I love ideas that are revolutionary:

"Cheques were issued based on family size and income. That is, the minimum cheque would presume the recipient had no other source of income. From there, it was scaled back in proportion to the household's earnings, but it did not claw back everything the family earned above the minimum needed to keep body and soul together.

In that way, it differed from standard welfare, or social assistance. And for that reason, it's fondly remembered in the town that tried it, because it rewarded initiative and standing on your own two feet, qualities highly regarded in rural Manitoba, then and now.

I hate that frequently, those revolutionary ideas never survive, even when they have a successful trial.

"Teenagers stayed in school longer because they didn't have to get jobs to support their families. People could afford medical and dental care. Stress was down because people didn't have to worry about providing for their families.

As Zaplitny says, these people weren't deadbeats.

They were no different that the thousands of people in this province who work and still live at or below the poverty line. They use food banks to supplement what they buy or go hungry so their children can eat.

Mincome did more than top up the income of the poor. It gave them dignity.

Surely that's an idea worth investing in."