734
735

Ontarians warming to guaranteed minimum income, poll suggests (thestar.com)

viva_la_vinyl が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]KandohCanada 160ポイント161ポイント  (135子コメント)

Tried explaining the practice behind this to my conservative girlfriend last night.

Her first objection was that she didn't want to raise taxes and spend even more on welfare. I countered that guaranteed income was an easier burden on the tax system then what we currently used.

Then she didn't like the idea that if she chose to work she would get nothing, that it punished her for being a hard worker. I explained that she would still get money every month but it would be reduced the higher her income became.

Then really we got into the crux of her problem with the system, that there would be people out there who received money to live on without doing anything for it. It doesn't matter that it's a cheaper, more efficient, more humane form of social security. Right-Wing Canadians ab-so-fucking-lutely cannot stand the thought of someone being able to live without working. And there is really no counter argument to this.

edit: Really good and interesting discussion going on under u/EverySingleDay 's reply to this comment. I highly recommend checking it out.

[–]attemptno8 11ポイント12ポイント  (134子コメント)

It still punishes those who work. My income will effectively be my salary minus the handouts we give to lazy people. Right now I make a certain amount more than the people who have no job. If we become a handout state my value will go down as the bottom earners will be closer to me, effectively placing me closer to the poverty line or whatever it will be called after. This is yet another policy that will barely harm rich people as what does it matter to them if they make 180k more than the poor in stead of 200k? Making me go from 70k over the non working to 50k or whatever(all numbers are just examples) will impact me significantly.

[–]TarkmenistanLest We Forget 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think you get a pay cut. The net difference is same you still pay taxes but instead of having different types of welfare, oas tax rebates you just have a guaranteed income. It's not like thse people will live like kings, its just changes the process.

[–]Hangingwithgranny 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you just proved money can't buy character.

[–]zakakaka 34ポイント35ポイント  (10子コメント)

What happens when your job is automated and you're in the pogey line with all those filthy lazies? What will be left to signal your virtue to society and underpin your social worth?

[–]Semena_Mertvykh 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

What happens when your job is automated and you're in the pogey line with all those filthy lazies? What will be left to signal your virtue to society and underpin your social worth?

Exactly! Individuals will be judged on their personality, their character... who they REALLY are. Not by decimal points in a bank account. And that's scary, because a lot of peoples value will go WAY the fuck down!

[–]past_is_prologue -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's true! Look at all the unemployed carriage makers and blacksmiths we have left over now that the horseless carriage is in vogue!

[–]zakakaka 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I hope you're right, but in truth, the shift to the knowledge economy is gonna leave a lot of people behind. Only a certain number of people are intelligent enough to be software engineers and technicians and scientists etc. What are those other people gonna retrain to do?

[–]LastImmortalManCanada [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Make me laugh god dammit.

[–]past_is_prologue [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Perhaps we should ask the candle dippers or the street lamp lighters?

Look, I know people on Reddit blow their load over complete automation of society, but the reality is that is a long way off. Will some people be left behind? Of course. People are left behind every day. There is a homeless fellow sleeping out in the courtyard of my work that was left behind years ago. Still, the change we're going to see in society will bring forward a whole new set of challenges for society that we will need to work to overcome.

Long story short, I don't buy the "soon robots will be doing all the work" narrative.

[–]mrpoopi -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You go on EI and try to find another job.

[–]SSpectre86 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

In the short term, yes, but that overlooks the huge percentage of jobs that are going to be automated in the coming decades.

[–]mrpoopi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's what they thought would happen with computers. That we'd suddenly have all this extra time on our hands. Now we're just extending the same idea to robots. But, lets just say its true, and millions get automated out of their jobs, how do you take the income companies save from automation and force them to transfer that money to the lower class? You cant, because then those companies will loose their competitive edge, and their whole reason for automation to begin with.

[–]DashBlaster 89ポイント90ポイント  (97子コメント)

"The only time you should look in somebody else's bowl is to see if they have enough, not to see if you have more than them." Louis CK

[–]MWDTechCanada 15ポイント16ポイント  (72子コメント)

Question:

This will require enormous taxes on somebody, likely the richest corps and people.

Won't this drive business out of Canada?

[–]sonofmo 18ポイント19ポイント  (17子コメント)

I have a problem with this argument. If a business decides to leave Canada because of the way we choose to tax them, what is stopping someone from replacing them? Just because someone takes their ball home because they don't like the rules isn't gong to stop someone else who wants to play.

