Current Events > Looks like Basic Income failed again, this time in Canada.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Balrog0 08/29/18 11:37:17 AM #152:	Instead of attempting to deal with these questions, we could just be ideological hacks who accept the thing that sounds good to us without any evidence. I'd rather not be that kind of person, myself, though. --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907750966] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>Instead of attempting to deal with these questions, we could just be ideological hacks who accept the thing that sounds good to us without any evidence. I'd rather not be that kind of person, myself, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/29/18 11:43:50 AM #153:	Balrog0 posted... So what if a decrease of 8.5% in health utilization was enough to offset the costs of a 11% drop in labor force participation, given that drop in participation occurs mostly in secondary and tertiary income earners (i.e., new mothers and teenage kids, as I indicated earlier)? What if that additional time with children early in life produces better educational outcomes? What if teenagers deferring work until after they're doing with high school improves their future labor market outcomes, even if it decreases labor force participation in the near term by causing them to defer work by a few years? Too bad the studies say nothing like that, huh? Balrog0 posted... Why is it that you are more willing to listen to a politician than the preponderance of research which indicates it would be sustainable, at the very least over the near-term (i.e., 3 years)? It didn't. All that study said was that it could lead to Healthcare savings. Not Healthcare savings that would offset the cost of UBI, just a possibility of an unspecific amount of savings in one segment of of the budget. And, again, I'm not listening to one politician here, I'm listening to several politicians and economists who have come to the same conclusion every time a UBI pilot is attempted: it's not sustainable. Sorry people, turns out there really isn't such thing as a free lunch. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:907751267] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>So what if a decrease of 8.5% in health utilization was enough to offset the costs of a 11% drop in labor force participation, given that drop in participation occurs mostly in secondary and tertiary income earners (i.e., new mothers and teenage kids, as I indicated earlier)? What if that additional time with children early in life produces better educational outcomes? What if teenagers deferring work until after they're doing with high school improves their future labor market outcomes, even if it decreases labor force participation in the near term by causing them to defer work by a few years?</quote> Too bad the studies say nothing like that, huh? <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>Why is it that you are more willing to listen to a politician than the preponderance of research which indicates it would be sustainable, at the very least over the near-term (i.e., 3 years)? </quote> It didn't. All that study said was that it could lead to Healthcare savings. Not Healthcare savings that would offset the cost of UBI, just a possibility of an unspecific amount of savings in one segment of of the budget. And, again, I'm not listening to one politician here, I'm listening to several politicians and economists who have come to the same conclusion every time a UBI pilot is attempted: it's not sustainable. Sorry people, turns out there really isn't such thing as a free lunch.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 08/29/18 11:49:32 AM #154:	Sephiroth1288 posted... Too bad the studies say nothing like that, huh? Yeah, because Balrog0 posted... the original experiments did not gather data granular enough on every potential cost saving to make a good analysis of the costs and benefits Conveniently that part of his post was omitted by you. Now I'm back to thinking you're dishonest. --- Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two. <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:907751566] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote>Too bad the studies say nothing like that, huh? </quote> Yeah, because <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>the original experiments did not gather data granular enough on every potential cost saving to make a good analysis of the costs and benefits</quote> Conveniently that part of his post was omitted by you. Now I'm back to thinking you're dishonest.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 11:49:56 AM #155:	Sephiroth1288 posted... Too bad the studies say nothing like that, huh? They weren't designed to answer that question, which is why 1) the findings are suggestive and not definitive and 2) we should have done this experiment Sephiroth1288 posted... It didn't. All that study said was that it could lead to Healthcare savings. Not Healthcare savings that would offset the cost of UBI, just a possibility of an unspecific amount of savings in one segment of of the budget. And, again, I'm not listening to one politician here, I'm listening to several politicians and economists who have come to the same conclusion every time a UBI pilot is attempted: it's not sustainable. Sorry people, turns out there really isn't such thing as a free lunch. Yeah, that's true. Again, this is a research design question. You should understand that kind of thing if you want to get into hard science. Go ahead and show me some economists who don't think a negative income tax is sustainable. You are too lazy to actually do your homework here, but too stubborn and ideological to just admit it. --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907751583] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote>Too bad the studies say nothing like that, huh? </quote> They weren't designed to answer that question, which is why 1) the findings are suggestive and not definitive and 2) we should have done this experiment <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote>It didn't. All that study said was that it could lead to Healthcare savings. Not Healthcare savings that would offset the cost of UBI, just a possibility of an unspecific amount of savings in one segment of of the budget. And, again, I'm not listening to one politician here, I'm listening to several politicians and economists who have come to the same conclusion every time a UBI pilot is attempted: it's not sustainable. Sorry people, turns out there really isn't such thing as a free lunch.