Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
No, its not. One person, with no backing from a political party, does not make something a policy position. For something to be a policy position it needs political support. It needs funding support. It needs regulatory and legal support. UBI has none of the above. UBI is an idea, and a half baked idea at that. There is no support for UBI and the American voter will not back the concept, and the power brokers in Washington will not get behind the idea either. UBI is dead on arrival. No party in the United States of America is willing to align itself with UBI, nor the mechanisms that would make such a policy possible. As a result, it is NOT a policy position. No more than the policy of establishing a permanent settlement on Mars.
|
Uh no, a policy position is anything a voter wants a government to do. Period. Many such positions are not mainstream, many of them are unpopular, many of them are not endorsed by a major political party. But they are nevertheless policy positions.
But... can you clear some things up for me? First, how do you square your admission that 70% of American voters favor medicare for all, then turn around and say that the American people "reject the nanny state" and will vehemently reject any "socialist" program?
Also, you complain about "whiny bitches" not voting for Biden, but what would your reaction be if one of them responded to you by saying "that's the way it is and get used to it"...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
More math: in 2019 the government paid out approximately $76 billion for OAS/GIS/EI.
In 2018 AB budgeted 1.1 billion for AISH. I think our rates are higher than most, but figure $10 billion on that across the country.
That would get you to $86 billion, and you probably need $200-300 billion per year.
From here: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...19/report.html
I get that GST was $38.2 billion last year. Probably need to put that to 10-15%. That gets you either $38 or $76 billion. While the higher rates will cause less spending and more avoidance, the UBI money probably generates new gst spending as well, so call it a wash.
From the same source EI premiums were $22 B. That's with a cap at relatively modest levels. If you keep that as a UBI tax and uncapped it you can probably add another $10-15 B.
Taking my higher estimates for new revenues and the midpoint of my cost estimate ($250B) leaves a $73 billion hole.
Personal income tax was $163.9 B, so it probably rates would need to go up by about 45%. There would be more avoidance, but extra tax on the UBI would help offset.
So basically, in exchange for UBI for all you have to cancel OAS/GIS/EI, replace EI premiums with an uncapped version, add 10% extra GST, and increase personal income taxes by 45%. So the Federal brackets would go from 15%/20.5%/26%/29%/33% to something like 22%/30%/38%/42%/48% |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
I think all people are mostly lazy, not just poor people. If my wife and I were pulling in $2k each per month for zero work, I would retire a lot sooner. (~now, or certainly soon). That factor would meaningfully decrease the amount of productive labor contributed to the economy over time. Redistribution could help, but you can only spread the peanut butter so thin - ultimately as a group we can only consume what we produce. If we produce less, we consume less.
|