[–]MWDTechCanada 9ポイント10ポイント  (8子コメント)

Because money talks, why do you think we lost most of our manufacturing jobs to outsourced labor in other countries? Why do some provinces have more business infrastructure than others? Because corporate tax rates differ from province to province, and 1% here and there will add up over time.

[–]sonofmo 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Undercut each other until the wheels fall off, sounds like a great plan.

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I didn't say it was a great plan, but that is what the reality is.

[–]sonofmo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Cool, we're in agreement. Meet me back here in a few hours with your best idea and I'll bring mine. Mine's going to include robots and magic so stay away from those areas.

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Does sunshine lollipops and rainbows fall into magic?

What if I spelled magik with a k?

[–]liquidpigBritish Columbia 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

It wasn't because of our tax rate. It's because those countries have workers willing to work for $2/day.

Businesses go where the revenue is. Getting taxed 20% on $1B is a much better spot to be in than getting taxed 5% on $200M

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I should have prefaced those statements, both statements were meant to convey business goes where it is cheapest. Labour gets outsourced and HQ moves to where taxes are lowest.

[–]liquidpigBritish Columbia [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Then why isn't all labour done in Bangladesh and why aren't all companies HQ'd in the Caymans?

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I imagine it has to do with a supply and demand curve, and at what point you make enough of item x to make it feasible to move it offshore, Microsoft and apple started in a garage, now most of their stuff is made in china, bombardier has said it is moving it manufacturing overseas, cars, we used to have lots of car manufacturing in North America now it is done in Europe. Alberta has a low corporate tax rate, that is why oil HQ is located in Calgary and not Ontario.

[–]zcen 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

You're half correct and half wrong. On a local level, if a business fails or leaves then someone will most likely take their place. Example: If a McDonalds franchise fails or decides to leave then a Starbucks franchise may take up their lot.

The problem is, on a global level, if businesses can be elsewhere then there's absolutely no reason for them to be here. Look no further than the dying auto manufacturing industry in Ontario. The problem is that when those factories shut down or want to sell, nobody is interested in buying or taking up that space because it doesn't make any financial sense to. No manufacturing business is going to want to settle here instead of Mexico unless there are serious incentives to do so.

[–]sonofmo 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

So globally we're unable to compete unless we pay companies incentives to stay. Instead of paying these incentives to companies why wouldn't we pay them to the populace in the form of say... guaranteed income? I'd rather put my tax dollars in the pocket of my neighbour and know they'll be redistributing it locally then a corporation who's only loyalty is to its shareholders.

[–]zcen 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just want to clarify this my reply wasn't anything to do with GMI, just responding to your post specifically.

To answer your question though... It doesn't really matter whose loyalty a business is to. The fact is, they (legal businesses) also pay taxes and hire people aka give them money to redistribute. This changes when automation becomes a mainstream problem but for now this is how it is. The fewer businesses that decide to operate in Canada, the fewer jobs there are. Sure basic income can combat that but where does the money come from? As discussed by others above, the consolidation of all our current welfare programs doesn't cover the cost of basic income. The only way to get more money to cover that is to either tax higher or tax more (get more businesses to operate in Canada so you can tax them and the subsequent employees).

[–]sonofmo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just curious, what do most of the larger companies pay in taxes? Do you think their contribution is worth being incentivised?

[–]Alacritous 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's been a problem for a long time and has nothing to do with GMI.

[–]zcen 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not saying it has anything to do with GMI. Just explaining that just because a business leaves doesn't mean one will take its place.

[–]thesublieutenant [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It wont cause people to get up and leave, but to assume you can increase the MTR and Corporate Tax Rate and see zero behavioural change is ridiculous. I doubt that you can create a tax system revenue positive enough to generate the money needed for a UBI, NIT is much more likely.

[–]woodycanuck [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In theory, because they would be less competitive than the company that moved to a lower tax region.

[–]ill_mangoCanada[🍰] 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

The biz taxes are a concern, but it's more complicated. Basic income could also work as a subsidy to businesses.

Example: Indian programmers are cheaper than North America programmers. This is mainly due to cost of living. If we had a basic income, programmers here would be able to accept less wages. That in turn may allow companies to onshore more programming jobs. Net result is more programming jobs than before.

This is just an example, it might not work out that way. I just wanted to illustrate it's not so simple, which is why study is needed.