</quote> Yeah, that's true. Again, this is a research design question. You should understand that kind of thing if you want to get into hard science. Go ahead and show me some economists who don't think a negative income tax is sustainable. You are too lazy to actually do your homework here, but too stubborn and ideological to just admit it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 08/29/18 11:52:43 AM #156:	scar the 1 posted... Now I'm back to thinking you're dishonest. Mal being dishonest? Must be a day that ends in "day." <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:907751733] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>Now I'm back to thinking you're dishonest.</quote> Mal being dishonest? Must be a day that ends in "day."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 11:54:23 AM #157:	FWIW, from the meta analysis I shared: There were, in fact, three objective yes-no questions about the workeffort response that the experiments answered quite well, all of which are very important to the BIG debate: First, would a large number of people respond to an NIT by withdrawing entirely from the labor force? The experiments found no evidence of such behavior. Some of the experimenters said that they were unable to find even a single instance of labor-market withdrawal (Levine et al., forthcoming). Second, would the workeffort response be large enough to threaten the financial viability of an NIT? The experiments found no such evidence. Third, would there be any workeffort response? The experiments found that there was a non-negligible workeffort response. There is a large range between a negligible work-disincentive and one that is so large that it makes the experiments unaffordable. Most researchers who worked on the experiments were not surprised that the results fell into that range... --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907751810] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>FWIW, from the meta analysis I shared: There were, in fact, three objective yes-no questions about the workeffort response that the experiments answered quite well, all of which are very important to the BIG debate: First, would a large number of people respond to an NIT by withdrawing entirely from the labor force? The experiments found no evidence of such behavior. Some of the experimenters said that they were unable to find even a single instance of labor-market withdrawal (Levine et al., forthcoming). Second, would the workeffort response be large enough to threaten the financial viability of an NIT? The experiments found no such evidence. Third, would there be any workeffort response? The experiments found that there was a non-negligible workeffort response. There is a large range between a negligible work-disincentive and one that is so large that it makes the experiments unaffordable. Most researchers who worked on the experiments were not surprised that the results fell into that range... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WaffIeElite 08/29/18 11:54:26 AM #158:	If by "failed", you mean "was canceled by a shithead conservative who has criminal connections". --- I have a signature. Apparently this is important, but I still don't have my secret cool kid decoder ring yet. <cite>WaffIeElite posted [p:907751813] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>If by "failed", you mean "was canceled by a shithead conservative who has criminal connections".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/29/18 12:06:14 PM #159:	Balrog0 posted... They weren't designed to answer that question, which is why 1) the findings are suggestive and not definitive and 2) we should have done this experiment Lol what? If the studies weren't designed to answer those questions then they wouldn't have brought the subjects up. I think you're talking out of your ass. Balrog0 posted... Go ahead and show me some economists who don't think a negative income tax is sustainable. Ok www.forbes.com/sites/marcoannunziata/2018/07/27/ (remove space) universal-basic-income-a-universally-bad-idea/amp/ Want more? --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:907752407] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>They weren't designed to answer that question, which is why 1) the findings are suggestive and not definitive and 2) we should have done this experiment</quote> Lol what? If the studies weren't designed to answer those questions then they wouldn't have brought the subjects up. I think you're talking out of your ass. <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>Go ahead and show me some economists who don't think a negative income tax is sustainable.</quote> Ok www.forbes.com/sites/marcoannunziata/2018/07/27/ (remove space) universal-basic-income-a-universally-bad-idea/amp/ Want more?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AmpV3 08/29/18 12:11:50 PM #160:	Just here to watch Mal add himself to the warned/suspended list again. --- MH4U / MHWorld / GenU: Jacques Arc <cite>AmpV3 posted [p:907752682] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>Just here to watch Mal add himself to the warned/suspended list again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 12:12:16 PM #161:	Sephiroth1288 posted... Lol what? If the studies weren't designed to answer those questions then they wouldn't have brought the subjects up. I think you're talking out of your ass. ... The income experiment wasn't designed to answer questions about program savings in other areas. It was meant to be used to determine work disincentive effects. Someone else, years later, used administrative data sets to tie health care utilization to program participants in order to see how their access to health care services compared to non-participants. However, this method doesn't allow you to track the costs of the services, which are not siloed in the same database. It might be possible in theory to do that, but it would be even harder than the retroactive matching of two or more different administrative data sets Sephiroth1288 posted... Ok www.forbes.com/sites/marcoannunziata/2018/07/27/ (remove space) universal-basic-income-a-universally-bad-idea/amp/ Want more? yes, please, preferably something peer-reviewed or at least an academic piece --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907752700] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote>Lol what? If the studies weren't designed to answer those questions then they wouldn't have brought the subjects up. I think you're talking out of your ass.