top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 192 points 1 year ago (40 children)

It's a crime to not have universal basic income at this point. People aren't only unable to afford basic living expenses, but they're losing jobs to automation and AI already. What are these people supposed to do? Go beg on the streets?

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    Idk, I feel like landlords would just jack prices by whatever the ubi payments are. Ubi is a good idea for sure, but it's only a piece.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Controlled rent would also be fantastic and has worked in economically diffuclt times like COVID. I don't see why it wouldn't work again during the recession we are spiralling towards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • City-owned housing works great here in Vienna. The City owns like somthing like 20% of all apartments and rents them out at basically non-profit rates. It works fantastically! It does not only offer lower rents, but it makes people realize that landlords often charge unnecessarily high prices and makes people demand better from landlords, so these lower their prices as well to compete with the city apartments.

    Edit: for reference, i'm paying 500€/month (roughly $600/month) on rent and it's already a private-owned apartment. In the city apartments, the rent is even lower still.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Controlled rent is better than uncontrolled rent, but it suffers from the same problems as minimum wage. And why should landlords even exist? I'm not convinced private rentals should be legal at all. If you're not using a property for personal use or a place of business, why shouldn't it be seized and auctioned or rented publicly?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Rentals do have their place for people like students, and some businesses who regularly send employees to a city(rare but it happens). Rentals are not inherently bad, but the expectation that someone should rent as a longterm plan is completely fucked. We do not need this many many rental units in the world, not at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't mean that renting shouldn't exist, but that it should probably not be run privately for profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I’m not wholly against that, but I’m sure there are some benefits. Vienna is the one often brought up in these conversations because something like nearly half their rentals are public and the rest are private which keeps the market in check. We just need much heavy controls on landlords and most people don’t have any experience with landlords that aren’t huge, unregulated pieces of shit.

    It’s like how private business is not inherently bad but most places do it so badly that people want out of the whole deal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Why should you own anything privately? You dont need two cars, one should be seized and auctioned publicly so someone else could have a car right? Why are you hoarding them?

    Because we live in a capitalist society thats why. There are countries that do what youre proposing but they are much weaker economically and people dont have nearly the rights they do in Canada.

    And of all the places to rent, guess who provides the most reasonable places to rent in the country? Is is Blackrock? No. Is it a consortium of investors? No. Is it a commercial landlord in your city? No. Its ALWAYS the mom and pop landlords who rent out basement suites and houses. Get rid of them and rent averages go UP.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    You do know that GDP and economy are different and every year that goes by our economy in Canada gets worse because of heavily stagnant wages and uncontrolled rent and housing prices? It’s not good, we’re just starting from a relatively higher point than many other places.

    Also all you did there was compare private(large) to private(small), which isn’t anywhere close to the argument you think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Yes Im aware of the difference. I guess the issue is that I dont see the people who are not making it being the economies fault, primarily because I have 3 adult children and 3 adult step children between 25 and 39 and they are ALL doing ok financially. One is just getting by, the the other five are already making more money and living more comfortably than I did at their age and they're doing it on their own, with no help from us. So I have a hard time understanding why anyone cant make IF they want to bad enough in Canada. The opportunities are here (2 of my kids are self starting entrepreneurs) if you work hard enough. Yes, wages are stagnant if you're working retail at a mall, but no one's stopping anyone from upgrading their education and getting a better job. Our immigrants do it, Canadians can do it too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    So everyone within your very close, related circle is doing ok and that’s indicative of the diverse country as a whole?

    Wages are stagnant for everyone. I’m an architectural technologist and wages are absolutely getting worse year over year despite it being an important, educated, in demand job. The fact that you think I’m talking about mall retail points only to your complete failure to have a shred of empathy for the poor and for any kind of job you don’t understand. Also, retail seems to be pretty fucking important and shouldn’t be thrown aside and allowed to have stagnant wages either, you broken twat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Dude. one of my kids is a house cleaner. Give up your prejudiced opinion. But the difference between her and the average retail worker is she decided to start her own company and has now got enough work she can hire another worker. And she works her ass off scrubbing other people's toilets, bathtubs and sinks for hours a day on her knees.

