Again with this nonsense. All you have to do is search google, it takes five seconds. The idea that is would take 80% of everyones money does not make sense in any world. You are literally shitting out numbers.
What Would You Do For Work If We Have a UBI?
- Thread starter Claudia Love
- Start date
The whole idea of UBI is that it is universal, i.e., independent on income so that it will allow to eliminate all the bureaucracy of welfare system and all its costs and any ability to "play" the system by working for cash or under-reporting your income.
And it is what makes UBI attractive for conservatives. Of course, the main problem that the government will never implement it instead of social services, it will be in complement (and may still be income-depended, so, not UBI). In other words, instead of doing UBI it will be another tax grab and even more government workers. My only issue with UBI is I do not trust liberal government to implement it. IMHO, a true UBI is more of a conservative policy.
Actually, let's just do rough calculations. There are 30 million adults and 7 million children in Canada. With UBI be $1000/month for an adult and $300/month for child, it is $385 billions a year. However, current government spending (provincial and federal) on "social protection (not including health and education) is $190 billion. So, substituting all social services with UBI will cost about $200 billions a year extra. The total federal personal income tax in 2018 was $164 billions and total federal government revenue was $332 billions. Which means that there is no way we can afford UBI unless we double the taxes.
I've never realised that 190/332=57% of my taxes (i.e., almost quarter of the money I earn) are spent on social services alone (not including medicine and education). Assuming that 75% of adult population are capable of earning money (or seniors who earned money in the past and should have planned for retirement), the government basically gives $20,000 per year per person to 25% of the population. And I am surprised that some people are still saying that we need to give away even more. Does anyone thinks that more than 25% of Canadians need constant government assistance and that $20K per year per "assisted person" is not enough???
I've never realised that 190/332=57% of my taxes (i.e., almost quarter of the money I earn) are spent on social services alone (not including medicine and education). Assuming that 75% of adult population are capable of earning money (or seniors who earned money in the past and should have planned for retirement), the government basically gives $20,000 per year per person to 25% of the population. And I am surprised that some people are still saying that we need to give away even more. Does anyone thinks that more than 25% of Canadians need constant government assistance and that $20K per year per "assisted person" is not enough???
Are you including tax credits in your tally? Ie, removing the child tax credit in place of UBI for kids? GST/trillium/etc...
Yes, remove ALL social benefits and payments and give adult $1000/month and every child $300/month. So, unless UBI is taxed away completely (not just at marginal rate), no reasonable tax system can support it. And if UBI is income-dependent, then it is not an UBI, but just another social assistance program.
exactly a quick search shows how wrong you are but you wont click on the link or read it I wont hold my breath for your apology
Why Finland's Basic-Income Trial Failed, According to Experts (businessinsider.com)
In fact, according to an independent analysis, Finland would have been forced to raise their income tax by nearly 30% to keep such a program alive. And when the personal income tax rate in Finland already maxes out at more than 50%, another increase would likely prove unsustainable.
LOL!!
Now I know you're just trolling.
That's not how taxes work.
Did you seriously just add 50% and 30% to get 80% and are pretending that's a real number and expect us to take you seriously?
again I presented evidence to back up my claim you dismiss it in typical liberal fashion you don't like the actual facts so you ignore them
I am still waiting for YOUR apology for saying I cant back up the 80% claim
post 127 by another member also make its clear that its NOT financially sustainable his calculations say it would cost an extra $200 BILLION a year far more then we bring in in taxes so again HOW do we pay for it?
Last edited:
your the one trolling you post ZERO evidence that its sustainable to run UBI
but of course I don't expect much from someone who claims being a citizen is work... and wont back up that claim
POST evidence or you have nothing
Last edited:
if ppl who pay 50% would have to pay 30% more it would make their obligation 50 x 1.3 = 65%
I'm afraid the work I would do if we had UBI would be the work that I currently tend to hire other people to do for me, such as clean my house, cook and bring me food etc while these other people would pursue their life interests, become entrepreneurs etc.
I hope I am wrong.
PS - I don't know why would anyone want to become entrepreneur though if you still have to do all your normal dirty work every fucking day because your housekeeper and now proud UBI recipient couldn't be bothered
the article said taxes would raise by 30% if i added wrong my mistake I read it as adding and additional 30% tax not adding 30% to current rate
either way NOBODY would pay 30% MORE for people to sit on their asses
Tax increases are politically difficult, yes. That's one of the reasons I prefer a job guarantee.
But a 30% increase in tax revenue isn't impossible.
I haven't once discussed the sustainability because you were asking about other things.
Like I said, I don't find it the best approach. As for sustainability, it depends on all kinds of factors. Alaska has had Basic Income for generations now.
I keep trying to back up the claim but you keep dodging the question about unpaid work. There's no point in engaging with someone so closed minded.
Evidence of what? You just keep flailing all over the place.
It would change the balance of what a reasonable price would be to expect people to do that work. Remember a huge amount of that work is unpaid, but you would be paid for it now. People value time so people will still pay other people for services. It would make it much harder to have a cheap exploitable labor class though.
That still is wrong though, since you seem to be under the impression a 50% top tax bracket means you have 50% of your money taken.
What I stated is how it would be if done right but we know that most governments are more concerned with getting re-elected than they are about implementing a significant change to the way things are done.
Which is why I figure any large scale implementation would adjust the marginal tax rates so that anyone making over some amount (60,000?) excluding UBI would just end up repaying their UBI as part of income tax.
To me that allows UBI to fulfil the goal of providing support to those who can't or don't want to work while those of us who are financially stable would essentially see no change.
If we are talking about taxing UBI payments on top of the regular tax, the effective marginal tax rate will be too high. The only reasonable way is to add UBI to the net income and tax the total net income at the usual progressive scale. The problem is: do we have enough room in our tax system to do it without making the marginal tax rate for middle class ($70K-$120K) go above 45%, upper middle class ($120K-$200K) to go over 55%, and have a limit at 60% marginal rate (total for federal and provincial taxes, including Ontario "co-tax")
