Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

Leondros · 09-16-2020, 11:58 AM

Lets pretend you make the following amounts per year in Alberta and pay the following taxes for 2020:

Person 1) $0 (0) or $0
Person 2) $20K (9.17%) or $2K; Net $18K
Person 3) $80K (25.54%) or $20K; Net $60K
Person 4) $200K (33.03%) or $66K; Net $133K

Lets lets assume tax rates go up by about 15% bottom line. I am going to assume the UBI is $20K. Everyone gets UBI, and I am going to assume UBI is taxable, but under the UBI threshold (ie. $20K) does not have tax (likely through some sort of credit)

Person 1) $20K (0) or $0; net $20K
Person 2) $40K (24.17%) or $10K; Net $30K or $12K more than non-UBI
Person 3) $100K (40.54%) or $41K; Net $59K or $1K less than non-UBI
Person 4) $220K (48.03%) or $106K; Net $114K or $19K Less than non-UBI.

Can you can see there is wealth distributing happening at a certain level. In this example is appears around the $90 - $98K range. Anyone previously making $75K or lower is going to have a net benefit from UBI (more money in there pockets). Where the distribution is hammering people is anyone in the higher brackets. Fundamentally I have no issue with this.

The issues are:

1) Anything in that $20 - $45K range could disincentivize people to work leading to issues in those lower level jobs (ie. Janitorial, fast food, etc.) finding people
2) The huge tax increase on the 'professional' level range of careers such as doctors, accountants, lawyers, engineers, etc. could result in a mass exodus to a country with a more favorable tax regime resulting in a brain drain and lower tax pool
3) A 15% increase in tax rate likely doesn't even get us to a supportable UBI at $20K so we either need to be far more efficient with infrastructure spending (hope you like pot holes and traffic issues), education spending (likely less secondary education grants) and healthcare spending (good luck with that unless we privatize it which defeats the whole premise UBI).
4) There is also significant inflation risk from an economic stand point. I don't see this as an unmitigatable risk, but it still could result in a lot of the basic costs increasing as more people have more access to money

These are just the tip of the iceberg. I think we also have a lot of intangible issues such as addicts with more access to money which is likely an increased drug market.

I also think we should bring up that money doesn't solve all social issues. We can point to many of the Indigenous Reservations that have always had some form of UBI (annual payments from the government) that has actually made the issues worse. With a UBI you would still need strong programs to steer people with these issues in the right directions and quite frankly I question whether we could afford to keep those around while paying the $20K per year.

09-16-2020, 11:58 AM	#304
Leondros Powerplay Quarterback Join Date: Mar 2011 Exp:	Lets pretend you make the following amounts per year in Alberta and pay the following taxes for 2020: Person 1) $0 (0) or $0 Person 2) $20K (9.17%) or $2K; Net $18K Person 3) $80K (25.54%) or $20K; Net $60K Person 4) $200K (33.03%) or $66K; Net $133K Lets lets assume tax rates go up by about 15% bottom line. I am going to assume the UBI is $20K. Everyone gets UBI, and I am going to assume UBI is taxable, but under the UBI threshold (ie. $20K) does not have tax (likely through some sort of credit) Person 1) $20K (0) or $0; net $20K Person 2) $40K (24.17%) or $10K; Net $30K or $12K more than non-UBI Person 3) $100K (40.54%) or $41K; Net $59K or $1K less than non-UBI Person 4) $220K (48.03%) or $106K; Net $114K or $19K Less than non-UBI. Can you can see there is wealth distributing happening at a certain level. In this example is appears around the $90 - $98K range. Anyone previously making $75K or lower is going to have a net benefit from UBI (more money in there pockets). Where the distribution is hammering people is anyone in the higher brackets. Fundamentally I have no issue with this. The issues are: 1) Anything in that $20 - $45K range could disincentivize people to work leading to issues in those lower level jobs (ie. Janitorial, fast food, etc.) finding people 2) The huge tax increase on the 'professional' level range of careers such as doctors, accountants, lawyers, engineers, etc. could result in a mass exodus to a country with a more favorable tax regime resulting in a brain drain and lower tax pool 3) A 15% increase in tax rate likely doesn't even get us to a supportable UBI at $20K so we either need to be far more efficient with infrastructure spending (hope you like pot holes and traffic issues), education spending (likely less secondary education grants) and healthcare spending (good luck with that unless we privatize it which defeats the whole premise UBI). 4) There is also significant inflation risk from an economic stand point. I don't see this as an unmitigatable risk, but it still could result in a lot of the basic costs increasing as more people have more access to money These are just the tip of the iceberg. I think we also have a lot of intangible issues such as addicts with more access to money which is likely an increased drug market. I also think we should bring up that money doesn't solve all social issues. We can point to many of the Indigenous Reservations that have always had some form of UBI (annual payments from the government) that has actually made the issues worse. With a UBI you would still need strong programs to steer people with these issues in the right directions and quite frankly I question whether we could afford to keep those around while paying the $20K per year.