8 ms·
Canada is considering a guaranteed universal basic income program
- simonsarris 3y ago> Most modern conceptions of UBI don’t conform to its literal meaning anymore, Michael Mendelson, a fellow with the poverty policy think tank Maytree, told the Star. > Nowadays, UBI has come to mean any kind of basic income plan, which usually takes the universal form or a “guaranteed” income plan that scales depending on a person’s need. Step 1: redefine the term? Looking at the text of the 2021 bill, which you should probably read instead, it uses the term "livable basic income", not UBI. So at least that's more honest. The text is here, it's really very light, closer to an announcement of an announcement than a plan: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-233/first-reading https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-233/first-... Is there an updated bill somewhere that has more detail? There were debates this year that you can sorta read here: https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/441/debates/112db_2023-04-18-e?language=e#67 https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/441/debates/112d... Click "National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Bill"
- fidotron 3y ago"Universal" would be too easy to automatically apply and reduces scope for exercise of bureaucratic power, therefore is unacceptable, as is any idea that such a scheme could possibly replace as opposed to augment existing provisions. UBI or negative income tax to replace the minimum wage and other welfare provisions would be a huge win for Canada, but there are too many people (left/right, federal/provincial etc.) that think they're getting something out of the current situation for it to ever go anywhere.
- seydor 3y agoAlternative title "Canada wants more inflation"
- doubled112 3y agoThis citizen disagrees, but I'm not sure it is about us anymore.
- criddell 3y agoCanada does not want more inflation and modern monetary theory says that inflation isn't necessarily a given.
- anonym29 3y agoThe Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe would like a word with the Modern Monetary Theorists.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Tiktaalik 3y agoNo Canada is not considering a guaranteed universal basic income. The consideration is being done by the Senate, which is a sleepy home for appointed political party bagmen, and unlike the US Senate, has zero power or relevance. It is so irrelevant and useless that the New Democratic Party has been calling for its abolition for decades.
- unsupp0rted 3y agoI'm no "everything is a conspiracy by They/Them" Twitter nut, but if Canada were considering a large-scale economic change, then running it through the senate to generate a couple months of media coverage would be a good test balloon, and it would get the public familiar with the concept for when they eventually do introduce it via real policy.
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoHow is that a conspiracy mindset? That's just basic political tactics 101. Floating an idea to gauge interest or to see how many dogs bark is nothing new. It a way of proposing something before deciding to sink a bunch of political resources into it
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoTo be fair, they did admit conspiracies were not they're forte, so it's no surprise they're not good at them.
- unsupp0rted 3y agoOr is that what I wanted you to think?
- bryanlarsen 3y agoAnd the vast majority of trial balloons go nowhere, so Tiktaalik's original comment is basically correct. There's nothing to see here.
- deleted 3y ago
- spandextwins 3y agoI'll just be sitting alone 'baitin while I get my direct deposit
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoLower crime because you're sitting at home doing that is a good thing.
- Ylpertnodi 3y agoPope says no.
- dghughes 3y agoHere in the province of PEI there is already a system called targeted basic income. Shockingly the government in power who implemented it is the Conservative Party. It is pretty targeted though specific people on social assistance, no kids, top up to 85% only of the "market-basket measure". I'm sure there's more to it see the link below. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-government-targeted-basic-income-program-1.6985460 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-gove... edit: by the way about inflation PEI has the lowest inflation of all provinces.
- VancouverMan 3y ago> Shockingly the government in power who implemented it is the Conservative Party. It's not that shocking. Political parties in Canada with the word "Conservative" in their name, and especially the ones with the oxymoronic term "Progressive Conservative", tend to be quite left-wing/socialist in practice. Despite their names, such parties usually favor big and intrusive government, high taxation, high immigration rates, socialist education and health care systems, and other policies that are inherently contradictory with anything resembling conservative ideology. Canada's general lack of truly centrist, conservative, and right-of-centre parties gives the illusion that the least-left-leaning parties are "conservative", when they really aren't. When comparing platforms and policies, the Conservative and Progressive Conservative parties tend to be more similar to those of the far-left Liberal parties, and the even-farther-left NDP and Green parties to some extent, than they are to the platforms and policies of the more centrist People's Party of Canada or New Blue Party of Ontario, for example.
