Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   At their annual conference, the governing Liberal Party of Canada overwhelming votes in favour of a resolution calling for Universal Basic Income   (cbc.ca) divider line
    More: Interesting, Tax, Liberalism, Poverty, Liberal delegates, party's policy convention, capital gains tax, income program, Taxation in the United States  
•       •       •

637 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Apr 2021 at 3:05 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



94 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-11 3:11:47 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/WANT
//Wake me when it's reasonably probable
 
2021-04-11 3:22:55 AM  
Why should the government subsidize profitable private business this way?  Changes to minimum wage, enact long term labor contracts, and other laws would bridge the gap in place of $billions in welfare for workers.  Who would be eligible?  The elderly? Children?  How is this different than pre-Clinton era welfare?
Also, this won't work in the US.
 
2021-04-11 3:36:48 AM  
Good.

This is something that should have been a staple of left-wing policy platforms for the last century and a half.  Not necessarily as something immediately implemented, but as an element of the long-term goals of such parties.

The fundamental difference between the left and the right, and keep in mind that this is taking the kindest interpretation of the right and giving them so much unearned credit that I'm basically making up a more logical and philosophically honest and self-consistent ideal version of the right that's never appeared in physical reality, here is:

The situation: 100% of the basic needs of every person on the planet can easily be achieved with roughly 2% of the population working full-time jobs.

The Left's position: cool, we need to organize things so that the logistics work out and 96% of the population can receive those resources without relying on the obviously now-outdated labor system and the remaining 4% can have very relaxing part-time hours.

The Right's position: This is a horrible crisis!  We must make up literally forty-nine times the actual necessary work in make-work labor of no actual utility so those other 98% of people can be forced to also work full time!

Like... this is literally the fundamental philosophical difference between liberalist capitalism and socialism, and by not presenting it in these terms to illustrate that their version is actually the more sensible god-damned option socialists have ceded a lot of farking ground, which is how the overton window eventually landed with "literal Nazis who literally walk the streets chanting about killing jews and commit weekly terrorist attacks" in the farking middle of the "acceptable" range in the mid 2010s.

We're not necessarily the inarguably, obviously superior choice in basic logical terms that can be understood by even idiots in every situation... we really, really need to push harder to draw the lines on those issues where we are that obviously superior choice.  This and health care are the big winners because of how unarguably correct we are, I don't understand why in the US especially we keep trying to center the discussion on more nuanced shiat that requires more detailed explanation to argue the point like gun control and so on.

// The 2% thing is not a hypothetical, it's the actual number.  Like... right now, not at a hypothetical point in the future.  And there's a similar argument to be made for food production specifically, though it's kind of understandable why we don't mess with that since north america's food production is already a hard-line, centrally controlled straight-up communist nationalized endeavor.
 
2021-04-11 3:40:12 AM  
Time to move to Canada again!
 
2021-04-11 3:48:40 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-11 3:48:43 AM  
Success of CERB leads to talk of UBI?

Sweet.

Would have liked to seen the capitol gains tax as well but you can't have everything I guess.

Yeah, it's a timely idea that makes sense from a "trickle up" and "poverty is bad, m'kay?" perspective that has been underscored by the pandemic shut downs.
 
2021-04-11 3:52:42 AM  
I'm still waiting for a plausible explanation that doesn't take extreme liberties with the definition of both "universal" and "basic income".  Neither are typically a part of any proposal I've seen.
 
2021-04-11 3:53:33 AM  

quatchi: Success of CERB leads to talk of UBI?

Sweet.


YES! I was really hoping the CERB program would lead to a backdooring of the UBI, so glad to see that happened. The amount of social change this can bring will be astounding. Very much hope this gets implemented a the CERB level of $2k/mo at least.
 
2021-04-11 3:59:02 AM  
Can I immigrate? I am tired of the crazy down here.
 
2021-04-11 4:08:38 AM  

Northern: Why should the government subsidize profitable private business this way?  Changes to minimum wage, enact long term labor contracts, and other laws would bridge the gap in place of $billions in welfare for workers.  Who would be eligible?  The elderly? Children?  How is this different than pre-Clinton era welfare?
Also, this won't work in the US.


How do you get people to work displaced by AI and robotics and even further automation? "Learn to code"? That is what UBI solves temporarily. Because we haven't even seen that boom and how massive the implications will be on the economy.
 
2021-04-11 4:12:33 AM  
The Liberal Party rank and file has essentially no influence on Liberal policy. As you were.
 
2021-04-11 4:14:42 AM  

WalkingSedgwick: The Liberal Party rank and file has essentially no influence on Liberal policy. As you were.


Sounds familiar.
 
2021-04-11 4:28:48 AM  
Yeah, the CERB is pretty much a trial balloon and it seems to work relatively well. Why not just make it permanent and automatic?
 
2021-04-11 4:36:40 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: WalkingSedgwick: The Liberal Party rank and file has essentially no influence on Liberal policy. As you were.

Sounds familiar.


It should be. Elected officials duty is to serve the public and their party voters as a whole, not some microscopic self-selected group of activist extremists passing resolutions that don't have anything close to majority support.
 
