Set myself up to start another business, cash based and more catered to my hobbies. Something along the lines of a fishing charter, seasonal and cash based.
So, you'd expect that you'd still be working and presumably therefore contributing to the economy, while also being happier?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 09-10-2020 at 06:55 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
But really this (incredibly pie in the sky) idea wouldn't be something I'd offer to the general public or advertise at all. I haven't put a ton of thought into it as I am still 5-7 years away from paying off my debts to even begin the discussion.
With that said I have put no thought into those very important details. My thought would be it would be for family friends/friends of friends visiting who want a trip on the water. Like I said, minimal thought put into it.
Quote:
So, you'd expect that you'd still be working and presumably therefore contributing to the economy, while also being happier?
The goal would be to make it as paper as possible, so the contribution to society (financially as well as functionally) would be considerably less than i currently do.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
Last edited by PaperBagger'14; 09-10-2020 at 07:13 PM.
The idea that someone getting the absolute bare minimum, not even enough to support a family, would simply quit working is based on fear rhetoric and not reality. You're just perpetuating the offensive stereotype that poor people are lazy.
A great many people in the workforce work part-time. Or live at home with their parents. Or are young and have little responsibility. Only a fraction of workers support a family on one income.
It's not an offensive stereotype to point out that many Canadians - among them, my own 20-something self - would prefer to spend every day doing as they please and make $2k a month to working 24 hours a week for $500 a month more.
You see it in parts of the country with generous seasonal EI provisions. A hefty proportion of the population works exactly the minimum weeks required to collect EI the rest of the year - not a week longer. I'm not vilifying people who make that choice - it's perfectly understandable and rational.
Edit: And the black market comments are bang on the money too. I've talked to people in the CRA who say the black market in Canada is so large the government won't even publicly disclose their estimates, out of fear it will embolden even more activity in the underground economy. And we know that working under the table is especially bad in those provinces I mentioned with generous seasonal EI, where double-dipping is a time-honoured practice. With a UBI, we'd likely see the problem explode.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-10-2020 at 07:27 PM.
Where did you get this level of stupid talking point from?
Canada's defense budget is approx. $21.9B...a simple Google search would have figured this for you. Grade 5 math tells us that if we conservatively assume a Canadian population of $35M (could google this also), that would be the equivalent of $625/year. If you now want to restrict UBI so that only the bottom 10% of Canadians get UBI...you have successfully increased the premium to $6250 / year or $520/month.
Congratulations...you are now at the mercy of every military power in the world...while getting a boot out of our alliances (eg. NATO) because they wont carry our freeloading deadweight. In exchange you are now paying the poorest 10% of Canadians half a rent cheque.
I dont disagree with the concept of UBI...but if you are going to spread your opinion like it's a fact...at least do the most basic of research.
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%
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
I used the numbers from the PBO I linked above for costs, but there are over 29 MM adults in Canada. To pay everyone $1500/month actually would cost about $525 billion. So my estimate above with all those new taxes is short about $275 billion. So with all the taxes and benefit cuts I've mentioned, we'd still be short nearly the current annual revenue of the Federal government.
I'm not sure how you can raise that, to be honest. You'd have to take what I have there and double it again. I doubt there is political will for that.
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.
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.
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.
Uh no, they aren't. A policy position is a documented statement of a value or action plan to further a given political goal. Political policies are established to further an agenda and require fiscal, legal, and regulatory support to develop political traction for the idea or concept behind the policy position. Policy positions work in concert to develop a platform which inform the electorate of the goals and priorities for the party representing the platform and policies. You are conflating a idea with policy, and they are very different things. What you are talking about is issue identification in the policy cycle. You are just at the idea stage and there has yet to be any party take this idea on and even begin serious analysis, let alone consultation, or considering coordinating support through the means I listed above. This is pretty basic stuff. Do yourself a favor and go to your local community college and take a class on political science where they focus on policy development and the policy cycle. At worst, read this book.
Quote:
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?
What's to square? People can be in favor of something and then vote against it. People are overwhelmingly in favor of pot legalization, but ballot initiative after initiative fails come voting time. An idea can have support, but making it a policy politicians will get behind and people will actually vote for are two different things. Again, Ideas and policies are two very different things.
Americans vehemently reject the nanny state and socialism on principle, or have you not been paying attention to elections in this country over the past 50 years? Just like the vast majority of Americans want gun control and advanced background checks, but they won't vote in favor of any politician or ballot initiative that could possibly achieve that outcome. If this is too difficult for you to understand, then politics isn't your game.
Quote:
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"...?
My response would be, "How do you like the job Trump is doing? Think another little tantrum vote is going to work out for you, because it's going to ####ed the rest of us right in the tail pipe again!" I appreciate that people vote with their emotions, but grow up, get a ####ing grip, and recognize what the outcomes could be. People are saying its unfair that Trump is being compared to Satan, and I agree. Satan was no where near as evil as Donald Trump.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
He didn't woodshed a goddamn thing. He just has a dogmatic attachment to conventional thinking. His head is still in 1980 or 1990, and he doesn't realize that it's 2020 now, and a lot has changed.
