"If it means drastically reducing government-provided welfare programs and letting people "vote with their wallets"" Sadly, this will not be the case. 'Govern

"If it means drastically reducing government-provided welfare programs and letting people "vote with their wallets"" Sadly, this will not be the case. 'Government' is a cabal of politicians and unions who have the power to extract money from you with the threat of punishment or imprisonment, to distribute money among themselves while having very little real oversight. So long as they 'show up' for work they can claim they are 'doing something'. If you think for one second that this will improve efficiency, then I'm sorry, you have some time to live yet :). And FYI - even if 100% of them are 'well meaning' - the system will work this way. The government will not 'unemploy' 100K service workers. They will just find other things for them to do. Whether those other things are productive ... is not likely. Unions will require 'same pay, same skills, no relocation' etc. etc.. You can't tell a social worker in Ottawa to pick up a hammer and start building a bridge in Toronto. So - the 'theoretical gains' from getting rid of social services bureaucracy is nary moot. Second - is the social impact on 'non means tested' populations. In my hood in Montreal, everyone is 30 and still in school. They will stay in school as long as they can. And why would they not? They can afford to live. They have free time. People are 'kind of poor' here but they don't mind. Third - is the realistic budget impact. I suggest it's doubtful that the numbers add up. Lastly - it misses the core of the problem: at least 10% of people are extremely irresponsible. We have welfare in Canada and yet there is a homeless guy 200m from me. He spends his money on crack and lives outside. This is not entirely uncommon. Many people can barely take care of themselves. How about this: + Why can't we just streamline the processes we have? + Streamline the 'means testing'? + Get rid of the 'welfare trap' by allowing people to work? + Use money and concentrate to help those in need to live better? The problem is total inneficiency in the system. It's partly the nature of governance. The city of Toronto spends 30% of it's money allocated to poverty on staff for the program. IF they were a charity, they would be considered corrupt. The solution is much harder: everyone in private and public sector, and all members of the community have to act more responsibly, intelligently and rationally. Public entities have to be held to account with benchmarks, and hopefully, to some market driven benchmarks. "The ever growing gap between the wealthy and the poor in Canada will lead to social unrest, increased crime rates and violence" Also remember that violence and anti-social behaviour pushes people out of society and makes them poor. In fact - 'bad behaviour' is far more likely to make one poor than 'being poor' will drive one to crime. It's a 2 way street.