this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
185 points (100.0% liked)
Canada
10137 readers
746 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Give'r Gaming (gaming)
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
-
Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
-
Misinformation is not welcome here.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the 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?
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.
Controlled rent would also be fantastic and has worked in economically diffuclt times like COVID. I don't see why it wouldn't work again during the recession we are spiralling towards.
Controlled rent is better than uncontrolled rent, but it suffers from the same problems as minimum wage. And why should landlords even exist? I'm not convinced private rentals should be legal at all. If you're not using a property for personal use or a place of business, why shouldn't it be seized and auctioned or rented publicly?
No, Mr Citizen, I expect you to die.
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.
Sounds like Canada. Nationalize our resources and we're set.
UBI isn't the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost ~~trillions~~ Billions, 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.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/annual-financial-report/2024.html#a9
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 is just a reform of progressive taxation so that it goes slightly negative as you get closer to zero income instead of stopping at zero percent.
Also most of the studies of ubi show it doesn’t cost all that much because it allows a reduction in expensive to administer social programs - obviously less of an effect in the USA that doesn’t have those.
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 applause the tenor if he can't clear his throat.
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.
If someone can make hundreds of millions of dollars while being taxed at 80% (Or 2 million net earned per 10 million gross gained at the top of my 5 minute tax structure) they either cheated and should be dealt with appropriately, or deserve it for never sleeping.
Cheated, stolen it, and had other people break their bodies to "earn" it.
We're about to see trillionaires in our lifetime, which is obscene. Cap wealth so the hoarding can stop.
I disagree with the extreme measure, posit that a less extreme measure would work just as well or better, and await any kind of data and proper analysis to support your point of view like I have already done.
I will not continue the conversation otherwise, so take care of yourself if you choose to respond differently.
the lenghts people will go to keep capitalism.
I got a good idea. How about mega corps actually start paying taxes?
Taxing corps is the same as taxing people, there's no difference other than whos books it ends up on. Companies are all owned by people (eventually)
If you want to tax wealthy people who hold the stocks, tax them directly.
Let the companies generate value free from taxes on their operation. Of course we should charge them taxes for things like land and resource use, and force them to meet human, environmental, and safety standards.
I like this better. It means fully worker owned corporations get to keep more of their earnings because it's more spread out. Discourages wealth concentration.
Please read my comment before responding to me in the future. My point is increased taxation on large earnings up to an incredibly high cap is a better solution than UBI.
Or you know the better option of raising the tax rate, to pay for ubi
Napkin math will demonstrate to you why UBI is not sustainable on scale, even with an increase in taxes.
In my opinion, the main appeal of UBI over other forms of support is that
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?
Unless I've misunderstood, what OP proposed is just increasing the tax rate of the existing system.
A progressive tax doesn't result in earning less for working harder; it's only the marginal income that's taxed at the higher rate. So a worker who goes from making $50,000 to $60,0000 only pays 15% tax on $10,000 and has a net take home increase of $8,500.
I'm talking about various social benefits like welfare or disability that would ideally be replaced by a UBI.
I hear a lot of stories about this but I don't remember if they're Canadian or not; There's a lot of people who are on disability and are still capable of doing part time work or taking care of their kids for an hour every day for example, but they can't because if they're found doing anything, they lose all of their disability benefits. We want a system that allows them to do what they can and be rewarded for contributing to the best of their abilities rather than punishing them for it.
It's the same deal with welfare. You need to hit a certain income threshold before your take-home income surpasses what you'd get through welfare. Until then, you're putting a bunch of energy into working to make less money when you could be lounging at home and making more. This actively discourages people from bettering their lives.
The idea of UBI is a great one, and I agree with it in principle, but I have yet to run any numbers that make it viable and that is my number one issue.
I just finished an edit to my original post going into more detail with the numbers. If you have any data that can show how the money can be made so that "you never earn less by working harder" and "everyone gets an even payment" I would be really interested to see it because I have not found anything realistic.
I haven't seen any numbers either for or against it, so I can't say anything about viability. If anyone knows enough to run the numbers, I'd like to see it. The problem with the calculations you show above is that you assume the value of money doesn’t change when the world around it changes, but it does. Especially so if you make a large change like implementing UBI. We need to think about this in terms of resources. The question you should be asking is whether there's enough food / housing / labour within the country to fulfill everyone's basic needs.
My calculations don't assume anything. I literally used age statistics, the Ontario framework for the payout, and net revenue of the Federal Government to demonstrate the cost of UBI. Find me more data, I will give you better calculations.
Feel free to provide data on your claim about this massive shift you assume I didn't account for. Preferably which countries have instituted UBI and demonstrated this outcome.
