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

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You voted for them

Cite.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Cite.

Site? I'm sure it was at the voting station

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You voted for them

Cite.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Disagree.

You're free to be as stupid as you like in this country so go ahead

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Cite.

Exactly.  Told you.  So - having helped vote in trudeau you're going to have to accept some responsibility .

And one thnig they proved beyond a doubt is that we sure as hell can't afford a UBI of any type.  Cerb nearly wiped us out.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You voted for them

Cite.

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, herbie said:

And why would it be foolish to have ONE program instead of umpteen all with their own bureaucracy?

I don't have a problem with UBI in this sense, as long as UBI continues to have qualifiers.  It should be low enough to still provide enough incentive to work, and if you're healthy and simply refuse to work because you don't deserve society's support.  Would feel no guilt even if those people starved to death since that was their choice.

If you got laid off and can't find a job or you're sick etc then yes of course society should help you.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Exactly.  Told you.  So - having helped vote in trudeau you're going to have to accept some responsibility .

And one thnig they proved beyond a doubt is that we sure as hell can't afford a UBI of any type.  Cerb nearly wiped us out.

It's probably more the NDP putting pressure on the Liberals for UBI.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 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.

I agree with the very wealthy and corporations paying more to workers and a higher % of our tax revenues.  Not sure how that scheme would work, maybe tax credits.

I don't think UBI should be "universal", as in anyone gets it for any reason, including just being too lazy to work.  If AI means people legit can't find any job then sure we can support them financially.

[myata]

A regular, unconditional handout does not amount to self-respect; accomplishment and meaningful participation.

The objective is to maintain stable and broad prosperity via meaningful participation.

Collective efforts of the public bureaucracy, the large business and mental laziness of the populace always reduce it to either of the two:

- minimal handout that provides neither of the above; or

- unrestrained oligarchic capitalism that creates huge disparity in prosperity

Handouts fixed no problems: they only move the level of misery; unregulated capitalism solves some problems and creates more.

The answer cannot be found in the false dilemma, no matter how many times we try it and how much dough throw at it.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, myata said:

A regular, unconditional handout does not amount to self-respect; accomplishment and meaningful participation.

The objective is to maintain stable and broad prosperity via meaningful participation.

Collective efforts of the public bureaucracy, the large business and mental laziness of the populace always reduce it to either of the two:

- minimal handout that provides neither of the above; or

- unrestrained oligarchic capitalism that creates huge disparity in prosperity

Handouts fixed no problems: they only move the level of misery; unregulated capitalism solves some problems and creates more.

The answer cannot be found in the false dilemma, no matter how many times we try it and how much dough throw at it.

Well we went through this with the industrial revolution... and it took decades to fix... the final result was the welfare state, unions and the social compact.

UBI could easily make use of the available labour if there was a will to try something.

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Cite.

Exactly.   So if you're so embarrased about voting for justin maybe you need to think about why you did.  My guess is you're so wrapped up in your tribalism that you didn't even think about the policies and his past performance at all, you just did what the hive mind told you that you should to 'get rid of harper' or the like.

And now you're embarrassed by your decisions. You need to make better decisions moving forward.

[CdnFox]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well we went through this with the industrial revolution... and it took decades to fix... the final result was the welfare state, unions and the social compact.

UBI could easily make use of the available labour if there was a will to try something.

No, the industrial revolution was entirely different. And what happened there is people were given the chance to work and keep the value of their work, because capitalism made it possible and effective.

What you're talking about here is more akin to communism -  you did not produce anything of value but we're giving you the benefits of someone else's labour anyway.

Whereas the advent of capitalism actually made life better for everyone and did much to eliminate poverty, UBI takes is in the other direction and increases poverty and decreases options by making the system far less efficient.

If anything the industrial revolution proves why UBI would be a failure.

 

[Nationalist]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure there is when everyone else in the universe did the very same thing.

 

That's called communism. Its been tried. It failed.

NEXT!

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

It's probably more the NDP putting pressure on the Liberals for UBI.

Well normally when they do that kind of thing they scream to the heavens about it so their supporters know they're "doing something". So i don't know if this is their work, although i'm sure they'll support it.