    There IS a way out of the hole if a person is motivated enough. But I dont have sympathy for those who aren't motivated enough to bust their asses to move up the ladder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    You think people aren’t trying? You think their problem is a lack of motivation? They’re doing a job we’ve deemed important enough to have and you have no idea what they’re going through or how much it demands of them yet you think they deserve shit pay because you don’t respect them. The only reason you treat your kid any differently is because you know them personally but you can’t extend that to a stranger because you’re broken. I can’t fix you and I don’t know what can, but I guess empathy just doesn’t come stock in everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You dont know anything about me. I founded an outreach charity for street kids at risk thats been running for 30 years. We have helped hundreds of kids out of addiction, out of entrapment in sex work, out of poverty and into healthy lifestyles primarily through friendship. Stop projecting your own issues onto others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    In that case then I’m fucking shocked that you’re acting like this. It is incredible to me that you can have this stance while supposedly being an otherwise active and compassionate member of the community.

    Take that energy and direct into not being a huge fucking asshole to underpaid retail workers. You act all pretentious when I don’t know you while assuming that you know everything about these “unmotivated” people who are just trying to pay rent. I may not know you but I am absolutely correct that, at the moment at least, you’re being a real shithead.

    Do better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Youre the massively judgmental one. I never degraded anyone, but you're here calling me a shithead. Hmm... which one of us is judgmental?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    So I have a hard time understanding why anyone cant make IF they want to bad enough in Canada. The opportunities are here (2 of my kids are self starting entrepreneurs) if you work hard enough. Yes, wages are stagnant if you're working retail at a mall, but no one's stopping anyone from upgrading their education and getting a better job. Our immigrants do it, Canadians can do it too.

    You’re literally saying that people could be having a better life if they wanted it bad enough, and thereby saying loud and clear that people who are having a bad life clearly just don’t want it bad enough. Immigrants are treated pretty badly and not paid nearly well enough, and you’re being a real ass for using their desperation and shitty situations as justification for invalidating Canadians’ struggles.

    You’re also saying that “no one is stopping anyone from upgrading their education” while clearly not understanding at all what that takes, especially if you’re coming from a place where you can have a family member pay for everything. Working during school, especially the amount that 2025 demands for you to make ends meet, is crushing and, in many cases, basically impossible. Getting a job after that is also completely fucked for many of its own reasons. I did everything right and am good at my job but getting a job right now, even with experience, is next to impossible as companies refuse to hirer new or intermediate people and try to rely on senior people who will retire with no one to fill their roles.

    Everything is so much more fucked than you clearly have even the barest understanding of. You’re still the asshole, bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Because there isn't a shortage of cars, and cars aren't necessary to live. However, housing is. Having a shelter to live in is a basic human need. It shouldn't be hoarded by rich elite few who own so much they basically control the whole fucking market.

    If housing is limited and is a living necessity, it should totally be regulated.

    Capitalism is an inhumane system that glorifies profit and undervalues human life and human rights. In order for capitalism to succeed, it needs cheap labour, it needs wage slaves, or even better, actual slaves. If capitalism had any provisions for social justice, equality, equity, respect of human rights and human life, it wouldn't even be viable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why would I, a single individual, need two cars? I'd be completely in support of one-personal-car-per-person regulations.

    The best places to rent in my country are the buildings owned by the city. Even mom and pop are leeching income off the less-wealthy by providing absolutely no services.

    We shouldn't live in a capitalist society. It's a bad system that leads to oligarchy and class division. Economic strength is meaningless when the economy isn't in service of the people. Look at all the rights people in the US have. I'm told they're euthanizing disabled people in Canada now because they're a financial burden on the healthcare system. Capitalism isn't helping anyone except the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    We shouldn’t live in a capitalist society. It’s a bad system that leads to oligarchy and class division.