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

This is interesting, so we pay them a pittance (enough to add value but not bump them out of the UBI bracket) to keep work in house, so wages would in effect supplement UBI. now the question comes down to this (sorry for being devils advocate but I like to be thorough):

Is the extra money worth fielding IT help calls all day or would I rather not work and get paid slightly less?

(PS happy cake day)

[–]ill_mangoCanada[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

My example only works if the programmer still gets "market" wages. (Market is in brackets because now we're not only talking about the Canadian market, we could be talking about the global market).

They key take away is that UBI (money that is given to everyone regardless of income that is enough to live on) COULD actually lower the cost of labour to businesses based in high-cost-living places over the long term, because you're no longer paying for the cost of living, you're paying for the skill.

Of course there are a million-and-a-half assumptions and such in the preceding paragraphs. That's why study is good.

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It is a shame we do not have a small scale example working to study. However I do feel the a small scale and large scale of this concept wouldn't be representative of each other due to the many issued surrounding how people would act with a guaranteed income, I think the more people you add the more rapidly you would accumulate the "dregs" who add nothing.

[–]loves_2_sp00ge [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Actually Indian programmers are more expensive.

Here's how it breaks down:

You pay Indian programmers to write a program

So far so good.

But then you have to pay Canadian programmers to rewrite it completely because it doesn't work after talking it through with them for half a year.

So the actual price of Indian programmers is their salary + Canadian salary.

[–]canadiancreedOntario [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Example: Indian programmers are cheaper than North America programmers. This is mainly due to cost of living. If we had a basic income, programmers here would be able to accept less wages. That in turn may allow companies to onshore more programming jobs. Net result is more programming jobs than before.

The average programmer in India earns ~7,500$CDN a year

The average programmer in Canada earns ~50,00$CDN a year.

(pay averages taken from payscale.com)

Basically you'd have to convince an entire industry to take a massive pay cut (then get a basic income to subsidize it....then get taxed to pay for that subsidy). This wouldn't result in more coding jobs, this would result in almost every programmer with a degree and/or decent portfolio to bolt for the door to greener, higher paying pastures. The US and Europe would love it, as they'd have their pick of the all of our talent, and all we'd have is the people that know a bit of code and can surf answers on stackoverflow. It would effectively neuter the IT industry in this country for an entire generation, or depending on immigration policies around the globe, for as long as that policy existed.

EDIT: To answer why it wouldn't just be the same effect as in India, emigrating from Canada to Europe, or especially the US, is much easier when you have a degree then it is from India.

[–]ill_mangoCanada[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

shrugs as I said, it's more complicated than I wrote. We're both making huge, hand-wavy assumptions.

You could posit that we'd lose jobs due to x, y and z, and I could say that we'd gain jobs due to a, b and c. The truth is no one knows what the effect would be, which is why I advocate for study.

[–]Outofmyelephant 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

It might, so provide more incentives and protections for Canadian companies who do business here.

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

What sort of incentives and protections would you propose?

[–]Outofmyelephant [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't propose any as I don't know the situation, the industry and many other factors that would allow someone to know which will work.

[–]Snowsteel [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

It would also increase consumer spending, making Canada more attractive to some businesses.

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

How so? I mean if people get a UBI I'm guessing that would be enough for the basics, not many perks.

[–]Snowsteel [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It's been shown that low income earners spend a much larger % of their take-home then high income earners. So if you give those on the bottom money the majority of that money is going right back into the economy within a relatively short timeframe. Low-mid income earners who see a less significant increase in their net will still have a little extra for the luxuries that they want.

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's been shown that low income earners spend a much larger % of their take-home then high income earners.

What are they spending it on? necessities or wants?

[–]DashBlaster -2ポイント-1ポイント  (39子コメント)

Might. Shouldn't, in an ethical sense, but might. But that's another can of worms entirely.

[–]MWDTechCanada 4ポイント5ポイント  (35子コメント)

This is why I'm worried about it, ethics to a person and ethics to a business are very different, And a business will always try and drop the bottom line.

[–]DashBlaster 1ポイント2ポイント  (34子コメント)

Yeah. The profit-centered motive behind businesses has to go. Humans are getting better, and we'll eventually move in that direction, but maybe not in our lifetime. But as an undeniably global society, it should happen sooner than later.

