Canada is considering a guaranteed universal basic income program. Here’s what that means

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, herbie said:

You said it dumbass

LOL - nope - lets look at your claim. It's always entertaining to watch lefies lean into a lie.  : )   I said:

"cerb drove up inflation insanely and plunged us hundreds of billions of dollars into debt"

You CLAIM i said....

"reducing the cost of delivering services increase the debt"

What i said has NOTHING TO DO with what you claim i said.

All you lefies can do is lie.  Why bother? If you have to lie to make your point, you don't have much of a point.

Quote

and said it again claiming one bureaucracy costs more than a dozen.

And still nope.  I said that one gigantic org that is paying money to and retreiving money from 30 million people is more expensive than 10 orgs 1/100th the size.   That is not the same as "reducing costs increases debt".

And i'm right.

Once again - when the left realizes it's wrong or stupid it makes up shit nobody said and argues against that   But thanks for admitting you were lying about what i said

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 10/22/2023 at 5:33 PM, CdnFox said:

And the studies on this kind of thing always show that it eases stress in the poor (obviously) , but shows it DOESN"T help them find work or move ahead in life, it just makes their poverty comfortable.  There's no measurable benefit to society or the taxpayer.

But i bet good money this is going to be trudeau's "big thing" for the next election to try to win back the woke vote.

Have you got links to these studies? There was a small experiment in Manitoba? I like the idea of UBI. Why tell people they can’t work if they receive money from a Gov program? Andrew Yang is a supporter and he’s not a lefty by Canadian standards. Apparently, some on the US right have seen benefits in UBI although they are not named here:

Quote

On the right side of the political spectrum, people see UBI as potentially realizing a number of goals. One, they emphasize this is anti-paternalistic in nature. There’s an element of government not interfering with the lives of individuals by imposing all these conditionalities on them, but rather just letting them be free to live their lives as they see fit with the income. 

The other thing that folks on the right emphasize is the way UBI might allow you to shrink the size of government. People on the left often think of basic income as something we’re going to add to the safety net and keep much of the safety net intact. People on the right often see it as a replacement: We’re going to give people a guaranteed income, and we’re going to get rid of a whole host of social safety net programs that cost a lot of money and require a lot of people to administer.

https://college.unc.edu/2021/03/universal-basic-income/
 

In his presidential campaign, Yang saw UBI as a way of cushioning the effect of automation on employment and this was before ChatGPT was on everybody’s lips. Some obvious questions:

1. How much would it be per person?

2. Would it replace existing programs entirely or would people have a choice? 
 

 

 

 

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sharing economic capital gains more broadly like it was in our grandparent's days following WW2 is really the only way to do it.

Failing that, taxing the snot out of the 1% to fund a UBI should work too.

Just a question about the 1%, most of them are one percenters becasue they know how to keep their money off shore, say like the Irving's for instance, they did not get where they are today by being allowed to be taxed the same as we are...so again who is going to pay for all if this...

[SpankyMcFarland]

If you look at the power of the Thomson and Rogers families in Canada, running preposterously expensive cell phone and Internet services for years despite the promises of reform from multiple governments, extracting more money from them and their ilk looks unlikely in this country. 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Have you got links to these studies? There was a small experiment in Manitoba?

yes there are several out there including the European ones.  but honestly you can look them up for yourself just as easily as i can.

UBI simply doesn't work .  You can't magic up money from nowhere.  If it resulted in getting people back in the workplace or the like then it might be justified but it doesn't. They stay unemployed - they just stress less about it.  So they don't contribute anything back, and you simply can't have a drain like that on society without everyone else paying a price.

Like i said - if you honestly believe it would work then why not set the rate at 1 million dollars? We all get a million a year - no problems with that right?  

[SpankyMcFarland]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

yes there are several out there including the European ones.  but honestly you can look them up for yourself just as easily as i can.

UBI simply doesn't work .  You can't magic up money from nowhere.  If it resulted in getting people back in the workplace or the like then it might be justified but it doesn't. They stay unemployed - they just stress less about it.  So they don't contribute anything back, and you simply can't have a drain like that on society without everyone else paying a price.

Like i said - if you honestly believe it would work then why not set the rate at 1 million dollars? We all get a million a year - no problems with that right?  

The precise amount matters a great deal and would be a major source of debate. I don’t believe everybody at the lower end of the income scale would give up paid work forever if they got UBI. There would be an effect but it would have to balanced against positive quality of life effects such as individual health, opportunity to care for relatives, pursuing educational courses etc. 