</quote> ... The income experiment wasn't designed to answer questions about program savings in other areas. It was meant to be used to determine work disincentive effects. Someone else, years later, used administrative data sets to tie health care utilization to program participants in order to see how their access to health care services compared to non-participants. However, this method doesn't allow you to track the costs of the services, which are not siloed in the same database. It might be possible in theory to do that, but it would be even harder than the retroactive matching of two or more different administrative data sets <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote>Ok www.forbes.com/sites/marcoannunziata/2018/07/27/ (remove space) universal-basic-income-a-universally-bad-idea/amp/ Want more?</quote> yes, please, preferably something peer-reviewed or at least an academic piece</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 08/29/18 12:27:03 PM #162:	Oh look a topic where Mal is being intellectually dishonest again. Must be a day ending in -y. --- https://imgur.com/jWVrg9U https://imgur.com/g2efUtT https://imgur.com/5dOwhaP https://imgur.com/LVdqu8J Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:907753542] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>Oh look a topic where Mal is being intellectually dishonest again. Must be a day ending in -y.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 08/29/18 12:30:22 PM #163:	thelovefist posted... Mal's gimmick is to post a hot take topic title then post an article that doesn't support said hot take No one knee-jerk reacts to things like Mal does. He knows that people on his side will blindly and instantly agree with what he says. He could make a topic titled "Trump thwarts assassination attempt, shoots would-be assassin dead himself!" with a link to an article about the history of American soap operas and his ilk will believe the title without even looking at the link itself, let alone clicking on it. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:907753696] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote>Mal's gimmick is to post a hot take topic title then post an article that doesn't support said hot take</quote> No one knee-jerk reacts to things like Mal does. He knows that people on his side will blindly and instantly agree with what he says. He could make a topic titled "Trump thwarts assassination attempt, shoots would-be assassin dead himself!" with a link to an article about the history of American soap operas and his ilk will believe the title without even looking at the link itself, let alone clicking on it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Black462 08/29/18 12:30:37 PM #164:	Fuck socialists --- https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NF9FVxumXLk/maxresdefault.jpg <cite>Black462 posted [p:907753703] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>Fuck socialists</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PowerfulSageIRL 08/29/18 12:33:55 PM #165:	ssjevot posted... PowerfulSageIRL posted... ssjevot posted... PowerfulSageIRL posted... ssjevot posted... QueenCarly posted... PowerfulSageIRL posted... Basic Income is not a socialist policy Exactly. UBI is nothing more than an attempt to pacify the working class so they become more comfortable having their labor exploited. It is better than not having it in a capitalist society, but ultimately it isn't compatible with socialism. I don't agree with your rhetoric because I think capitalism is the best current system for providing the most people with the highest quality of life, but you are correct that nothing about a UBI is socialist. It is a form of welfare state capitalism. What is often termed the social safety net designed to provide the least well off with an acceptable standard of living. but it won't do that it's used to justify privatization of social services You're not convincing me that's a bad thing, sorry. personally, I would rather not see Canada's healthcare system, flawed as it is, become any more similar to the US's I don't think you understand how any of the things you are talking about work. According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada 75% of the Canadian healthcare services are provided privately. you forgot the "but funded publicly" part of that sentence <cite>PowerfulSageIRL posted [p:907753863] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>ssjevot posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PowerfulSageIRL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ssjevot posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PowerfulSageIRL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ssjevot posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QueenCarly posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PowerfulSageIRL posted...</cite> <quote>Basic Income is not a socialist policy</quote> Exactly. UBI is nothing more than an attempt to pacify the working class so they become more comfortable having their labor exploited. It is better than not having it in a capitalist society, but ultimately it isn't compatible with socialism.</quote> I don't agree with your rhetoric because I think capitalism is the best current system for providing the most people with the highest quality of life, but you are correct that nothing about a UBI is socialist. It is a form of welfare state capitalism. What is often termed the social safety net designed to provide the least well off with an acceptable standard of living.</quote> but it won't do that it's used to justify privatization of social services</quote> You're not convincing me that's a bad thing, sorry.</quote> personally, I would rather not see Canada's healthcare system, flawed as it is, become any more similar to the US's</quote> I don't think you understand how any of the things you are talking about work. According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada 75% of the Canadian healthcare services are provided privately.</quote> you forgot the "but funded publicly" part of that sentence</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#166	Post #166 was unavailable or deleted.