    Its definitely not a perfect system, but show me one thats better? I mean Canada has a capitalist economy but with as strong social support network underlying it. I cant think of a better way to run a country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -22 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    We're not quite there yet. Even with offsets by eliminating virtually all other social programs, including socialized healthcare, and slashing the size of military expenditures to almost nothing, doing every single good idea there is to fund it and increasing taxation on the owner class, there simply isn't enought GDP to support it without spending your way into inflation... not unless you're a country with a very small population rich in natural resources.

    It's plausible if we can bring the price of energy down to the point that it's negligible and multiplies productivity almost for free.

    We need scalable commercial fusion power to make it work, basically.

    I agree with the goal,l. I don't think people will contribute less without the threat of being unable to meet basic costs of living. I think a lot of people's contributions to society aren't adequately captured and recorded by our economic system.

    But I'm not naive enough to believe that it can meet all of a person's cost of living with current tech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    doing every single good idea there is to fund it and increasing taxation on the owner class, there simply isn’t enought GDP to support it without spending your way into inflation…

    I did the actual calculation a while ago for the US and found the following:

    If a wealth tax were created to tax all wealth above $10 million with an annual 3% tax rate, it would generate enough money to give everyone in the US a $300/month handout.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    300 dollars a month is not even close to meeting a person's cost of living.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I doubt this is correct. The argument against universal healthcare was similar and provably, historically wrong.

    As UBI is not a lot per person and only goes to very low income people, the burden on the entire country is not great. And it turns out that impoverished people are a burden on the country. Alleviating that burden offsets the costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Especially with that single-payer healthcare we have. The unit rates for things like Dr. hours or beds in hospitals are enormous. If we can cut down on the number of visits required because people have somewhere safe to live and aren't getting injured/sick living on the street, we could save huge amounts of money. Add onto that the cost of policing and/or incarcerating them, plus the economic benefit of having downtown areas feel safer for people, thus encouraging more people to live/work/spend time in those areas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Costs are enormous often because of executive compensation and shareholder payout.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Hospitals have to be nonprofit here, so we can't actually have shareholder payouts.

    Executive compensation is public information in Ontario and you can look it up - often they're paid less than Doctors in their own hospital.

    EDIT: also, unit rates are set but the insurer (in this case the govt), so its not like hospitals can charge different amounts based on internal costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    No, they're supposed to adapt and overcome. Just like any other time in history when things are tougher. And if you think this is a tough time you havent studied our history well. The Dirty 30's, the Great Depressions, the first and second World Wars, even the Cold War Era was much more difficult. This doesnt even compare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The difference between now and the past is that our current world already produces enough of everything to be post-scarcity.

    We produce enough food for 10+ billion people, so anyone going hungry anywhere is a policy failure. We have technology and materials to give everyone shelter, so anyone being homeless is a policy failure. We produce so much disposable clothes and electronics devices and other stuff that it is literally thrown away unsold in the desert.

    There is absolutely no reason for people to have to toughen up, just to have access to basic human necessities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The poor will always be among you. Even the Bible says that. And if you live in Canada you will be able to access many different gov and charitable programs for support. There is no lack of provision for necessities only lack of knowledge about where and how to access them. The US is a different story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 157 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Every study of UBI has been overwhelmingly positive also every study of UBI has ended without enacting UBI. They will continue to study it until they get the answer they want.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Until it is peer reviewed and points out the glaring errors, which will promptly be ignored.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Why don't you stop and smell the roses?

    Jumping to such a conclusion, then blaming the hypothetical reaction, displays ignorance or malice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I’m pretty sure they meant that “the result they want” (“UBI is bad”) would be peer reviewed and shown to be bunk, but the people who wanted that result will ignore the peer review results.

    They weren’t disagreeing with the original comment, just adding to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 98 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Tax the rich > fund the working class and social services > economic boom. We Know.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Funny how people hoarding all the money and preventing it from getting back into the economy are choking out the economy and crippling the country.

