Canada finally reveals the results of its universal basic income experiment
-
UBI isn’t the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost
trillionsBillions, requiring trillions in revenue to be a viable option.I think a better idea is a reform of taxation.
First $50,000 of income is not taxed.
$50,001-$100,000: Taxed at 15% $100,001-$500,000: Taxed at 25% $500,001-$1,000,000: Taxed at 40% $1,000,000-$10,000,000: Taxed at 50%
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
This would essentially create the conditions of UBI, help to increase funding for support for those who cannot work or are unable to work full time, and the rich finally get to pay their share.
These are also really rough numbers just as an example for the idea.
Edit:
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: “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”
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
Population estimates on July 1, by age and gender
Estimated number of persons on July 1, by 5-year age groups and gender, and median age, for Canada, provinces and territories.
(www150.statcan.gc.ca)
The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024 - Canada.ca
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024
(www.canada.ca)
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784
$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
I got a good idea. How about mega corps actually start paying taxes?
-
I got a good idea. How about mega corps actually start paying taxes?
Please read my comment before responding to me in the future. My point is increased taxation on large earnings up to an incredibly high cap is a better solution than UBI.
-
I got a good idea. How about mega corps actually start paying taxes?
Please read my comment before responding to me in the future. My point is increased taxation on large earnings up to an incredibly high cap is a better solution than UBI.
Or you know the better option of raising the tax rate, to pay for ubi
-
This post did not contain any content.
We will fund it using debt is the problem. Then the poor will suffer greater and greater as they have since the 70s while those that hold assets get richer.
Its pretty obvious that the housing bubble exists due to debt and currency debasement, heck the Bank of Canada is still buying half of all mortgage bonds. This is the main things that’s making the poor worse off, as homeowners are becoming cantillionaires.
-
Or you know the better option of raising the tax rate, to pay for ubi
Napkin math will demonstrate to you why UBI is not sustainable on scale, even with an increase in taxes.
-
Taxing corps is the same as taxing people, there’s no difference other than whos books it ends up on. Companies are all owned by people (eventually)
If you want to tax wealthy people who hold the stocks, tax them directly.
Let the companies generate value free from taxes on their operation. Of course we should charge them taxes for things like land and resource use, and force them to meet human, environmental, and safety standards.
-
This post did not contain any content.
To be real about it. Who is going to say it was bad receiving extra money a month? I understand the health data portion. Question remains is it sustainable and how would it be paid for?
-
To be real about it. Who is going to say it was bad receiving extra money a month? I understand the health data portion. Question remains is it sustainable and how would it be paid for?
I’d be happy to receive money every months that I payback in full on my tax deductions. If I suddenly stop working, the check just keep coming in. It becomes a safety net available to all, that doesn’t mean you are actually giving it to all, all the time. You can get rid of other program that become redundant. Welfare, employment insurance, hell student loans too could be splified this way.
-
I’d be happy to receive money every months that I payback in full on my tax deductions. If I suddenly stop working, the check just keep coming in. It becomes a safety net available to all, that doesn’t mean you are actually giving it to all, all the time. You can get rid of other program that become redundant. Welfare, employment insurance, hell student loans too could be splified this way.
Just renaming Welfare to UBI. Again where is the money coming from should be answered by politicians.
-
Just renaming Welfare to UBI. Again where is the money coming from should be answered by politicians.
Welfare only kicks in once I’ve spent all my savings and sold my house. Money comes from taxes. Welfare takes lots of time to kick in and is sublet to a ton of conditions. UBI is there all the time. Way cheaper to administrate.
-
Taxing corps is the same as taxing people, there’s no difference other than whos books it ends up on. Companies are all owned by people (eventually)
If you want to tax wealthy people who hold the stocks, tax them directly.
Let the companies generate value free from taxes on their operation. Of course we should charge them taxes for things like land and resource use, and force them to meet human, environmental, and safety standards.
I like this better. It means fully worker owned corporations get to keep more of their earnings because it’s more spread out. Discourages wealth concentration.
-
These studies are annoying. “Study finds if you give people money they do better in life” Wow. Such rocket science.
But for all the radical socialists trying push UBI, you will note that NONE of them want to pay for it with their tax increases (do they even pay taxes?). Which is the entire problem. There may be some savings in the system but the COST will be borne up front by the taxpaayer. And since WHEN in the history of mankind, if a gov has saved some money in other areas, have they LOWERED taxes due to the savings? Never.Therefore UBI is sever going to happen. Because the only people who support it are students and academics and think tanks. The rest of us live in reality and are sick of our very high tax burden in Canada. So enough with the studies, kill this idea once and for all.