I think justin has painted himself into a corner.  He is failing to convince people he's sound economically, so he can't stop the bleed to the CPC in that regard.  So - if he can't swing to the right and pick up lost voters i think he's going to swing to the left and try to pick up ndp voters.  That's a not-uncommon liberal tactic historically - appeal to the ndp voters to keep the evil conservatives out of power.

The problem is the ndp is also bleeding to the CPC right now.

But i think that for justin this is him trying to recreate the success he had with dope.  It got a lot of people excited and got them out to the polls. I think he believes this will excite enough people on the left to get them out to the polls that he might avoid disaster next election.

 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

That's called communism. Its been tried. It failed.

NEXT!

next they'll just go with communism again, but they'll rebrand it with a new name to make it sound like it's something we haven't tried.

Now available! New Commu-tastic!!!  the amazing new equality cleanser that wipes away all finanacial burdens! Spilt some capitalism on your table?  Commu-tastic will clean that right up!  Got some free enterprise on your shirt? With Commu-tastic it'll come right out!

Now enriched with frauduline!!  And if you order now you get a free social uprising!!

Get yours today whereever woke socialistic policy wonks are sold!

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

UBI could easily make use of the available labour if there was a will to try something.

How would UBI help making use of the labour? What would be the incentive to produce competitive result and what is the cost if nothing is produced? Sounds like a recipe for permanent entrapment into substandard existence.

That no one seems to be talking about are two essential questions:

Who can make real and maintain a working model of broad prosperity in the society? Governments? I don't think so, for already named reasons. The society has to come up with social models that create and maintain broad prosperity, government handout couldn't replace that. If the range of social models has only a behemoth bureaucracy on one hand; and barely controlled for-profit enterprise on the other, the chance of a miracle solution would be minimal.

Secondly, how could such a model be maintained and advanced? Government may have a role in creating positive environment but again it's up to the society to realize it. Cooperatives, community-based economy like kibbutz other forms of shared prosperity, if society wouldn't produce and support them, we're back to the status quo. That is stagnating seemingly in a dead end. Governments cannot produce working solutions the keep and improve the prosperity; large business does not considers it their responsibility and rightfully so. A good answer cannot be found in a false dilemma.

[Michael Hardner]

55 minutes ago, myata said:

1. How would UBI help making use of the labour? What would be the incentive to produce competitive result and what is the cost if nothing is produced? Sounds like a recipe for permanent entrapment into substandard existence.

2. Who can make real and maintain a working model of broad prosperity in the society? Governments? I don't think so, for already named reasons. The society has to come up with social models that create and maintain broad prosperity, government handout couldn't replace that. If the range of social models has only a behemoth bureaucracy on one hand; and barely controlled for-profit enterprise on the other, the chance of a miracle solution would be minimal.

3. Secondly, how could such a model be maintained and advanced? Government may have a role in creating positive environment but again it's up to the society to realize it. Cooperatives, community-based economy like kibbutz other forms of shared prosperity, if society wouldn't produce and support them, we're back to the status quo. That is stagnating seemingly in a dead end. Governments cannot produce working solutions the keep and improve the prosperity; large business does not considers it their responsibility and rightfully so. A good answer cannot be found in a false dilemma.

1. I think we have discussed before.  Workfare is an example of psuedo-volunteer corps being deployed for public service.
2. True but we can't come up with a model collectively, we usually follow big brains into their vision.  
3. I largely agree with this.

The thing that people are also missing is that we're using corporate and social models from the past and getting frustrated when they don't fit.  I watched an entire video from a channel called "Economics Explained" that was puzzling on how tech corporate monoliths who create 100% unemployment should be "taxed".

If you had a magical machine that served the interests of the entire earth but it was owned by one man - what would be done to coax the machine away from that man ?  That's what they were essentially asking.  The answer is, of course, that you take the machine away from him and make him a god, a saint, kill him, put him in jail.... and then move on...

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think we have discussed before.  Workfare is an example of psuedo-volunteer corps being deployed for public service.

That was propsed in bc once upon a time - and shot down for very good reasons  It doesn't work.

 

[herbie]

Repeat: How does reducing the cost of delivering services increase the debt?

Spare us the rightwing buzzwords and cliches and address the question. FFS it seems some of you think a UBI is an extra service, it replaces existing ones. CPP, OAS, EI, welfare, GST rebates, childcare subsidies and the like.

