economic prosperity will follow.

The con is that the devil is in the details, Widerquist says. There are some [programs] that want to redistribute less to the poor that would not be better than the programs we already have.

Is UBI Feasible?

The answer is yes, Widerquist says.

The net cost of a basic income, large enough to eliminate poverty in the United States, is $539 billion a year, Widerquist says. Thats only a fourth of what the government is spending on entitlements.

Although it would be a big item in the federal budget, Murphy says he thinks its even cheaper to implement and maintain than Widerquists projections suggest.

Its going to take a commitment, but some of the calculations that are out there are actually way too high, he says.

With no means testing, Murphy says, there is no need to hire people to interview citizens, which saves money compared to requirement-driven social assistance programs.

The money poured into a basic income program would represent about 3% of the gross domestic product, which would put everyone above the poverty line, Murphy says.

Also, Widerquist and Murphy suggest that while universal basic income is possible without drastically cutting other programs, like unemployment benefits or universal health care, there are other ways to keep costs down. Those include trading UBI for programs like food stamps (since it is a cash grant), or taxing items like pollution, traffic, and electronic financial transactions.

MagnifyMoneyis a price comparison and financial education website, founded by former bankers who use their knowledge of how the system works to help you save money.

MagnifyMoney

More here:

Should all Americans receive a guaranteed income? - KHOU

Magnify Money and Kalyn Wilson , KHOU 12:10 PM. MDT June 20, 2017

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: Phekthong Lee)

Having a monthly, tax-free, no-strings-attached income that would cover the basics for life may sound too good to be true, but its no fantasy. The idea of universal basic income (UBI) already has been implemented in some regions, such as Canada, Europe, and even Alaska, and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently revitalized discussion about the concept.

Zuckerberg endorsed UBI during his 2017 commencement speech at Harvard University as a means of leveling the economic playing field and opening the doors of entrepreneurship to everyone.

"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," Zuckerberg told graduates. Now its time for our generation to define a new social contract.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and other tech executives, including Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, have turned to this notion in response to the re-emerging concern about unemployment in the tech sector.

But the concept was originally developed hundreds of years ago as a way to lift citizens out of poverty.

Universal basic income (UBI) actually dates to the 16th century and the Renaissance, when the idea of a minimum income guarantee originated as a way to help poor people. Then in the 18th century, the idea of a basic endowment emerged to help alleviate theft, murder, and poverty in Europe.

The concept has changed through the years. When people talk about UBI today, theyre referring to an unconditional cash grant regularly distributed to all members of a community without any means test or work requirements, according to the Basic Income Earth Network. The concept means that everyone receives a set amount of money each period, no matter their circumstances.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: stevanovicigor, (C)2016 Igor Stevanovic, all rights reserved)

Despite its existence for even centuries, UBI did not take the stage like other social assistance programs, such as Social Security, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, which some critics believe would be outperformed by UBI, if implemented.

Jason Murphy, assistant professor of philosophy at Elms College in Chicopee, Mass., and U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) coordinating committee member, says UBI would remove the conditions placed on existing social assistance programs that limit who receives help and how. The program would better target communities that are especially vulnerable and overlooked ensuring that no one has to go hungry and everyone starts on equal footing, he adds.

Still, with UBI in place, Murphy says he thinks not only does it give everyone a chance to cover essential needs, but it also opens the door for others to invest, start businesses, and create more jobs for the economy.

Critics argue that UBI could cause inflation, cause people not to work, or be an unfair tax on the rich, but research shows this isnt likely. A study by MIT and Harvard economists found that "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work" in poor countries and, in some cases, encourage it.

Karl Widerquist, an economist, philosopher, Basic Income Earth Network board member, and visiting associate professor at Georgetown University-Qatar, says he thinks with a decent tax policy, the program would serve as an automatic stabilizer, alleviate income inequality, and help everyone financially.

The average worker is no better off than they were in the 1970s when you adjust for inflation, Widerquist says.