- Simulacra 3y agoIf everyone gets a universal basic income, what is to stop the market from raising prices to account for that extra income? For example, if my landlord knows I'm getting an extra $500 a month, what's to stop him from raising the price of my rent $500? Or an iPhone or the price of groceries? It would seem the only way to prevent that is for massive price controls on everything, Otherwise, that extra income means nothing.
- GoToRO 3y agoI guess it depends from where those money are coming: if they print the money then sure, if they take the money from all kinds of government programs, then the prices should stay the same.
- User23 3y agoThat’s not how pricing works. The source of new buying power injected into the demand side of the rental market is irrelevant to the effect it will have on marginal prices. And yes, with some hysteresis, suppliers of inelastic goods like housing will capture nearly the entirety of the increased spending.
- Simulacra 3y agoRather than a UBI, why not eliminate income tax ?
- gattilorenz 3y agoHow would it help those without income?
- User23 3y agoI think the original MMT folks’s jobs guarantee is the best option. Everyone that is willing to work is guaranteed a job that pays some reasonable wage. That sets a floor on compensation. Employers who want to attract people away from the government job will either have to pay better or offer otherwise more appealing work. The jobs program incomes in turn create a floor on demand. Note that this doesn’t have the UBI problem because it’s not a bonus additional income, but rather an income floor. Ideally the guaranteed jobs are something more productive than paying people to dig ditches and fill them back in again. But frankly printing money to pay people to exercise 8 hours a day would probably save billions in healthcare costs. Anyhow it’s not particularly difficult to work out a greatly more eucivic and eusocial regime than what we currently have. In fact it’s sufficiently easy that a reasonable person can only conclude that the enshittification of our societies is the intentional policy of rulers who don’t particularly care for our welfare.
- jl2718 3y agoReminder that the entire point of UBI is to eliminate needs testing for welfare. Why? 1. Administrative costs 2. Disincentive to work 3. Simplification 4. Equality The government only does one thing: takes money from people, and gives money to other people. They don’t build roads or systems of defense. The vast majority of the government outlays are somehow concerned with giving out money to people that “need” it, and they do a patently awful job at it. The idea of UBI is just to give that money away efficiently instead of creating a massive poverty pimp administration. Even people that hate the idea of giving away money start to look at it favorably in comparison to the current system. In numbers, the US government spends about $25-30k per adult citizen. Maybe give each adult about $15k per year and eliminate all spending on healthcare, education, social security, welfare, housing, and anything concerned with diversity, equity, or inclusion, because everybody’s getting the exact same thing. But that’s not going to happen without a huge fight from the poverty pimp lobby, and by fight I mean stuffing the pockets of legislators and judges while calling for riots over perceived injustices. So anything in this direction will just increase the size and inefficiency of the poverty pimp business, and thus achieve the opposite of its intention. In conclusion: nice thought; bad idea.
- wesselbindt 3y agoThat's certainly one approach and motivation for doing UBI, but it's not the only one. The idea of replacing welfare with UBI and only UBI is what the more libertarian folks want. But for example, if you look at Thomas Piketty and the like's ideas surrounding UBI, it's clear that it is meant as a supplement to current welfare programs, and is designed to improve the bargaining power of the workers in the job market. So instead of being a cost cutting measure and ultimately a source for greater inequality of opportunity, it becomes a measure to reduce inequality of opportunity, with the drawback being that the government has to find a way to fund it. One proposed solution would be progressive wealth taxes, which, if you're a millionaire or higher is a perfectly reasonable thing to be upset about but otherwise not so much.
- seabass-labrax 3y agoWere I a millionaire, I wouldn't be upset about progressive wealth taxes, I would be pleased. Why? Because in the philosophical justification for personal wealth and private capital, being a millionaire is a reflection of your worth to others in society. If your millions go to help others through taxes, you get double the social standing: once for earning the millions, once again for giving them back!
- codedokode 3y agoUniversal income is a dumb idea. If you have money to give away then give it to those who are struggling for example, single mothers, families with low income, those with disabilities, those who cannot afford education and got stuck in minimum wage job. No need to pay money to young healthy men and women who will spend them on alcohol, online games or dresses.
- rhelz 3y agoYeah, its a bad idea just to give money to people so they don't have to work....it has all kinds of corrupting influences on them. Make 'em work. That's why I support a 100% estate tax.
- ArtemZ 3y agoThere is not enough work anyway and there is going to be even less with AI and automation. I am struggling to find a job for a year already, seems there is no demand for DevOps/SRE anymore. Surviving thanks to a food pantry and a house I bought for 30k$ in East Cleveland knowing shit going to hit the floor.