And since WHEN in the history of mankind, if a gov has saved some money in other areas, have they LOWERED taxes due to the savings? Never.
Governments lower taxes all of the freaking time. This last federal election it was one of the largest points that all three major parties were proposing.
Because the only people who support it are students and academics and think tanks. The rest of us live in reality and are sick of our very high tax burden in Canada. So enough with the studies, kill this idea once and for all.
False, I live here and work here and support exploring the idea to see what and how it would work. You can’t know how expensive it is based solely on theories, so we NEED to run these studies to show it either is or isn’t more expensive. Especially given our single-payer healthcare, reductions in healthcare spending due to better life circumstances/proper nutrition can very quickly and easily make up significant costs spent elsewhere.
Canada’s tax burden is not actually that high. Curious what you’re comparing to. Taking Canada’s average income of $55,000, they pay effective rates of 13-20%, based on your province.
Taking a few US cities as comparison,, Georgia is at ~20%, while Michigan sits at 19% because they have a city income tax rate. California falls around the 19% mark as well. BUT many of those places have cities which also have rates ranging from 0.5 to 2.5%.
-
UBI isn’t the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost
trillionsBillions, requiring trillions in revenue to be a viable option.I think a better idea is a reform of taxation.
First $50,000 of income is not taxed.
$50,001-$100,000: Taxed at 15% $100,001-$500,000: Taxed at 25% $500,001-$1,000,000: Taxed at 40% $1,000,000-$10,000,000: Taxed at 50%
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
This would essentially create the conditions of UBI, help to increase funding for support for those who cannot work or are unable to work full time, and the rich finally get to pay their share.
These are also really rough numbers just as an example for the idea.
Edit:
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: “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”
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
Population estimates on July 1, by age and gender
Estimated number of persons on July 1, by 5-year age groups and gender, and median age, for Canada, provinces and territories.
(www150.statcan.gc.ca)
The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024 - Canada.ca
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024
(www.canada.ca)
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784
$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
In my opinion, the main appeal of UBI over other forms of support is that
- the absence of means testing ensures no one falls through the cracks, and
- you never earn less by working harder.
That’s not to say that you can’t design a support system that doesn’t have these issues, but with UBI, they’re just trivially non-existent. No need for extra work in figuring out how to fix these problems.
I don’t see how funding would be an issue unless you count the savings from letting people fall through the cracks. Shouldn’t it cost the same to effectively support people in need regardless of how you distribute the money?
-
In my opinion, the main appeal of UBI over other forms of support is that
- the absence of means testing ensures no one falls through the cracks, and
- you never earn less by working harder.
That’s not to say that you can’t design a support system that doesn’t have these issues, but with UBI, they’re just trivially non-existent. No need for extra work in figuring out how to fix these problems.
I don’t see how funding would be an issue unless you count the savings from letting people fall through the cracks. Shouldn’t it cost the same to effectively support people in need regardless of how you distribute the money?
The idea of UBI is a great one, and I agree with it in principle, but I have yet to run any numbers that make it viable and that is my number one issue.
I just finished an edit to my original post going into more detail with the numbers. If you have any data that can show how the money can be made so that “you never earn less by working harder” and “everyone gets an even payment” I would be really interested to see it because I have not found anything realistic.
-
But! Maybe we could not tax the rich and the money would trickle down, have you thought of that?
This calls for another study!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Testing UBI is always an excuse to avoid UBI. UBI is as obvious as slavery abolition or basic universal healthcare. You don’t need to worry about people choosing unemployment, because you just need enough HR workers to call everyone 5 times a day with awesome job offers.
City secession is probably necessary for UBI, as it can be easily implemented at city level. City politics still demanding power hierarchy as prize for politics victory makes demonic evil oppression a perpetual social feature. UBI is especially suited to cities because police, homelessness, education are in their budgets. UBI eliminates crime and homelessness. Privatizing education and daycare with stipends for children is a budget reduction, with far more likely than not higher educational achievement.
Cities typically depend on property taxes for nearly all funding. Density weighted property taxes can pay for entirety of UBI, with those living alone in large spaces subsidizing those who live in small spaces. Adding small income and sales taxes can eliminate payroll taxes. Income taxes that are equal between businesses and individuals up to say $100k, means that $100k in employment income can be tax free if it is not a deduction to businesses. Business losses can still get tax refunds. Investor income no longer getting tax breaks is justified because investor class also gets UBI. This means lower personal/business tax rates. No more need for payroll taxes. EI not needed. Either save for a rainy day, or borrow (cheaply because income to repay is assured) from future UBI. UBI replaces future retirement benefits. Sales taxes also mean lower business/personal tax rates, without caring too much who made what you are buying. But security guarantees/tributes are far cheaper than Federal fascism.
