Universal Basic Income = let's make Canada a joke

[rustled]

We need to be reasonably certain dumping the existing systems into a single UBI would be an overall improvement, that the potential consequences of paying people to not work ("rewarding" them, as someone here put it), would not have an overall negative impact for recipients and non-recipient taxpayers, that a UBI program would be sustainable over the long term. We can't do that on opinions and feelings alone. We need data.

Plenty of pilot programs listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots

And easy to find articles discussing the results with a quick internet search ...

Got a good chuckle out of the "paying people not to work" comment ... basic misconception about UBI that I wondered about too when I first heard of it ... then I dug into the subject more and learned to view it differently so that it doesn't create a knee-jerk reaction of "free money?" ... I'd been co-opted by angry capitalism before I moved away from North America for 5 years ...

Thanks, spooker, but there is a reason I have not asked for data on pilot projects from other jurisdictions or from previous decades.

We need data to prove a UBI would be better than the programs we already have in Canada right now.

Data to prove Canadian clients would be better served by the UBI than they are by existing programs, data to show the improvements offered by the UBI would be sustainable over the long term, and not at too great an expense for Canadian taxpayers.

Your own experience in another country would not necessarily provide that comparison. (Your "co-opted by angry capitalism" comment made me smile at the emotional connotations. While none of us are fully immune to biases and manipulation, I'd rather not allow myself to be co-opted by any ideology, angry or otherwise, and instead simply stand in support of evidence-based policy.) I'd be cautious of any change of programming with the potential to reduce my PWD sibling's circumstances, or my elderly parent's circumstances, for the benefit of others - if their circumstances are reduced to ease the lives of others, thousands of their cohorts would experience a similar reduction in circumstances. I'd be cautious of any change of programming that could reduce Canadians' long-term ability to support those most in need.

You've learned to view UBI programs differently and no longer have a negative, emotionally based knee-jerk reaction to the idea, which is good. We must also make sure we are not responding to positive, emotionally based knee-jerk reactions.

And so, we need data. The data from those pilot projects could help, but it's certainly not enough on its own. We need current Canadian data, related to existing realities here in Canada. Evidence. Thoughtful discussion. Rational decision making.

Perhaps that will result in strong support for a UBI, perhaps not. Surely it is in our best interests to make sure a UBI is in our collective long-term best interest.

[Frisk]

Your posts are so good sometimes rustled, I really enjoy reading them.

[JLives]

Thanks, spooker, but there is a reason I have not asked for data on pilot projects from other jurisdictions or from previous decades.

We need data to prove a UBI would be better than the programs we already have in Canada right now.

Data to prove Canadian clients would be better served by the UBI than they are by existing programs, data to show the improvements offered by the UBI would be sustainable over the long term, and not at too great an expense for Canadian taxpayers.

Your own experience in another country would not necessarily provide that comparison. (Your "co-opted by angry capitalism" comment made me smile at the emotional connotations. While none of us are fully immune to biases and manipulation, I'd rather not allow myself to be co-opted by any ideology, angry or otherwise, and instead simply stand in support of evidence-based policy.) I'd be cautious of any change of programming with the potential to reduce my PWD sibling's circumstances, or my elderly parent's circumstances, for the benefit of others - if their circumstances are reduced to ease the lives of others, thousands of their cohorts would experience a similar reduction in circumstances. I'd be cautious of any change of programming that could reduce Canadians' long-term ability to support those most in need.

You've learned to view UBI programs differently and no longer have a negative, emotionally based knee-jerk reaction to the idea, which is good. We must also make sure we are not responding to positive, emotionally based knee-jerk reactions.

And so, we need data. The data from those pilot projects could help, but it's certainly not enough on its own. We need current Canadian data, related to existing realities here in Canada. Evidence. Thoughtful discussion. Rational decision making.

Perhaps that will result in strong support for a UBI, perhaps not. Surely it is in our best interests to make sure a UBI is in our collective long-term best interest.

From the link Spooker posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_B ... ot_Project This is from Canada, in 2017. It's too bad it got cut short but the early findings are promising.

Also here is the costing report and back up data from the PBO, completed in 2018: https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/ ... sic_Income

And another good article: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/a-basic ... you-think/

Of course UBI would be better than any program we already have. All of them actually. It cuts out confusing bureaucracy, it cuts out means testing, it reduces the cost of having multiple agencies to begin with as well as their fraud investigation divisions. It allows people to have their basic needs met, increase qualify of life and put their focus on living. And with ever increasing technology it will eventually be a need as workloads reduce.

I think there is an emotional connection for people that being provided income turns people into freeloaders. Especially in older generations. I disagree with that and don't think our biology supports it. Heck, I'm working on a reduced workload right now due to Covid that pays less than I would receive in CERB. Because I like my job and the people I work with and I like the mental stimulation of work. Or look at the tens of thousand of volunteers who do what they do without getting paid a penny. I believe it's in our nature to want to work or otherwise contribute to society, we just need to redefine what working is because the current model of trading labour for the necessities in life is starting to crack and far too many people are falling through them.

[rustled]

From my experience, an "of course" statement without supporting data is not enough. There is far too much at stake to go on even the best-intentioned assumptions.

