Canada finally reveals the results of its universal basic income experiment
Canada finally reveals the results of its universal basic income experiment
145 comments
-
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?
-
No, Mr Citizen, I expect you to die.
-
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.
-
Explain to me why landlords didn't just jack rent payments in 1960s. Why did people back then have money left at the end of the month?
-
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.
-
That is false. As a lesson learned from the Great Depression and the Second World war most countries made sure to have good social protection and wealth was relatively well distributed through good paying manufacturing jobs. People had access to opportunities in the form of free or cheap education and simple wealth through owning a house or apartment was accessible to a large portion of society.
Then Neoliberalism came up in the 80s to destroy this.
-
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.
-
hi Thomas Robert Malthus, are you planning another genocide?
-
-
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.
-
a country with a very small population rich in resources
Sounds like Canada. Nationalize our resources and we're set.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Tell me you don't know how UBI works in design or in practice without telling me you haven't learned much about it at all.
-
-
UBI isn't the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost
trillionsBillions, requiring trillions in revenue to be a viable option.I think a better idea is a reform of taxation.
First $50,000 of income is not taxed.
$50,001-$100,000: Taxed at 15% $100,001-$500,000: Taxed at 25% $500,001-$1,000,000: Taxed at 40% $1,000,000-$10,000,000: Taxed at 50%
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
This would essentially create the conditions of UBI, help to increase funding for support for those who cannot work or are unable to work full time, and the rich finally get to pay their share.
These are also really rough numbers just as an example for the idea.
Edit:
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: "Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a social welfare concept that proposes providing all citizens or residents of a particular country or region with a regular, unconditional sum of money, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth"
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501
The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784
$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
-
UBI helps the most at need the most. Taxation reduction requires income.
Every successful social programme requires the proper taxation of rich bastards. That's a history thing.
If you can't figure that out, I don't need to read the rest. We do not applaud the tenor if he can't clear his throat.
-
In my opinion, the main appeal of UBI over other forms of support is that
- the absence of means testing ensures no one falls through the cracks, and
- you never earn less by working harder.
That's not to say that you can't design a support system that doesn't have these issues, but with UBI, they're just trivially non-existent. No need for extra work in figuring out how to fix these problems.
I don't see how funding would be an issue unless you count the savings from letting people fall through the cracks. Shouldn't it cost the same to effectively support people in need regardless of how you distribute the money?
-
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
You are too kind.
Because wealth hoarders would still make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, even if you taxed 80%.
The tax rate should be 100% past a certain amount of wealth. We should de-incentivize wealth hoarding, and encourage people to retire once they've made enough to sustain their family for a lifetime. If they choose to keep working, it should basically be volunteer work after a certain point, and wealth should be redistributed back to everyone else.
If we put a hard cap on wealth, everyone would be in a position to retire young and not struggle through their entire life. This is what we should be striving for.
-
the lenghts people will go to keep capitalism.
-
If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.
Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.
I'm not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.
-
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates. UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits. As obvious examples, the basic tax exemption means rates above the exemption need to be higher to raise the same revenue as if there were no basic exemption. When investment income gets tax breaks and no payroll taxes, employment and business income needs to be taxed higher for same revenue. Lower business income tax rate? = higher employment taxes.
UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.
-
No. UBI.
-
-
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.
-
or... maybe it's just diligent to have a very strong body of evidence before you go ahead and make a huge change to your country's economic policy based on something?
-
-
Tax the rich > fund the working class and social services > economic boom. We Know.
-
But! Maybe we could not tax the rich and the money would trickle down, have you thought of that?
This calls for another study!
-
-
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?
-
parasites in nature try to keep their host alive and happy for as long as possible sothat they too can live. modern capitalists are an exceptionally nasty parasite that actively drains and kills its host.
-
-
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thinking about it, UBI will drive the prices of housing down because people don't have to live where work is available. Companies have to offer cheap housing or people will live elsewhere.
-
This is a possibility, but I don't claim to be good enough at macro economics to be able to predict whether this will be the outcome or not.
-
-
A surplus in the housing market is needed.
-
There is, but corporations and Airbnb who hoard resources seem to too often elude in these discussions.
-
-
-
To be real about it. Who is going to say it was bad receiving extra money a month? I understand the health data portion. Question remains is it sustainable and how would it be paid for?
-
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.
-
Who is going to say it was bad receiving extra money a month?
This guy:
-
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?
-
-
-
..... When did we get ubi?
-
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.
-
We will fund it using debt is the problem. Then the poor will suffer greater and greater as they have since the 70s while those that hold assets get richer.
