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

[Locke]

Originally Posted by you&me

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...

Because its not the same.

When you have Government programs to help people they are walked through the process with their hands held.

Albeit from people who barely know what they're doing to begin with.

The real difference is, and I'm with you on eliminating inefficient bureaucracy, but the difference is that at the moment programs are targeted.

UBI?

To make it work you have to eliminate a lot of social programs, because now that people have money they can take care of themselves.

Can people take care of themselves? Do you believe that? I dont.

It would be like handing everyone a gun and saying: "Good! There! Now we dont need the Police."

Is that accurate? Is that a good idea? I dont think so.

[blankall]

For those promoting UBI, a couple of questions about payment for such a program:

1. Where is the money to pay for UBI coming from? Which portion of the public sector funds are getting slashed.

2. Is the answer simply to tax the rich more to pay for the UBI? If this is the plan, we're going to have to dig fairly deep in to the middle class to pay for this.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

For those promoting UBI, a couple of questions about payment for such a program:

1. Where is the money to pay for UBI coming from? Which portion of the public sector funds are getting slashed.

2. Is the answer simply to tax the rich more to pay for the UBI? If this is the plan, we're going to have to dig fairly deep in to the middle class to pay for this.

All of them.

No more EI, no more disability, no more AISH, you might even have to can OAS and GIS and add administrative fees for Health Care.

You get rid of all of it. Its a hugely expensive proposition.

The Government is giving you free money to live on. You're on your own now.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by SebC

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

Well, I’m not.

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?

Because when you raise the minimum wage by $1/hour you’re not also giving everybody making above minimum wage an extra $1/hour so inflation is much less of a factor.

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.

I’m not defining it as a competition, I’m just being realistic about how having a lot of money exponentially increases your economic mobility, as such giving an equal amount more to everyone does very little to increase a lower wage earner’s economic mobility, it just creates a new rock bottom. Say you didn’t give people money and instead you just gave every person a home, car and food for the month, the lower wage workers are still at the bottom with little help to move up.

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.

It’s irrelevant if everyone has UBI. Since there would be no workers without UBI you wouldn’t have any additional leverage over anyone.

Of all the the people on this site, you should be one of UBI's strongest supporters,

I’d really like to hear your explanation for that. Actually don’t even bother responding to the rest of my post unless you’re going to explain that. You’re generally not a #### poster so I’m a little surprised by this comment, I mean what other policies should I or shouldn’t I like based on your stereotyping of me?

unless you're the just kind of union shill who only cares about making monopolistic gains that are taken from consumers.

Or maybe I just see a lot of downsides to UBI and think that it has a greater potential to do more harm than good for lower income working people. As for your “union shill” comment, you know very little about me other than the fact that I support Unions, so while I get that this is the internet and people like to just sling crap anonymously because there’s really no accountability I can assure you that this assumption is as baseless as the one that I should be the biggest supporter of UBI because you’ve arbitrarily decided to pigeonhole my views.

Fair enough?

[CliffFletcher]

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.

The Northern European countries that have managed to create something close to the egalitarian societies many here are calling for have VATs (sales taxes) of 20-25 per cent.

By EU law, all member states must impose at least a 15 per cent VAT.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by you&me

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...

I would say yes. You at least have a screening process with the government. UBI at it's truest form is everyone gets it, and we can spend it however we want. At least with several different programs catering to specific groups, you target the ones who truly need assistance.

I just think abolishing social programs and just handing everyone a cheque and not monitoring it is just asking for trouble. If the covid situation has taught me anything, it's that there's a surprisingly large segment of society that for whatever reason, make irrational decisions against their own good, and are easily manipulated. It's dangerous to leave these people to their own devices IMO.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Northern European countries that have managed to create something close to the egalitarian societies many here are calling for have VATs (sales taxes) of 20-25 per cent.

By EU law, all member states must impose at least a 15 per cent VAT.

I’m not really sure I understand where you’re going with this. The countries with more egalitarian societies have a number of other different economic policies that also contribute to their current living standards. So it’s a real apples to oranges comparison, unless you’re suggesting we start doing things like nationalizing some of our major industries.

[tripin_billie]

When I think of economic rights, it's hard to not think about FDR's proposed, but never implemented, Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
- The right to a good education.


I think these are fundamental rights in any modern, post-industrial society. The longer these rights are denied, the worse the fallout will be.

The billionaire space race is just slapping us in the face with wealth inequality. It's obscene.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Northern European countries that have managed to create something close to the egalitarian societies many here are calling for have VATs (sales taxes) of 20-25 per cent.

By EU law, all member states must impose at least a 15 per cent VAT.

These nordic states are not egalitarian in any way. They have massive gaps in wealth between the rich and poor:

The distribution of net wealth is highly skewed in Norway. While average net wealth for households is NOK 1.6 million, the median net wealth is NOK 900 000. Households in the highest 10 percent for net wealth own roughly 53 per cent of total net wealth, the richest 1 per cent control 21 per cent, while the top 0.1 per cent own 10 per cent of total net wealth.

There is sharp rise in net wealth by age. While households headed by someone younger than 30 years of age had a median net wealth close to zero, median net wealth for households where the main income earner is in the late 60s was NOK 1.9 million. Even the oldest households have a substantial net wealth.

https://www.ssb.no/a/english/publika..._201235_en.pdf

The Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark are all in the top 10 countries of wealth inequality:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ity-by-country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lth_inequality

These countries have fantastic access to education and health care, but their high tax rates have made it very difficult for people, who don't already have wealth, to acquire it.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Northern European countries that have managed to create something close to the egalitarian societies many here are calling for have VATs (sales taxes) of 20-25 per cent.