    Who knew parasites did this to their hosts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    TL;DR - The document discusses the results of a universal basic income (UBI) trial in Canada, which was conducted in Southern Ontario between 2017 and 2019. The trial, which was cancelled prematurely, showed that participants experienced improvements in mental health, housing stability, and social relationships, as well as reduced visits to hospitals and doctors. The UBI payments, which were designed to reduce poverty and encourage work, were found to have a positive impact on participants' physical and mental well-being, with many reporting decreased use of alcohol and tobacco. The trial also dispelled concerns that UBI would lead to unemployment, with only 17% of participants leaving their jobs and nearly half of those who stopped working returning to school or university to up-skill. The report suggests that UBI could be a useful public health strategy and that the safety net provided by the UBI project helped participants find better jobs with higher wages and improved working conditions. [AI Summary]

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    To be fair, if 8% exits the labour market that would have a pretty severe economic effect, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I imagine it would improve wages as employers would need to properly incentivise people to return to those jobs. Probably why UBI hasn't made it past a trial yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yes, but that's the textbook definition of inflation (being forced to raise wages because the salary becomes less valuable). I'm not sure if that's really the goal here.

    I can understand the case for UBI, but so far most trials have been quite small in scope... that means few national effects have been properly observed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    For every dollar a participant earns through employment they lose 50 cents from their basic income payment. This means the basic income proposal would only apply to individuals earning less than 34,000 CAD ($24,380) a year, or couples earning less than 48,000 CAD ($34,420).

    This is not UBI.

    UNIVERSAL basic income is UNIVERSAL: It doesn't matter how much you earn.

    Oh, you pulled in a billion dollars last year? Here's your check for $12,000. To save us postage, we're including it in the same envelope as your $450,000,000 tax bill.

    The universality of the system is the single most important component. We convey to our government(s) our political authority. They use our political authority to provide essential services, such as roads and courts and rule of law. They charge the taxpayer for those services. UBI is how they compensate us, the shareholders of our government(s) for the use of the political authority we grant them.

    UBI is not a social program. It is not charity. It is the government finally paying out dividends to its citizen-shareholders.

  • source
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'd be happy to receive money every months that I payback in full on my tax deductions. If I suddenly stop working, the check just keep coming in. It becomes a safety net available to all, that doesn't mean you are actually giving it to all, all the time. You can get rid of other program that become redundant. Welfare, employment insurance, hell student loans too could be splified this way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Welfare only kicks in once I've spent all my savings and sold my house. Money comes from taxes. Welfare takes lots of time to kick in and is sublet to a ton of conditions. UBI is there all the time. Way cheaper to administrate.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Choosing the right level of income is the key for UBI to work, it has to be enough to live and survive but not so much that a recipient can enjoy luxury. Most people like to contribute to society, being is social is how humans are so dominant as a species.

    Most people will contribute to the economy if they can, because it supports ambition, better lifestyle but it doesn't put pressure to worry about where today's food is going to be, people take more risks, be more entrepreneurial, explore more curiosity, explore new ideas, people spend time on acquiring more useful skills.

    A mentally healthy mind is not entirely lazy. Being lazy perpetually reflects a deeper problem that is psychological to some degree such as having no hope or not being able to Imagine a happy future, or feeling helpless. Mentally healthy people want to contribute to society.

    Economy as a whole will expand, which will pay in turn for UBI. First few years of UBI might be heavier on tax payers of the old system, but in long term UBI will lead to better economy. Question is not who is going to pay for it, question is can people agree to pay more out of their own pocket now for a better future for everyone? OR are we doomed as a species by exploiting our own kind?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Choosing the right level of income is the key for UBI to work, i

    Democracy is the idea that the political authority of the people is conveyed to the government, who utilizes that investment to provide services to taxpayers. The key to making UBI to work is not the specific level of income it provides. The key is convincing the general public that it is a return on their investment.