Some Places Are Already Benefiting

Regions around the globe including Ontario, Canada, and Finland, and, in the U.S., North Carolina, and Alaska are putting UBI to the test.

In the late 1990s, a tribe of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina began distributing some of the profits from the tribes casino to its 8,000 members, the New York Times reported. It amounted to about $6,000 per year for each member.

A long-term study on the tribes universal income experiment was published in 2016 by Duke University epidemiologist E. Jane Costello. She found that children in communities with a basic income experienced improvement in the education system, better mental and physical health, lower stress levels and crime rates, and overall economic growth.

Finland began a similar experiment in 2017, promising to give 2,000 citizens $600 per month through 2019. And Alaska has offered a basic income to its residents since the early 1980s.

With these small, pilot projects, social scientists and politicians are observing the effects of a basic income on the economic, social, and personal well-being of residents before launching large-scale programs.

Can UBI Really Level the Playing Field?

With a cushion, Widerquist says people will be less likely to settle for certain jobs and living arrangements, causing employers and property owners to cut better deals and prioritize clients, customers, and employers.

I think it will promote growth, Murphy says.

The rich and well-off may use the extra money to invest, and possibly begin investing in low-income communities, which works in favor of those in both social classes, Murphy says. He also says it could revitalize local economies, because those who rely heavily on the cash grants are more likely to spend locally.

Whats the Catch?

Murphy says the tax reform needed to make UBI a reality must be progressive. That way, it will avoid a major concern for the middle class the upper class will evade taxes, and the middle class will have to fit the bill for the non-workers of the world.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: utah778)

Widerquist argues that implementing this program requires open minds that are willing to move away from an economic system where the upper class maintains control over the flow of cash through ownership and stringently structured government programs. Instead, he thinks the government and society should first focus on eradicating poverty, and the roads to economic prosperity will follow.

The con is that the devil is in the details, Widerquist says. There are some [programs] that want to redistribute less to the poor that would not be better than the programs we already have.

Is UBI Feasible?

The answer is yes, Widerquist says.

The net cost of a basic income, large enough to eliminate poverty in the United States, is $539 billion a year, Widerquist says. Thats only a fourth of what the government is spending on entitlements.

Although it would be a big item in the federal budget, Murphy says he thinks its even cheaper to implement and maintain than Widerquists projections suggest.

Its going to take a commitment, but some of the calculations that are out there are actually way too high, he says.

With no means testing, Murphy says, there is no need to hire people to interview citizens, which saves money compared to requirement-driven social assistance programs.

The money poured into a basic income program would represent about 3% of the gross domestic product, which would put everyone above the poverty line, Murphy says.

Also, Widerquist and Murphy suggest that while universal basic income is possible without drastically cutting other programs, like unemployment benefits or universal health care, there are other ways to keep costs down. Those include trading UBI for programs like food stamps (since it is a cash grant), or taxing items like pollution, traffic, and electronic financial transactions.

MagnifyMoneyis a price comparison and financial education website, founded by former bankers who use their knowledge of how the system works to help you save money.

MagnifyMoney

View post:

Should all Americans receive a guaranteed income? - 9NEWS.com

Magnify Money and Kalyn Wilson , KHOU 11:10 AM. MST June 20, 2017

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: Phekthong Lee)

Having a monthly, tax-free, no-strings-attached income that would cover the basics for life may sound too good to be true, but its no fantasy. The idea of universal basic income (UBI) already has been implemented in some regions, such as Canada, Europe, and even Alaska, and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently revitalized discussion about the concept.

Zuckerberg endorsed UBI during his 2017 commencement speech at Harvard University as a means of leveling the economic playing field and opening the doors of entrepreneurship to everyone.

"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," Zuckerberg told graduates. Now its time for our generation to define a new social contract.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and other tech executives, including Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, have turned to this notion in response to the re-emerging concern about unemployment in the tech sector.

But the concept was originally developed hundreds of years ago as a way to lift citizens out of poverty.

