[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Spoiler!

You posted a video of someone saying it wouldn't bankrupt us, with absolutely no math shown. Your screen name is mathgod. I showed my work, with sources and reasonable detail.

I emotionally think UBI is a great idea, and am predisposed to be in favor of it. But a 13 minute rant with no numbers isn't an actual source. If you could demonstrate with sourced information a credible plan to come up with the $200-500 billion that would be required, I would instantly be on your side. I've tried to help with that in the post above, providing values for other programs that could be cancelled and taxes that could be raised. Maybe I've missed some huge amount of provincial spending that could go to this?

Because that video was just handwaving and saying of course we can afford it. I watched the whole thing and feel dumber for it.

One of the very first things I said in the video was "I did the math"... in other words, "trust me". But since you don't trust me, here's the math:

Spoiler!

Revenue of Canada in the 2016-2017 budget: https://i.imgur.com/itMGrW4.png

Population of Canada: https://www.google.ca/search?q=population+of+canada

Adult percentage calculated to be approximately 81% as per: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...0928a4-eng.htm

287.7 billion / aprox 28.5 million adults = $10,094 per year per adult

Revenue of Alberta in the 2016-2017 budget: https://www.alberta.ca/budget-documents.aspx

Population of Alberta: https://www.google.ca/search?q=population+of+alberta

41.376 billion / aprox 3.36 million adults = $12,320 per year per adult

Population of Calgary: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...1-2m-1.3172629

Revenue of Calgary in the 2016-2017 budget: https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...eport-2017.pdf

$3.7 billion / aprox 1 million adults = $3,700 per year per adult


Total: $26,114 per adult per year.

The numbers are slightly dated, and are not exact, but it gets the point across. There can be a $20,000/year basic income paid to every adult citizen, with enough left over for priority spending.

Unless the narrator of that video has a plan from his review of the Panama papers that will massively increase tax revenue

Which makes me wonder if you actually listened to the video? I spoke at length about the importance of the government diversifying its tax revenue sources, instead of relying so heavily on income tax. I think they need to implement new forms of taxation on the federal level; at the top of that list is to greatly increase the estate tax, to reduce the concentration of massive wealth held by a relatively small number of families. They should also implement a federal property tax, as well as a real estate sales tax (first-time home buyers would be exempt). This is to get speculators out of the real estate market and increase supply of homes for people to live in, rather than continuing to see homes be used by investors as casino chips for profit.
Additionally, I absolutely would increase the GST back to 7%, and raise the corporate tax rate as well. With new tax streams, the hope is that it would reduce the government's dependence on income tax, and put it in a better position to gradually reduce income tax rates, but also crack down more heavily on tax dodgers and close tax loopholes.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Spoiler!

I think the AND vs OR discussion is one that is being missed here. In fact, the PBO document I referenced earlier seems to work on the OR principle, that only low income people get the UBI (which is why its so much cheaper than the full $500+ billion required for all adults to get UBI).

But only giving UBI to the poor makes it no longer universal. It also creates bad incentives, because the effective marginal tax rates for someone trying to climb out of poverty are really high. If you lose 50% of your UBI plus pay 10% payroll taxes and 20% income taxes, your effective tax rate on a dollar of earned income is 80%, which is pretty de-motivating.

From a policy point of view I like the idea of truly universal basic income. Everyone gets it. The increased taxes on the rich effectively mean that theirs gets taxed away, but administratively its really easy if everyone gets it. It also reduces the disincentive to work, because you don't lose the UBI, it just becomes an additional hand-up for those actively trying to better themselves.

It's your favourite narrator again:

Spoiler!

Originally Posted by New Era

And when you say conventional thinking you mean understanding the political system, policy and policy formation, cultural norms, and voter behaviors? Dude, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

I don't have an issue with your understanding of these things, I have an issue with your overall attitude toward them; it is as if you deem them to be inevitable and unchangeable. Culture and norms are changed by people speaking out and being persistent. Public conversations such as this thread are also helpful.

You have your idea of what policy position means, and I have mine. We will continue to disagree.

But I think your analysis is missing one key concept, and that is the fact that big moneyed interests dominate our politicians. The disconnect between voter support for certain policies and politician support for certain policies, is largely due to the fact that major banks and corporations have their dirty money all over the major political parties; that is, sadly, where our politicians get their marching orders from.

"Some" of the founding fathers believed in the idea of giving their slaves their freedom, and had the free will to do just that, but never followed through on that. They had the "idea" but never acted upon it themselves. Why is that? Cultural norms, societal expectations, and laws made the idea impractical, so it remained nothing more than an idea, one the founding fathers spoke about quietly and privately. When the constitution was finally ratified it included clauses in the document (the 3/5ths clause, the fugitive slave clause, and the electoral college) which were entrenched in policy to maintain slavery and the power of the pro-slavery southern colonies.

I call BS. If they truly wanted to free the slaves, they would have made it happen within a reasonable time frame. They created the country for crying out loud.

Abraham Lincoln began talking about ending slavery and granting all people their freedom and access to the same liberty that white men shared. Lincoln spoke to not only the injustice, and the moral failings of slavery, but also to the economic and legal reasons to ending slavery.

Just like we need to speak out now about the many failings of the status quo, and about the benefits of UBI.

But the reality is that there is little support at this time

Not as little as you're making it out to be. Furthermore, its support is growing by the day.

to make UBI even a discussion point.

How exactly does an idea gain support if it is not discussed?

In all the discussions and deal making to keep people whole has UBI been discussed or presented by anyone in congress? Nope. Why? Because there is no support for it.

Wrong answer. The real answer is that politics is corrupted by big moneyed interests.

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think this is true. Automation is increasing output, and increased output equals more jobs. There is just a shift in what kinds of jobs are available, but the work is still there.

Right now there is a massive skilled trades shortage. Why? Because we're not lining up our schooling with the jobs that are available on the other side. And then we turn around and say 'jobs are disappearing.' Strange.

Spoiler!

Can we agree on one thing though? Giving tax breaks to the rich, in the name of "creating jobs", is dogs**t policy and a total con... its silly to try and create jobs for the sake of creating jobs.

It's either one or the other... there are either too many jobs and not enough people filling them, or there are not enough jobs available for everyone to have a job. If the former is the case, tax cuts don't make any sense. If it's the latter, UBI makes much more sense than tax cuts.