- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
guarantee access to a livable income
Is this another one of those Basic Income proposals that are means tested? Not really UBI if that is the case.
The Minister must develop a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, including temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.
Source: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-233/first-reading
After reading this document, I feel that it is still ambiguous. However 88 billion (the cost estimate in the OP article) divided by the population of canada is 2200, which I think wouldn’t be considered a livable annual income, so I think what they’re talking about must have some kind of means testing.
If you remove kids under 17 it gets closed to 3000, but you might be right. It seems the idea is to make it a specific amount based on region.
Please stop advocating for giving rich people money and just let poor people have some security. Seriously, we don’t have to stick to a strict interpretation of UBI. We can make it work anyway we want.
No. I’m not trying to shit on welfare programs here as they are certainly better than nothing, but the universality is the entire reason basic income is something I am excited about and where I believe almost all of its social benefits come from. There are many reasons for this, but as someone who has been on various forms of means tested public assistance myself, my experience with the stigma, the stress and unapproachability of continually needing to navigate an arcane and dysfunctional bureacracy, and the paranoia about ending up worse off if I earn too much money, make it an issue I have a personal connection to and have strong feelings about.
There is certainly a place for debating whether a UBI or an expansive welfare program would be better, but I’m not trying to have that debate here. I am just asking for honest clarity of terms so that the public discourse won’t be hopelessly confused as to which is which. Universal means Universal.
If you actually paid attention to any of the pilot projects that have already taken place, you’d know that the means test isn’t meant to keep people out of the program. It’s just meant to ensure the people in the program actually need it. This can be easily determined by looking at tax returns. Much of the strangely detested bureaucracy is necessary to run a large government program. That’s just exactly what governments are and will always be. That doesn’t mean that it’ll be on top of what exists today, and it doesn’t mean it’ll cost more than it does today. It will much much cost less, because both EI and welfare are covered by this program.
Again, it can work any way we want it to. If we want a simple means test to ensure people are over 17 and genuinely have no income or not enough income as evident by the reported taxes by your employer and your tax returns, then we can have that system. It doesn’t need to be complicated. It doesn’t need to be “universal”, in that its just blindly given to every single Canadian regardless of needs. It can be “universal”, in that it’s available to every single Canadian that needs it. We can change the definition of “universal” to suit our needs. We can help people in need without having to worry about the rich getting a piece. We can make it all work…if we really wanted to.
Perhaps you can make it work, and maybe you are right in thinking that it is the best course of action. But please don’t co-opt the terminology used by people advocating for a program that is really very different both ideologically and practically. This is not an honest way to promote what you want to do. When I say UBI, I want people to understand what I am talking about, and what I am talking about is payments to every person regardless of their income. That is what people saying UBI have meant for a long time, and acknowledging this is just basic respect.
As long as you’re honest about wanting to give rich people money simply so that you’re strict definition of “universal” is maintained, I’ll be willing to explain what the “universal” in UBI actually means is “universally available” as opposed to “universally applied”.
Just call it something else. It’s not UBI.
Just because you’re hung up on the name is no reason not to move forward with it.
How are they advocating for giving rich people money exactly?
By complaining that this will be means tested and therefore not actually UBI.
But that is literally the definition of UBI, that’s what the Universal part is, if there is means testing it’s just welfare, and that would significantly raise the cost and lessen the impact.
Oversight costs money, every dollar that’s being spent on bureaucracy and every layer of bureaucracy that gets between the people and the income costs money and prevents people that need it from accessing it. That’s the point of UBI, and some “rich people” getting money is better than “poor people” or people on the edge of being poor being refused or given a lesser amount because we are paying for an entire agency to decide who gets it. That’s the biggest failure of welfare, have you ever tried to access EI? It’s a total clusterfuck and mostly serves to stop people that actually need it from accessing it in a timely fashion. The one time I tried to access EI, I literally got evicted and ended up on the streets, found a new job, and had moved into my new house before they ever gave me a penny… because of means testing.
I feel like you have a very weird take on this if your first thought is that they are “advocating for giving rich people money” when they are just pointing out basic facts.
Complaining about the costs of means testing is just an excuse to give money to everyone regardless of their situation. Rich people don’t need more money. We can base this on tax returns and anyone that didn’t make enough money is qualified. It can really be that simple, if we want it to be.
Seriously, just let poor people have some security. Let’s just allow this to start, and maybe you can have some money later on. Right now, let’s focus on the people that really need help.
No, it is not an excuse to give money to everyone, it’s a literal fact.
Basing it on tax returns costs money, paying someone to approve or deny claims costs money, paying for a system that checks tax returns costs money, figuring out what exact amount of money constitutes “poor” costs money, EVERYTHING COSTS MONEY. Do you not understand how much money bureaucracy costs?
Your only concern here is keeping money away from rich people, and you are ignoring basic facts and making things up to obscure that. I am not a fan of rich people myself, but you are literally twisting the truth to justify not letting rich people get money and it’s really quite silly.
Also it’s hilarious that you think I am rich, and very telling that you think that’s why I am saying this. Just because you will twist facts to support what you want doesn’t mean everyone does.
Again, we can make it work any way we want. It doesn’t have to be difficult. There doesn’t need to be a lot of bureaucracy. We can just give poor people money. That’s it. Just give poor people money. It shouldn’t be this difficult. It shouldn’t require giving everyone money just because a few poor people were given money. We can really make it work if we truly want to. But it’ll never work as long as people want to make sure everyone gets money. Not everyone needs money.
All this talk about the cost of bureaucracy is simply a distraction. Just give poor people money…
Do it!
The Canadian gouvernement is going to look at thinking about a bill which would ask them how a UBI could be implemented