Universal basic income (UBI) actually dates to the 16th century and the Renaissance, when the idea of a minimum income guarantee originated as a way to help poor people. Then in the 18th century, the idea of a basic endowment emerged to help alleviate theft, murder, and poverty in Europe.

The concept has changed through the years. When people talk about UBI today, theyre referring to an unconditional cash grant regularly distributed to all members of a community without any means test or work requirements, according to the Basic Income Earth Network. The concept means that everyone receives a set amount of money each period, no matter their circumstances.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: stevanovicigor, (C)2016 Igor Stevanovic, all rights reserved)

Despite its existence for even centuries, UBI did not take the stage like other social assistance programs, such as Social Security, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, which some critics believe would be outperformed by UBI, if implemented.

Jason Murphy, assistant professor of philosophy at Elms College in Chicopee, Mass., and U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) coordinating committee member, says UBI would remove the conditions placed on existing social assistance programs that limit who receives help and how. The program would better target communities that are especially vulnerable and overlooked ensuring that no one has to go hungry and everyone starts on equal footing, he adds.

Still, with UBI in place, Murphy says he thinks not only does it give everyone a chance to cover essential needs, but it also opens the door for others to invest, start businesses, and create more jobs for the economy.

Critics argue that UBI could cause inflation, cause people not to work, or be an unfair tax on the rich, but research shows this isnt likely. A study by MIT and Harvard economists found that "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work" in poor countries and, in some cases, encourage it.

Karl Widerquist, an economist, philosopher, Basic Income Earth Network board member, and visiting associate professor at Georgetown University-Qatar, says he thinks with a decent tax policy, the program would serve as an automatic stabilizer, alleviate income inequality, and help everyone financially.

The average worker is no better off than they were in the 1970s when you adjust for inflation, Widerquist says.

Some Places Are Already Benefiting

Regions around the globe including Ontario, Canada, and Finland, and, in the U.S., North Carolina, and Alaska are putting UBI to the test.

In the late 1990s, a tribe of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina began distributing some of the profits from the tribes casino to its 8,000 members, the New York Times reported. It amounted to about $6,000 per year for each member.

A long-term study on the tribes universal income experiment was published in 2016 by Duke University epidemiologist E. Jane Costello. She found that children in communities with a basic income experienced improvement in the education system, better mental and physical health, lower stress levels and crime rates, and overall economic growth.

Finland began a similar experiment in 2017, promising to give 2,000 citizens $600 per month through 2019. And Alaska has offered a basic income to its residents since the early 1980s.

With these small, pilot projects, social scientists and politicians are observing the effects of a basic income on the economic, social, and personal well-being of residents before launching large-scale programs.

Can UBI Really Level the Playing Field?

With a cushion, Widerquist says people will be less likely to settle for certain jobs and living arrangements, causing employers and property owners to cut better deals and prioritize clients, customers, and employers.

I think it will promote growth, Murphy says.

The rich and well-off may use the extra money to invest, and possibly begin investing in low-income communities, which works in favor of those in both social classes, Murphy says. He also says it could revitalize local economies, because those who rely heavily on the cash grants are more likely to spend locally.

Whats the Catch?

Murphy says the tax reform needed to make UBI a reality must be progressive. That way, it will avoid a major concern for the middle class the upper class will evade taxes, and the middle class will have to fit the bill for the non-workers of the world.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: utah778)

Widerquist argues that implementing this program requires open minds that are willing to move away from an economic system where the upper class maintains control over the flow of cash through ownership and stringently structured government programs. Instead, he thinks the government and society should first focus on eradicating poverty, and the roads to economic prosperity will follow.

The con is that the devil is in the details, Widerquist says. There are some [programs] that want to redistribute less to the poor that would not be better than the programs we already have.

Is UBI Feasible?

The answer is yes, Widerquist says.

The net cost of a basic income, large enough to eliminate poverty in the United States, is $539 billion a year, Widerquist says. Thats only a fourth of what the government is spending on entitlements.