Its pretty obvious that the housing bubble exists due to debt and currency debasement, heck the Bank of Canada is still buying half of all mortgage bonds. This is the main things that's making the poor worse off, as homeowners are becoming cantillionaires.
-
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.
-
You wouldn't get UBI "on top of all that".
You'd get it instead of all that.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It boggles my mind how some people would fight against getting money each month.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
We are f’n taxed to death in Canada.
Bullshit
-
Show your work, please. I'm pretty sure it's closer to 25-30%.
-
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.
-
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
These studies are annoying. "Study finds if you give people money they do better in life" Wow. Such rocket science.
But for all the radical socialists trying push UBI, you will note that NONE of them want to pay for it with their tax increases (do they even pay taxes?). Which is the entire problem. There may be some savings in the system but the COST will be borne up front by the taxpaayer. And since WHEN in the history of mankind, if a gov has saved some money in other areas, have they LOWERED taxes due to the savings? Never.Therefore UBI is sever going to happen. Because the only people who support it are students and academics and think tanks. The rest of us live in reality and are sick of our very high tax burden in Canada. So enough with the studies, kill this idea once and for all.
-
The two arguments against the reasoning that tax burdens are too high are simple questions - who is paying the majority of these taxes, and how efficient are the taxes being used. Once you realize the answers to those questions, saying anything beneficial to the public is too expensive becomes moot. Now if your argument as written means that taxes are unfairly distributed and used for the wrong things and there isn't anything anyone can do to change that, you already understand my first point and are just resigned to remain oppressed and used.
-
Because the only people who support it are students and academics and think tanks.
I own my own home, I support my wife with my single income, and we have enough savings that recently being unemployed for several months did not cause any financial hardships.
I support UBI even though I personally would not benefit from it, and I should be taxed more in order to help people who are struggling.
Not everyone operates under "fuck you I got mine".
-
Agreed and let me say, I'm probably privileged enough to be seriously affected by tax increases if UBI was instituted. However, as a person with average empathy, do you think I'd prefer being slightly less privileged, or walking around and seeing everyone miserable and stressed the hell out all the time? I'm always amazed that there is any difference of opinion, especially when most Republicans would stand to gain at the expense of people like me. 🤷
-
-
And since WHEN in the history of mankind, if a gov has saved some money in other areas, have they LOWERED taxes due to the savings? Never.
Governments lower taxes all of the freaking time. This last federal election it was one of the largest points that all three major parties were proposing.
Because the only people who support it are students and academics and think tanks. The rest of us live in reality and are sick of our very high tax burden in Canada. So enough with the studies, kill this idea once and for all.
False, I live here and work here and support exploring the idea to see what and how it would work. You can't know how expensive it is based solely on theories, so we NEED to run these studies to show it either is or isn't more expensive. Especially given our single-payer healthcare, reductions in healthcare spending due to better life circumstances/proper nutrition can very quickly and easily make up significant costs spent elsewhere.
Canada's tax burden is not actually that high. Curious what you're comparing to. Taking Canada's average income of $55,000, they pay effective rates of 13-20%, based on your province.
Taking a few US cities as comparison,, Georgia is at ~20%, while Michigan sits at 19% because they have a city income tax rate. California falls around the 19% mark as well. BUT many of those places have cities which also have rates ranging from 0.5 to 2.5%.
-
I push UBI and I completely want to pay for it with everyones taxes including mine same as universal healthcare. I mean im in the US. It also should replace all cash assistance. Unemployment, disability, social security, etc ; and it should provide enough to get by on. Modest rent, utilities, food. Most of the bureaucracy could be removed since there is no means test. It would basically be social security for all but for the us you would need universal healthcare as many retired folks would be getting less. Most folks should break even tax wise unless not making enough to get by or doing pretty well. I usually get the response at this point about whats the point for the regular person if they pay as much as they get. The point is if you lose your job you retain and income stream till you get a new one without having to fill out paperwork and wait and maybe get denied, same with disability, and same when you retired. The moment your working again your paying into the system. In many cases throughout ones life one will pay more in than they get out but almost everyone does that with insurance and the reason you do it is because its there when you need it (although this one a bit more so as you don't have to file a claim as you did that when you turned 18). For young folks it helps you with college, for career times it acts like unemployment that takes no effort so you can get those resumes out asap, for retirement it acts like retirement.
-
UBI helps the people and not the billionaires. I don't see why you're siding with the billionaires.
So enough with this babbling, kill this bullshit once and for all.
-
Socialists refuse to pay taxes? Don't you mean rich people?
-
145 comments