4 ms·

I wish could get an overall rational argument FOR UBI, so I could at least debate it. From what I see, it's madness. The economics make zero sense. For examp

I wish could get an overall rational argument FOR UBI, so I could at least debate it. From what I see, it's madness. The economics make zero sense. For example ; Canada. The Federal Government. (All of this speaks of the Federal Government). https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/annual-financial-report/2019/report.html https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publica... 2019 Federal Revenue? $312B. That's from taxes, income from oil, any and all Federal revenue. Now. UBI. Universal Basic Income. That means everyone over 17 gets it, as an example. That also means it must cover the basics. That you can live on it. That's the whole point of UBI, and being "free to choose career paths", and all that other blather. That, to me, means $2k/month. Maybe that will scale, up AND down, depending upon where you live. But let's just go with $2k/month. Or $24k/year. Stats Canada says, out of almost 40M Canadians, around 30M are 18 and older. What's $24k30M? 720B. So.. the entire Federal Revenue is less than 1/2 of what UBI might cost. Now bear in mind, that there was a deficit* in Canada, about $20B. And there is currently a debt in Canada, of about 1.1T. The GoC will say it's less, 800B, but that's if they 'use assets of 300B and deduct that from actual debt", which is meaningless, because interest on debt is on 1.1T. Right now, 8% of Federal Revenue pays just the interest on that debt. If interest rates go up, say in a year or two.. so goes up that payment. My point is that one year of UBI, would almost DOUBLE the ENTIRE FEDERAL DEBT. A Federal Debt that arose after decades, not one year. If you half UBI? Now it's not basic income, it's just a supplement. And you absolutely, positively can't get that money from taxes. About 25% of people's income is taxed (yes, that's an average), that's gas tax, income tax, federal sales tax, tax on alcohol, and other such things. My point here is, you can't just double the tax. And, the above Federal Revenue? There is a pie chart, just under 50% of Federal Revenue came from personal tax. You could increase taxes on business, but are you going to tax 100% of their profit? Because that still won't cover it. Let's tax the rich you say! Well, most money is invested. For example: https://financialpost.com/executive/posthaste-canadas-3-million-richest-families-have-8-7-trillion-in-assets-but-half-is-tied-in-real-estate https://financialpost.com/executive/posthaste-canadas-3-mill... Note, that's ONLY 8.7 trillion. UBI is 720B for one year. And, what are you going to do? Seize people's real estate? Then what? Sell it again? To whom? Certainly not the people you just seized it from. Are you going to tax ... what? Because, "wealth" is real estate, stocks, companies one owns, land, more. Are you going to seize stocks? Then what? Hold on to them? How does that fund UBI? Are you going to seize companies? Great! Now that software company, valued at 100B, is worth $1, because the original owners are out, and they were the magic, and a government isn't going to be able to run something like that. None of the logic behind UBI seems to make sense to me. I can't see where the cash is coming from. This doesn't even include things like inflation, loss of productivity, or 100 other little things that are "just going to work themselves out".

bbarnett 6y ago
For clarity, all of the above is Federal. There are provincial taxes, budgets, etc. SO when I say '25% of people's income is taxed', that's federal tax.
srveale 6y ago
This version of UBI (granted, without the U), would cost $43B [0]. I'm guessing what would actually be implemented would cost more, but $720B is certainly too high. Your post doesn't mention: - Savings from scrapping other welfare programs - Decreased healthcare and law enforcement costs and other economic benefits of bringing millions of people out of poverty - Massive stimulus leading to increased government revenue I'm not saying it would be cheap, but your post only includes the costs and not the benefits. [0] https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-a-guaranteed-basic-income-cost-canada-just-43-billion/ https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-a-guarant...
- bbarnett 6y ago
  This is what I often see from UBI supporters though. For example, why is my post too high. I state simply, "here are the number of people over 18" and "here is the amount to pay". You say "Oh, that's too high." What?. Why! Why is it too high. What part of it. It is very, very, very simple math. Instead, you quote an article from Macleans. Yet that article says Ontario's (not Canada's) UBI program suggested at the time, wasn't really UBI! And that on top of that, it was a flawed study! In other words, you linked to an article showing how wrong Ontario was. How does this support the assertion that my costs are too high. The Macleans article even supports my position, because it discusses how 'reverse taxation' and 'excluding people' is not UBI, but instead modified, partial welfare. It's not universal, which is the much of the point of UBI. You say, scrapping other welfare programs. Well, we must look at provincial numbers here, for that is a provincial responsibility. Here is an example of the costs associated with welfare, child support, and more at the provincial level. And this is Ontario, Canada's most populous province: https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/11/social-programs-face-1-billion-spending-cut-in-ontario-budget.html https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/11/socia... https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-accounts-2018-19-annual-report#section-5 https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-accounts-2018-19-annual-r... (Scroll down to Expense) "Children's and Social services sector" So yup, $17B. What about EI, you say? The savings there? Well, it works as a cash positive. It is paid for by separate EI taxes (paid by employer and employee), has its own fund, and so if you axe EI? You have to remove $21B from the federal revenue from $312B to $291B. And I should note, that EI covers things like retraining, so you'd actually lose some social programs, if you just axed EI, and moved to UBI all by itself. So let's just take Ontario, and try to work out welfare for all the provinces. Here's where it gets a little bit complex. In Canada, we have equalization payments. Part of Federal tax is paid to the 'have not' provinces, which are poorer, and therefore need extra capital to maintain an equal quality of life. This means that some of the federal budget, of that $321B income, is also being used along with provincial funds, to fund things like welfare in some provinces. That means if, say, NewFoundLand pays $x for its welfare budget, maybe even 50% of that revenue might come from the Federal Government. But, let's just be quick and easy about this, and say Ontario has about 40% of Canada's population (15M), and that the "over 18" bit scales. So, 17B x 2.6 = $44B. Of course, the "Children's and Social services sector" isn't just about welfare. For example, EI handles retraining, including some 'back to school' programs. That would vanish if it was just dropped, with a move to UBI. And maybe that's OK! But the point is there, and valid, and means it isn't a perfect change-over. Which means it applies to a generic budget for a huge "Children's and Social services sector" category. But OK. We've reduced the cost of UBI from $720M to a wonderful $676B. You don't remove EI, because if you remove EI, you remove EI tax. The other benefits? Sure, they exist, at least, probably. I think they do, too. Yet.. what does that have to do with paying for it? Understand here, the sheer cost I'm discussing. Please do the math. Please discuss how to pay for it fully. Because things like "stimulus" and "reduced law enforcement costs" are .. what? Going to equal 4x the entire federal budget? You're literally going to switch to UBI, and the Federal Government will see its budget grow 4x? How?

