Let's Talk About Minimum Wage, Class Warfare, Wage Gaps, etc.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes, however since UBI would move the starting line up for everyone people would still need to rely on their wages to give them economic mobility.

And that's why you'd implement a tax exemption well above the UBI. UBI is tax-free and so is the next $X of your income...

To be clear, I'd be happy with X being a pretty healthy number, and the balance of (flat) income tax rate to be a pretty healthy number.

IMO, you need both in order to ensure UBI works as a safety net for those that need it, and not just as a disincentive to work.

[nik-]

Wasn't the original concept of UBI floated as an alternative to services? It wasn't just "here's $1000" a month, it was "here's $1000 a month but you need to pay for health insurance now".

It really seems to have transformed into just a handout with no balancing on the other side. Not that I'm generally opposed to it, I'm just wondering if it's actually transformed or just no one talks about that other half anymore.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes, however since UBI would move the starting line up for everyone people would still need to rely on their wages to give them economic mobility.

They would need supplemental money to keep up with the Joneses, but having the ability to quit a dead-end job and still have their basic needs taken care of improves economic mobility.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by nik-

Wasn't the original concept of UBI floated as an alternative to services? It wasn't just "here's $1000" a month, it was "here's $1000 a month but you need to pay for health insurance now".

It really seems to have transformed into just a handout with no balancing on the other side. Not that I'm generally opposed to it, I'm just wondering if it's actually transformed or just no one talks about that other half anymore.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that a UBI would (or should) replace most, if not all, other forms of gov't support... No more EI, child tax credit, GST rebate, etc...

But to do so, and be effective it has to be more than "$1000 a month"...

The version of UBI that I can support is sufficient so that a responsible adult can live a very basic life; anything beyond the most basic necessities will require that individual to work, where a minimum wage job will likely not trigger any additional income tax.

In my mind (not sure if this is the intention or not) a very big part of the appeal is simplifying the Canadian tax code - everyone gets this much UBI, no one pays tax up to this amount and beyond that, everyone pays this percent. No other deductions, supplements, etc... I know, I know... Dare to dream.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

Wasn't the original concept of UBI floated as an alternative to services? It wasn't just "here's $1000" a month, it was "here's $1000 a month but you need to pay for health insurance now".

It really seems to have transformed into just a handout with no balancing on the other side. Not that I'm generally opposed to it, I'm just wondering if it's actually transformed or just no one talks about that other half anymore.

Yeah, I'd want to see what services are being cut before I'd be onboard with UBI. If we want to take away EI, welfare, etc., that sort of makes sense. Start cutting health care and I think you start running the risk of predatory corporations taking over essential services and jacking up the prices.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nik-

Wasn't the original concept of UBI floated as an alternative to services? It wasn't just "here's $1000" a month, it was "here's $1000 a month but you need to pay for health insurance now".

It really seems to have transformed into just a handout with no balancing on the other side. Not that I'm generally opposed to it, I'm just wondering if it's actually transformed or just no one talks about that other half anymore.

This is a very good point.

"I need to claim EI!"

- No...you get UBI now.

"I need disability!"

- Nope. UBI.

To make it work every other social mechanism would have to be completely dismantled.

I find it funny that people dont realize that this wonderful Social Program is essentially the antithesis of Social Programs.

"We're giving you free money. You're on your own now."

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Yeah, the way to fix Vancouver housing affordability isn't to give everyone who lives there a bunch of money. They need to upzone Vancouver for higher density, and convert some agricultural reserve to housing on the fringe of the metro area.

It's not just Vancouver though. It's the whole damn province.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is a very good point.

"I need to claim EI!"

- No...you get UBI now.

"I need disability!"

- Nope. UBI.

To make it work every other social mechanism would have to be completely dismantled.

I find it funny that people dont realize that this wonderful Social Program is essentially the antithesis of Social Programs.

"We're giving you free money. You're on your own now."