There is more than enough food from waste alone to feed every single person on the planet, let alone a small country. There is enough housing if we factor in how many empty units, houses, and the like exist because of high cost; What we don't have we have ways of providing. There is enough labour to go around when Citizens and residents take the available jobs. The reason why we need TFW's and things of that nature is because citizens and residents refuse to work on farms even though that is constant seasonal work. The labour is there, the willingness doesn't seem to be.
I don't need to ask a question like that, because it has nothing to do with my point that the cost of UBI is excessive, unmanageable, and there are better ways to do things. We already have social safety nets that need improving for people in need. Every single person doesn't need help, but the social services required by others do.
This assumes that people wouldn't take the same job for less pay if they were guaranteed a fixed amount that more or less made up the difference. If I work a job where I make $50,000/year, and I went to a world where I made $20,000/year UBI and $30,000/ year from my job, I could end up ahead under this scheme with the only additional cost to the economy being my possibly lowered taxes. Under this plan, raising taxes and lowering minimum wage/wage expectations means there would be at most a slight change to corporate taxes (and some jobs would have to pay more when you factor in UBI because desperation would be less of a factor for what people are willing to put up with).
So, realistically, the only cost would be whatever is required to get whoever is below the set line up to the set line, for individuals, corporations, and the government. This would also depend on people who are already making more than UBI to take a "pay cut", and for corporations to not resist paying more taxes to balance the lower payroll costs. So it's never really going to happen.
That has no bearing on what your income from your job is. Pretending this won't have any impact on the value of jobs to both employers and workers can only be intentionally obtuse. That's like saying that raising minimum wage will have an equal impact on the hourly wage of all employees.
That is a false equivalency.
I am also arguing against UBI, so thank you for adding additional points to my argument.
Take care.
Once again, misleading to the point of being intentional. A implies B is not the same as B implies A. Having UBI be guaranteed regardless of income is not the same as income being guaranteed regardless of UBI. So why do you keep insisting that it must? At this point I have to assume intent rather than ignorance.
No. UBI.
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.
Couples should not receive less under a Universal Basic Income. The point of UBI is every individual receives the same payment regardless of their potential status'.
This is not UBI. The point of UBI is to be the basic income separate from working income, and not impacted by what one makes.
Feel free to provide all of your own data and analysis to demonstrate your assertion.
Except that the amount for a couple in the article was 24K, which is 8K less than individually. You even quoted the 24K and disregarded it.
If you have 60K employment income, then the UBI would push you to 76K and the UBI would effectively be taxed at the highest rate. If your only income was UBI then you would exceed the basic personal exemption, and would pay zero tax.
Everyone gets the same UBI, but some people pay more tax on it if they have other income.
"Couples should not receive less under a Universal Basic Income. The point of UBI is every individual receives the same payment regardless of their potential status’."
"This is not UBI. The point of UBI is to be the basic income separate from working income, and not impacted by what one makes."
Again, Feel free to provide all of your own data and analysis to demonstrate your assertions.
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.
Combined, what is the total cost of all of those programs?
UBI is a payment made to every eligible person, regardless of any status including wealth, every month.
With the numbers I ran the cost is $555,687,356,784 per year with the current population to pay for the program using the Ontario studies payment model.
Canada has 0 national security threats other than US. Entirety of budget's necessity is for poverty band aids, and prosperity enhancement which includes roads. UBI replaces all poverty/redistributive programs. There is zero cost to UBI because it is not discretionary government/empire/colony funding. Just credits and debits among tax payers. Elimination of poverty programs is genuine tax reduction.
Including to those who pay high taxes, their spouses and adult children, reducing their effective net tax and support rate. Because people have more money, it trickles back up to the rich, such that, as always, the rich get richer even with higher tax rates, because they still have all of the wealth.
Again, all UBI payment levels save money due to discretionary/mandatory budget reductions. Even ultra rich investor class gets it to incentivize them to have larger families. It makes society and ultra rich, richer. Latest $2B payment to Ukraine, could have been $600 to every Canadian. UBI encourages more UBI instead of waste/warmongering.
Ah there it is. Knew you couldn't post without somehow trying to undermine Ukraine and convincing us to stop spending on defense. (Look at their post history...)
replied to wrong post, but if Canada is not subservient to CIA/US empire for Ukrainian war funding, it does have its democracy corrupted by the descendants of genocidal volunteer nazis fleeing USSR war crimes that our parliament gives standing ovations to.
Back to the topic of UBI, instead of corrupt fascism that steals my money for demonic nazi support, you are free to use your UBI/other money for any nazi/geopolitical purpose you want, instead of improving your personal life and prospects. The other benefit of UBI is the end of divisiveness that occurs from fascist governance that never does what its campaigning suggests.
"we need slavery, because otherwise, how would single issue Ukrainian Canadians help diminish Russia to the last Ukrainian" is a very weak argument against UBI. You will be empowered to use your own money to have Ukrainian rulership kill all Ukrainians.
Take care.