Although it would be a big item in the federal budget, Murphy says he thinks its even cheaper to implement and maintain than Widerquists projections suggest.

Its going to take a commitment, but some of the calculations that are out there are actually way too high, he says.

With no means testing, Murphy says, there is no need to hire people to interview citizens, which saves money compared to requirement-driven social assistance programs.

The money poured into a basic income program would represent about 3% of the gross domestic product, which would put everyone above the poverty line, Murphy says.

Also, Widerquist and Murphy suggest that while universal basic income is possible without drastically cutting other programs, like unemployment benefits or universal health care, there are other ways to keep costs down. Those include trading UBI for programs like food stamps (since it is a cash grant), or taxing items like pollution, traffic, and electronic financial transactions.

MagnifyMoneyis a price comparison and financial education website, founded by former bankers who use their knowledge of how the system works to help you save money.

MagnifyMoney

Go here to read the rest:

Should all Americans receive a guaranteed income? - KPNX 12 News TV

An economic study of Irans Basic Income, which was implemented to make it easier to phase out expensive (and ecologically destructive) fuel subsidies, shows that there have been no negative effects on employment. In the first section, I will summarize the study. In the middle, there is a list of past contributions made by Basic Income News authors. In the final section, I will make a few observations.

Irans Fuel Subsidy Reform and Employment

The unconditional grant program was launched in 2011. The monthly grant amounted to 29% of median household income, or about $1.50 extra per head of household, per day. Around 90% of Iranians are funded through this program. (Wikipedia has a good summary of the program at the time of this writing. It does not include the end of the universal cash grant program.)

Most people in Iran and in the government came to believe that the grant discourages employment. One often hears anecdotes and assertions in national and local Iranian press. The Iranian Parliament called for cuts in the program. (See Tehran Times, April 19, 2016.) After some wrangling, cash subsidies were finally ended in 2016, with funding reserved now for low-income citizens. Costs were cited. It is important to note half of the cuts in fuel subsidies went to business grants and other government expenses. (See Kate McFarland in Basic Income News, Iran: Parliament Slashes Cash Subsidies to Citizens). What is frustrating here is the fact that the program did not undermine work participation at all.

This study shows that some people in their twenties reduced work hours, often to go to school or improve their schoolwork. But this only averaged out to a matter of months (and is likely to yield medium- and long-term benefits.) Many people increased work time a little, especially in the service sector. The authors think that these businesses used the income to find more work opportunities. Empirical evidence contradicts a lot of presuppositions about the impact of an unconditional cash grant.

The study, Cash Transfers and Labor Supply: Evidence From a Large-Scale Program in Iran, is put out by the Economic Research Forum and was authored by the economists Djavad Salehi-Isfahani and Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooei.

The World Economic Forum posted a summary of the Economic Research Forum study here.

Past Articles on Irans Basic Income

Basic Income News has repeatedly covered Irans Fuel Subsidy Program to make sure it is regarded as a basic income policy. Here is a list of additional articles on the subject:

Djavad Salehi-Isfahani wrote an earlier piece for the ERF. Josh Martin writes about it at Basic Income News here.

Mathieu Ferry writes about Jacques Berthillers piece in Basic Income News here.

The Citizenss Income Trust, based in Britain, wrote this opinion piece for Basic Income News here.

Karl Widerquist wrote four articles early in the programs history. Iran: Basic Income Might Become Means Tested and Iran: Basic Income Gets International Attention. Iran: On the Verge of Introducing the Worlds First National Basic Income and Iran Might Be Moving Toward a BIG

Hamid Tabatabai wrote an article that, very early on, points out that a country that had not been debating a basic income implemented substantial basic income grant.

III. Observations

These are conclusions reached by the author, Jason Burke Murphy, after reading the ERF study and the other articles on Irans program. I wanted to separate them because the first section of this article is meant to review an important study and past contributions by BI News authors.