2021-04-11 4:54:47 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: Northern: Why should the government subsidize profitable private business this way?  Changes to minimum wage, enact long term labor contracts, and other laws would bridge the gap in place of $billions in welfare for workers.  Who would be eligible?  The elderly? Children?  How is this different than pre-Clinton era welfare?
Also, this won't work in the US.

How do you get people to work displaced by AI and robotics and even further automation? "Learn to code"? That is what UBI solves temporarily. Because we haven't even seen that boom and how massive the implications will be on the economy.


UBI gives us a chance to reconsider our ideas of productivity and meaning/purpose, hopefully while looking at systemic inequities. I believe that's the issue - not getting people to work.
 
2021-04-11 5:00:38 AM  
As a side note, did you know the Continental Congress sent Canada letters twice, asking them to send a delegation, which they declined, and that the Articles of Confederation, which were a sort of a pre-constitution that the United States had, prior to our current constitution, included a provision on how Canada could join the United States, with no strings attached, should their people ever decide to do so?  

I learned this today.  I guess they really like having a royal family.

And before you go off on how much better Canada is than the United States, keep in mind that had Canada joined the US, that would have been a bunch more free states prior to the Civil War, a bunch more Union States opposing the Confederacy, if slavery even lasted that long with Canadians voting in congress to restrict the slave trade, and a bunch more blue states in every election in the past 200 years.  George W Bush would probably not have gotten elected, and Trump certainly would not have, and we would probably have gotten universal health care back in the 90s if not sooner.
 
2021-04-11 5:11:46 AM  
How are they going to pay for that?  I mean, do they know how big the universe is?  Is maple syrup even legal tender in M33?
 
2021-04-11 5:56:27 AM  
It's about time. The rapid displacement of workers by robots, driverless cars, automated mass transit, and diagnostic AI, kiosks that take your orders, etc, is reaching a critical mass right now, let alone the rest of the decade.

In the future there will be no tax havens. World wide countries are cracking down on tax havens and truthfully, it's about time.....the amount of money stashed and hoarded amount to between 32 trillion and 62 trillion, which is a staggering amount.

If it's more palatable for people to accept, think about it like making social security available to 35 year old people and up.

Countries which have implemented UBI have been pleasantly surprised that people don't just sit around but have the energy and time to follow their dream projects and become innovators.

In the old R & D days, medical and scientific advances were made when research grants were generous.

And we need the huge brain trust that UBI can unleash. I always thought it was a pure waste of human brain power to have that person be a line worker at a factory just turning a screw driver all day. Robots SHOULD do the mind numbing repetitive tasks.

So this is a step in the right direction.
 
2021-04-11 6:00:17 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Good.

This is something that should have been a staple of left-wing policy platforms for the last century and a half.  Not necessarily as something immediately implemented, but as an element of the long-term goals of such parties.

The fundamental difference between the left and the right, and keep in mind that this is taking the kindest interpretation of the right and giving them so much unearned credit that I'm basically making up a more logical and philosophically honest and self-consistent ideal version of the right that's never appeared in physical reality, here is:

The situation: 100% of the basic needs of every person on the planet can easily be achieved with roughly 2% of the population working full-time jobs.

The Left's position: cool, we need to organize things so that the logistics work out and 96% of the population can receive those resources without relying on the obviously now-outdated labor system and the remaining 4% can have very relaxing part-time hours.

The Right's position: This is a horrible crisis!  We must make up literally forty-nine times the actual necessary work in make-work labor of no actual utility so those other 98% of people can be forced to also work full time!

Like... this is literally the fundamental philosophical difference between liberalist capitalism and socialism, and by not presenting it in these terms to illustrate that their version is actually the more sensible god-damned option socialists have ceded a lot of farking ground, which is how the overton window eventually landed with "literal Nazis who literally walk the streets chanting about killing jews and commit weekly terrorist attacks" in the farking middle of the "acceptable" range in the mid 2010s.

We're not necessarily the inarguably, obviously superior choice in basic logical terms that can be understood by even idiots in every situation... we really, really need to push harder to draw the lines on those issues where we are that obviously superior choice.  This and health care are the big winners because of how unarguably correct we are, I don't understand why in the US especially we keep trying to center the discussion on more nuanced shiat that requires more detailed explanation to argue the point like gun control and so on.

// The 2% thing is not a hypothetical, it's the actual number.  Like... right now, not at a hypothetical point in the future.  And there's a similar argument to be made for food production specifically, though it's kind of understandable why we don't mess with that since north america's food production is already a hard-line, centrally controlled straight-up communist nationalized endeavor.


It's not communist.  Farming is profitable for big growers and niche markets.
Farming is something like 2% of labor, however food distribution and service requires a large labor force.  Then there is housing, education, and health care.  Government is also a very large employer.  Are you implying a centrally planned digital society?  Because that won't work due to human nature.
/Stay off my lawn.
 
2021-04-11 6:14:08 AM  
It's always been a good idea, but it's becoming a critically important one. We are less than a decade from 90% of the semis being driven by robots. Boston Dynamics is doing final testing on bots that load and unload trucks, and load conveyor belts. Nearly every logistics job will be gone. Factories are already highly automated, but task after task that still has to be done manually is getting robotized. Pharmacies have robots to sort, store, and retrieve pills - that won't replace the pharmacist, but he won't need any human staff. Estimates vary, but it's not at all unreasonable to go with one that says half of all labor will be gone in 20 years, and that's likely a conservative estimate.