jukester 08/29/18 12:46:02 PM #167:	CyricZ posted... So wait is this a case of: 1) Start thing 2) People who don't like thing come into power 3) Those in power undermine effectiveness of thing 4) Those in power say "See? Thing doesn't work!" When is it not this, though? --- "i am making Jerky that some day will be sold in every store in America Very few of you are good enough for my jerky" - krosser, Last of the great smu <cite>jukester posted [p:907754498] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>CyricZ posted...</cite> <quote>So wait is this a case of: 1) Start thing 2) People who don't like thing come into power 3) Those in power undermine effectiveness of thing 4) Those in power say "See? Thing doesn't work!"</quote> When is it not this, though?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/29/18 12:59:03 PM #168:	jukester posted... CyricZ posted... So wait is this a case of: 1) Start thing 2) People who don't like thing come into power 3) Those in power undermine effectiveness of thing 4) Those in power say "See? Thing doesn't work!" When is it not this, though? There's always the alternate form: 1) Start thing 2) Those not in power say "See? Thing doesn't work!" 3) People who don't like thing come into power 4) Those (now) in power undermine effectiveness of thing, but leave enough of it intact to screw things up even more. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:907755145] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>jukester posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CyricZ posted...</cite> <quote>So wait is this a case of: 1) Start thing 2) People who don't like thing come into power 3) Those in power undermine effectiveness of thing 4) Those in power say "See? Thing doesn't work!"</quote> When is it not this, though?</quote> There's always the alternate form: 1) Start thing 2) Those not in power say "See? Thing doesn't work!" 3) People who don't like thing come into power 4) Those (now) in power undermine effectiveness of thing, but leave enough of it intact to screw things up even more.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#169	Post #169 was unavailable or deleted.
TheCyborgNinja 08/29/18 1:11:28 PM #170:	Roshon posted... Dana Bowman, one of the plaintiffs, said the program let her buy her own groceries instead of resorting to using food banks. Other participants have told HuffPost Canada that the program helped them return to school, grow their small business or move forward after leaving an abusive relationship. How can you read this and not support basic income? Unless youre a horrible person, that is Because some people are "every man for themselves" libertarians that prefer raping their country for personal gain instead of having it be more equal. Duh. I hate communism just as much as that, but your nation is not strong if you allow a lot of the population to be weak. --- "message parlor" ? do you mean the post office ? - SlayerX888 <cite>TheCyborgNinja posted [p:907755839] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Roshon posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Dana Bowman, one of the plaintiffs, said the program let her buy her own groceries instead of resorting to using food banks. Other participants have told HuffPost Canada that the program helped them return to school, grow their small business or move forward after leaving an abusive relationship.</quote> How can you read this and not support basic income? Unless youre a horrible person, that is</quote> Because some people are "every man for themselves" libertarians that prefer raping their country for personal gain instead of having it be more equal. Duh. I hate communism just as much as that, but your nation is not strong if you allow a lot of the population to be weak.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AmpV3 08/29/18 1:12:31 PM #171:	fenderbender321 posted... Roshon posted... Dana Bowman, one of the plaintiffs, said the program let her buy her own groceries instead of resorting to using food banks. Other participants have told HuffPost Canada that the program helped them return to school, grow their small business or move forward after leaving an abusive relationship. How can you read this and not support basic income? Unless youre a horrible person, that is How much investigating into abuse of and failures of the program did the HuffPo do? Any "abuse" (which is guaranteed to be an extremely small fraction of recipients, as it is in any government assistance program) is far offset by the amount of people it helps. People like you would enjoy cutting off aid to thousands/millions because maybe, at most, 1% abuse the system. --- MH4U / MHWorld / GenU: Jacques Arc <cite>AmpV3 posted [p:907755896] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>fenderbender321 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Roshon posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Dana Bowman, one of the plaintiffs, said the program let her buy her own groceries instead of resorting to using food banks. Other participants have told HuffPost Canada that the program helped them return to school, grow their small business or move forward after leaving an abusive relationship.</quote> How can you read this and not support basic income? Unless youre a horrible person, that is</quote> How much investigating into abuse of and failures of the program did the HuffPo do?