Aside from the incompleteness of that pilot program, it was launched in a relatively urbanized area of a single province. We in BC would want to know whether or not the UBI as suggested would be an improvement over what we already have here, as would all provinces.

Thank you for the other two links. Although they are helpful, both rely on data from that same incomplete pilot program operating in a specific region of a single province. We must keep this in mind.

Do we want the federal government to take over from the provincial governments? Why are some of these programs currently provincial - was there an advantage we would be losing? What are the repercussions of having these programs centralized in Ottawa?

We would not want to have to make substantial changes on the fly. Change is particularly hard on PWDs, and on many seniors. Changes are frightening for some of them, even when those changes are in their best interests (as the provincial ones have been over the past 8 years or so). We would want to know the UBI program we roll out would be sustainable.

Providing income under the old provincial system or the existing provincial system has not turned members of my family into freeloaders. I agree with you that many of us are hard-wired to contribute, and I think this is true of the vast majority of us. What we also know to be true is that when people feel that although they are working harder than a neighbour who receives government benefits and yet feel they are falling behind that neighbour, this creates new problems for the community.

And we have seen businesses, including temp and seasonal, struggle to find employees during the pandemic, with some of their former employees preferring the CERB. This is likely in part a result of the built-in hazard - sometimes only perceived, but too often all too real - of many existing programs: if you have shown you are at all willing or able to help yourself, you are ineligible and entirely on your own. Would the UBI eliminate this and ensure employers are able to hire employees, ensure employees will risk being employed? Probably.

Is "probably" enough?

We need to know what other factors are preventing potential employees from working where work is available, and how the UBI program would impact those factors.

We think a UBI could solve the problem of people falling through the cracks financially, and yet we have no way of knowing what will become of the additional services and supports currently required by most people to prevent them from continuing to fall through the cracks. People rely on these many programs for far more than income alone, so this is very concerning:

a simple, Canada-wide program would cost a net $43 billion. A policy seen as impossibly expensive has now been costed to around 10 per cent of the entire annual fiscal footprint of the federal government, and that wouldn’t even count the savings from eliminating provincial programs that would be made redundant, like welfare and support for the disabled, and the savings that would come from less people living in poverty

.
Do they know exactly what they are eliminating? Do they know how eliminating these programs would affect people using the current programs? The impacts of this were not studied:

Only welfare and disability payments are being replaced. Other social programmes are not.

We know the existing agencies will have to continue to exist in some form (as will some form of needs-testing for those programs), so realistically, how much can the UBI cut down on these support programs? It is entirely possible the answer to that is "too much to be effective", and that would be disastrous for many.

This is going to require a lot of serious, careful consideration. Knee-jerk positive responses are no more helpful in the long run than knee-jerk negative responses. We will only end up with a better program if we make decisions based on sound evidence, free from emotional manipulations and political agendas.

[outtawind]

Interesting points made above about the possible 'benefit' of UBI over the plethora of social assistance already in Canada. Interesting, but not remotely convincing - those in favor live in a Canadian bubble.

Social programs already exist in Canada - they are too much... we literally give street people smartphones, no kidding... we give out smartphones, I wish I was kidding - because it is unbelievable!?

Most countries - the poor would be amazed, mind-blown, to be given a bag of rice, millions of people. Canada - those at the bottom believe those at the top should give them $24,000 per year and a house. We point jealous fingers at the 'selfish-rich', but seem to ignore that they are the ones already supporting the entire system. The entitlement defies explanation.

Take EVERY one of my tax dollars, heck, raise my taxes - but do some R-E-A-L good with it. Support tens of families and kids with food in third-world countries - NOT smart phones and houses to those who can not likely make the effort to break their cycle anyway.

Canada has saturated our citizens with support to the point that they think they all 'deserve' home ownership and "locally grown meats, produce and cheese". It is incredible and, frankly, just sickening. Those starving and without any social assistance in other countries are people too - why should we not be supporting them?

[outtawind]

Because they are not Canadian.

Okay, you get to choose:
A. Canadian street person (on drugs or not).
B. Family of four in another country.

Do you choose to give even more, by way of UBI, to 'A' - knowing 'B' has absolutely nothing? Being Canadian is, 100%, arbitrary.

I believe we are tired of dumping ever-increasing resources into 'A'... it's time we make some real social impact and get on with helping 'B'.

[rustled]

I think most Canadians want to help struggling Canadians achieve a reasonable basic standard of living, those who need a hand up. And I think most Canadians are comfortable with assisting the truly poor in other countries in some capacity, as means allow. Which is why we must make sure the UBI does not actually impede our ability to help those who truly need help.

I also think most Canadians become frustrated when we see our resources targeted to those who seem quite unwilling to help themselves achieve a reasonable basic standard of living. Especially when our governments seem to support them at the expense of others. Surely we would all prefer our resources were used to reduce and mitigate the barriers to self-sufficiency, rather than to perpetuate those barriers. Which is why we must make sure a UBI does not perpetuate or, worse, compound those barriers.

We simply cannot afford fuzzy feel-good thinking on this.