The result is a society where basically no one has to do menial labor - we have machines for that. It's also a society where only about half of the people being employed at a time, with the rest cycling out, working on passion projects, etc, becomes the norm. This is fundamentally a good thing IF people aren't screwed on their off-cycle... but here's the thing. If right now, doing a menial labor job means you get your share of the wealth for doing it, what's your share of the labor if the robots do it all for you. 0. So what's the minimal standard to get a basic income? Also 0.

So... this is simply the next evolution of society. It requires no more explanation than explaining why I didn't hunt for my tribe this week, or why I'm not transporting stuff to another town by wheelbarrow. For it to work though, and without the kind of labor wars and other horrors that happened during the last tech revolution, people need to embrace it, and we need to implement this stuff BEFORE things get dire for displaced workers. The alternative is very ugly, and completely avoidable.
 
2021-04-11 6:31:10 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The situation: 100% of the basic needs of every person on the planet can easily be achieved with roughly 2% of the population working full-time jobs.


Cite? That sounds like horseshiat
 
2021-04-11 6:41:43 AM  
Yeah, but they are also endorsing the idea of pharmacare (which is good), but which party was it that only recently killed a pharmacare bill?

/And where's that election reform, Trudeau?
//At least he legalized weed.
 
2021-04-11 6:50:29 AM  

winedrinkingman: As a side note, did you know the Continental Congress sent Canada letters twice, asking them to send a delegation, which they declined, and that the Articles of Confederation, which were a sort of a pre-constitution that the United States had, prior to our current constitution, included a provision on how Canada could join the United States, with no strings attached, should their people ever decide to do so?  

I learned this today.  I guess they really like having a royal family.

And before you go off on how much better Canada is than the United States, keep in mind that had Canada joined the US, that would have been a bunch more free states prior to the Civil War, a bunch more Union States opposing the Confederacy, if slavery even lasted that long with Canadians voting in congress to restrict the slave trade, and a bunch more blue states in every election in the past 200 years.  George W Bush would probably not have gotten elected, and Trump certainly would not have, and we would probably have gotten universal health care back in the 90s if not sooner.


That is a really, really bizarre take on what happened. Like "watched one YouTube video consisting solely of the American perspective" bizarre.


I guess they really like having a royal family.

Or the Americans had really pissed Canadians off by preaching American ideals while arresting loyalists and invading them. Or by promising them things that were already given to them.

The Quebecois were particularly worried that the States would attack France, and that if they joined the States that they would end up fighting their former countrymen.

Why didn't Quebec send delegates? Because the States thought they would be greeted as liberators.

"No strings attached" in the Articles of Confederation, but only if you look at the Articles devoid of context and the States' actions taken towards Canada.

Yes, Canada could have helped more during the Civil war.  Too bad the States blew their chance to get that help.
 
2021-04-11 7:30:40 AM  

ModernLuddite: Yeah, but they are also endorsing the idea of pharmacare (which is good), but which party was it that only recently killed a pharmacare bill?

/And where's that election reform, Trudeau?
//At least he legalized weed.


There won't be election reform because Trudeau didn't win the popular vote. The existing system is what gives us either a Conservative win or a Liberal win every election any reform would only help the Greens or NDP. Justin was either a liar or just ignorant when he was going on about making any changes and with him either or both is possible.
 
2021-04-11 8:11:06 AM  

RTOGUY: ModernLuddite: Yeah, but they are also endorsing the idea of pharmacare (which is good), but which party was it that only recently killed a pharmacare bill?

/And where's that election reform, Trudeau?
//At least he legalized weed.

There won't be election reform because Trudeau didn't win the popular vote. The existing system is what gives us either a Conservative win or a Liberal win every election any reform would only help the Greens or NDP. Justin was either a liar or just ignorant when he was going on about making any changes and with him either or both is possible.


He wanted voting reform.  But he wanted instant runoff which basically means liberal rule forever as the middle left option.  The electorate wanted proportional representation which is a stupid messy nightmare.  And Trudeau's own MPs who saw themselves possibly losing their seats in either setup balked, denying the whole idea enough oxygen to succeed.
 
2021-04-11 8:18:21 AM  

Northern: Why should the government subsidize profitable private business this way?  Changes to minimum wage, enact long term labor contracts, and other laws would bridge the gap in place of $billions in welfare for workers.  Who would be eligible?  The elderly? Children?  How is this different than pre-Clinton era welfare?
Also, this won't work in the US.


Aww so close to a bingo, but you missed "we can't afford it".

You also only got half credit for the "pre-Clinton welfare" dogwhistle rather than proudly declaring "the lazy poors won't work."

Thanks for playing the "Morons Don't Understand UBI" game!

Your consolation prize is you get to fark off right over there, when you get there keep farking off until you can't fark off any more, then fark off some more anyway.
 