By EU law, all member states must impose at least a 15 per cent VAT.

They also have populations that largely seem to support this, I'm not sure Canada is the same. In addition we have a largely unique issue most other countries do not have to worry about and that is having the US as a neighbor and therefore having to compete economically. Push tax rates, costs etc. too high here and it's simple for many industries to relocate across the border and carry on. Or just close shop entirely.

[GirlySports]

Don't social programs already favor the poor? Bringing in UBI would actually balance things out of favor for the poor.


For example, the max for EI is 595 a week. That's basically 40 hours at $15, minimum wage in Alberta. An engineer making $100,000 who gets laid off, also only gets $595 a week on EI. That's an advantage for lower-wage workers, who often get laid off more.


Also CPP is capped. Old age has a supplement. So there are already programs that help out certain areas that are needed. Would UBI kill all this? You'll be giving a guaranteed amount of money across the board.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by tripin_billie

When I think of economic rights, it's hard to not think about FDR's proposed, but never implemented, Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
- The right to a good education.


I think these are fundamental rights in any modern, post-industrial society. The longer these rights are denied, the worse the fallout will be.

The billionaire space race is just slapping us in the face with wealth inequality. It's obscene.

Many of the billionaire issues would be addressed by stricter anti-monopoly policies. If you’re able to make that much money there clearly isn’t enough competition.

Edit: it would probably help wages too, and lessen the squeeze on suppliers.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Don't social programs already favor the poor? Bringing in UBI would actually balance things out of favor for the poor.


For example, the max for EI is 595 a week. That's basically 40 hours at $15, minimum wage in Alberta. An engineer making $100,000 who gets laid off, also only gets $595 a week on EI. That's an advantage for lower-wage workers, who often get laid off more.


Also CPP is capped. Old age has a supplement. So there are already programs that help out certain areas that are needed. Would UBI kill all this? You'll be giving a guaranteed amount of money across the board.

I don't think you understand how E.I works.
your not going to get anywhere near that for being laid off from a minimum wage job. That's just the maximum possible. The engineer would probably get that anyone working minimum isn't getting close to that. Its not a set amount to receive . They do review your work history and wages etc etc. Its going to be a portion of what you would have made if you working . EI benefits is 55% of their average insurable weekly earnings. If your working minimum wage your not getting that 595.

If your working 40 hours a week at minimum wage your looking at a entilment of 350- 390 a week If they decide on those numbers that's closer to the average of 9 dollars an hour .
To getting that max amount you need to be making over 56,000 a year.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

I am 100% in favour of social programs. Just administered by people who arent complete morons.

UBI? It'll just be 'Ralph Bucks' all over again.

"Go to the Hospital? I cant afford it! I spent all my money on beer and cigarettes!"

If we've learned nothing in the past decade we should have at least learned that we, as Canadians, are idiots. We are bad with our money.

You can implement UBI but we're just going to piss it away and then people will want all of the social programs we had to dismantle in order to afford UBI. In addition to UBI.

Thats the thing. It cant be both, its one or the other. If you want the state to take care of you then we cant have UBI.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I don't think you understand how E.I works.
your not going to get anywhere near that for being laid off from a minimum wage job. That's just the maximum possible. The engineer would probably get that anyone working minimum isn't getting close to that. Its not a set amount to receive . They do review your work history and wages etc etc. Its going to be a portion of what you would have made if you working . EI benefits is 55% of their average insurable weekly earnings. If your working minimum wage your not getting that 595.

If your working 40 hours a week at minimum wage your looking at a entilment of 350- 390 a week If they decide on those numbers that's closer to the average of 9 dollars an hour .
To getting that max amount you need to be making over 56,000 a year.

Thank you, I knew I miscalculated that. But I think that still advantageous for lower incomes. Question remains, does UBI equalize things possibly in the wrong direction?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Locke

I am 100% in favour of social programs. Just administered by people who arent complete morons.

UBI? It'll just be 'Ralph Bucks' all over again.

"Go to the Hospital? I cant afford it! I spent all my money on beer and cigarettes!"

If we've learned nothing in the past decade we should have at least learned that we, as Canadians, are idiots. We are bad with our money.

You can implement UBI but we're just going to piss it away and then people will want all of the social programs we had to dismantle in order to afford UBI. In addition to UBI.

Thats the thing. It cant be both, its one or the other. If you want the state to take care of you then we cant have UBI.

0% chance anything that introduces billable health care is brought to the table. Would be political suicide.

Not sure why you are so certain it would go away if a UBI is introduced.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

0% chance anything that introduces billable health care is brought to the table. Would be political suicide.

Not sure why you are so certain it would go away if a UBI is introduced.

Have you seen the cost of UBI?

Free money and free Health Care?

You cant have both.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by blankall

These countries have fantastic access to education and health care, but their high tax rates have made it very difficult for people, who don't already have wealth, to acquire it.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=RCK...page&q&f=false

According to everything I've read, the USA and their low taxes have substantially worse social mobility than places like Canada, and the Scandinavian countries.

[blender]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m not really sure I understand where you’re going with this. The countries with more egalitarian societies have a number of other different economic policies that also contribute to their current living standards. So it’s a real apples to oranges comparison, unless you’re suggesting we start doing things like nationalizing some of our major industries.

That's obviously the answer.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I read that most billionaires aren't people who built some business or product in the US but they are hedge fund managers who use HFT to front end trades. They don't do anything they just get in front of the action.

Tax those parasites - make HFT not profitable and 'unrig' the markets. But to be the earlier stated type of billionaire you pretty much have to had cornered some market - no competition.