4 ms·

To play the devil's advocate, that amounts to a bit under $7 per Canadian citizen. UBI won't be going very with far that.

awor 12y ago
This was only in Ontario, so $18/citizen
- desdiv 12y ago
  $18/citizen over 4 years, so that's less than $5 per capita per year.
brandonmenc 12y ago
I think it's less a problem that everyone paid $7, and more a problem that a few received $240M.
andrewfong 12y ago
This only a single example. The more relevant issue is to what extent this is representative of other, similar bureaucratic costs imposed by means-testing and other targeting. Also, you need to consider how many Canadian citizens are already receiving benefits and how much under the current system. If a very large percentage of Canadians are already receiving benefits, then the cost-savings of any system that prevents the remainder from claiming benefits is accordingly diminished.
- superuser2 12y ago
  Means-testing is not a difficult problem to solve with software. This project was grossly overprovisioned and mismanaged to a degree that probably indicates corruption, yes, but that happens in all kinds of software that has nothing to do with means-testing.
  - dmix 12y ago
    I know someone in Ontario who actually works with this software and I had her explain the requirements. Yes it is extremely hard problem to solve with software. They are trying to quantify qualitative data, but each case is so varied that the software had thousands of options and checkboxes. They needed the checkboxes to track metrics for specific trends in cases and detecting problem areas. So the state can detect say a rise in poverty in x neighbourhood do to y circumstances etc. Data tracking at this level is incredibly complex. And I'm sure IBM, or any gov enterprise software team doesnt have many good designers leading the projects. Designed in comitee rooms. UBI takes these people out of the equation and the software is simply, here is everyones address/bank -> pay them.

awor 12y ago

This was only in Ontario, so $18/citizen

desdiv 12y ago
$18/citizen over 4 years, so that's less than $5 per capita per year.

brandonmenc 12y ago

I think it's less a problem that everyone paid $7, and more a problem that a few received $240M.

andrewfong 12y ago

This only a single example. The more relevant issue is to what extent this is representative of other, similar bureaucratic costs imposed by means-testing and other targeting. Also, you need to consider how many Canadian citizens are already receiving benefits and how much under the current system. If a very large percentage of Canadians are already receiving benefits, then the cost-savings of any system that prevents the remainder from claiming benefits is accordingly diminished.

superuser2 12y ago
Means-testing is not a difficult problem to solve with software. This project was grossly overprovisioned and mismanaged to a degree that probably indicates corruption, yes, but that happens in all kinds of software that has nothing to do with means-testing.
- dmix 12y ago
  I know someone in Ontario who actually works with this software and I had her explain the requirements. Yes it is extremely hard problem to solve with software. They are trying to quantify qualitative data, but each case is so varied that the software had thousands of options and checkboxes. They needed the checkboxes to track metrics for specific trends in cases and detecting problem areas. So the state can detect say a rise in poverty in x neighbourhood do to y circumstances etc. Data tracking at this level is incredibly complex. And I'm sure IBM, or any gov enterprise software team doesnt have many good designers leading the projects. Designed in comitee rooms. UBI takes these people out of the equation and the software is simply, here is everyones address/bank -> pay them.