2021-04-11 8:30:51 AM  

winedrinkingman: As a side note, did you know the Continental Congress sent Canada letters twice, asking them to send a delegation, which they declined, and that the Articles of Confederation, which were a sort of a pre-constitution that the United States had, prior to our current constitution, included a provision on how Canada could join the United States, with no strings attached, should their people ever decide to do so?  

I learned this today.  I guess they really like having a royal family.

And before you go off on how much better Canada is than the United States, keep in mind that had Canada joined the US, that would have been a bunch more free states prior to the Civil War, a bunch more Union States opposing the Confederacy, if slavery even lasted that long with Canadians voting in congress to restrict the slave trade, and a bunch more blue states in every election in the past 200 years.  George W Bush would probably not have gotten elected, and Trump certainly would not have, and we would probably have gotten universal health care back in the 90s if not sooner.


The US didn't want to deal with Quebec. Ditto for Mexico.

Too many language and religious disputes.
 
2021-04-11 8:33:28 AM  
In an economy who's GDP is 70% dependent on consumer spending, this only makes sense.

It's also an inevitable result after cutting corporate taxes, suppressing labor and the minimum wage for 40 years.

Ya broke it, you bought it....
 
2021-04-11 8:36:41 AM  

winedrinkingman: As a side note, did you know the Continental Congress sent Canada letters twice, asking them to send a delegation, which they declined, and that the Articles of Confederation, which were a sort of a pre-constitution that the United States had, prior to our current constitution, included a provision on how Canada could join the United States, with no strings attached, should their people ever decide to do so?  

I learned this today.  I guess they really like having a royal family.

And before you go off on how much better Canada is than the United States, keep in mind that had Canada joined the US, that would have been a bunch more free states prior to the Civil War, a bunch more Union States opposing the Confederacy, if slavery even lasted that long with Canadians voting in congress to restrict the slave trade, and a bunch more blue states in every election in the past 200 years.  George W Bush would probably not have gotten elected, and Trump certainly would not have, and we would probably have gotten universal health care back in the 90s if not sooner.


Far too much money was being made by processing Confederate cotton. Never would have happened.

The fortifications in Halifax were made to defend against the USA if they got tired of that shiat.

Sound familiar?
 
2021-04-11 8:43:24 AM  
I'd like to point out the convention voted in favor of UBI but opposed to measures by which to pay for it.  Don't for a second expect this to go anywhere.
 
2021-04-11 8:53:48 AM  
The problem with using CERB as a way to assess a UBI is the same problem that exists in every UBI trial to date:  namely that all that has been introduced is the benefit, and there has been nothing done to assess and distribute the costs.  It is really unsurprising that things look great when all that you are considering is "people getting $2000 per month".

$2000 per month per Canadian is about 900 billion dollars annually.  If you only count the ~30,000,000 or so over-18s you get about 720 billion, but you can also drop OAS/GIS (which is actually a lot less than CERB) then which saves about 60 billion.  It's less clear that you can drop CPP, which people have paid into and which they have probably factored into their retirement plans.  You can stop EI as well, but that's funded from payroll taxes, not as a budget line item like OAS.

So, you need to come up with an extra 650 billion or so.  But the total federal budget is only about 340 billion, and if you add up all the provincial budgets you get (roughly) another 350-450 billion.  We are looking at, therefore, roughly doubling the amount of money that is collected in tax receipts.

FTA: The resolution does not say how such a costly program would be designed and implemented.

Exactly, until someone has a concrete plan for how to do this, it's worse than useless.

As part of the same proposal, the Ontario chapter pitched an "inheritance tax" on all assets over $2 million. That proposal did not specify the rate at which these assets should be taxed, or how and when such a system would take effect. Delegates rejected the idea along with the suggestion to increase the capital gains tax by a 62-38 margin.

farking politicians!  All they are doing is voting for what's popular, without looking at what is achievable.  If you want to find another 650-700 billion a year you are going to have to tap every conceivable source of tax revenue.  Primary home exemption gone, inheritance tax in, sales tax up, corporate tax rates up, personal income tax rates up.  At least some of those things, and maybe all of them.  None of those things are going to be popular.  I bet a UBI is achievable in Canada, but someone needs to be able to explain how to do it.
 
2021-04-11 9:00:24 AM  
I should point out that we already have a UBI in Canada, and it's called OAS.  It's about 600 bucks a month, and you can't get it until you are 65 (and you effectively lose it once your income goes above a certain amount).

One proposal that seems sensible to me as a way of getting to a "real" UBI but without a huge economic shock to the whole country is to just steadily expand that program.  Put it up ~10% per year until you hit your target benefit, and lower the age eligibility by X every year.  Then the costs increase at a manageable pace, the impact to labour etc also expands in a manageable way, and if there are unforeseen negative consequences then you can stop partway to implementation of a full cradle-to-grave UBI.
 
2021-04-11 9:02:42 AM  
Suprised that Milton Friedman's GOP followers didn't do this first.  The ultra rich must have very comfortable fainting couches, even when he called it a "negative income tax."
 
2021-04-11 9:21:26 AM  

Lexx: I'd like to point out the convention voted in favor of UBI but opposed to measures by which to pay for it.  Don't for a second expect this to go anywhere.


Unfortunately this.  The Liberals are not the leftwing party in Canada.  The NDP is.