[spooker]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/300891/Horgan-welcomes-news-Ottawa-will-be-pursuing-paid-sick-leave#300891

Here is the proof that there will not be a UBI.
If it was, sick leave anything would not be on the table for discussion as it wouldn't be needed.

Not sure how you're tying these two things together ... UBI has nothing to do work ... it's like having some footing under the water and then you can work to add to your income as you normally would, maybe build a dock but most certainly not drown ... taxation levels would kick in so that people making over a certain amount would end up with the UBI paid back to the government but not in the same way that EI is docked for partially working ...

Think of it like getting UBI equivalent to the "poverty line" in Canada, lets say $16,000 roughly ... then let's say that you don't have to get taxed on that until you are making an extra $30,000 (roughly $15/hour minimum wage for full-time work) ... and the rate of paying that original $16,000 back in taxes wouldn't be 100% until you are making and extra $75,000 (250% minimum wage)... that's how a UBI could work, nothing to do with sick days or paid vacation etc ...

disclaimer: these are numbers that I put together to illustrate how a UBI could work and be funded, if this was a real UBI it would be followed with a government URL resource

[spooker]

^^^ My mistake. I thought the UBI would be for replacing all programs.

UBI would hopefully be a long-term program, replacing many of the programs that we do have now as you did understand ... but the sick leave plan in the article you posted is just a stop-gap measure during the pandemic and recovery phases ...

[rustled]

I'd be surprised if that's truly the intention, spooker.

[Babba_not_Gump]

^^^ My mistake. I thought the UBI would be for replacing all programs.

UBI would hopefully be a long-term program, replacing many of the programs that we do have now as you did understand ... but the sick leave plan in the article you posted is just a stop-gap measure during the pandemic and recovery phases ...

Do you, or does anyone really think this sick leave plan will go away after the CCP Virus is done with us?
Not a chance. It will be on every left wing election platform:
Elect us and we will continue to give you two weeks of sick leave.

[t76turbo]

Some very good points made by many on UBI.
A year or two ago I would have said heck no. Now, today, I have a different perspective. This rat race we all seem to be engaged in is just that. A race with no end in sight. Climbing on top of one another hoping to rise to the top. A few will make it but most will need to satisfy themselves with crumbs at the bottom. So why even bother?

If I where to do it all againI think I’d take a much simpler approach, and having young children I often wonder what their world will be like amongst all the other rats. I’m in my mid 40’s having built a nice nest egg and at a point I could retire comfortably. Yet I push on so that my children have a bigger leg up. But why struggle on their behalf? Should they not do so for themselves?

My back is messed from constant physical work, my hearing is shot with never ending ringing (tinnitus) stemming from loud equipment and machinery, stresses coming from all areas of life, worried about tomorrow.
Leaders of this fine nation running it into the ground with no shame. So why continue with this?

So, to do it again.... as mentioned by another poster, I’d buy myself a van (this is what I’m telling my kids), travel the world, or just around the country, hopefully with a partner that’s on the same page (UBI doubles) . UBI and no worries greater than “where shall we camp for the night”.
Government will be there once you seen enough, experienced plenty, and naturally enjoyed life. No student debt, now working an average basic job or no job at all, just living simpler, smaller footprint. With what mom and dad left you, buy a self sustaining farm, grow/raise your own food, homeschool your children and leave behind the crazy hustle and bustle all others are engaged in.
Should be much more gratifying than sweating off your balls, then cutting off a chunk of your pie so it can be given away to others so easily (Trudeau).
Sure there will be some stresses, dwarfed in comparison to what’s going to happen now with the global outfall of covid-19.
That was only the beginning of what’s to come. I truly fear for the costs that our offspring will be faced to carry on their shoulders.
So avoid it all, just buy a van and travel.

[outtawind]

Wow, this is an old thread... and... that means the government has been working on their "study" for about TWO YEARS now.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#372214

The findings?... hold onto your hats now... no really, you'd better sit down... this is some SHOCKING news... buuuuut...

• "One of the biggest risks is how this program would be funded over the long term," said Lana Asaff, a senior economist with APEC. "It's quite expensive."

earth-shattering, this is a ground-breaking realization...

• "There's a concern that it could discourage people from working," Asaff said.

Really?... no-kidding?... just hard to believe I tell-ya. and...

• It found that shifting to basic income would be a complex undertaking and not necessarily the most cost-effective way to reach poverty goals.

Wow. Just, wow. You know, I'm just not convinced that it would be 'costly, demotivating and ineffective'. I mean - the concept of just giving money to people for waking up, or not, why would THAT be costly, demotivating and ineffective?

I think we need another study. We need the best and brightest Canadians on this problem - time to commission some more consultants!

[Sparki55]

Now lets say the government instead provides you with a basic income, whether you are working or not. Your most basic necessities are covered (rent, food, clothes). Do you
a) Settle for that
b) still get a job and actually make more money which you can invest back into the economy?

And poof goes fast food

[GordonH]

There are numerous companies that get corporate welfare and/or bailouts across Canada.
Citizens on welfare actually put the money they get back into the economy by purchasing food/goods &/or rent.

Not saying I am for or against UBI.