Universal Basic Income

[JohnLarue]

I disagree. Wealth disparity arose from the liberalization and reduction of tariffs, most notably after the Soviet collapse and subsequent acceptance of low-cost producers around the world as viable trade partners.

so its wealth redistribution that you want
that is quite different from a desire for UBI or tariffs to protect domestic jobs

jeff Bazos wealth likely increased or decreased by several hundred million today (AMZN up or down)
how did that increase or decrease in wealth disparity impact your life today ?
he gave his ex-wife a massive chuck in the divorce settlement. that's some serious wealth redistribution he will also have given billions to charities, billions more than you have

liberalization and reduction of tariffs has been accompanied by an increase in overall wealth
the % of people living in abject poverty has also declined

This kind of trade funnels money to wealthy individuals and large corporations.

you mean the job creators & the individuals and corporations who provide you with the goods / services you demand ?

Also, it would not be "picking and choosing" winners if it is based on a hard metric, like GDP-per-capita.

we already have a declining GDP-per-capita, trade wars will only accelerate the decline
tariffs reduce demand by applying policy induced inflation

GDP-per-capita is a ratio, not a hard metric

right now the per capita is increasing faster than the stagnant GDP
and tariffs wont increase GDP, they will negativity impact GDP

As for a trade war with the US, optimally the US would be on board and adopt something similar. They have the same wealth disparity issue.

not at all
again a lot of goods from China are delivered into Canada via US corporations who would be subject to Canadian tariffs , they will lobby Washington to apply counter tariffs
you are dreaming if you think the US will act in harmony with Canada (can you say softwood lumber) in a trade war

And no, I'm not saying it won't be painful, I'm just saying it's either this or a UBI, because eventually this wealth disparity is going to become unsustainable.

no
social upheaval occurs when the masses are unable to feed themselves and their kids

not because a billionaire makes more than you think he should

People are already hurting when most of whole generations can't afford a home, or to raise a family.

loonie left govt policies are not the fault of billionaires

Our government keeps increasing handouts to compensate, but it's not effective, and clearly very expensive given our ballooning debt.

so reducing economic activity via tariffs and /or handing out free govt money addresses irresponsible govt debt how ?

Imposing tariffs is less government than implementing a UBI, in my opinion. But my bet is we'll end up with a UBI, because there's not enough political will to address the wealth disparity issue properly.

?????
Imposing tariffs is all govt and far more complicated than sending out more cheques
the moron Justin Trudeau has proven he can hand out other peoples money with ease
Imposing tariffs would be a disaster and would hurt the poor far worse than the rich .
inflation and job losses always hurt the poor far worse than the rich


UBI is not going to fly, Canadians are becoming far more concerned about irresponsible govt finances and taxation

 

[Frankfooter]

so its wealth redistribution that you want

That's what we already have, we are only talking about whether it should be more or less.

 

[JohnLarue]

JohnLarue said:
so its wealth redistribution that you want

That's what we already have, we are only talking about whether it should be more or less.

so there you have it,
the left lunatics view taxation as a wealth redistribution system rather than a source to fund a functioning govt

 

[Frankfooter]

so there you have it,
the left lunatics view taxation as a wealth redistribution system rather than a source to fund a functioning govt

You do realize that's the point of progressive taxation?
How many flat tax countries can you name, larue?

 

[JohnLarue]

You do realize that's the point of progressive taxation?
How many flat tax countries can you name, larue?

you do not understand the difference between
allocating tax burden based on income in order to fund a functioning govt
vs.
stealing other peoples wealth in a failed attempt for unachievable equality

two very different things

your lack of understanding can be traced to your decision to drop out of high school

 

[rhuarc29]

right now the per capita is increasing faster than the stagnant GDP

You have that backwards. GDP-per-capita is actually decreasing. GDP is increasing because we're inflating it with population growth.

 

[Frankfooter]

you do not understand the difference between
allocating tax burden based on income in order to fund a functioning govt
vs.
stealing other peoples wealth in a failed attempt for unachievable equality

two very different things

your lack of understanding can be traced to your decision to drop out of high school

You really don't understand what progressive taxation is, where its in place and why its in place.
Amazing.