The Liberals are essentially the Democrats.  They fake that they are left whenever they run, and they virtue-signal like a good lib, but when they come to power they administrate like centrists.  They're socially leftie but economically they're a little right of center.

Better than having the shiatty Conservatives in power though.

Hopefully next election it's a narrow victory and they have to reach out to the NDP to form a coalition government.  The Liberals govern best when they are fearful.  When they need another party like the NDP to get stuff done.
 
2021-04-11 9:26:23 AM  

TheAlgebraist: The problem with using CERB as a way to assess a UBI is the same problem that exists in every UBI trial to date:  namely that all that has been introduced is the benefit, and there has been nothing done to assess and distribute the costs.  It is really unsurprising that things look great when all that you are considering is "people getting $2000 per month".

$2000 per month per Canadian is about 900 billion dollars annually.  If you only count the ~30,000,000 or so over-18s you get about 720 billion, but you can also drop OAS/GIS (which is actually a lot less than CERB) then which saves about 60 billion.  It's less clear that you can drop CPP, which people have paid into and which they have probably factored into their retirement plans.  You can stop EI as well, but that's funded from payroll taxes, not as a budget line item like OAS.

So, you need to come up with an extra 650 billion or so.  But the total federal budget is only about 340 billion, and if you add up all the provincial budgets you get (roughly) another 350-450 billion.  We are looking at, therefore, roughly doubling the amount of money that is collected in tax receipts.

FTA: The resolution does not say how such a costly program would be designed and implemented.

Exactly, until someone has a concrete plan for how to do this, it's worse than useless.

As part of the same proposal, the Ontario chapter pitched an "inheritance tax" on all assets over $2 million. That proposal did not specify the rate at which these assets should be taxed, or how and when such a system would take effect. Delegates rejected the idea along with the suggestion to increase the capital gains tax by a 62-38 margin.

farking politicians!  All they are doing is voting for what's popular, without looking at what is achievable.  If you want to find another 650-700 billion a year you are going to have to tap every conceivable source of tax revenue.  Primary home exemption gone, inheritance tax in, sales tax up, corporate tax rates up, personal income tax rates up.  At least some of those things, and maybe all of them.  None of those things are going to be popular.  I bet a UBI is achievable in Canada, but someone needs to be able to explain how to do it.


Calculate in GST and PST.  In Quebec everything I buy has about 14% tax on it.  That goes to the feds and the provincial governments.  So if I get 2000$ even if I don't pay income tax on it it's still actually getting almost 15% skimmed off the top in sales race.

I imagine we can pay for it but it's gonna have to come from multiple sources.  Maybe cutting oil subsidies can help.  Maybe taxing the rich more.  Maybe increasing the corporate tax rate.

Or hell, all of those things.

Seems doable.
 
2021-04-11 9:39:22 AM  

quatchi: Success of CERB leads to talk of UBI?

Sweet.

Would have liked to seen the capitol gains tax as well but you can't have everything I guess.

Yeah, it's a timely idea that makes sense from a "trickle up" and "poverty is bad, m'kay?" perspective that has been underscored by the pandemic shut downs.


I think negative income tax (much cheaper than ubi, the only "means test" is that you have to file taxes) makes more sense but I'm on board.

The capital gains change would hurt me financially, but if it came with UBI/NIT I wouldn't be "on the hook" for building savings that would keep any of our 4 parents/in-laws and 2 disabled sisters/in-laws and our own kids fed an housed If shiat hits the fan economically. I'm all for it. It completely changes the risk equation and I could actually relax a bit.

Building the kind of "generational wealth" that's enough to (mostly) protect your family economically the way this policy would is damn near impossible unless you have/sell a Unicorn business or you DON'T help anyone who needs it while building up the cash. The pressure is higher in the K-shaped recovery as "capitalist class" income is rapidly running away from wage earners.
 
2021-04-11 9:41:07 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: Northern: Why should the government subsidize profitable private business this way?  Changes to minimum wage, enact long term labor contracts, and other laws would bridge the gap in place of $billions in welfare for workers.  Who would be eligible?  The elderly? Children?  How is this different than pre-Clinton era welfare?
Also, this won't work in the US.

How do you get people to work displaced by AI and robotics and even further automation? "Learn to code"? That is what UBI solves temporarily. Because we haven't even seen that boom and how massive the implications will be on the economy.


Robots need to be designed, built and maintained.  We are decades away from replacing transportation jobs with computers (self driving cars and trucks).
Then there are the government and service industries, not to mention food services and health care.
A more practical solution would be to start with universal health care, and improvements to housing and mass transit.
 
2021-04-11 10:01:30 AM  

jethroe: Calculate in GST and PST.  In Quebec everything I buy has about 14% tax on it.  That goes to the feds and the provincial governments.  So if I get 2000$ even if I don't pay income tax on it it's still actually getting almost 15% skimmed off the top in sales race.

I imagine we can pay for it but it's gonna have to come from multiple sources.  Maybe cutting oil subsidies can help.  Maybe taxing the rich more.  Maybe increasing the corporate tax rate.

Or hell, all of those things.

Seems doable.


The Federal and Provincial budget figures quoted above include GST/PST (at 13-15%, depending on province).