(1) There was no point at which this program was embraced as a way to promote real freedom or to roll back poverty. Fuel subsidies were just unleashing such strong side effects that something needed to be done. It is amazing to know that a program that raises average income by 29% could be launched in order to solve a problem other than lots of people would be better off with more money. Had this been debated as a basic income guarantee, maybe things would turned out better.

(2) The idea that some people who can work might not work seems to bother people so much that the government ended a program that raises income for a majority of its people and for its least-well-off.

The idea is so powerful that the fact that people are NOT refusing to work cant seem to overcome the fact that many people MIGHT or COULD refuse to work. There is a lot of work to be done here.

(3) Everyone should ask the question: What sort of percentage of people not formally working is even a problem? Most of them will do work for their families, after all. Many will gain expertise with the idea of applying it to future. Some will do work for their communities or as entrepreneurs.

(4) The impact of this grant was likely affected by the fact that it was never been presented as permanent. It also is not large enough to sustain most people at a standard of living that Iranians find decent. This may not serve as the rock-solid proof that a sizable grant wont affect employment.

(5) In the US, an equivalent percentage of support would be around $16,000 a year. Can we assert that the Iranian experience shows that this amount would not trigger a mass refusal to work? Hard to say. Would a small-to-medium dip in job seekers even be a problem? Probably not. Lots of places in the US have average income below $16,000. Can we really say that they would be worse off with this grant just because some of them quit their jobs?

(6) All countries should take a good look at their subsidies, especially ones that benefit the already wealthy. They should cut them and fund an unconditional dividend. We get rid of something bad and replace it with something good. We see how high the dividend would be and think about the next step.

(7) As Basic Income advocates, we need to list Iran alongside Alaska and Macau as regions with a Basic Income. This is difficult because only Alaska has described its dividend as permanent and only there have recipients come to believe it is dependable. In the US, it is a little unusual to say lets do what Iran did but that is our fate as a truth-telling movement.

has written 4 articles.

View post:

Study of Iran's basic income shows it did not harm employment - Basic Income News

It would cost an extra $15 billion a year to introduce a well-designed basic income guarantee in Canada, a new Northern Policy Institute report suggests.

It's money that would be well spent, Prof. Evelyn Forget said in her report, "Do We Still Need a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada?", published by the Northern Ontario think tank.

"The key is to find the right way to integrate the B.I.G (basic income guarantee) into all of the existing social programs that exist in the country," Forget said in a release. "Now is the time to address, head-on, the challenges and trade-offs that are necessary to create a universal B.I.G. that can meet the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.

"The challenges are real, but so too are the costs of doing nothing."

Forget said the calculating the costs of a basic income guarantee program can be tricky, especially if -- as critics argue -- people are less inclined to work. However, she said the evidence suggests basic income guarantee programs do little to change people's approach to work.

"If a B.I.G. reduces the incentive to work and, consequently, many more people rely on the program than anticipated, the costs will be much higher than calculated," she said. "If, as is more likely, there is little behavioural response for most people, then costs will be much more modest. The behavioural response is something we do not yet know without the results of the proposed experiment."

As the same time, Forget concedes a basic income guarantee program won't solve every social problem, but it can help ease the burden for Canadians struggling with poverty.

"We conclude that B.I.G., like any other social program, can address a variety of issues but cannot independently solve all social problems. If well designed, a B.I.G. can not only deliver a range of benefits, but can do so at a feasible cost."

In "Do We Still Need a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada?", Forget cites shifts in the economy leading to income insecurity and outdated social policies, as reasons why basic income is a much needed policy in Canada for people finding themselves falling between the gaps.

In calculating the costs of basic income guarantee, Forget uses payouts based on the plan the Ontario government will experiment with in three cities, including Thunder Bay. Eligible individuals will receive up to $16,989 per year, less 50 per cent of any income they earn. Couples will receive up to $24,027 per year, less half of any income earned. Ontario residents with disabilities will receive up to an additional $6,000 per year.

