It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.
It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for married women, and five percent for unmarried women. However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary. These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.
A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget (/fɔrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.
originally posted by: iclimbtowers
I would settle for them not taking money from my paychecks and on anything and everything I buy.
However I know some people would be so very grateful, and others would be apathetic and foster independence. But free money Sign me up!
originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme In most cases I think it would breed dependency, sloth and apathy. Also I bet a lot of people would mismanage it. Blowing it on certain items.
originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: tavi45
Giving people money for nothing is breeding laziness.
If everybody (and I mean everybody) got free money and began to feel there's no need to contribute, then we have a problem. TPTB would never allow it to happen, 7+ billion living off of robot-made goods and constantly consuming? In this current phase, humanity as a whole could never handle it responsibly.
originally posted by: Blueracer
Bad idea. Lets take for example a landlord who knows his tenant is being subsidized by the government. Landlord figures he can raise the rent to make more money. Other businesses raise their prices too. Tenant winds up in the same boat he was in before. And let's not forget that the cause of most, if not all, problems-GOVERNMENT- decides in order to create more revenue, they can raise taxes too because tenant has more money.
originally posted by: eletheia
CREAM WILL ALWAYS RISE TO THE TOP
3 # And then we have the CREAM who will live off say 2/3rds of that and with the rest buy cheap what is popular and sell at a profit!
I am not religious but I seem to remember a parable about a father giving
his two sons equal one made something of it and the other son just
wasted his share