[–]MWDTechCanada 5ポイント6ポイント  (25子コメント)

The profit-centered motive behind businesses has to go

But that IS business, you remove that you remove the incentive to create business. I am not saying you are wrong, but it's a little too unicorns and rainbows for reality.

[–]Outofmyelephant 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

But that IS business, you remove that you remove the incentive to create business

No you don't. The idea that people will just stop creating businesses if they can't make unlimited profits is absurd. Companies could still make huge profits, just not so much as before. If CEO pay goes from half a million to a quarter of a million or $100,000, is that CEO going to quit and go sweep the street for pennies? No, they'll quit their whinging and go run the company because their salary will still be far above any of their workers.

What it will do is stop the greediest lazy scumbags in society from starting companies and I'm perfectly OK with that. Those who start companies for personal freedom, creativity, to improve society or just for a feeling of success will still be working their asses off and after a couple decades in business, I think it will be a very good change.

The only worry could be companies leaving Canada, so just put in protections for Canadian companies that give them great incentives for staying.

[–]MWDTechCanada [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

No you don't. The idea that people will just stop creating businesses if they can't make unlimited profits is absurd. Companies could still make huge profits, just not so much as before. If CEO pay goes from half a million to a quarter of a million or $100,000, is that CEO going to quit and go sweep the street for pennies? No, they'll quit their whinging and go run the company because their salary will still be far above any of their workers.

Or move all operations to another country where they can still make obscene amounts of money.

[–]DashBlaster 4ポイント5ポイント  (10子コメント)

It's a little too unicorns and rainbows for reality.

To abandon the pursuit of proper ideals because of an exhausting and depressing reality is pretty lame. Where would that negativity and poor commitment to ethics and societal awareness lead us? It will take courage, persistence, and hard work, but it's important to do for the greater good.

[–]MWDTechCanada 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

The problem is that you would need to change the mind of the 1% and get them to do it for the betterment of man, and methinks they hold onto their wallets pretty tight, which is why they are the 1% in the first place, these people only donate as a tax right off.

[–]Coziestpigeon2Manitoba -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Where would that negativity and poor commitment to ethics and societal awareness lead us?

To a higher bottom line. And in many cases, that's the only thing that matters. I mean, if people really gave a fuck about the future of humanity, you think we'd still be relying on oil?

[–]ThatOneMartian -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

What makes your ethics proper? A prosperous future for few is better for the human race than subsistence living for many.

[–]truenorth00Ontario -2ポイント-1ポイント  (7子コメント)

The profit-centered motive behind businesses has to go.

Because economic systems other than capitalism have worked so successfully elsewhere?

It's one thing to redistribute wealth between citizens. But good luck extracting that from businesses. Even the supposedly socialist Scandinavians keep corporate taxes low.

For any business the calculation is simple. Revenue vs. expenses. Revenue is a function of local market and income repatriation taxes. Expenses are corporate taxes, labour costs, materiel costs, etc. They simply pick the location where it makes most sense to maximize that ratio.

You want good jobs in Canada? Keep corporate taxes low. Keep the population healthy and well educated.

[–]DashBlaster 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

For sure, and the profits behind a business are vital to everybody, citizens, patrons, and employees. I think what I was trying to say is that another motive that businesses should prioritize is furthering their community and society. And many, probably most, do in many ways, but higher taxation shouldn't be so taboo in comparison, for it will do the same thing.

And to the extremes, socialism and communism have had catastrophic failures, but capitalism isn't untarnished either. There's a happier medium somewhere.

[–]truenorth00Ontario -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

For sure, and the profits behind a business are vital to everybody, citizens, patrons, and employees. I think what I was trying to say is that another motive that businesses should prioritize is furthering their community and society. And many, probably most, do in many ways, but higher taxation shouldn't be so taboo in comparison, for it will do the same thing.

Sure. But a lot of people who jump up and down about corporate taxes being too low, don't really understand how businesses think about where to do business.

As for thinking about the community. Here's the thing, businesses exist to do business. A corporation is simply a group of investors coming together to do business. Obligating companies to think about communities first, is simply a tax by another name. Why wouldn't individuals simply move their business to a more advantageous jurisdiction? You want businesses to think about their communities? Start asking citizens (who are often investors and workers in businesses) to think about their communities. Ask them if they'd accept lower returns and lower wages so that the company can do more in the community.

[–]Ashlir 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How big will the walls need to be to keep new welfare recipients out and the rest of us in?

