this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
107 points (99.1% liked)

Canada

7202 readers
285 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
107
Stripped of dignity, $22 left after rent β€” stories emerge as Ontario sued for halting basic income pilot (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Tracey Crosson says she ate healthier, slept better and had more energy when she was receiving basic income payments from the Ontario government.

Now, she's left with $22 every month after paying rent and relies on Meals on Wheels.

Crosson is just one of the thousands of people impacted after the province scrapped the basic income pilot project (OBI) nearly six years ago. The early cancellation of the program in 2018 is behind a class-action lawsuit that was certified by a Superior Court judge on March 4.

"When I was on the OBI, I got to go and get a steak for $10 and have that for dinner once a month," said Crosson, who participated in the program in Thunder Bay and now lives in Toronto for better access to medical care. "Now, I don't have the luxury for steak and hamburger and all that stuff."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I don't understand why conservatives can't see this as an economic issue .... sure you can play the socialism is bad card and paint a terrible picture of people living freely off the government but it doesn't work like that.

No matter where you are on the political spectrum .... the government will always pay for the poor.

Either ....

  • be a conservative and take away all benefits for the poor and let them live on their own ... and your government will end up paying for more policing, more security, more judicial services, more social services, more health care and more emergency services as people fall below a livable level and can't take care of themselves any more ... or they just fall into more crime and drug abuse as their lives degrade over time.

  • be a liberal socialist and give funds and supports directly to the poor and you'll save money by reduced crime, reduced number of people drifting towards crime and reduced number of unhealthy people accessing your public and private health care that the government would have paid for any way.

It's all the same money ... either don't pay and you'd end up paying for the consequences later ... or pay it now and you'll have less of a problem to pay for later.

And no ... it won't create a utopia where people will be holding hands in unity afterwards ... there will still be problems, there will always be problems with any human system no matter how well meaning it is ... it's just that taking care of people makes the most economic sense. If you have a healthy nation full of functional people, they are all more likely to take part in the economy to make those wealthy capitalist leaders even more rich .... by not helping people, all our energy is spent just trying to take care of people as minimally as possible and keep the system from falling apart.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago

Conservatives have a deep need to feel superior to others.

The cruelty is the point.

If poor people have happy and fulfilling lives, then they can't feel better than them.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No matter where you are on the political spectrum … the government will always pay for the poor.

They're OK with the government paying for the poor, so long as the government is paying them for the poor.

Private prisons. HMOs and private hospitals. Company towns. Privatized services.

The problem with basic income is that it keeps the power to choose in the hands of the person. They'd be all too happy to have the government foot the bill directly for things, with the rider that they're the one's being paid.

The issue is always one of control. Money is just a medium for exercising that control. UBI puts control into the hands of the receiver -- the poor, the unworthy.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

A happy, healthy, educated population is a productive population.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Because they know that they won't directly benefit, that it will pose a threat to the old power structures they are in control of and know, because conservatives (and old people) by their nature are scared of progress and new things, because giving in to some level of equality would mean that they were wrong on any number of other things and that conservative ideology might not actually bring about the best possible society.

They see themselves as naturally privileged, and anything that may pose a threat to their power dominance will always be fought, just like in feudal times. It was never about money for them, the money was only a means to an end, to make sure social division and hierarchies were upheld and protected. If you start messing with the money, however, that would be the first birth pangs of a new revolution, and they know whose heads are going to roll.

Giving a fair share to everyone, even hypothetically, would be like admitting that the Emperor doesn't wear shoes, and then socks, and then pants, and then all the other things and then all of a sudden we find them standing there ~~all nekkid with their dick in their hands~~ like a bunch of old fat white dudes jerking each other off in the middle of the town square.

E: Edited for poetry

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Conservatives have a poor understanding of economics, as a rule.