Actually now that I look again, it also includes EI.  If you doubled ALL personal and corporate taxes at the federal level you would only raise about 1/3rd of what you needed to pay for CERB for everyone over 18.

At the current corporate tax rate of 15%, the federal government raises about 60 billion dollars (sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Income_t​ax_in_Canada#Corporate_income_taxes

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/​e​n/tv.action?pid=3610045001&pickMembers​%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.2&cub​eTimeFrame.startYear=2015&cubeTimeFram​e.endYear=2019&referencePeriods=201501​01%2C20190101).  If corporate taxes were multiplied by a factor of 6, you could get about half of the cost of CERB4All (if you also deprive the provinces of their share of corporate taxes).

Oil subsidies in 2020, which were something like triple the previous year, were $2 billion (presumably Covid was a big factor there).  In 2019 they were 600 million.  You could completely eliminate all oil subsidies and raise ~0.1% of the cost of universal CERB.

The GST brings in $40 billion to the feds.  If you quadrupled the GST (so POS taxes go from ~15% to ~36%) you get a quarter of universal CERB.

It is an insane amount of money, and the measures to pay for it will be equally insane.  Anyone seriously proposing CERB4All needs to quantify how and where the money will be raised.  Voting in favour of it and NOT voting for any measures to pay for it is absolute nonsense.
 
2021-04-11 10:09:16 AM  

TheAlgebraist: jethroe: Calculate in GST and PST.  In Quebec everything I buy has about 14% tax on it.  That goes to the feds and the provincial governments.  So if I get 2000$ even if I don't pay income tax on it it's still actually getting almost 15% skimmed off the top in sales race.

I imagine we can pay for it but it's gonna have to come from multiple sources.  Maybe cutting oil subsidies can help.  Maybe taxing the rich more.  Maybe increasing the corporate tax rate.

Or hell, all of those things.

Seems doable.

The Federal and Provincial budget figures quoted above include GST/PST (at 13-15%, depending on province).

Actually now that I look again, it also includes EI.  If you doubled ALL personal and corporate taxes at the federal level you would only raise about 1/3rd of what you needed to pay for CERB for everyone over 18.

At the current corporate tax rate of 15%, the federal government raises about 60 billion dollars (sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wik​i/Income_tax_in_Canada#Corporate_incom​e_taxes

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/e​n/tv.action?pid=3610045001&pickMembers​%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.2&cub​eTimeFrame.startYear=2015&cubeTimeFram​e.endYear=2019&referencePeriods=201501​01%2C20190101).  If corporate taxes were multiplied by a factor of 6, you could get about half of the cost of CERB4All (if you also deprive the provinces of their share of corporate taxes).

Oil subsidies in 2020, which were something like triple the previous year, were $2 billion (presumably Covid was a big factor there).  In 2019 they were 600 million.  You could completely eliminate all oil subsidies and raise ~0.1% of the cost of universal CERB.

The GST brings in $40 billion to the feds.  If you quadrupled the GST (so POS taxes go from ~15% to ~36%) you get a quarter of universal CERB.

It is an insane amount of money, and the measures to pay for it will be equally insane.  Anyone seriously proposing CERB4All needs to quantify how and where the money will be raised.  Voting in favour of it and NOT voting for any measures to pay for it is absolute nonsense.


The oil subsidies are a better investment the energy sector produces far more money than it takes as subsidies. It's debatable if they are needed but dollar for dollar it's  a solid return.
 
2021-04-11 10:11:44 AM  

TheAlgebraist: I should point out that we already have a UBI in Canada, and it's called OAS.  It's about 600 bucks a month, and you can't get it until you are 65 (and you effectively lose it once your income goes above a certain amount).

One proposal that seems sensible to me as a way of getting to a "real" UBI but without a huge economic shock to the whole country is to just steadily expand that program.  Put it up ~10% per year until you hit your target benefit, and lower the age eligibility by X every year.  Then the costs increase at a manageable pace, the impact to labour etc also expands in a manageable way, and if there are unforeseen negative consequences then you can stop partway to implementation of a full cradle-to-grave UBI.


To expand on this a little:  slowly increasing OAS like this would have the added benefit of taking people out of the workforce in their early sixties and then upper fifties.  This would open up a bunch of the higher level managerial jobs that could then be filled by people in their forties and thirties.  I have heard that UBI doesn't affect labour participation, and I suspect that that is true for people in their twenties/thirties, but I bet it lowers it for people closer to retirement.

The *problem* with this plan is that basically no one will support it.  I suspect most of the people clamouring for UBI are those in the earlier stages of their career, who are drowning in personal debt, have no hopes of owning a home most places in Canada, and have no real prospects of career advancement.  Telling a 25 year old "let's lower the retirement age by one-year-per-year" is likely to be unappealing (even though it would help them retire in 20 years instead of 40).  Conversely, the last time a politician tried to change OAS, it was to *increase* the eligibility age from 65-67 because it is so expensive (but the Liberals returned it to 65).  If I remember right, the UK has increased their pension age for similar reasons.  No one over 65 has an incentive to vote for it either.
 