All of his "arguments" could have been used to justify the continuation of slavery 300 years ago. "Oh, what's that? You want slavery to be abolished? Awww, that's cute... but sorry, it's not a policy position, my local community college said so."
I just hope he understands the irony of talking about the evilness of Trump, then turning around and scoffing at UBI. Maybe he thinks the US was some kind of paradise prior to Trump's election?
__________________
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
What are you providing? Basic unemployment benifits or an actual UBI? My understanding was that UBI was enough to support yourself.
The reality is that most basic jobs would be barely above a UBI. I'm not perpetuating any stereotypes at all. The problem is you have no concept of what these jobs are actually like. Have you ever worked one? Do you have any idea how soul crushing these menial labour jobs are.
You're also ignoring black market and under the table work.
Once again if the choice if $2.5k/month cleaning toilets or $1800/month at home, it's at home for 99% of people. Especially when you can earn some money on the side doing odd jobs here and there. The truly "hard working" poor you speak of would take the $1,800/month and then start doing cash jobs on the side. You're correct many working poor do hustle. Just not always within the rules.
At the end of the day UBI falls apart for the same reason all socialist systems do, they rely on the honesty of the entire population. They rely on people working to the best of their ability without personal incentive do so.
A UBI is an AND not an OR. It would be 1800 a month doing nothing or (now that the bottom bracket has a 35% federal tax and another 1250 for working for a total of 3250.
Not that it really changes anything. A large enough portion of people would quit their jobs with that level of UBI.
What i have found interesting is that during the pandemic significantly less labour was required to meet societies needs. Essentially that if we could distribute access to food and shelter more equitably everyone could work less. We hit probably around 30% unemployment on a near global basis and there was only minor shortages.
Effectively 30% of our effort is just waste. This would suggest there is room for a UBI to allow people to work less without society falling apart. The problem is that we don’t have a large scale system that works better than regulated capitalism to do it.
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"...?
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.
Last edited by bizaro86; 09-11-2020 at 12:54 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
A UBI is an AND not an OR. It would be 1800 a month doing nothing or (now that the bottom bracket has a 35% federal tax and another 1250 for working for a total of 3250.
Not that it really changes anything. A large enough portion of people would quit their jobs with that level of UBI.
What i have found interesting is that during the pandemic significantly less labour was required to meet societies needs. Essentially that if we could distribute access to food and shelter more equitably everyone could work less. We hit probably around 30% unemployment on a near global basis and there was only minor shortages.
Effectively 30% of our effort is just waste. This would suggest there is room for a UBI to allow people to work less without society falling apart. The problem is that we don’t have a large scale system that works better than regulated capitalism to do it.
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.
I agree with the comment that significant amounts of labour is wasted throughout the system. Although many of the people laid off during the pandemic aren't necessarily waste. Some stuff that is objectively productive (everything from elective surgeries to the science centre to movie theatres) were fully closed.
I suspect the only way UBI could ever work would be to combine it with a huge overhaul of the entire system of government. You would need to cut whole departments and have huge layoffs to get savings like that, and each of those programs would have people who benefit from it outraged. Plus, given the cost would exceed total Federal spending, you'd need to make deep cuts PLUS significantly raise taxes. Maybe the GST could go to 20%? You would certainly need to massively increase income taxes as well.
Unless the narrator of that video has a plan from his review of the Panama papers that will massively increase tax revenue
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Agree with most of what you posted except “paid for by taxing the rich”
It needs to be paid for by taxing every remaining worker.
Any worker making median income or higher essentially needs to be paying back their UBI and more with the median income in Canada being around 35k or so. So you need essentially everyone making more than that to get little benefit from the UBI system.
So in a 2k UBI you would need a 50% tax on all earned dollars or so I think to make it work. It just doesn’t work if you start wanting for 25% of people to pay for 100% of the UBI.
The thing with UBI is it has to be an AND with income as that is part of two of the main benefits. The first being reduced administration cost. The second being you always have the money and don’t have to apply so people don’t fall through the cracks. Otherwise is it’s just increasing Welfare from 7.5k per year to 24k
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Agree with most of what you posted except “paid for by taxing the rich”
It needs to be paid for by taxing every remaining worker.
Any worker making median income or higher essentially needs to be paying back their UBI and more with the median income in Canada being around 35k or so. So you need essentially everyone making more than that to get little benefit from the UBI system.
So in a 2k UBI you would need a 50% tax on all earned dollars or so I think to make it work. It just doesn’t work if you start wanting for 25% of people to pay for 100% of the UBI.
The thing with UBI is it has to be an AND with income as that is part of two of the main benefits. The first being reduced administration cost. The second being you always have the money and don’t have to apply so people don’t fall through the cracks. Otherwise is it’s just increasing Welfare from 7.5k per year to 24k
Agree completely. I meant the comment that the rich will pay theirs back in tax only as a reason not to means test it, not that it could conceivably be paid for by only the rich. For UBI everyone needs to pay, and pay a lot.
With progressive taxation there will be a breakeven somewhere, and everyone above that income level will be worse off with UBI. How high that level is depends on what type of taxes are used to fund it, but it won't be a 6 figure number or anywhere near that likely.
Last edited by bizaro86; 09-11-2020 at 01:39 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post: