3 ms·

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 h

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?
- srveale 6y ago
  You're right - if you don't plan at all and just give everyone 2k per month, it's too expensive. In the strictest sense, UBI is impossible. In most versions of the plan I've seen, the cost is not as simple as (population over 18) * (monthly amount). If you're looking for a breakdown of the math, check this out: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachments/original/1512918606/2017_Designing_a_Basic_Income_Guarantee_for_Canada_%28Boadway_et_al.%29.pdf?1512918606 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachme...
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    srveale, the ENTIRE point of UBI, is: - universal - basic Basic costs met. Paid to EVERYONE. Part of the "cost saving measures" are "not using complex schemes to determine eligibility to programs". Further, if all you're wanting to do is guarantee a minimum income, that's not UBI! Not even remotely! It's simply a form of welfare, and shifting taxation under the guise of UBI. Further, the whole concept of "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point" is another core concept of UBI. When you start whittling away at these core concepts, when you bring back in the 'should this person get it' judgement and work to evaluate, prosecute if fraudulent, side of things? When you bring back in "Your income drops if you have other income" side of things? You're just invaliding the entire point of it all. It's not UBI. So when people discuss UBI, please don't start talking about something entirely non-UBI.
    - srveale 6y ago
      You're arguing against a proposal which nobody in power is seriously advocating. Anyone whose done the same math as what's in your original post can come to the same conclusion that you have. I've offered up a modified proposal, with links showing actual experts and politicians debating merits and drawbacks, including budgetary analysis. Because there isn't enough money for a naive UBI, we have to make compromises including increasing complexity and risk of fraud, but the general principle remains the same and the benefits are still there. And we already have fraud and complexity - these would be greatly reduced under the proposal, just not completely eliminated. Based on comments like "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point," I can see that you haven't fully understood the structure of the proposal. There's no way that getting a job would net you less income. I'm not invalidating anything. Please don't get caught up in semantics.

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?

srveale 6y ago
You're right - if you don't plan at all and just give everyone 2k per month, it's too expensive. In the strictest sense, UBI is impossible. In most versions of the plan I've seen, the cost is not as simple as (population over 18) * (monthly amount). If you're looking for a breakdown of the math, check this out: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachments/original/1512918606/2017_Designing_a_Basic_Income_Guarantee_for_Canada_%28Boadway_et_al.%29.pdf?1512918606 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachme...
- bbarnett 6y ago
  srveale, the ENTIRE point of UBI, is: - universal - basic Basic costs met. Paid to EVERYONE. Part of the "cost saving measures" are "not using complex schemes to determine eligibility to programs". Further, if all you're wanting to do is guarantee a minimum income, that's not UBI! Not even remotely! It's simply a form of welfare, and shifting taxation under the guise of UBI. Further, the whole concept of "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point" is another core concept of UBI. When you start whittling away at these core concepts, when you bring back in the 'should this person get it' judgement and work to evaluate, prosecute if fraudulent, side of things? When you bring back in "Your income drops if you have other income" side of things? You're just invaliding the entire point of it all. It's not UBI. So when people discuss UBI, please don't start talking about something entirely non-UBI.
  - srveale 6y ago
    You're arguing against a proposal which nobody in power is seriously advocating. Anyone whose done the same math as what's in your original post can come to the same conclusion that you have. I've offered up a modified proposal, with links showing actual experts and politicians debating merits and drawbacks, including budgetary analysis. Because there isn't enough money for a naive UBI, we have to make compromises including increasing complexity and risk of fraud, but the general principle remains the same and the benefits are still there. And we already have fraud and complexity - these would be greatly reduced under the proposal, just not completely eliminated. Based on comments like "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point," I can see that you haven't fully understood the structure of the proposal. There's no way that getting a job would net you less income. I'm not invalidating anything. Please don't get caught up in semantics.