2021-04-11 10:13:01 AM  

RTOGUY: The oil subsidies are a better investment the energy sector produces far more money than it takes as subsidies. It's debatable if they are needed but dollar for dollar it's  a solid return.


That may or may not be true, but even if they were money straight down the toilet, eliminating them doesn't move the needle on funding a UBI
 
2021-04-11 10:24:25 AM  

Discordulator: That is a really, really bizarre take on what happened. Like "watched one YouTube video consisting solely of the American perspective" bizarre.


No kidding.  Like, it seems to miss the entire "The Americans invaded Quebec already and were shoved back by force, so why would the population suddenly switch sides?", when the entire story up to that point was the British being very aware of the importance of keeping French institutions strong because of the population imbalance or "the Loyalists who had fled down south were a pretty important group of reasons not to get too friendly with the neighbours"

I know we have some poor explanations in our history books on things, but that take looks like it wouldn't have made it out of the first review
 
2021-04-11 10:30:54 AM  
TheAlgebraist:It is an insane amount of money, and the measures to pay for it will be equally insane.  Anyone seriously proposing CERB4All needs to quantify how and where the money will be raised.  Votin ...

Ok, the one suggestion jethroe made that I didn't address was raising taxes on the rich.  Sorry about that, I was having a hard time finding the right statscan page to get started from.  Here we go:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/​e​n/tv.action?pid=1110005501&pickMembers​%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=3.5&cub​eTimeFrame.startYear=2014&cubeTimeFram​e.endYear=2018&referencePeriods=201401​01%2C20180101

So that's set to display stats for the top 10%.  Turns out that the top 10% earn a median/average of 126,000/169,000, and pay a median/average of 30,000-50,000 in tax, and that accounts for ~55% of the income taxes paid (I can't be sure if this is 55% of personal income tax, or 55% of all income tax.  I think it's the former).  That means that the top 10% contribute 0.55 * 270 billion == 150 billion.  You would need to quadruple federal taxes on the top 10% to pay for CERB (which will be a bit difficult as they already pay 25-30% of their income in taxes as it is).

The picture for the top 1% is also interesting.  They currently pay 116,000/185,000 out of a median/average income of 340,000/500,000.  There is definitely room to increase taxes there, but you can't go much above 2.5x before taxing them more than they earn, and they currently contribute ~20% of overall tax revenue, so 2.5 times that is, what, 2.5 * 270,000,000 * 0.2 ~= an extra hundred billion or so.

I really like the statscan site, there is a ton of interesting info on there.  I'm going to play around with it a bit more.
 
2021-04-11 10:35:44 AM  

Deathbymeteor: Discordulator: That is a really, really bizarre take on what happened. Like "watched one YouTube video consisting solely of the American perspective" bizarre.

No kidding.  Like, it seems to miss the entire "The Americans invaded Quebec already and were shoved back by force, so why would the population suddenly switch sides?", when the entire story up to that point was the British being very aware of the importance of keeping French institutions strong because of the population imbalance or "the Loyalists who had fled down south were a pretty important group of reasons not to get too friendly with the neighbours"

I know we have some poor explanations in our history books on things, but that take looks like it wouldn't have made it out of the first review


I moved to Fredericton, New Brunswick about 5 years ago, and I knew that there had been resettlement of US loyalists up here and that there are some Loyalist cemeteries around, etc, but I was very surprised one day when I was out for a walk and passed this:


Fark user imageView Full Size


Turns out Benedict Arnold went to live in Saint John, and owned some land here in Fredericton too.
 
2021-04-11 10:38:15 AM  

TheAlgebraist: TheAlgebraist:It is an insane amount of money, and the measures to pay for it will be equally insane.  Anyone seriously proposing CERB4All needs to quantify how and where the money will be raised.  Votin ...

Ok, the one suggestion jethroe made that I didn't address was raising taxes on the rich.  Sorry about that, I was having a hard time finding the right statscan page to get started from.  Here we go:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/e​n/tv.action?pid=1110005501&pickMembers​%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=3.5&cub​eTimeFrame.startYear=2014&cubeTimeFram​e.endYear=2018&referencePeriods=201401​01%2C20180101

So that's set to display stats for the top 10%.  Turns out that the top 10% earn a median/average of 126,000/169,000, and pay a median/average of 30,000-50,000 in tax, and that accounts for ~55% of the income taxes paid (I can't be sure if this is 55% of personal income tax, or 55% of all income tax.  I think it's the former).  That means that the top 10% contribute 0.55 * 270 billion == 150 billion.  You would need to quadruple federal taxes on the top 10% to pay for CERB (which will be a bit difficult as they already pay 25-30% of their income in taxes as it is).

The picture for the top 1% is also interesting.  They currently pay 116,000/185,000 out of a median/average income of 340,000/500,000.  There is definitely room to increase taxes there, but you can't go much above 2.5x before taxing them more than they earn, and they currently contribute ~20% of overall tax revenue, so 2.5 times that is, what, 2.5 * 270,000,000 * 0.2 ~= an extra hundred billion or so.

I really like the statscan site, there is a ton of interesting info on there.  I'm going to play around with it a bit more.