Before you worry about pig slime multimillionaires threatening to leave your city due to end of slavery, and end of zionazi warmongering fascism, know that the best places to live on the planet are those with no crime, homelessness, and great restaurants, entertainment and retail experiences made abundant because people can afford to patronize them. The Zohran in NYC should propose UBI and secession instead of hierarchy bandaids.
When Ford and Carney promise to give all of Toronto tax money to Alberta climate terrorists and Ukrainian nazis, then the power redistribution to people provided by UBI, and secession, for Toronto is necessary. Everyone is still free to donate their money to Alberta MAGA nazis, and Sarnia Ukrainians gets more influence over remaining of Canada’s devotion to a war on Russia, and Canada’s submission to US and Zionaziism is unimpeded, with Toronto residents free to donate to Israel or to a coalition willing to nuke Tel Aviv, if no multicultural singe state or 2 state implementation not immediate. Certainly, a part of Toronto tax revenue needs to be set aside for nuclear deterrents to those who would interfere with secession/UBI structure, as well as tribute to pacify nearby powers who would otherwise make such threats.
Social unity is a powerful benefit. It is far stronger with UBI, and liquid democracy easily achievable through crypto society infrastructure that already exists. Toronto secession/governance/UBI is forerunner example to make all of Canada follow. Social unity without sacrifices to MAGA/Zionism/Warmongering corruption is better social unity. Compromises to evil is by definition fascism, and theft of your wealth for evil. UBI is not theft. It is redistributive power, wealth and quality of life enhancement.
-
UBI isn’t the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost
trillionsBillions, requiring trillions in revenue to be a viable option.I think a better idea is a reform of taxation.
First $50,000 of income is not taxed.
$50,001-$100,000: Taxed at 15% $100,001-$500,000: Taxed at 25% $500,001-$1,000,000: Taxed at 40% $1,000,000-$10,000,000: Taxed at 50%
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
This would essentially create the conditions of UBI, help to increase funding for support for those who cannot work or are unable to work full time, and the rich finally get to pay their share.
These are also really rough numbers just as an example for the idea.
Edit:
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: “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”
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
Population estimates on July 1, by age and gender
Estimated number of persons on July 1, by 5-year age groups and gender, and median age, for Canada, provinces and territories.
(www150.statcan.gc.ca)
The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024 - Canada.ca
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024
(www.canada.ca)
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784
$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates. UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits. As obvious examples, the basic tax exemption means rates above the exemption need to be higher to raise the same revenue as if there were no basic exemption. When investment income gets tax breaks and no payroll taxes, employment and business income needs to be taxed higher for same revenue. Lower business income tax rate? = higher employment taxes.
UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.
-
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates. UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits. As obvious examples, the basic tax exemption means rates above the exemption need to be higher to raise the same revenue as if there were no basic exemption. When investment income gets tax breaks and no payroll taxes, employment and business income needs to be taxed higher for same revenue. Lower business income tax rate? = higher employment taxes.
UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.
UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates.
Combined, what is the total cost of all of those programs?
UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits
UBI is a payment made to every eligible person, regardless of any status including wealth, every month.
UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.
With the numbers I ran the cost is $555,687,356,784 per year with the current population to pay for the program using the Ontario studies payment model.
-
UBI isn’t the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost
trillionsBillions, requiring trillions in revenue to be a viable option.I think a better idea is a reform of taxation.
First $50,000 of income is not taxed.
$50,001-$100,000: Taxed at 15% $100,001-$500,000: Taxed at 25% $500,001-$1,000,000: Taxed at 40% $1,000,000-$10,000,000: Taxed at 50%
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
This would essentially create the conditions of UBI, help to increase funding for support for those who cannot work or are unable to work full time, and the rich finally get to pay their share.
These are also really rough numbers just as an example for the idea.
Edit:
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: “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”
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
Population estimates on July 1, by age and gender
Estimated number of persons on July 1, by 5-year age groups and gender, and median age, for Canada, provinces and territories.
(www150.statcan.gc.ca)
The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024 - Canada.ca
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024
(www.canada.ca)
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784
$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.
Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.
I’m not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.
-
If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.
Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.
I’m not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.
If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.
Couples should not receive less under a Universal Basic Income. The point of UBI is every individual receives the same payment regardless of their potential status’.
Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.
This is not UBI. The point of UBI is to be the basic income separate from working income, and not impacted by what one makes.
I’m not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.
Feel free to provide all of your own data and analysis to demonstrate your assertion.
