canada to experiment with universal basic income

Post Reply New Topic

I support UBI because it's cheaper than cops and prisons, requires less bureaucracy than traditional welfare, and puts more money into the economy when everyone spends their "free" money. I'd also say it's more humane and the right thing to do, but I try and avoid that type of pronouncement when arguing.

my aunt works at Sams Club on the weekend, and drives a bus during the week.

She doesn't make much, but she has Social Security too, she would love to be retired and not have to work.

This could retire millions of low wage workers.

Our country has a lot of poverty, which could be much alleviated if our government scaled down. Like the US, our bureaucracy is super-sized and we have a huge cabinet plus plenty of bureaucrats sitting in plush offices getting overpaid. The president has a jet which is second in size to Air Force One and a palace to retire to one day when he retires. Our situation could be so different if they addressed the needs of the people instead of entitling themselves.

So much for government officials being public servants.....I can't help thinking this kind of thing is part of why the Bush and Clinton dynasties have occurred. If it was up to me I'd make a law that you can't be president if your parent, S.O, Sibling or other close relative/family member has been within 10-20 years or something. I mean what is this a monarchy? Its another reason I don't want Hillary....or that Jeb Bush guy for that matter, enough clintons and bushes already.

Yep, in the past a title was hereditary and you became a prince or princess even if you didn't want to. Nowadays the megarich want to buy their titles (or entitlement) is probably more accurate as they feel they deserve better than everyone else), and so we have plutocracies and oligarchies run by rich dynasties. Not all the rich are like that, of courser, but I can sort of picture Trump trying to push his son for President twenty-odd years from now!

If we Aspies were in charge there would be a big difference. For instance I would level the playing field by giving every single party equal TV time and funding, not only those that are "popular". The smaller, poorer ones are always at a disadvantage and I would do away with the need for them to pay deposits which are lost if they don't secure representation. After all how can a country be a true democracy when the $ sign plays such a dominant role?

The same government system is still in place, but people got their motivation back after the economy became capitalist, and they were no longer guaranteed a job, and income varied a lot depending on profession.

USA was never a true democracy- at best it was a quasi-republic and at present it is merely an oligarchy with representative trappings.

I'm on AiSH, which is Alberta's basic income program for disabled individuals. I think it's a good program, and I'm glad it exists, but I feel it's kind of unfair that I have a socially supported income, while many other people who could really use one do not. Job hunting is tough nowadays, the economy has seen better times, and there are a good number of people out there who have various issues precluding them from obtaining steady employment (mental health, family issues, etc.)

We aren't a "sink or swim" society like our neighbors to the south; we have publicly subsidized healthcare, better funded schools, and all sorts of other social programs that help people thrive. The province of Manitoba actually experimented with a minimum income program, called "Mincome", back in the 1970s, and statistics have shown that it was successful. Since this has been the case, why don't we try it nationwide? Our taxes may go up somewhat, sure, but ultimately, I believe this will help solve a LOT more problems than it will create.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Those who voted "Yes", can you help me understand why you want the gov't to have even more debt and to create even more inflation?

Canadians already have the highest personal debt levels in the G7 by a huge margin and the gov't debt is increasing every year.

because it would likely save money in the long run. it is pragmatic and humane.

It would provide money to people who spend nearly one hundred percent of their income. This would increased economic activity and an increase in tax revenue.

it will help with societal stability as well, in the face of technological progress.

where will the $$$$$$ for the UBI come from?

Answer: Borrowing (Btw, the Fed. gov't just announced a 29.4 billion CAD deficit.) So how would they afford UBI?!?!

Pls walk me through how it would save money in the long run.

Last edited by slave on 27 Mar 2016, 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Canadians spend $171 CAD for every $100 CAD they earn.

All business would immediately raise prices, the inflation would explode higher.

More money chasing the same goods and services = inflation

Only an increase in 'production' is a meaningful increase in economic activity.

in place of all the various social service agencies in charge of social security income, just have this be an IRS function. you'd get rid of layers of bureaucracy in one fell swoop. less bureaucracy, less borrowing. less poverty, less of the crime that goes along with it. less crime-less jails/corrections bureaucracy. it is a virtuous circle. it is doable without the catastrophic tax levels that conservatives prejudge will be the case. or if one is concerned about all the unemployed bureaucrats, it could easily be paid for with a transaction tax on wall street.

You have a very good point. Right now it seems the only way our economy will start picking up steam again is if Saudi Arabia quits price fixing its oil and starts playing fairly again. If UBI is to be implemented, either we'll have to figure out a way to get things to pick up first, or we'll just have to bite the bullet and run a greater deficit.

Another thing, economic conditions vary a lot around the country; the cost of living in Newfoundland was lower than it was in Alberta for a long time, and I think it still is. Newfoundland also tends to have a much poorer population than Alberta. I think if UBI is implemented, it will have to be managed on a provincial level, to adjust for economic conditions in different parts of the country. Our provinces may not have as much autonomy as states in the US do, but they're still run pretty differently from one another.

Interestingly, Alberta has some of the best social programs in Canada despite our lack of a provincial sales tax and our overall more "conservative" attitude compared to the rest of the country. Of course, this can probably be attributed to the fact that we were Canada's main economic driver for a long time, with our oilsands output. I honestly wouldn't mind paying a higher federal sales tax to support more extensive social programs, as long as they made it easy to calculate (eg, ending in a 5 or a 0).

In the end, I just want to see Canada implement UBI for all its citizens, because I feel it's unfair that I get one, but other people who are struggling don't. I'm a bleeding heart socialist, what can I say? And no, that's not the same as being a communist, socialism is a *part* of communism, not the whole thing.