I just can’t get over the fact that even though combined none of our other social programs have ever been able to successfully(or at least consistently) provide the basics to people in need, folks still seem to think UBI will magically figure it all out.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I'd want to see what services are being cut before I'd be onboard with UBI. If we want to take away EI, welfare, etc., that sort of makes sense. Start cutting health care and I think you start running the risk of predatory corporations taking over essential services and jacking up the prices.

Yeah I just used health insurance as an example and don't definitively know if it was in the original conversations. But it basically came across as a stipend in lieu of the existing safety net.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by nik-

Wasn't the original concept of UBI floated as an alternative to services? It wasn't just "here's $1000" a month, it was "here's $1000 a month but you need to pay for health insurance now".

It really seems to have transformed into just a handout with no balancing on the other side. Not that I'm generally opposed to it, I'm just wondering if it's actually transformed or just no one talks about that other half anymore.

A UBI by definition is simply money given to everyone with no clawbacks.

When it's floated as net neutral move, it's replacing more targeted funding. Generally, this move hurts the people who have greater need of government services. It's a step back in terms of the social safety net because you're wasting money on rich people.

Other times, it's suggested as an expansion of government that requires increasing revenue, though with recognition that some programs become redundant and can then be eliminated (e.g. OAS). For me, this is what I'm advocating for - just because I think the government should guarantee people have enough for housing and food doesn't mean I think it should come at the expense of healthcare.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is a very good point.

"I need to claim EI!"

- No...you get UBI now.

"I need disability!"

- Nope. UBI.

To make it work every other social mechanism would have to be completely dismantled.

I find it funny that people dont realize that this wonderful Social Program is essentially the antithesis of Social Programs.

"We're giving you free money. You're on your own now."

It's a better system than EI, and if you asked most people on disability, they'd probably take it over the absolute ####show that disability is, too. I'd wager most people on welfare would prefer it to welfare as well.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by SebC

They would need supplemental money to keep up with the Joneses, but having the ability to quit a dead-end job and still have their basic needs taken care of improves economic mobility.

Economic mobility is about more than just keeping up with the Joneses, if people can only afford the basics and jobs don’t provide an opportunity to improve your situation beyond buying trinkets I’m not sure how we’re any better off with UBI. Just because you give someone enough money to pay for their rent, food, etc doesn’t mean they’re going to spend it on that.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's a better system than EI, and if you asked most people on disability, they'd probably take it over the absolute ####show that disability is, too. I'd wager most people on welfare would prefer it to welfare as well.

That's the problem - there are so many 'targeted' programs that administering them all can be nothing but a bureaucratic mess.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Economic mobility is about more than just keeping up with the Joneses, if people can only afford the basics and jobs don’t provide an opportunity to improve your situation beyond buying trinkets I’m not sure how we’re any better off with UBI. Just because you give someone enough money to pay for their rent, food, etc doesn’t mean they’re going to spend it on that.

Is there anything in place to guarantee someone spends their current government supplements on rent, food, etc?

I can't fathom thinking a bunch of smaller supplements are better, easier or anything positive than a single, larger UBI payment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because poor people usually have to spend all of their money and rich people usually can’t spend all of their money.

Also anyone advocating for a flat sales should really look into how much tax revenue GST accounts for. It shouldn’t take too long to figure out how pie in the sky the concept of expecting new sales taxes to make up for all income and corporate tax revenue really is.

Sure, but you're never going to get buy in from wealthy people by saying "you can't spend all your money, so we're going to take more of it."

If you were to set a flat tax rate of 30% with a first-30K exemption, everyone making 60K or less would be paying the same or less in income tax than they are today. You end up collecting more from everyone in between 60k and 250k/yr. This is a large portion of the population. Raise the progressive tax rate of salary earned over 250k isn't going to make that big of a dent.

Again, why are poor people worse off under this system than they are today?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by delayedreflex

Being able to buy the average vehicle and average home on an average salary seems like it would make sense on the face of it - but I don't think it's actually a reasonable assumption.