</quote> Any "abuse" (which is guaranteed to be an extremely small fraction of recipients, as it is in any government assistance program) is far offset by the amount of people it helps. People like you would enjoy cutting off aid to thousands/millions because maybe, at most, 1% abuse the system.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 1:13:19 PM #172:	I just want to be able to discuss these important issues in good faith. --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907755936] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>I just want to be able to discuss these important issues in good faith.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 08/29/18 1:13:25 PM #173:	Southernfatman posted... Hell, the people who constantly bitch about BI would be against it even if it was 100% proven to be viable for their various screwed up "reasons". 'Free money' has to come from somewhere. If people are given a free income, how would the government provide the money when as it stands, government has to take money from income to support itself. --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:907755941] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Southernfatman posted...</cite> <quote>Hell, the people who constantly bitch about BI would be against it even if it was 100% proven to be viable for their various screwed up "reasons".</quote> 'Free money' has to come from somewhere. If people are given a free income, how would the government provide the money when as it stands, government has to take money from income to support itself.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#174	Post #174 was unavailable or deleted.
Capn Circus 08/29/18 1:21:28 PM #175:	Why it ended early is linked within the article Mal posted. "MacLeod said the "broken" program isn't working. Asked by reporters how she knows the program isn't working if the data hasn't been studied yet, MacLeod said, "for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario ... it was certainly not going to be sustainable." --- "I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks <cite>Capn Circus posted [p:907756327] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>Why it ended early is linked within the article Mal posted. "MacLeod said the "broken" program isn't working. Asked by reporters how she knows the program isn't working if the data hasn't been studied yet, MacLeod said, "for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario ... it was certainly not going to be sustainable."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 08/29/18 1:33:21 PM #176:	Capn Circus posted... Why it ended early is linked within the article Mal posted. "MacLeod said the "broken" program isn't working. Asked by reporters how she knows the program isn't working if the data hasn't been studied yet, MacLeod said, "for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario ... it was certainly not going to be sustainable." https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/31/ontario-basic-income-pilot-cancelled-by-minister-lisa-macleod_a_23493366/ Exactly. It was unsustainable. $150 Million over 3 years for just 4000 people ($37,000 per person). Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows that this will not work in the long run. That money has to come from somewhere... taxpayers. It doesn't grow on trees. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:907756897] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote>Why it ended early is linked within the article Mal posted. "MacLeod said the "broken" program isn't working. Asked by reporters how she knows the program isn't working if the data hasn't been studied yet, MacLeod said, "for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario ... it was certainly not going to be sustainable."</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/31/ontario-basic-income-pilot-cancelled-by-minister-lisa-macleod_a_23493366/ Exactly. It was unsustainable. $150 Million over 3 years for just 4000 people ($37,000 per person). Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows that this will not work in the long run. That money has to come from somewhere... taxpayers. It doesn't grow on trees.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 1:38:06 PM #177:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... Capn Circus posted... Why it ended early is linked within the article Mal posted. "MacLeod said the "broken" program isn't working. Asked by reporters how she knows the program isn't working if the data hasn't been studied yet, MacLeod said, "for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario ... it was certainly not going to be sustainable." https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/31/ontario-basic-income-pilot-cancelled-by-minister-lisa-macleod_a_23493366/ Exactly. It was unsustainable. $150 Million over 3 years for just 4000 people ($37,000 per person). Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows that this will not work in the long run. That money has to come from somewhere... taxpayers. It doesn't grow on trees. Ontario's yearly budget expenditures are about $133 billion or $400 billion over the three year term so that's like, what, a tenth of a percent of the budget? --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907757184] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote>Why it ended early is linked within the article Mal posted. "MacLeod said the "broken" program isn't working. Asked by reporters how she knows the program isn't working if the data hasn't been studied yet, MacLeod said, "for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario ... it was certainly not going to be sustainable."</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/31/ontario-basic-income-pilot-cancelled-by-minister-lisa-macleod_a_23493366/ Exactly. It was unsustainable. $150 Million over 3 years for just 4000 people ($37,000 per person). Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows that this will not work in the long run. That money has to come from somewhere... taxpayers. It doesn't grow on trees.