As I understand it, most UBI proposals offer little benefit to better off people? I would prefer a BI system that cut off any benefit somewhere in the low to middle range. 

Attitudes to UBI may change if ChatGPT announces: “Workers of the world, goodbye”. 

 

 

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I would prefer a BI system that cut off any benefit somewhere in the low to middle range. 

Every system proposed already does this.  The UBI you would receive is taxed, so if you make money, the UBI portion is flawed back through income taxes.  This makes it extremely simple to administer.  Once you introduce complexities, it gets more expensive to administer. 
 

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Every system proposed already does this.  The UBI you would receive is taxed, so if you make money, the UBI portion is flawed back through income taxes.  This makes it extremely simple to administer.  Once you introduce complexities, it gets more expensive to administer. 
 

 

So they give you money - then tax you on that money - then claw back some of that money.  And you feel this is 'simple'.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Every system proposed already does this.  The UBI you would receive is taxed, so if you make money, the UBI portion is flawed back through income taxes.  This makes it extremely simple to administer.  Once you introduce complexities, it gets more expensive to administer. 
 

Thanks. I kind of thought that but wasn’t sure. 

[myata]

There's a level where "UBI" becomes a handout. Like social assistance now is $600 to $800 monthly. Clearly it's a level of misery in these times, comparatively, that cannot stand anywhere close to prosperity.

Do you want UBI to be at the level of real prosperity? Then there will be folks who'll "retire" and you'll have to bring in more souls from abroad and pay them more UBI just to keep the status quo forget any progress. The debt would skyrocket, the interest will follow, obviously. The next market crunch with high rates (and what if this one?) public budget goes bust. And this happened already.

Keep it at the level of misery, a few bucks added then clawed back with working folk funny accounting for no reason, homelessness and misery for those who couldn't or wouldn't work. That's what we have now, isn't it, what's the point? It just won't work. The solution is not to throw more buck, but meaningful participation and broad prosperity.

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Just a question about the 1%, most of them are one percenters becasue they know how to keep their money off shore, say like the Irving's for instance, they did not get where they are today by being allowed to be taxed the same as we are...so again who is going to pay for all if this...

 

56 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If you look at the power of the Thomson and Rogers families in Canada, running preposterously expensive cell phone and Internet services for years despite the promises of reform from multiple governments, extracting more money from them and their ilk looks unlikely in this country. 

Well then we should just get on with world war 3 guess. Last time people had to do this the 1% came out of it realizing that pocketing all the capital gains pushed society to an economic brink that was bad for business because it led to war.

The 1% never figured it out following WW 1 which led to WW2. Then they seemed to get it and started treating and paying people better. Suddenly single income earners could afford a house, a car, put the kids thru college and save enough for their and the missus retirement. But what happened to make us go back to the old ways is neither here nor there now, water under a bridge on a fast track to war.

Things will swing back towards getting better, we just have to kill a billion people along the way.

Of course we'll need to protect the 1% so.... you know. No poor man ever gave you a job.

Edited October 24, 2023 by eyeball

[myata]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It seems to me the distribution of wealth should be a less difficult problem then producing it.

Not if we can't figure out other ways of producing it, but handing the lion's share to the capitalist. I'm not blaming or calling for a massive redistribution of wealth no, nothing like socialism that begins with a great fairy tale and ends in a disaster. But why couldn't we, very obviously, do it any other way? If capitalism had to compete for talented and motivated professional with an alternative framework where one shares ownership, is motivated to produce best results because it's paying right into their pocket while doing meaningful work they like wouldn't it be a productive competition with a better outcome for all or at least a great majority?

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The precise amount matters a great deal and would be a major source of debate. I don’t believe everybody at the lower end of the income scale would give up paid work forever if they got UBI. There would be an effect but it would have to balanced against positive quality of life effects such as individual health, opportunity to care for relatives, pursuing educational courses etc. 

As I understand it, most UBI proposals offer little benefit to better off people? I would prefer a BI system that cut off any benefit somewhere in the low to middle range. 

Attitudes to UBI may change if ChatGPT announces: “Workers of the world, goodbye”. 

 

 

There's no possible way that it would result in balance.  it would drag society down, it's just a question of how far.