[–]LandmanCAAlberta 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. - John Adams

It most certainly will lead to business moving out of Canada.

[–]liquidpigBritish Columbia 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perfect quote and my sentiments exactly.

[–]attemptno8 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Because a fucking louis ck quote changes fundamental truths of economics.

[–]DashBlaster [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Oh, you got me. In Louis' quote, he outlines a twinkling fantasy economic plan where all the lazy people sit on their ass, snort marijuana, watch tv and collect all the hard workers' money!

Except that he doesn't. All that he does is symbolize a commitment to the betterment of humanity, to the idea that people beyond your family or even neighbours are worth looking out for. That's what I was trying to point out, that your stance is based on selfishness and ignorance. You should try to read between the lines a little more.

[–]attemptno8 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

He made a funny observation without taking many factors into account. Stop making it out to be more than it was.

[–]DashBlaster [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why? Why can't I argue for a connecting theme of compassion between an economic model and a quote from a person? The quote was used as a heartfelt lesson to his daughter in his TV show, a medium he uses to provide commentary on MANY topics. So tell me, why?

[–]FutureAvenir [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

fundamental truths of economics

Are we talking about the same economics? The social science?

[–]20130217 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

A policy that works really well among a small group of individuals may not work well on a society level. Just ask the USSR.

[–]flupo42 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why go back in time to USSR? We can just look at our own mess of social programs right now. Just figuring out what one might or might not qualify for in their province and than trying to fit to requirements is it's own job.

http://www.canadabenefits.gc.ca/f.1.2ch.4me@.jsp

[–]Cyralea [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That makes absolutely zero sense. In this scenario, the person is looking to steal food from the guy who has more than him.

[–]DashBlaster [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In this scenario, the guy who has more realizes that if he wants anything productive done, it's in his best interest to share the food because he'll need the other guy's help later. It only makes zero sense if you villainize the person who has less.

[–]mtech101 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

Calling everyone with low wage jobs lazy is just downright stupid.

[–]Bearence [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And inaccurate. People with low-paying jobs tend to do harder, more labour-intensive work and they tend to need two jobs just to make ends meet.

[–]shellkek 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

TBH the same argument can be applied to keeping min wage at $5? If it's raised it makes them closer to you

[–]JonoLith 20ポイント21ポイント  (5子コメント)

It still punishes those who work

Why do you consider helping the wider society a punishment? Is universal health care punishing to you? Are you suffering because of our universal education system? Perhaps maintaining a public transit system is a burden that is too much for you to bear as well?

I'm sure people who are struggling to put food on their table, and clothe their children will understand if you want to withhold the stability and safety of a secure society because it's too punishing to the people who are benefiting the most from their misery.

[–]Bearence [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

All true. And what I find really amazing in these discussions is the short-sightedness of those grasping tightly to their dollars. Study after study (too many to even list here, people can google it if they want) shows that the benefits to society in terms of an increase in productivity is much higher in proportion to any perceieved loss. And that translates into a more valuable dollar, more spending power and (just as important) more saving power. But hey, let's trade that away for the superior feeling we get when we know Freddie Freeloader suffers from poverty.

[–]attemptno8 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why do you consider helping the wider society a punishment?

Because increased tax is nothing more than legal extortion. Give the government money or prison.

Is universal health care punishing to you? Are you suffering because of our universal education system

So I hate to be that guy, but I've literally never been to the hospital or needed a doctor for anything more than a prescription to cure strep throat when I was a child. So universal health care does actually hurt me while simultaneously helping others. That's pretty much the ONLY way a system like that can work. Also, we'd be better off with a mix of private and public care like Australia.

[–]Whiskeyjack1989Lest We Forget [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Why do you consider helping the wider society a punishment?

Easy. Because you aren't giving me the choice. Many wealthy individuals choose to spent their money in altruistic ways, and they have helped humanity more than most individuals ever will. Under this system, you are taking their money by force through taxation. We all pay taxes equally to pay for services we agree on; law enforcement, education, health care. But taking people's money by force to give it someone else is unequal treatment, no matter how you swing the bat.

[–]attemptno8 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Don't forget that socialist systems assume the government is competent enough to handle the money it extorts from you, which it is not.

[–]unidentifiable [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why do you consider helping the wider society a punishment?

Because we keep bringing people into this country that haven't yet earned the right to my tax dollars.