</quote> Ontario's yearly budget expenditures are about $133 billion or $400 billion over the three year term so that's like, what, a tenth of a percent of the budget?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 08/29/18 1:43:01 PM #178:	Balrog0 posted... Ontario's yearly budget expenditures are about $133 billion or $400 billion over the three year term so that's like, what, a tenth of a percent of the budget? Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra over 3 years, they can pay for the UBI budget :) --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:907757436] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>Ontario's yearly budget expenditures are about $133 billion or $400 billion over the three year term so that's like, what, a tenth of a percent of the budget? </quote> Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra over 3 years, they can pay for the UBI budget :)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 1:47:59 PM #179:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :) Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable? --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907757705] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :)</quote> Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 1:49:00 PM #180:	oh, and you're using a three year figure to calculate the yearly spending there, champ :) basic arithmetic, right? --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907757762] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>oh, and you're using a three year figure to calculate the yearly spending there, champ :) basic arithmetic, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/29/18 1:50:43 PM #181:	Balrog0 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :) Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable? If it's means-tested, it's not universal. Looks like Ontario was fumbling towards a Negative Income Tax, without really understanding how it's supposed to work (or intentionally half-assing it). <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:907757849] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :)</quote> Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable?</quote> If it's means-tested, it's not universal. Looks like Ontario was fumbling towards a Negative Income Tax, without really understanding how it's supposed to work (or intentionally half-assing it).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 08/29/18 1:50:59 PM #182:	Balrog0 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :) Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable? I redid the math since I got it wrong the first time. It's $37,000 over 3 years. And sure, as they don't mind getting taxed an extra $12333.33 per year. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:907757864] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :)</quote> Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable?</quote> I redid the math since I got it wrong the first time. It's $37,000 over 3 years. And sure, as they don't mind getting taxed an extra $12333.33 per year.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 08/29/18 1:51:57 PM #183:	Balrog0 posted... oh, and you're using a three year figure to calculate the yearly spending there, champ :) basic arithmetic, right? My edit with the correct math was 5 minutes ago. You post was 3 minutes ago. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:907757907] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>oh, and you're using a three year figure to calculate the yearly spending there, champ :) basic arithmetic, right?</quote> My edit with the correct math was 5 minutes ago. You post was 3 minutes ago.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AmpV3 08/29/18 1:52:18 PM #184:	Capn Circus posted... Why it ended early is linked within the article Mal posted. "MacLeod said the "broken" program isn't working. Asked by reporters how she knows the program isn't working if the data hasn't been studied yet, MacLeod said, "for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario ... it was certainly not going to be sustainable." Remember when CapnCircus falsely thought black people were looting all over Houston.. Only because they were black? --- MH4U / MHWorld / GenU: Jacques Arc <cite>AmpV3 posted [p:907757925] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote>Why it ended early is linked within the article Mal posted. "MacLeod said the "broken" program isn't working. Asked by reporters how she knows the program isn't working if the data hasn't been studied yet, MacLeod said, "for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario ... it was certainly not going to be sustainable."</quote> Remember when CapnCircus falsely thought black people were looting all over Houston.. Only because they were black?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ssk9716757 08/29/18 1:53:36 PM #185:	I pay more in taxes than a lot of people make in a year and I support basic income --- I am the nucleus. <cite>ssk9716757 posted [p:907757995] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>I pay more in taxes than a lot of people make in a year and I support basic income</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 1:54:10 PM #186:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... Balrog0 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :) Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable? I redid the math since I got it wrong the first time. It's $37,000 over 3 years. And sure, as they don't mind getting taxed an extra $12333.33 per year. What are you even talking about here? I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus fuckin christ. --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907758018] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :)</quote> Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable?</quote> I redid the math since I got it wrong the first time. It's $37,000 over 3 years. And sure, as they don't mind getting taxed an extra $12333.33 per year.</quote> What are you even talking about here? I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus fuckin christ.