    Once we have collectively adopted the idea that we are shareholders, and individually owed for the political authority we provide, establishing an appropriate dividend will happen through routine politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I would rather see socialized housing, food, and (better) medical coverage than UBI. UBI could (maybe) cause the prices of essentials like housing to increase.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Testing UBI is always an excuse to avoid UBI. UBI is as obvious as slavery abolition or basic universal healthcare. You don't need to worry about people choosing unemployment, because you just need enough HR workers to call everyone 5 times a day with awesome job offers.

    City secession is probably necessary for UBI, as it can be easily implemented at city level. City politics still demanding power hierarchy as prize for politics victory makes demonic evil oppression a perpetual social feature. UBI is especially suited to cities because police, homelessness, education are in their budgets. UBI eliminates crime and homelessness. Privatizing education and daycare with stipends for children is a budget reduction, with far more likely than not higher educational achievement.

    Cities typically depend on property taxes for nearly all funding. Density weighted property taxes can pay for entirety of UBI, with those living alone in large spaces subsidizing those who live in small spaces. Adding small income and sales taxes can eliminate payroll taxes. Income taxes that are equal between businesses and individuals up to say $100k, means that $100k in employment income can be tax free if it is not a deduction to businesses. Business losses can still get tax refunds. Investor income no longer getting tax breaks is justified because investor class also gets UBI. This means lower personal/business tax rates. No more need for payroll taxes. EI not needed. Either save for a rainy day, or borrow (cheaply because income to repay is assured) from future UBI. UBI replaces future retirement benefits. Sales taxes also mean lower business/personal tax rates, without caring too much who made what you are buying. But security guarantees/tributes are far cheaper than Federal fascism.

    Before you worry about pig slime multimillionaires threatening to leave your city due to end of slavery, and end of zionazi warmongering fascism, know that the best places to live on the planet are those with no crime, homelessness, and great restaurants, entertainment and retail experiences made abundant because people can afford to patronize them. The Zohran in NYC should propose UBI and secession instead of hierarchy bandaids.

    When Ford and Carney promise to give all of Toronto tax money to Alberta climate terrorists and Ukrainian nazis, then the power redistribution to people provided by UBI, and secession, for Toronto is necessary. Everyone is still free to donate their money to Alberta MAGA nazis, and Sarnia Ukrainians gets more influence over remaining of Canada's devotion to a war on Russia, and Canada's submission to US and Zionaziism is unimpeded, with Toronto residents free to donate to Israel or to a coalition willing to nuke Tel Aviv, if no multicultural singe state or 2 state implementation not immediate. Certainly, a part of Toronto tax revenue needs to be set aside for nuclear deterrents to those who would interfere with secession/UBI structure, as well as tribute to pacify nearby powers who would otherwise make such threats.

    Social unity is a powerful benefit. It is far stronger with UBI, and liquid democracy easily achievable through crypto society infrastructure that already exists. Toronto secession/governance/UBI is forerunner example to make all of Canada follow. Social unity without sacrifices to MAGA/Zionism/Warmongering corruption is better social unity. Compromises to evil is by definition fascism, and theft of your wealth for evil. UBI is not theft. It is redistributive power, wealth and quality of life enhancement.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    ..... When did we get ubi?

  • source
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Who said anything about 'fuck you I got mine?'

    First of all Canada already has a TON of social supports for anyone who is in need. We have Employment Insurance if you lose your job. We have Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan for seniors. We have Child Tax Credits for parents and especially single parents. We have the GST credit to give back taxes to low income earners. We have the Canada Workers Benefit. We have the Canada Disability Benefit. We have the Assured Income for Severely Handicapped. We have disability pensions. We have Universal Pharmacare for prescription drugs. We have housing benefits/social housing programs. We have the Canadian Dental Benefit. We have student aid. There are free food banks in every city. And there are emergency funds available for things like rent/damage deposits on an emergency basis from every province through various community agencies, charities, and non-profit organizations.

    So WHY do we need UBI on top of all that? If you need help in Canada, you CAN find it. Its already here.

