Basic Income

            There’s this concept being experimented with right now called Basic Income. Some countries already have it and some others are testing it, but I don’t think there is nearly enough information about it given out. The essential concept is that the government gives everyone of the age of majority enough money to live off of – and, after that, all you get told are the details about how the system works – not why it is being done.

            Based on that surface information, there are a number of different responses that jump straight into people’s heads. The ones that really get to me are the people who complain about the government giving money to people who aren’t working for it – a response that shows they have no idea either how an economy works, or how people think.

            The latter isn’t really their fault – we’ve been trained to think that work is unpleasant and that, given the opportunity, no one would work. This has fostered the belief that anyone on any kind of government support is simply lazy and feeding off the rest of society, which is completely untrue. Sure, there are some people who abuse the system, but the majority of people getting money from the government A. need it for one reason or another and B. would much rather be working for their money.

            The truth is that we humans need work. It’s not merely a way to make money; it’s a method for passing the time. Without it, we’d go stir-crazy. Sure, the idea of playing video games all day every day may appeal to some people, but after about three months of that our brains long for something different (yes, I’m speaking from experience) – and that’s where work comes in. We need a variety of things to do, and work helps break up the time, making enjoyable activities more enjoyable.

            Apart from that, no one wants to just be handed money. Oh, we think we do, but it’s just as unrewarding as spending the entire day on the social media website of your choice. It feels horrible to be living off the charity of others, so, given the option, most people avoid it. So why does anyone accept these ‘government handouts’ then? Because money is needed to survive – and our strongest instinct is to survive.

            So, how does this Basic Income thing help? First, it makes it for everyone, meaning that the stigma associated with accepting government money are lessened, making it seem like a less horrible option. Next, it makes it easy to get on to – being automatic for everyone. Finally, it encourages everyone to get off of it: it’s only enough money to cover basic expenses, so if people want cars, houses, the latest books or videogames, TV channels, or any of that, they still have to get a job. However, it doesn’t just vanish as soon as someone gets a job, it simply fades out as the person makes more money – but at a rate where the person is still earning on top of their basic living expenses. In essence, you get given, say, $20,000 per year – if you start working, your income goes up by half your earnings until you’re making about $40,000 per year, at which point the Basic Income drops out.

This means that people with disabilities are able to work fewer hours and get a better income, while still having the security that, if worst comes to worst, they won’t end up living on the streets. In fact, it means that no one need ever end up on the streets again! Just like that, a bulk of the homeless problems are solved.

            But wait, there’s more! Think of all the drastic changes a system like this makes to the whole society. Students won’t need as much debt to go through school, people who lose jobs won’t have to panic about finding new jobs, and people can work fewer hours to get the money they need to survive – which will improve mental health across the board.

            Then there’s the work environments – remember that horrible boss you had once? Or that dangerous work environment? The co-workers who made you dread going to work? You couldn’t quit, because you needed the money to survive. But with a Basic Income, you could safely take the risk of quitting and finding a new job, knowing your base expenses can be paid. That may seem a small thing at first, but think – how many bad bosses will there be if their employee’s aren’t trapped working for them? How many unsafe environments if the employees feel safe walking out? The system would actually force work environments to improve. Employers would be forced to earn their employees’ respect and loyalty.

            Then there are all the would-be entrepreneurs out there. Starting a business takes a lot of money and risks. How many more brilliant businesses might start if there is a guaranteed safety net?

            Hang on a moment, though. This is still money being given out by the government. That means it comes from our taxes! Well, yes, but that’s the most brilliant part of it. You see, there are people out there who would have you believe that the best thing for the economy is to give more money to rich people, so they can spend that money on more extravagant things, which generates more jobs and pays more people. Yet, however hard they try to prove trickle-down economy, people are always able to find holes in the arguments and math.

            The truth is that the opposite is true. The economy functions through the movement of money, and the poorer someone is, the more likely they are to spend their money. People with a lot of money have a stockpile of it. If you give $20 to a corporation, they don’t turn around and spend it – they put it in a holding tank, where it may take ages for it to get passed on to someone else. That’s where the economy goes to die. On the other hand, if you give $20 to someone who barely survives from paycheck-to-paycheck, they’ll spend every penny of it and fuel the economy.

            So, yes, the money comes out of taxes, but even though it looks like it’s being given away for free, it’s actually improving the economy. But, in truth, it shouldn’t be thought of as the government giving away the taxes you worked so hard to pay – it should be thought of as a country investing in its people. Once the system is up and running, taxes will be more like paying off the money that was invested in you while you were building your life. And, once you start thinking about it like that, you’ll be happy to pay your taxes, secure in the knowledge that they’ll be going to someone else who is still building their life. Perhaps even your own kids.