You get a monthly payment, it is added to your income and it is clawed back from what income you earn. Income taxes are adjusted so you don't get less than what you formerly did and you don't get more for not working.
The feds have one agency instead of a dozen, provinces and cities aren't on the hook for welfare anymore. Poverty is greatly reduced at the same time. Unless you make a lot, your taxes could go down!

Use your brains instead instantly responding with knee-jerk reaction , cliches and jargon.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, herbie said:

Repeat: How does reducing the cost of delivering services increase the debt?

REPEAT: NO ONE SAID IT DOES.

Typical leftie - take an argument that NOBODY made and then demand to know why nobody is answering it.

And what you are describing INCREASES the cost of delivering services, it doesn't reduce it.  Only a leftie would think that somehow giving money to and then taking it back from 30 million people is cheaper than just giving money to the million or so people who need it.

Not to mention it's a lot MORE money so it would cost more anyway - never mind the severe increase in tracking costs.

This would add billions and billions of dollars to the costs  and then billions more in benefits we can't afford to pay people, all for no benefit to Canada.

17 minutes ago, herbie said:

Use your brains

You first ya tard.

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think we have discussed before.  Workfare is an example of psuedo-volunteer corps being deployed for public service.

I can't recall and token work-like for a handout has very little to do with meaningful participation, dignity and self-respect so not really shared prosperity.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing that people are also missing is that we're using corporate and social models from the past and getting frustrated when they don't fit. 

Wouldn't it be funny / weird if you could fit into your 5-year old dungarees? It's been a century or two, several generations. Things happened, Internet, globalization, online economy... yet in social organization and administration we like to pretend that yes we can, and easily, look

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you had a magical machine that served the interests of the entire earth but it was owned by one man

It doesn't have to be one man. A cooperative of drivers could provide smooth on demand affordable transportation model in a modern city at the current level of technology. That it cannot seemingly work any other way but a boss with the board pocketing most of the revenues, is only a testament to our inability as the society to create new innovative ways of managing common affairs and challenges. Nobody else's fault. Bosses, both public and private have their own interests. They will not be fixing our problems any time soon.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

1. I can't recall and token work-like for a handout has very little to do with meaningful participation, dignity and self-respect so not really shared prosperity.

2. Wouldn't it be funny / weird if you could fit into your 5-year old dungarees? It's been a century or two, several generations. Things happened, Internet, globalization, online economy... yet in social organization and administration we like to pretend that yes we can, and easily, look

3. It doesn't have to be one man. A cooperative of drivers could provide smooth on demand affordable transportation model in a modern city at the current level of technology. That it cannot seemingly work any other way but a boss with the board pocketing most of the revenues, is only a testament to our inability as the society to create new innovative ways of managing common affairs and challenges. Nobody else's fault. Bosses, both public and private have their own interests. They will not be fixing our problems any time soon.

1. There's no reason the state can't mobilize people to achieve those goals that you stated.  The US government did this in the 1930s to great effect, not his work Fair but as infrastructure projects.

2. Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or what the point is but maybe you're agreeing with me.

3. Okay, yes you seem to be agreeing.

We are multiple times more wealthy than we were 50 years ago. It seems to me the distribution of wealth should be a less difficult problem then producing it.

[herbie]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:33 AM, CdnFox said:

They point to cerb - but fail to note that cerb drove up inflation insanely and plunged us hundreds of billions of dollars into debt. There is no universe where we could sustain that indefinitely or even for a decade

You said it dumbass

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And what you are describing INCREASES the cost of delivering services, it doesn't reduce it. 

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

Pointing out once again, read it, let it sink into brain before instantly replying with a jerk of a knee claiming black is white simply to make an instant response.

 

[herbie]

10 hours ago, myata said:

A regular, unconditional handout does not amount to self-respect; accomplishment and meaningful participation.

The objective is to maintain stable and broad prosperity via meaningful participation.

Lose the Protestant Work Ethic and think with your wallet. There's always been a handful of people who don't want to work and always will be. Pretending they're a significant portion is just scapegoating and doesn't benefit anyone at all.
Every single one of them needs to eat, be housed, clothed, schooled, use medical treatment so whatever they get, they spend. In your business, place of work or for your services. So it comes back. The economy is not how much money you have in your poclket, the economy is how much money is changing hands.

So if you want to benefit no one at all, just so some won't benefit.... that's on you.

Edited October 23, 2023 by herbie