- rhelz 3y agoI was just pointing out (obviously in a too indirect of way!) that nobody seems to care about the UBI that somebody inherits from their parents.
- thunky 3y ago> Make 'em work Doing what? Does it not even matter to you as long as it consumes 40+ hours every week of their productive lives? A goal of UBI is to recognize that human value is not always realized via a paycheck (for example, a stay at home parent).
- rhelz 3y agochuckle it was a joke man. Most of these types who complain about UBI are trust-fund babies.
- tjpnz 3y agoIf I know what everyone's getting and I'm a landlord what's to prevent me from pocketing all of it?
- Abekkus 3y agoPeople with basic income have time to take part in politics, to regulate away such monstrous landlords. Landlords already know this, and will pay to prevent it.
- voakbasda 3y agoPeople that don’t want to work will suddenly become engaged in the political process? Sounds like work to me.
- seabass-labrax 3y agoIn addition to the people who don't want to work, there's the people who can't work (due to disabilities, family care responsibilities, discrimination in the workplace etc.), and the people who could get more done without a job in the private sector (volunteers, artists, and... politicians!).
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoThe kinds of people who would benefit from UBI in this way are often the people least qualified or capable of engaging in politics. (Though in general, the credentialed class is full of people who don't understand the philosophical presuppositions either. The failure of education.)
- gwervc 3y agoNothing. This is exactly was happened in France where there is welfare money for housing (APL): landlords raised prices saying that rented are helped anyway. In the end the situation is better for landlords, equals for people getting the welfare money (not everyone), and worse for people who don't.
- 3y ago
- mentos 3y ago[flagged]
- helaas 3y agoI don't know, it could be because you think people with UBI might have more time to spend on videogames, but since UBI is likely not a good income they'll probaly pirate them instead of buying them, threatening the business model of your whole industry. Or maybe because you work in one of the most toxic tech industries and would like to have a way of supporting yourself while you find another place to work at? Did I guess correctly? What did I win?
- ThrowAway1922A 3y agoI'm not going to lie to anyone, but as someone with a paid off house in an ultra low COL location and a desire to give up? If we ever get a UBI I going going to say fuck work and live off it. I don't need almost any money to survive month to month and I fucking hate working. Thankfully for society though Canada will never give us such a thing.
- olddustytrail 3y agoThen why don't you save your money and go for FIRE? I mean if you were living on $10k per year you'd only need $250k saved, and if you were living on that on a dev salary it wouldn't take long to save. It's odd how when I mention FIRE there are all sorts of people who say they don't want to "live on lentils" for a bit more freedom, yet when I mention UBI it seems everyone wants to!
- Shaanie 3y agoLiving on lentils for the hope to not have to work in the future, vs immediately not having to work. FIRE requires dedication for a decade or more, UBI is immediate. I don't see how you can find that odd tbh.
- olddustytrail 3y agoIt will be a lot less than a decade if you're happy to live at UBI level of income. If you clear 50k and only need 10k that's just over 5 years. I get your point, it requires some effort, but it's not that much.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ThrowAway1922A 3y ago>Then why don't you save your money and go for FIRE? Because UBI doesn't exist and you can't predict what life will throw your way. I've seen what can happen to people and without a safety net I continue working out of fear. I need between 15-20kCAD/y to survive, but you never know when that won't be enough anymore. At this point I honestly just hope I can leave enough money to make other's lives easier when I'm gone in a few years. A nice parting gift if you will.
- antiquark 3y agoIs there any real-world evidence that UBI is "good?"
- richbell 3y agoOntario was running a pilot to collect data, but that was unceremoniously cancelled when the conservative party won. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/basic-income-pilot-project-ford-cancel-1.4771343 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/basic-income-pilot-project-fo...
- frank_bb 3y ago[dead]
- soultrees 3y agoUnfortunately the term UBI has negative connotations towards it for a large percentage of the population still so it’s going to be a huge fight to ever get UBI as it stands implemented. But what I’m guessing will happen in the long run, Employment Insurance will relax it rules enough that almost everyone will qualify for it, therefore giving the guaranteed income through the EI program. It will be easier to refactor the rules in the EI program than it will be to create a whole new program from a political point to view.
- tortoise_in 3y agoFollow India