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 08/29/18 1:55:00 PM #187:	I really really fucking hate that basic income became a thing identified with commies (and defended mostly by commies) and bashed by conservatives. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:907758071] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>I really really fucking hate that basic income became a thing identified with commies (and defended mostly by commies) and bashed by conservatives.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 08/29/18 1:55:08 PM #188:	Balrog0 posted... What are you even talking about here? I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus f*in christ. You folks? What is that supposed to mean? That's just racist. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:907758078] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>What are you even talking about here? I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus f*in christ.</quote> You folks? What is that supposed to mean? That's just racist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 1:55:56 PM #189:	FLUFFYGERM posted... (and defended mostly by commies) communists and socialists mostly really dislike the UBI. it is much more popular among libertarians and neoliberals in silicon valley --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907758117] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>(and defended mostly by commies)</quote> communists and socialists mostly really dislike the UBI. it is much more popular among libertarians and neoliberals in silicon valley</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/29/18 1:57:47 PM #190:	Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... (and defended mostly by commies) communists and socialists mostly really dislike the UBI. it is much more popular among libertarians and neoliberals in silicon valley I'd assume for pretty much the same reason that communists and socialists aren't fond of charities: spending money is self-directed and largely voluntary. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:907758227] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>(and defended mostly by commies)</quote> communists and socialists mostly really dislike the UBI. it is much more popular among libertarians and neoliberals in silicon valley</quote> I'd assume for pretty much the same reason that communists and socialists aren't fond of charities: spending money is self-directed and largely voluntary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/29/18 2:00:25 PM #191:	Balrog0 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :) Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable? Obviously the pilot isn't going to crash the economy. But the point of a pilot is to see how a policy would fare on a large scale. What's the point of spending $100 million on a pilot you know will lead to nothing? --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:907758357] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it. Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :)</quote> Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable?</quote> Obviously the pilot isn't going to crash the economy. But the point of a pilot is to see how a policy would fare on a large scale. What's the point of spending $100 million on a pilot you know will lead to nothing?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/29/18 2:02:32 PM #192:	Balrog0 posted... I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus fuckin christ. That's awfully rich when the first 100 posts ITT are almost entirely shitposts from leftists. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:907758471] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus fuckin christ.</quote> That's awfully rich when the first 100 posts ITT are almost entirely shitposts from leftists.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 08/29/18 2:04:57 PM #193:	Balrog0 posted... Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable? And no, it was unsustainable. That's why they're cancelling it. You don't take 10% away from the government budget to give free shit away to a tiny fraction of the population. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:907758606] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable?</quote> And no, it was unsustainable. That's why they're cancelling it. You don't take 10% away from the government budget to give free shit away to a tiny fraction of the population.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 2:05:04 PM #194:	Sephiroth1288 posted... Obviously the pilot isn't going to crash the economy. But the point of a pilot is to see how a policy would fare on a large scale. What's the point of spending $100 million on a pilot you know will lead to nothing? ... You don't know it will lead to nothing, you all are basing this on assumptions that you've mostly formed by proof-texting 'research' to find things that confirm your prior opinions. That is why you do the study. If you're so confident that there would be no savings then I especially don't understand why you wouldn't want to get the data that proves you right instead of just citing anonymous program staff. Which do you think is more compelling to someone who is on the fence? --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907758610] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote>Obviously the pilot isn't going to crash the economy. But the point of a pilot is to see how a policy would fare on a large scale. What's the point of spending $100 million on a pilot you know will lead to nothing? </quote> ... You don't know it will lead to nothing, you all are basing this on assumptions that you've mostly formed by proof-texting 'research' to find things that confirm your prior opinions. That is why you do the study. If you're so confident that there would be no savings then I especially don't understand why you wouldn't want to get the data that proves you right instead of just citing anonymous program staff. Which do you think is more compelling to someone who is on the fence?