bbarnett 6y ago

For clarity, all of the above is Federal. There are provincial taxes, budgets, etc. SO when I say '25% of people's income is taxed', that's federal tax.

srveale 6y ago

This version of UBI (granted, without the U), would cost $43B [0]. I'm guessing what would actually be implemented would cost more, but $720B is certainly too high. Your post doesn't mention: - Savings from scrapping other welfare programs - Decreased healthcare and law enforcement costs and other economic benefits of bringing millions of people out of poverty - Massive stimulus leading to increased government revenue I'm not saying it would be cheap, but your post only includes the costs and not the benefits. [0] https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-a-guaranteed-basic-income-cost-canada-just-43-billion/ https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-a-guarant...

bbarnett 6y ago
This is what I often see from UBI supporters though. For example, why is my post too high. I state simply, "here are the number of people over 18" and "here is the amount to pay". You say "Oh, that's too high." What?. Why! Why is it too high. What part of it. It is very, very, very simple math. Instead, you quote an article from Macleans. Yet that article says Ontario's (not Canada's) UBI program suggested at the time, wasn't really UBI! And that on top of that, it was a flawed study! In other words, you linked to an article showing how wrong Ontario was. How does this support the assertion that my costs are too high. The Macleans article even supports my position, because it discusses how 'reverse taxation' and 'excluding people' is not UBI, but instead modified, partial welfare. It's not universal, which is the much of the point of UBI. You say, scrapping other welfare programs. Well, we must look at provincial numbers here, for that is a provincial responsibility. Here is an example of the costs associated with welfare, child support, and more at the provincial level. And this is Ontario, Canada's most populous province: https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/11/social-programs-face-1-billion-spending-cut-in-ontario-budget.html https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/11/socia... https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-accounts-2018-19-annual-report#section-5 https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-accounts-2018-19-annual-r... (Scroll down to Expense) "Children's and Social services sector" So yup, $17B. What about EI, you say? The savings there? Well, it works as a cash positive. It is paid for by separate EI taxes (paid by employer and employee), has its own fund, and so if you axe EI? You have to remove $21B from the federal revenue from $312B to $291B. And I should note, that EI covers things like retraining, so you'd actually lose some social programs, if you just axed EI, and moved to UBI all by itself. So let's just take Ontario, and try to work out welfare for all the provinces. Here's where it gets a little bit complex. In Canada, we have equalization payments. Part of Federal tax is paid to the 'have not' provinces, which are poorer, and therefore need extra capital to maintain an equal quality of life. This means that some of the federal budget, of that $321B income, is also being used along with provincial funds, to fund things like welfare in some provinces. That means if, say, NewFoundLand pays $x for its welfare budget, maybe even 50% of that revenue might come from the Federal Government. But, let's just be quick and easy about this, and say Ontario has about 40% of Canada's population (15M), and that the "over 18" bit scales. So, 17B x 2.6 = $44B. Of course, the "Children's and Social services sector" isn't just about welfare. For example, EI handles retraining, including some 'back to school' programs. That would vanish if it was just dropped, with a move to UBI. And maybe that's OK! But the point is there, and valid, and means it isn't a perfect change-over. Which means it applies to a generic budget for a huge "Children's and Social services sector" category. But OK. We've reduced the cost of UBI from $720M to a wonderful $676B. You don't remove EI, because if you remove EI, you remove EI tax. The other benefits? Sure, they exist, at least, probably. I think they do, too. Yet.. what does that have to do with paying for it? Understand here, the sheer cost I'm discussing. Please do the math. Please discuss how to pay for it fully. Because things like "stimulus" and "reduced law enforcement costs" are .. what? Going to equal 4x the entire federal budget? You're literally going to switch to UBI, and the Federal Government will see its budget grow 4x? How?