As a result, a basic income guarantee program using Ontario's numbers, and "targeted to those between 18 and 64, will cost Canadians approximately $30 billion a year, less the $15 billion we currently pay for income assistance. A net cost of $15 billion annually is not only feasible, it is about 5 percent of federal government expenditure and much less than we currently spend on seniors' benefits.

"We can afford it if we choose to afford it."

For her report, Forget, a University of Manitoba professor, examines Mincome. In the 1970s, Canada tested basic income guarantee in a field experiment in Manitoba called Mincome.

Almost 40 years later, Ontario is preparing for a three-year basic income guarantee pilot based on the model proposed in Hugh Segal's recent discussion paper for the Ontario government. It is through both of these lenses that Forget explores both key design principles for consideration, and estimated costs associated with such a policy at the federal level.

According to her report, key considerations should include:

- Basic income guarantee, or B.I.G., should be targeted and support should be gradually withdrawn as income increases.

- B.I.G should be targeted to adults (18-64 years of age).

- B.I.G should make no one who depends on existing income support programs worse off.

- Costs of a B.I.G should be allocated to those with the greatest capacity to bear the burden

- B.I.G should not be seen as a replacement for all other social programs.

Forget said while experiments with other basic guarantee income programs have been dropped without becoming policy, the changing workplace should compel governments to take a fresh look at the idea.

"Since the 2008 financial crisis, it has become increasingly impossible to ignore the growing numbers of workers who spend many years or their entire careers working on insecure, short-term contracts. Young people just entering the workforce struggle to find secure employment that makes use of their training and offers them anything like the salary, security and range of benefits previous generations took for granted.

"Older workers, displaced by technology, often lack the skills to compete for the jobs that exist. The workplace has never been welcoming to people with invisible disabilities, and support programs offered by the state are under pressure, as struggling workplaces faced with global competition offer even less room for the supports required by these workers. People who leave the workplace because of their own poor health, or to support family members, often do not qualify for any support until a lifetime worth of savings, intended to finance a reasonable retirement, is exhausted.

"B.I.G. offers ways to address some of these policy gaps, but we need to understand the choices involved in turning the idea of basic income guarantee into a specific policy that can be applied in the real world, and integrated with a range of existing and not entirely consistent taxation and social policies. Turning an idea into a policy requires careful choices and some compromise."

The paper is the second of a series that explores the various topics presented at NPI's Basic Income Guarantee conference held in Sudbury last October. Report topics include food security issues, potential models for a B.I.G. pilot, tax implications, and the potential impact on social innovators and First Nations communities.

To view reports, presentations from the NPI's BIG conference and explore comments and feedback from participants, visit http://www.northernpolicy.ca/big.

sud.editorial@sunmedia.ca

. . . .

More info

-- Northern Policy Institute is Northern Ontario's independent think tank. It performs research, collects and disseminates evidence, and identifies policy opportunities to support the growth of sustainable Northern communities. Operations are located in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury.

-- Evelyn L. Forget is a professor in Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba and adjunct professor of Economics at McMaster University and the University of Manitoba. She is director of the Manitoba Research Data Centre and adjunct scientist at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. Her most recent work examines the relationships between poverty, inequality, health and social outcomes.

. . . .

What do you think? sud.letters@sunmedia.ca

Continued here:

Basic income plan doable: Northern study - The Sudbury Star

'); //-->

With an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment, some Silicon Valley tech leaders think they have a remedy to a future with fewer jobs: free money for all.

Its called universal basic income, a radical concept that would provide all Americans with a minimum level of economic security. The idea is expensive and controversial it guarantees cash for everyone, regardless of income level or employment status. But prominent tech leaders including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Sam Altman, president of startup accelerator Y Combinator, support it.

We should make it so no one is worried about how theyre going to pay for a place to live, no one has to worry about how theyre going to have enough to eat, Altman said in a recent speech in San Francisco. Just give people enough money to have a reasonable quality of life.