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 08/29/18 2:05:09 PM #195:	Wow Mal is still going at it lol --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:907758615] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>Wow Mal is still going at it lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giant_Aspirin 08/29/18 2:06:08 PM #196:	Sephiroth1288 posted... Balrog0 posted... I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus fuckin christ. That's awfully rich when the first 100 posts ITT are almost entirely shitposts from leftists. good thing he didn't exclude "leftists" at all when making that remark. --- Playing: Dead Cells; Axiom Verge; Mario Odyssey *(~);} - I suppose it will all make sense when we grow up - {;(~)* <cite>Giant_Aspirin posted [p:907758658] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus fuckin christ.</quote> That's awfully rich when the first 100 posts ITT are almost entirely shitposts from leftists.</quote> good thing he didn't exclude "leftists" at all when making that remark.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 2:06:25 PM #197:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... And no, it was unsustainable. That's why they're cancelling it. You don't take 10% away from the government budget to give free shit away to a tiny fraction of the population. 0.1%* And actually significantly less than that, I was rounding up based on really quick math (150m/400b = way less than a tenth of a percent I think) --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907758676] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>And no, it was unsustainable. That's why they're cancelling it. You don't take 10% away from the government budget to give free shit away to a tiny fraction of the population. </quote> 0.1%* And actually significantly less than that, I was rounding up based on really quick math (150m/400b = way less than a tenth of a percent I think)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 08/29/18 2:07:29 PM #198:	lol @ this topic lol @ Mal --- "a minority is someone who you can tell off the bat they are black/hispanic/colored. LGBT isn't a minority" - Blakkheim1 <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted [p:907758746] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>lol @ this topic lol @ Mal</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/29/18 2:08:49 PM #199:	A fully implemented program would only cover individuals that make less than $34k or couples making less than $48k idk what the income quintiles are for Ontario but if you apply that to Canada overall that is just barely over the first income quintile, meaning you're covering maybe 1 out of 5 people instead of 5 out of 5 people https://www.policynote.ca/what-is-a-middle-class-income-these-days/ --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:907758821] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote>A fully implemented program would only cover individuals that make less than $34k or couples making less than $48k idk what the income quintiles are for Ontario but if you apply that to Canada overall that is just barely over the first income quintile, meaning you're covering maybe 1 out of 5 people instead of 5 out of 5 people https://www.policynote.ca/what-is-a-middle-class-income-these-days/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/29/18 2:09:10 PM #200:	Balrog0 posted... ... You don't know it will lead to nothing, Actually we do, since that's been the conclusion every time it's tried. Balrog0 posted... If you're so confident that there would be no savings then I especially don't understand why you wouldn't want to get the data that proves you right instead of just citing anonymous program staff. The data that proves me right is this thing called "math". Not only would full UBI crash the Canadian economy, but it would also weaken the economy to an unsalvageable level because the labor force would decrease by ~1/10, and that's before you consider how several businesses would flee Canada to avoid the ridiculous tax hikes necessary to keep that system afloat. Oh, but at least their healthcare costs would be reduced by some unspecific amount and a few thousand more people would go to college. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:907758846] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>... You don't know it will lead to nothing,</quote> Actually we do, since that's been the conclusion every time it's tried. <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>If you're so confident that there would be no savings then I especially don't understand why you wouldn't want to get the data that proves you right instead of just citing anonymous program staff. </quote> The data that proves me right is this thing called "math". Not only would full UBI crash the Canadian economy, but it would also weaken the economy to an unsalvageable level because the labor force would decrease by ~1/10, and that's before you consider how several businesses would flee Canada to avoid the ridiculous tax hikes necessary to keep that system afloat. Oh, but at least their healthcare costs would be reduced by some unspecific amount and a few thousand more people would go to college.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 08/29/18 2:10:02 PM #201:	TrevorBlack79 posted... lol @ this topic lol @ Mal I just don't understand how this makes sense in his head I mean to us on the outside it makes no sense because he's being a moron But Mal doesn't think he's being wrong so I'm wondering what's going on in his head --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:907758906] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote>lol @ this topic lol @ Mal</quote> I just don't understand how this makes sense in his head I mean to us on the outside it makes no sense because he's being a moron But Mal doesn't think he's being wrong so I'm wondering what's going on in his head</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Current Events > Looks like Basic Income failed again, this time in Canada. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Looks like Basic Income failed again, this time in Canada.