Question remains is it sustainable and how would it be paid for?

The money doesn’t disappear. People spend it and it goes into our economy. That increased spending gets taxed. That increased spending generates GDP. That increased spending fuels economies of scale.

Captain napkin math’s $100B/year figure completely ignores the money cycle.

Banks got a 114B bailout after the 2008 recession. If Canada can afford to spend billions bailing out failed businesses it can afford to invest in it’s economy with UBI.

replied to wrong post, but if Canada is not subservient to CIA/US empire for Ukrainian war funding, it does have its democracy corrupted by the descendants of genocidal volunteer nazis fleeing USSR war crimes that our parliament gives standing ovations to.

Back to the topic of UBI, instead of corrupt fascism that steals my money for demonic nazi support, you are free to use your UBI/other money for any nazi/geopolitical purpose you want, instead of improving your personal life and prospects. The other benefit of UBI is the end of divisiveness that occurs from fascist governance that never does what its campaigning suggests.

“we need slavery, because otherwise, how would single issue Ukrainian Canadians help diminish Russia to the last Ukrainian” is a very weak argument against UBI. You will be empowered to use your own money to have Ukrainian rulership kill all Ukrainians.

This assumes that people wouldn’t take the same job for less pay if they were guaranteed a fixed amount that more or less made up the difference. If I work a job where I make $50,000/year, and I went to a world where I made $20,000/year UBI and $30,000/ year from my job, I could end up ahead under this scheme with the only additional cost to the economy being my possibly lowered taxes. Under this plan, raising taxes and lowering minimum wage/wage expectations means there would be at most a slight change to corporate taxes (and some jobs would have to pay more when you factor in UBI because desperation would be less of a factor for what people are willing to put up with).

So, realistically, the only cost would be whatever is required to get whoever is below the set line up to the set line, for individuals, corporations, and the government. This would also depend on people who are already making more than UBI to take a “pay cut”, and for corporations to not resist paying more taxes to balance the lower payroll costs. So it’s never really going to happen.

“Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a social welfare concept that proposes providing all citizens or residents of a particular country or region with a regular, unconditional sum of money, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth”

Ubi is just a reform of progressive taxation so that it goes slightly negative as you get closer to zero income instead of stopping at zero percent.

Also most of the studies of ubi show it doesn’t cost all that much because it allows a reduction in expensive to administer social programs - obviously less of an effect in the USA that doesn’t have those.

That has no bearing on what your income from your job is. Pretending this won’t have any impact on the value of jobs to both employers and workers can only be intentionally obtuse. That’s like saying that raising minimum wage will have an equal impact on the hourly wage of all employees.

That is a false equivalency.

I am also arguing against UBI, so thank you for adding additional points to my argument.

Take care.

I’m talking about various social benefits like welfare or disability that would ideally be replaced by a UBI.

I hear a lot of stories about this but I don’t remember if they’re Canadian or not; There’s a lot of people who are on disability and are still capable of doing part time work or taking care of their kids for an hour every day for example, but they can’t because if they’re found doing anything, they lose all of their disability benefits. We want a system that allows them to do what they can and be rewarded for contributing to the best of their abilities rather than punishing them for it.

It’s the same deal with welfare. You need to hit a certain income threshold before your take-home income surpasses what you’d get through welfare. Until then, you’re putting a bunch of energy into working to make less money when you could be lounging at home and making more. This actively discourages people from bettering their lives.

I haven’t seen any numbers either for or against it, so I can’t say anything about viability. If anyone knows enough to run the numbers, I’d like to see it. The problem with the calculations you show above is that you assume the value of money doesn’t change when the world around it changes, but it does. Especially so if you make a large change like implementing UBI. We need to think about this in terms of resources. The question you should be asking is whether there’s enough food / housing / labour within the country to fulfill everyone’s basic needs.

Once again, misleading to the point of being intentional. A implies B is not the same as B implies A. Having UBI be guaranteed regardless of income is not the same as income being guaranteed regardless of UBI. So why do you keep insisting that it must? At this point I have to assume intent rather than ignorance.

I haven’t seen any numbers either for or against it, so I can’t say anything about viability. If anyone knows enough to run the numbers, I’d like to see it. The problem with the calculations you show above is that you assume the value of money doesn’t change when the world around it changes, but it does.

Especially so if you make a large change like implementing UBI. We need to think about this in terms of resources.

My calculations don’t assume anything. I literally used age statistics, the Ontario framework for the payout, and net revenue of the Federal Government to demonstrate the cost of UBI. Find me more data, I will give you better calculations.

Feel free to provide data on your claim about this massive shift you assume I didn’t account for. Preferably which countries have instituted UBI and demonstrated this outcome.

The question you should be asking is whether there’s enough food / housing / labour within the country to fulfill everyone’s basic needs.

There is more than enough food from waste alone to feed every single person on the planet, let alone a small country. There is enough housing if we factor in how many empty units, houses, and the like exist because of high cost; What we don’t have we have ways of providing. There is enough labour to go around when Citizens and residents take the available jobs. The reason why we need TFW’s and things of that nature is because citizens and residents refuse to work on farms even though that is constant seasonal work. The labour is there, the willingness doesn’t seem to be.

I don’t need to ask a question like that, because it has nothing to do with my point that the cost of UBI is excessive, unmanageable, and there are better ways to do things. We already have social safety nets that need improving for people in need. Every single person doesn’t need help, but the social services required by others do.

Idk, I feel like landlords would just jack prices by whatever the ubi payments are. Ubi is a good idea for sure, but it’s only a piece.

Cheated, stolen it, and had other people break their bodies to “earn” it.

We’re about to see trillionaires in our lifetime, which is obscene. Cap wealth so the hoarding can stop.

I disagree with the extreme measure, posit that a less extreme measure would work just as well or better, and await any kind of data and proper analysis to support your point of view like I have already done.

I will not continue the conversation otherwise, so take care of yourself if you choose to respond differently.

Controlled rent would also be fantastic and has worked in economically diffuclt times like COVID. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work again during the recession we are spiralling towards.

Until it is peer reviewed and points out the glaring errors, which will promptly be ignored.

To be fair, if 8% exits the labour market that would have a pretty severe economic effect, no?

Controlled rent is better than uncontrolled rent, but it suffers from the same problems as minimum wage. And why should landlords even exist? I’m not convinced private rentals should be legal at all. If you’re not using a property for personal use or a place of business, why shouldn’t it be seized and auctioned or rented publicly?

Who said anything about ‘fuck you I got mine?’

First of all Canada already has a TON of social supports for anyone who is in need. We have Employment Insurance if you lose your job. We have Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan for seniors. We have Child Tax Credits for parents and especially single parents. We have the GST credit to give back taxes to low income earners. We have the Canada Workers Benefit. We have the Canada Disability Benefit. We have the Assured Income for Severely Handicapped. We have disability pensions. We have Universal Pharmacare for prescription drugs. We have housing benefits/social housing programs. We have the Canadian Dental Benefit. We have student aid. There are free food banks in every city. And there are emergency funds available for things like rent/damage deposits on an emergency basis from every province through various community agencies, charities, and non-profit organizations.

So WHY do we need UBI on top of all that? If you need help in Canada, you CAN find it. Its already here.

Source: I founded a charity for street kids in one of our major cities thats been operating for 33 years. There is a TON of support out there. The fact is that a LOT of the people on the street know how to use and abuse the system and they dont WANT to get out of it because its what they grew up in and what they are accustomed to. I speak from years of experience.