    Source: I founded a charity for street kids in one of our major cities thats been operating for 33 years. There is a TON of support out there. The fact is that a LOT of the people on the street know how to use and abuse the system and they dont WANT to get out of it because its what they grew up in and what they are accustomed to. I speak from years of experience.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • First of all, UBI would be simpler as it's given to everyone, and replaces a lot of other subsidies. That makes bureaucracy simpler, which means less personnel costs, and less error-prone.

    Secondly, the subsidies until now have been add-ons to an otherwise healthy labor market. That's no longer the case: the labor market is getting darker year by year, and it's only a matter of time till subsidies will not be an add-on anymore, but the main source of income.

    Thirdly, giving UBI is fairer than, say, unemployment money. If you give out money to unemployed people, you favor people not working, and that's not what you want. By giving UBI to everyone, people who receive subsidies still have an incentive to work as much as they can.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Because, as the research found, it improves health, housing stability, and social relationships? There shouldn't be any need for charity, IMO. The patchwork of different social programs have tons of cracks for people to fall through if they don't meet all the specific requirements. I'm sure if offered guaranteed and safe housing, no strings attached, most of the people on the streets would take it, and their lives and society would be better for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Democracy is the idea that government receives its power and authority from the general public, not a king, god, or other source. The government utilizes the political authority that we provide them to perform a wide variety of essential services to its taxpayer customers.

    We invest our political authority in the government. The political authority is what allows the government to provide and charge for those services. We are investors; shareholders. We are owed a return on our investment.

    UBI is the dividend owed to us for our investment.

    Those various charitable programs and services you described? Most of those would be replaced by UBI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -33 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    You're looking at one tax. If you look at ALL Canadian taxes, income tax, provincial taxes, sales tax, import taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, health services taxes, business taxes Canadians actually pay about HALF of their gross income in taxes. We are f'n taxed to death in Canada.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is an untrue statistic often trotted out by the Conservative Frasier Institute. Canadians think we're taxed far more than we are, because public opinion has been manipulated to believe so. Average Canadian pays about one third of income to taxes - creeping up as you move up taxes brackets

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I don’t wish to interrupt a Canadian discussion, but the US is similar - ~20% state and federal taxes, property tax, medical coverage, etc. are all going to be about 30% income, if not more, depending on location. So not unreasonable at face value without going too deep into the particulars of each.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Meanwhile, in south Carolina, I pay bring home about 60% of my income, I can't afford to eat well, I get absolutely zero assistance for food, medical insurance, or God Forbid basic income, and I am genuinely contemplating attempting to live in my vehicle in an abandoned parking lot near my work to save on gas money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    UBI would also be good for the economy, as it stimulates consumerism. To economists, CEOs and politicians, you have to talk about the positive effects on the economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    We are f’n taxed to death in Canada.

    Bullshit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Fraser Institute is a conservative Canadian org. They cheat on their taxes and don't pay them because they're "a charity" and think no one else should pay taxes. Of course they fudge numbers like this and find extremes.

    If you do the actual math on your personal taxes, unless you are somehow extra ordinary, you'll find overall you're being taxed in the neighbourhood of 30%.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    Show your work, please. I'm pretty sure it's closer to 25-30%.

    Edit: confirmed. I did the math. It's closer to 35% for most people. Including income tax, sales tax, and property tax.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Many middle class Canadian pay 25% or more just in income tax. Then you have to add sales taxes, property taxes, and the rest.

    I would say he is about right.

    The top income tax bracket is over 50%. If you are very high income, you can pay well over 30% just in income tax (overall).

    For anybody that does not understand progressive income tax brackets, a top rate of 50% does not mean you pay 50% on all income. You pay nothing to a certain point, pay a lower percentage up to a certain level, and then it goes up on what you make beyond that level. On the 30,000th dollar you make, you might pay 25 cents tax. On the 200,000th dollar, you might pay 53 cents. On your first dollar, you pay nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh no! Won't someone think about the highest earners! #clutchpearls

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Sorry to have not gotten back to this.

    I did not advocate for high earners (or for anybody actually). Your comment has nothing to do with mine.