Altman is funding a basic income experiment in Oakland, Calif., as the concept gains momentum in the San Francisco Bay Area. Policy experts, economists, tech leaders and others convened in San Francisco last month for a workshop on the topic organized by the Economic Security Project, of which Altman is a founding signatory. The project is investing $10 million in basic income projects over the next two years.

Stanford University has created a Basic Income Lab to study the idea, and the San Francisco city treasurers office has said its designing tests though the department said it has no updates on the status of that project.

Proponents say the utopian approach could offer relief to workers in Silicon Valley and beyond who may soon find their jobs threatened by robots as they get smarter. Even before the robots take over, some economists say, basic income should be used as a tool to fight poverty. In the Bay Area where the rapid expansion of high-paying tech companies has made the region too expensive for many to afford it could help lift those the boom has left behind.

Unlike traditional aid programs, recipients of a universal basic income wouldnt need to prove anything not their income level, employment status, disability or family obligations before collecting their cash payments.

Its a right of citizenship, said Karl Widerquist, a basic income expert and associate professor at Georgetown Universitys School of Foreign Service in Qatar, so were not judging people and were not putting them in this other category or (saying) youre the poor. And I think this is exciting people right now because the other model hasnt worked.

That means a mother living at the poverty line would get the same amount of free cash as Mark Zuckerberg, Widerquist said. But Zuckerbergs taxes would go up, canceling out his basic income payment.

The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year more than three-fourths of the federal budget, said Bob Greenstein, president of the Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Some proponents advocate paying for it by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it upward, exacerbating poverty and inequality, Greenstein said.

Still, some researchers are testing the idea with small basic income experiments targeting certain neighborhoods and socio-economic groups.

Y Combinator the accelerator known for launching Airbnb and Instacart is giving 100 randomly selected Oakland families unconditional cash payments of about $1,500 a month. Altman, who is footing most of the bill himself, says society needs to consider basic income to support Americans who lose their jobs to robots and artificial intelligence. The idea, he said in his San Francisco speech, addresses the question not enough people are asking: What do we as the tech industry do to solve the problem that were helping to create?

Increased use of robots and AI will lead to a net loss of 9.8 million jobs by 2027 7 percent of U.S. positions, according to a study that the Forrester research firm released last month. Already, the signs are everywhere. Autonomous cars and trucks threaten driving jobs, automated factories require fewer human workers, and artificial intelligence is taking over aspects of legal work and other white-collar jobs.

Proponents of universal basic income have varying ideas of how much money people should get to give them a decent quality of life. Clearly $1,500 a month isnt enough in the Bay Area, but Altman says in a world of robots the cost of living would go down some experts predict that automation would lower production costs. In the meantime, an extra $1,500 still could have a big effect on Oakland residents like Shoshanna Howard, who said the salary she makes working at a nonprofit barely covers her cost of living.

I would pay off my student loans, she said. And I would put whatever I could toward savings, because Im currently not able to save for my future.

Interest in basic income rose in the 1960s and 1970s, when small pilot studies were conducted in states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Indiana, and in Canada. Some studies showed improvements in participants physical and mental health, and found children performed better in school or stayed in school longer. But some also showed that people receiving a basic income were inclined to spend fewer hours working. Other data suggested that married participants were more likely to get divorced. Some experts say the cash payments reduced womens financial dependence on their husbands.

Y Combinator plans to expand its experiment to 1,000 families. YC researchers are using the small Oakland pilot to answer logistical questions such as how to select participants, and how to pay them. The researchers have said theyre focusing on residents ages 21 through 40 whose household income doesnt exceed the area median about $55,000 in Oakland, according to the latest Census data. They expect to release plans for a larger study this summer.

Y Combinator announced its Oakland project last spring, but since then has kept many details under wraps. That tight-lipped approach concerns some community members who question whether the group did enough to involve Oakland residents and nonprofits.

Jennifer Lin, deputy director of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, said her organization reached out to YC about a year ago, but never heard back. It makes me question what Y Combinator has to hide, she said.

Elizabeth Rhodes, YCs basic income research director, said the group is working with city, county and state officials, and has met with local nonprofits and social service providers.

We want to be as transparent as we can, but protecting the privacy and well-being of study participants is our first priority, she wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., is pushing for a plan that has been described as a first step toward universal basic income. Khanna this summer plans to propose long shot $1 trillion expansion to the earned income tax credit that is already available to low-income families. But unlike a basic income, that money would go only to people who work.

Theres a dignity to work, Khanna said. People, they dont want a handout. They want to contribute to the economy.

Original post:

Universal basic income: guarantee pay as way to improve quality of life - WatertownDailyTimes.com

Protesters gather outside the Balmoral Hotel on East Hastings Street in Vancouver on May 30 to vent against the living conditions of the tenants. Jason Payne / PNG

Re: BIG idea: How basic income could improve health, Opinion, June 2.

The Basic Income Guarantee is a great way to foster dropping out of school and quitting your job. Or better yet, working under the table and supplementing your cash income with a BIG allowance.

Nowhere does Rosana Salvaterra suggest that this free cash would have a time limit, so why would anyone want to work for anything near minimum wage, even at $15 per hour when they can stay home and get paid, no questions asked?

What these so-called experts who promote the benefits like improved health care under this plan never provide is the answer to who will pay for this when we have several million Canadians sitting at home waiting for their cheque?

I know my health will improve when I can sleep in and then stroll down to the pub and buy a pint with all of that free money rather than putting in a hard-days work. After all, it has been proven that lots of sleep benefits your health.

Perry Coleman,Delta

Action, not crocodile tears, needed to deal with slumlords

Re: Frustrated tenants storm city hall. Disgusting: Residents claim Balmoral Hotel has been declared unsafe, but owners have done nothing to fix it, June 2.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson needs to know people want action, not his crocodile tears pretending he cares. The Sahotas have been allowed to continue running their Downtown Eastside hotels into the ground and treating the people who live there like garbage.

Last time there were stories regarding this family and its pathetic treatment of people, I can remember Robertson saying he would have repairs done and bill them to the Sahota family. So much for that idea.

Robertson is allowing them to run buildings into the ground, so they can be declared unfit, then everyone will he evicted and theyll tear them down and put in more pricey shoeboxes, making that family extremely rich.

Shawn Storey, Surrey

Losers want to change the rules

Here we go again. It seems it doesnt matter if its ping-pong, football or politics, once the competition is over the losers want to change the rules.

Our forefathers left us living in the best province in the best country under our present electoral system. Now, these perennial losers want to change the rules. We cant allow this to happen.

Alvin Towriss, Hope

Prince Rupert a better place for pipeline terminus

The big news of the day now seems to be stopping the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to Burnaby. Everyone Ive talked to agrees that the pipeline is important for Canada, but not to a final destination in Burnaby.

Prince Rupert is the logical place that we all agree on. Cant these government people realize that we already have cargo ships from around the world, cruise ships, local ferries, seaplanes, company and private yachts, tugs with log booms, etc., plying Vancouver Harbour, to say nothing about even more traffic in the Juan de Fuca Strait heading to Seattle as well as Vancouver and up the Inside Passage.

Prince Rupert has a straight outward passage to the open Pacific Ocean.

John Hyndman, Langley

Eviction washeartless

Re: Orphaned Abbotsford siblings given eviction notice, June 1.

The landlords eviction of this family after the year they have endured is despicable and heartless. The rent is being paid, so its hard not to think that their ruthless decision is based on renting it out for more money than concern for their coming family.

Hopefully, with The Provinces coverage of this familys plight, a landlord with heart and soul will come forward with a new place for them to live.

Tom Gray, North Delta

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

Read the original post:

Letters: Guaranteed income guarantees sloth. | The Province - The Province