The lowest earners would not be buying homes or new vehicles, so while they are factored in to the group of people for calculating average salaries, they are NOT factored in to the group of people calculating average new vehicle or home prices. If you were to calculate the average household incomes of people who DO buy new vehicles and homes, I think you'd find that the average is substantially higher.


I agree with this - I certainly don't think you need to own a single family home or a new car to live a comfortable life. There's honestly nothing wrong with renting, living in a condo or townhouse, driving an older car, etc. No doubt, the security of owning your own house is a valuable thing, but I don't see why so many people see it as a pre-requisite to living well when owning your own house is not the norm in most other places around the world.

When people say "average", they don't mean the actual average. They just mean a regular house and car. I don't find the idea unreasonable that 2 income household should be able to afford a 4 bedroom home and a reliable vehicle.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, but you're never going to get buy in from wealthy people by saying "you can't spend all your money, so we're going to take more of it."

If you were to set a flat tax rate of 30% with a first-30K exemption, everyone making 60K or less would be paying the same or less in income tax than they are today. You end up collecting more from everyone in between 60k and 250k/yr. This is a large portion of the population. Raise the progressive tax rate of salary earned over 250k isn't going to make that big of a dent.

Again, why are poor people worse off under this system than they are today?

Exactly, if they have to pay more taxes how will they CrEaTe JoBs

[SebC]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Economic mobility is about more than just keeping up with the Joneses, if people can only afford the basics and jobs don’t provide an opportunity to improve your situation beyond buying trinkets I’m not sure how we’re any better off with UBI. Just because you give someone enough money to pay for their rent, food, etc doesn’t mean they’re going to spend it on that.

I'm starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse.

Do you think a higher income through increased minimum wage provides economic mobility? So why would a higher income through UBI not do the same?

You're the one who suggested that "moving the start line" would offset economic mobility gains, implying that you define it as winning a competition. You're arguing against yourself. I define it as opportunity. And if you have the ability to free up your own time, it becomes far easier to invest your time in your education or your ideas. That's why UBI is great for economic mobility.

A worker who needs a job has far less leverage than one who doesn't. A group of such workers has less leverage than a group who have access to UBI. An individual with UBI might even have more leverage than a group without it.

Of all the the people on this site, you should be one of UBI's strongest supporters, unless you're the just kind of union shill who only cares about making monopolistic gains that are taken from consumers.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's a better system than EI, and if you asked most people on disability, they'd probably take it over the absolute ####show that disability is, too. I'd wager most people on welfare would prefer it to welfare as well.

I'm not going to debate the merits and drawbacks really.

EI is a poorly run and inefficient program. I deal with Government agencies for a living.

But do people really think just handing people cash and telling them to sort it out themselves is going to go well?

UBI is so intrinsically flawed its laughable. Look at all the countries that use it and see the ensuing madness.

I'm all for it. Lets make some chaos.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not going to debate the merits and drawbacks really.

EI is a poorly run and inefficient program. I deal with Government agencies for a living.

But do people really think just handing people cash and telling them to sort it out themselves is going to go well?

UBI is so intrinsically flawed its laughable. Look at all the countries that use it and see the ensuing madness.

I'm all for it. Lets make some chaos.

I asked Iggy earlier, but I'd like to hear from you too - what's the difference in "telling them to sort it out themselves" through several smaller supplements like EI, etc and "telling them to sort it out themselves" through one single, larger UBI payment?

Is it really better to expect the government to proficiently distribute funds through dozens of programs and rebates, vs one singular program in UBI?

The cost savings alone from simplifying the administration of those programs (uh-oh - union jobs!) can't be insignificant...

[Red Slinger]

The latest versions of UBI usually include it as a replacement for some social service payments like EI. However, the initial idea behind UBI was to account for automation replacing a lot of jobs that will result in many more people than jobs available. I don't think that $1000 was ever intended to cover all social services.

Locke mentioned the ensuing madness from countries that have tried UBI. That's hyperbolic and there are mixed results, as you'd expect.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...income-ubi-map