Are those numbers all gross or net income?  And we could look at offsetting some of UBI's cost with a reduction/consolidation of other social programs (not going to cover all the shortfall, but it may get us into striking distance)
 
2021-04-11 10:39:43 AM  

TheAlgebraist: Deathbymeteor: Discordulator: That is a really, really bizarre take on what happened. Like "watched one YouTube video consisting solely of the American perspective" bizarre.

No kidding.  Like, it seems to miss the entire "The Americans invaded Quebec already and were shoved back by force, so why would the population suddenly switch sides?", when the entire story up to that point was the British being very aware of the importance of keeping French institutions strong because of the population imbalance or "the Loyalists who had fled down south were a pretty important group of reasons not to get too friendly with the neighbours"

I know we have some poor explanations in our history books on things, but that take looks like it wouldn't have made it out of the first review

I moved to Fredericton, New Brunswick about 5 years ago, and I knew that there had been resettlement of US loyalists up here and that there are some Loyalist cemeteries around, etc, but I was very surprised one day when I was out for a walk and passed this:


[Fark user image 850x478]

Turns out Benedict Arnold went to live in Saint John, and owned some land here in Fredericton too.


See, I knew he had lived in Saint John for a short time, but had always been taught that he moved back to England, not stayed in North America.  Amazing the things one learns.
 
2021-04-11 10:45:03 AM  
From the left, I think UBI is a an imperfect solution because it addresses the solution, and not the cause, of a larger problem. The problem is a cadre of billionaires are hoarding the wealth of our society like a mentally ill woman hoards cats. That's why all this stimulus and a UBI would not cause runaway inflation - because the money will circulate through the economy once and get stuffed away in a bag under Alice Walton's bed.

So a UBI will be the best of both worlds for the poor and the rich because 1, it'll allow poor people to purchase goods and services they otherwise couldn't, and after the money circulates through the economy once - maybe twice - it'll end up under Alice Walton's bed where the Republicans believe it belongs.

The problem is eventually we're going to have to address the hoarding of wealth, and when we do, God help us because the longer we wait and the more stimulus we inject into the economy to keep poor people afloat today means that when the dam breaks, we truly will have runaway inflation.
 
2021-04-11 11:01:01 AM  
UBI appears rational - if you eliminate all of the other social programs and the government bureaucracy for housing, unemployment, etc.  But good luck getting rid of 30% of government programs and the employees in each one of these ministries. It will become and added cost, replacing nothing.

The most dangerous aspect is how it can be leveraged for election wins -- is a party ever going to lose an election if they promise to raise UBI by 5%, 10%, 20%? --- giving a direct income bump to 100% of the voters??
 
2021-04-11 11:08:15 AM  

Deathbymeteor: Are those numbers all gross or net income?  And we could look at offsetting some of UBI's cost with a reduction/consolidation of other social programs (not going to cover all the shortfall, but it may get us into striking distance)


I can't find where it explicitly says gross or net, but I think the chart only makes sense when read as gross income (and the numbers match up with my understanding of income cutoffs for the top 5-10%, and of the marginal tax rates assessed etc).

As for cutting social programs, I am very eager to see any detailed proposals.  This is a useful place to look: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1​/tbl1/e​n/tv.action?pid=3610045001&pickMembers​%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.2&cub​eTimeFrame.startYear=2015&cubeTimeFram​e.endYear=2019&referencePeriods=201501​01%2C20190101

At the top, we see total federal revenue:
Fark user image

Then we can go to look at expenditures.  Total government "transfers to households" are about 116 billion in 2019, most of which is OAS and EI.

Fark user image

I already mentioned the 50-60 billion in savings for scrapping OAS (since this is basically just *extending* OAS in both benefit amount and eligibility age, so there's definitely no reason to keep that).  Turns out these numbers including EI, so we can scrap that too and save another ~17 billion:

Fark user image

That gets us from ~720 billion down to somewhere in the mid-600s, give or take (these things are fuzzy because I am quite often getting numbers from different tax years, etc).

So out of our 116 billion, we save 71 on OAS/EI, leaving ~45 billion in other social programs.  If we scrap ALL of it, we get less than 1/10th the cost of CERB for all.  Non-health transfer payments might be able to be added on there too, it looks like there's 12 billion there.

Fark user image

If we completely dismantle the military, we save another 22 billion.  If we stop all "non-defence" government spending (I am not sure what this is, it's not broken down, but it's non-defence and non-'transfer to household') there's another 60 billion:

Fark user imageView Full Size


So, to sum up, if I have done my math right: If we cut ALL defence, non-defence, and "transfer to household" payments to zero, it looks like the federal government saves about 200 billion (out of the ~720 billion necessary to pay every adult $2,000 per month).  That leaves ~520 billion dollars to find.  Looks like the total federal income is about $350 billion, total provincial income is about $500 billion, so we're talking about collecting something like $1.50 in taxes for every $1 we collect today across the board.

The problem is mind boggling.  Everytime I get close to something that might actually work, I remember some other unintended consequence that farks it all up (for example, in this plan, we have made a huge portion of the federal public service unemployed, plus everyone in the military, which means that none of the business that serve those people have any money coming in either, and on it goes).
 
2021-04-11 11:19:29 AM  
Universal Basic Income AND legal marijuana?

UBI doobie!
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.