This is a fundimental truth - you cannot give something to someone for free that you didn't take away from someone who earned it - and that results in higher inflation and lower economic growth.  Always.  Ask greece about that.

Even our basic welfare system right now hurts the country - its a necessary evil to prevent serious tragedy but adding to that just increases the damage for nothing.

We are already set to experience a reduced standard of living for the next FOURTY YEARS -  how much do you want to see our people suffer before you realize that these social experiments are just evil?

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There's no possible way that it would result in balance.  it would drag society down, it's just a question of how far.

This is a fundimental truth - you cannot give something to someone for free that you didn't take away from someone who earned it - and that results in higher inflation and lower economic growth.  Always.  Ask greece about that.

Even our basic welfare system right now hurts the country - its a necessary evil to prevent serious tragedy but adding to that just increases the damage for nothing.

We are already set to experience a reduced standard of living for the next FOURTY YEARS -  how much do you want to see our people suffer before you realize that these social experiments are just evil?

Work has its value but at the moment it’s relatively easy to find. What happens if AI makes many of us surplus to requirements in the workforce? 

[CdnFox]

Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

Work has its value but at the moment it’s relatively easy to find. What happens if AI makes many of us surplus to requirements in the workforce? 

it will never happen. It just enables us to do more.

We've heard all this before.  Computers were going to put secretaries out of work. Libraries would be shuttered due to the interent. blah blah blah.  Everytime humans get more tools to work with, they do more.

AI will have it's uses but it's not going to replace people. Any more than mail merge on computers replaced the office worker or accounting software replaced accountants.

And at the end of the day, the system only works if people take out that which they contribute - if people are taking without contributing then it's like running a car with no oil in the engine - the friction quickly causes it to seize up.

And usually before then there's a backlash. Suddenly people won't give a damn about the poor who can starve for all they care ,Just like they've become immune to overdose deaths.

This is a horrible idea that will just drag people INTO poverty rather than lift them from it.

[eyeball]

26 minutes ago, myata said:

Not if we can't figure out other ways of producing it, but handing the lion's share to the capitalist. I'm not blaming or calling for a massive redistribution of wealth no, nothing like socialism that begins with a great fairy tale and ends in a disaster.

The great capitalist fairytale always ends in disaster too.

Quote

But why couldn't we, very obviously, do it any other way? If capitalism had to compete for talented and motivated professional with an alternative framework where one shares ownership, is motivated to produce best results because it's paying right into their pocket while doing meaningful work they like wouldn't it be a productive competition with a better outcome for all or at least a great majority?

To do that you'd either need to pay everyone a whole lot more or sell them stuff for very very much less. A massive redistribution of wealth in other words.  It seems there's no way around it, its nature's way - it can probably be expressed in a mathematical formula that describes power, wealth and greed the way other formula describe space and time and gravity.

Personally I still think the only possible way off this stupid merry-go-round is to figure out ways to redistribute power. Perhaps we'd still wind up in some new dystopia where slaughtering one another would be the only way out given our human nature.  One day we'll have to get around to changing that I guess.  Probably only cost us 3 or 4 billion casualties at worst.

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The great capitalist fairytale always ends in disaster too.

 

Capitalism has risen more people out of poverty  than any other system by a huge amount. Capitalism always ends in success. I can name a whole bunch of socialistic countries which are complete disasters right now - which capitalistic countries are?   Yeah - none.

Capitalism is the ONLY thing that has worked consistently again and again in history

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Capitalism has risen more people out of poverty  than any other system by a huge amount.

Cool. It still ends in disaster.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Cool. It still ends in disaster.

Cool. No it doesn't. It literally makes everyone's life better. 

The problem is that SOME sad and dejected people...  who shall remain nameless..  because they're you....  get upset because through hard work and skill some people's lives improve even more than theirs do.  They don't care that THEIR life is considerably better - they consider it a 'disaster' that someone accomplished more than they did.

 Those people, often socialistic in their beliefs, are simply delusional.  And of course they have every opportunity to be even more successful themselves.

So - not really a 'disaster' - more a case of 'sour grapes'.

[SpankyMcFarland]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it will never happen. It just enables us to do more.

We've heard all this before.  Computers were going to put secretaries out of work. Libraries would be shuttered due to the interent. blah blah blah.  Everytime humans get more tools to work with, they do more.

AI will have it's uses but it's not going to replace people. Any more than mail merge on computers replaced the office worker or accounting software replaced accountants.