 

[JohnLarue]

You have that backwards. GDP-per-capita is actually decreasing. GDP is increasing because we're inflating it with population growth. View attachment 323678

????

right now the per capita is increasing faster than the stagnant GDP

"the per capita" is population growth which is increasing faster than the stagnant GDP

"the per capita" is not GDP per capita

I thought that would have been clear, in the context of describing a ratio
however I will concede either of these might have been a better choice of words

" population growth is increasing faster than the stagnant GDP ''
or
"the denominator is increasing faster than the stagnant numerator"

 

[rhuarc29]

"the per capita" is population growth which is increasing faster than the stagnant GDP

"the per capita" is not GDP per capita

Yeah, that was very confusing. "Per capita" literally means "per person", which would decrease as population increases, all things else remaining the same. Which is the inverse of what you were trying to say.

As for the rest of what you were saying, there's always going to be wealth redistribution, unless what you're advocating for is pure, unadulterated capitalism, free of government influence in any way. As an advocate of small government, I'd personally be fine with something very close to that. In fact, I'd benefit immensely from that personally. Not to mention it'd free us from the financial burden of excessive government bloat, which would benefit everyone. But that's not going to happen either. Which means wealth will continue to pool at the top until we're in a precarious position where the middle class is destroyed and we're in a two-class system. Those don't tend to end well.

Like I said, the only practical options for avoiding such a fate is (1) a reversal of trade policies over the last 3-5 decades or (2) some kind of UBI.

 

[jalimon]

Which means wealth will continue to pool at the top until we're in a precarious position where the middle class is destroyed and we're in a two-class system. Those don't tend to end well.

The middle class is currently in a state of destruction I think. We will see in the next year how bad it is. But the current rate of bankruptcies and default of payment on mortgage/rent is alarming.

Like I said, the only practical options for avoiding such a fate is (1) a reversal of trade policies over the last 3-5 decades or (2) some kind of UBI.

Or a total collapse of the economy. Led by the loss of the bank's position on commercial real estate, which is going down the drain... Major cities have between 25 to 45% non-occupancy. I do not think the economy has ever seen that.

 

[JohnLarue]

Yeah, that was very confusing. "Per capita" literally means "per person", which would decrease as population increases, all things else remaining the same. Which is the inverse of what you were trying to say.

i disagree,
however that issue has been clarified and is now moot

As for the rest of what you were saying, there's always going to be wealth redistribution, unless what you're advocating for is pure, unadulterated capitalism, free of government influence in any way.

the less govt influence the better
govts role is to provide an environment which is conducive to economic growth, and encourages competition while preventing fraud, environmental abuses and also protecting consumers from predatory actions and ensuring a safe working environment for employees

govts role in not to redistribute wealth,

the best way to redistribute wealth is via increased competition and innovation

As an advocate of small government, I'd personally be fine with something very close to that. In fact, I'd benefit immensely from that personally. Not to mention it'd free us from the financial burden of excessive government bloat, which would benefit everyone

.
agreed

But that's not going to happen either.

i disagree. Jean Crietian and Paul Martin shrank Trudeaus Sr. govt , it will need to be reduced again

however more to the point UBI will just expand the all ready excessive govt bloat, while reducing our countries already piss poor productivity and all important competitiveness

Which means wealth will continue to pool at the top until we're in a precarious position where the middle class is destroyed and we're in a two-class system. Those don't tend to end well.

reducing govt bloat and the tax burden on all Canadians including the middle class , would be an enormous benefit to our country
sadly the irresponsible govts have accumulated so much debt that meaningful tax relief is impossible for multiple generations to come

continued all-in taxation at 40- 50% of income will devastate the middle class, faster and more completely than any perceived inequality gap
a billionaires wealth is completely irrelevant if the residual of your paycheque after payroll deductions cant cover the after sales tax cost of living

Like I said, the only practical options for avoiding such a fate is (1) a reversal of trade policies over the last 3-5 decades or (2) some kind of UBI.

i disagree
less govt, not more govt is required
trade wars reduce economic activity
UBI will become a money pit and reduce productivity and thus reduce living standards[/QUOTE]