    I made no value judgements at all, did not take a political side, and I certainly did not clutch any pearls.

    What I said, and tried to demonstrate, is that a statement (a mathematical calculation - not an opinion) was reasonably accurate.

    I do advocate for accuracy and rationality though. Fact free politics bothers me (no matter the source or the target). So, your comment would certainly make me reach for my pearls if I had any.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Thankfully BC doesnt do sales tax on food (even at a restaurant) and property tax is super cheap here. Ours is about $1500 on a 600k place. My tax rate is about 22-26% but with deductions it would be more like 20%, and spouse earns less and other deductions so 13% owing. But even at 20% there is no way another 30% is additional tax

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    So, I've done the math. Let's take someone with twice the avg canadian salary.
    They're making $130k/year.
    They pay about 29% tax. $38116/year.
    Let's say they own property in a HCOL area. Maybe $3k/year property tax.
    That leaves them with $88k left.
    Assuming worst case scenario - they don't pay mortgage or rent or anything and spend every penny. So they're paying about $13332 in sales tax.
    That leaves 75550 that they've spent before tax. Which is about 42% of their income going to tax paid, in total.
    Again. That's worst case scenario. In reality, they're paying a mortgage and/or contributing to an RRSP or even paying rent. All of which would substantially reduce that percentage.

    The idea that Canadians (on average) are paying 50% tax is just right wing propaganda bullshit designed to scare you in to cutting social programs in hope of getting a little trickle down action. Don't fall for it.

    For me, I'm paying about 35% tax, in total. Including sales tax, income tax, and property tax. And I think I'm far closer to the "normal" percentage most middle class Canadians pay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    There are many other taxes. There are luxury taxes, payroll taxes, land transfer taxes, estate taxes, import duties, tariffs, and many excise taxes just as examples. There are a lot of “registrations” and tolls that are really just taxes. And the GST and often Provincial taxes are not just charged to the end consumer but in fact multiple times along the supply-chain in practice.

    If you live in BC, your property tax is likely more than you suggest. If you drink, your sales tax will be as well. If you rent, how much are you paying to cover your landlords income tax? And again, there are many other taxes. Again using BC, gasoline tax is 37 cents a litre of tax before you tack on the GST. That can be 50%. And the tax on cigarettes can be 250%. What is your total tax rate if you spend your $88k “after-tax” income on gas and cigs?

    Ontario slashed their liquor tax in half. Now it is only 30%.

    I am not sure that saying 50% is propaganda and then calculating it to be 42% is a total slam dunk anyway. But it is also far from the worst case scenario as you left a lot of stuff out.

    And, if it was 42%, you land on June 8 which is exactly when the Fraser Institute says tax freedom day is anyway. Those lying bastards!

    But I get your point.

    And I am quite happy with the way Canada manages taxation (though perhaps not spending). I am not trying to scare anybody into anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I don't get your math. Here in BC my property tax is about $1500 on a 2 bedroom condo. Maybe 1-2% of my income. With deductions my tax is about 13% since my wife doesn't earn a huge amount but even if single it might be 20%, there is no health insurance fee as its baked into taxes. We aren't paying PST on food. So your claim is my other 15-20% tax means I'm paying 30% tax on everything else I buy?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Assuming this was supposed to reply to my response (you're just responding directly to the main post FYI).

    Canadians actually pay about HALF of their gross income in taxes

    I haven't ever heard a number this big. Where did you get this from, and how does it compare to other countries?

    I don't disagree - we're taxed more than the US, but that comes with things like single-payer healthcare and higher regulatory enforcement. GST, for example, isn't something collected in the US meaning they only have the effective PST component of our sales tax, which varies widely by municipality to municipality, but is quite a bit less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Single-payer meducal systems are objectively less expensive than the US's ludicrous system. Americans pay the highest per-capita for medical care in the developed world by a huge margin. Technically it's not taxes, but that's because it's directly feeding corporate profits. It's still effectively mandatory cost of living.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›