And at the end of the day, the system only works if people take out that which they contribute - if people are taking without contributing then it's like running a car with no oil in the engine - the friction quickly causes it to seize up.

And usually before then there's a backlash. Suddenly people won't give a damn about the poor who can starve for all they care ,Just like they've become immune to overdose deaths.

This is a horrible idea that will just drag people INTO poverty rather than lift them from it.

In human history there are events that change everything. AI may be one of those moments. Its potential is different from any of the previous innovations we have seen. If it does eliminate work for many people, we will have to think about the emphasis we gave to this activity. Humans may need other goals to fill their time and the morality around the worth of work will itself become obsolete. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[myata]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

AI may be one of those moments. Its potential is different from any of the previous innovations we have seen. If it does eliminate work for many people, we will have to think about the emphasis we gave to this activity.

It doesn't have to. But it quite likely will, if we keep putting all the emphasis on the power in any form; private capital trillions or public politicians ability to promote their interests and agendas contrary to the interests of the society. Then we may very well end up in a Well's kind of dystopia. Humans have the genes of great apes who exist in herd societies with a strong authoritarian leader. It can be a daunting task to beat the genes, but if we couldn't find a way to maintain broad interest and shared prosperity in the society, not excluding but in parallel to traditional models, we may very well be writing the conclusion to our chapter with our own hands.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Cool. It still ends in disaster.

The picking up pieces part is tellingly socialistic though.  All for one and one for all (when those too big to fail, do fail and fall)

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

In human history there are events that change everything.

Not one of them has ever lead to humans doing less.

Quote

AI may be one of those moments. Its potential is different from any of the previous innovations we have seen.

Nope.  

Quote

If it does eliminate work for many people, we will have to think about the emphasis we gave to this activity. Humans may need other goals to fill their time and the morality around the worth of work will itself become obsolete. 

It can't. There is no universe where it does.  All it will mean is that people can do more with less. Jobs may change, but if anything people will have the chance to be even more productive and will be expected to achieve more for their paycheque.

Until only about 150- 200 years ago 85 percent or more of all working people worked to produce food. it's what humans did.  When the industrial revolution changed that people weren't suddenly out of work.  Now only a small percent of our population produces food - and yet there are still jobs.

When you look at ai and what it really is and what it does - it's impressive from a point of view of 'wow look how far we've come ' but it's not really that impressive beyond that. There's so much it can't even begin to do and never will.  The day may come when we achieve true intelligence and we'll have to think about that but there's no chance that AI as we know it now will reduce the number of jobs out there any more than spell checkers eliminated the need for proofreaders.

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Humans may need other goals to fill their time and the morality around the worth of work will itself become obsolete. 

A delightful fairy tale right up there with santa and the tooth fairy But it just doesn't work that way. 

Even in such an age people will want "more". They will want better food and housing and trips and vacations and transportation and clothes and so on and so on. And that means people will have to create value and exchange that for the things they want just like today.

Jobs may be different in the future, but there won't be any fewer of them and the need for them will be the same.

File "ai will replace job" right up there with "Y2K will cause civilzation to crash".

 

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Cool. No it doesn't. It literally makes everyone's life better.

I guess, I'm doing fine but given the sheer weight and growing numbers of people who aren't it could tip everything over for everyone.

 

Quote

 

Overall, Canadians are more down than usual on their financial situation and prospects. Half (49%) say they are in a worse financial position than they were last year, while 35 per cent expect to be in a worse position a year from now. Both figures tie records seen in more than 13 years of tracking data from the Angus Reid Institute.

https://angusreid.org/mortgage-rates-variable-fixed-canada-increases-economic-optimism-pessimism/

 

It's like this all over the planet and already far worse for some.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I guess, I'm doing fine but given the sheer weight and growing numbers of people who aren't it could tip everything over for everyone.

 

 

Well the nice thing about capitalism is the more people in it the better it tends to do all else being equal. 

Quote

It's like this all over the planet and already far worse for some.

Far worse for Canada sadly. And why?  Because of gov't spending. As scotia bank pointed out even a 3 percent reduction in gov't spending would have eliminated the need for increased interest rates to achieve the same results -OR do both and have far far less inflation.

The use of gov'ts to help curb the 'boom bust boom' nature of capitalism is not a bad thing, but when gov't starts spending money and giving it away by dumping unearned or low value money into the marketplace then we get disasters like we see right now.