            Imagine if a Basic Income could be implemented around the world – converting poverty into unlocking everyone’s full potential.

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

What Is It Good For?

            I recently heard a quote that said, in essence, that the natural state of any two nations is to be at war – and that if there is peace, it is only because there is someone working very hard to keep the peace. Nations are always working to further their own agendas – be it that they want to spread their ideology or that they need resources – and so, without effort to prevent it, they will clash with others.

            This was a bit of a revelation for me. My thought process prior to hearing this was that war needed a reason to occur. However, this reversed way of looking at things made everything about global politics make a bit more sense – at least when it comes to looking at history.

            It makes sense that, back in the eras of survival, people went to war over resources. That’s how they survived, after all. As for ideology, well... people tend to believe that they are right and that it is their duty to enlighten others.

            Nowadays, lots of effort is put into keeping peace. It doesn’t always work, but it’s become important for survival with our destructive capabilities. Lots of people work very hard at keeping the peace – it certainly doesn’t come naturally.

            This bit of insight may not seem very important, but as a writer it has completely changed my perspective. When working on building a world, and stringing together plotlines, I no longer have to ask myself, “Why is there a war?” Instead I ask, “Why is there peace? Who is behind the peace?”

            And, if I’m in a particularly destructive mood, I’ll add, “How will the world change if something happens to the peace keeper?”

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Hindrance or Help?

            Finding a weekly topic to blog about is often difficult, but I’m finding this week to be a particular challenge. This is because I know that I’m going to end up talking about the exact subject I don’t want to, no matter how hard I try to avoid it. So, I’m just going to save myself the effort and dive right into it.

            I’m sad to say that I’m not surprised by the results of the US election. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. Electoral systems may have started out decent, with good intent, but they weren’t designed for the world we live in today. Back when the US was founded, the population was around 2.5 million. It’s far easier to convey information to that many people, and to take a vote on their opinions, than it is with the 127 times that population of today.

            Yet, the problem runs deeper than that. Beyond being outdated, the system has become tainted – turned into a manipulative game to see who can influence the voters the most. As I was watching part of the election, the commentators kept talking about all the research and strategies that go into “flipping” key voting regions. It’s more than just that – it’s a psychological game to suppress voters who favor the opposite side, either by convincing them that they don’t have a chance, or by convincing them that their win is assured so they needn’t bother voting.

            This is all made possible by the vast amount of information we have – studies of previous voting trends, psychology, and the certainty that most people will vote for the same party, no matter what. Yet, we still consider this a democracy.

            In my opinion, it isn’t. It’s like the professional level of the game Starcraft. This is a war strategy game that has been taken to a whole new level. The people who play it are amazing – they develop strategies, perfect them, then pit them against each other. They time themselves and their routines, figuring out the most efficient ways to spend their resources and build an army to outdo their opponents. They must constantly balance between micro (controlling their units) and macro (managing their base and producing their army) because if one falters, they lose. The players are so fast and need such precision that someone hitting a key one second late can cost them the war.

            At that level of game play, I no longer call it a game. I’ll accept it as an e-sport, but a game is played for fun and I don’t see the amount of training needed to play that game at high-level as fun. Just as a democracy where the candidates have to put on a show to manipulate voters, rather than earning them based on what they plan to do for the country, is no longer a democracy.

            Every election I’ve seen has become something that should be illegal – it becomes a contest to see which candidate can do a better job of dragging the other through the mud. In the end, that’s all that matters. Who are the people more afraid of having in charge of the country?

            With this election, it should have been obvious. It was obvious, as far as anyone could tell. That is, perhaps, why almost half the people registered to vote didn’t. They thought it was a sure thing, so they weren’t needed.

            Here in Canada, we’re pushing for electoral reform to fix this very problem – to make votes actually count in elections. To take away the numbers game of winning certain constituencies to win the election. To bring back democracy.

            The problem in the US right now is that what’s done is done. All the world can do is wait and hope. We can hope that some of the electorates will vote against their party. Failing that, we can hope for impeachment. Or we can hope that the new president was putting on a show and really isn’t as horrible as he seems – although this, unfortunately, will not put an end to the rash of bigotry his campaign has deemed acceptable.

            It may seem like it’s not my place, being Canadian, to criticize US politics – but the problems have reached us here, too. The results of this election are not limited to the US. The world is at a critical place right now and needs strong, responsible leadership from all the leading countries. Will the US help or hinder in the coming years?

            We can only hope for help.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her life coaching website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.