Tax should not be used as a gift to people who will never repay it. I don't mind paying for services like education because kids grow up to be tax payers themselves. A universal income for people too lazy to work is wrong.

[–]MorgothEatsUrBabies 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

TL;DR: I got mine, everyone else can fuck off, right?

edit: also, and that's just IMO of course, it's pretty fucking sad and pathetic that you determine your social value through your salary. But hey, you do you.

[–]attemptno8 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I determine my monetary value that way, not my social value. Way to completely put words into my mouth.

[–]HMSChurchillOntario [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In the 1980s, the Supreme Court of Canada (Chief Justice Dickson at the time) wrote in a decision that "A person’s employment is an essential component of his or her sense of identity, self-worth and emotional well-being."

It's not sad at all, we all place our self-worth partly in what we do and how much people value what we do (how much they pay us for it).

[–]unidentifiable [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Society values him through his salary, why should the inverse not be true? That's how salary works, you pay the doctor lots of money and the grocery bagger much less.

[–]robbyboz 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

FULL DISCLOSURE I COULD BE 100% WRONG HOW THIS WORKS.

Let's make the fair assumption that you'll get the mincome sub your marginal tax bracket. You make $70k so after taxes you net $51.8k. You get your 20k, sub the taxes and your total yearly net is $51.8k + $13.8k = $65.5k

Lets also take the better example of a minwage earner versus a $0/year income earner since you're so worried about the delta between you both. $11.25/hr takes home ~18.9k / year.

Now how to tax the mincome is where I'm at a loss, but I would assume it would be your marginal tax rate BEFORE adding the mincome. So John is at %15.9 tax rate - his yearly would be $18.9k + $16.0k for a lovely total of $34.9k / year. John will really see a huge benefit in his standard of living. Will most likely buy better food for his family or himself. John might also splurge more on booze and drugs, but we are a free society so that's Johns choice.

After mincome - You net ~27% more per year. John nets ~85% more per year.

Take aways:

As it stands, perhaps the taxing of the 20k mincome should be separated from your income tax bracket. perhaps change the weighting to be more friendly to sub-120k earners like a modified sq root function.

But I must add, your premise of the fact that johns earnings went from ~35% of yours to now ~50% is cause for concern because he devalues you or something? Do you value yourself solely by how much you earn? Is Elon Musk your god then?

Aside from speculating the changes in commodity and necessity prices, how does this impact you significantly? Your employer wouldn't fire you now would he?

[–]multiplegeorgesCanada 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't get how it will impact you. Your salary won't go down, your purchasing power won't change, your cost of living won't change.

How does it impact you, in a material way?

[–]mizerama [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I hope you know your income's value is not based on others' income. The change in net income across the country will be zero, it will simply be redistributed throughout the system.

What you have described is inflation.

[–]attemptno8 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Net money is the same. People below me suddenly being closer in value is actually a huge deal.

[–]mizerama [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I do not follow your logic at all.

If there is no change in money supply, the value of money will not change. At worst, extremely cheap things will raise slightly in price (more money available to those who couldn't spend, no need to be cheap). Extremely expensive things will not rise in price, or possibly become cheaper, as the rich are now poorer than before.

That's about it. A race to the middle.

Perhaps you need to explain what effect you think will happen more clearly, and the mechanism that produces it.

[–]FutureAvenir [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

If we become a handout state my value will go down as the bottom earners will be closer to me, effectively placing me closer to the poverty line or whatever it will be called after.

The poverty line doesn't rise as people make more money, that's not how it works.

Making me go from 70k over the non working to 50k or whatever(all numbers are just examples) will impact me significantly.

Your numbers are arbitrary. Have some more arbitrary numbers. The numbers I heard were that if you earned $0, you would get something like $15,000. If you earned $70,000, you would get $0 extra (and pay $0 extra). If you earned more than $70,000, you begin paying back to cover those earning less than $70,000.

How does that sound to you? Is it a little less drastic? A little more reasonable/supportable?

[–]attemptno8 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Giving someone a free 15k for doing NOTHING is just fucking retarded, though. It effectively punishes me for working harder than others. If 15k is what you give people who don't even work, you're basically devaluing my job by 15k, because 15k is now considered the zero/nothing/poverty.

It's even more fucking ridiculous when you look at someone making 30k. They would be working 40+ hours per week to only make twice as much money as someone who does fuck all? How can people be okay with this?

[–]FutureAvenir [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

fucking retarded

My friends with down syndrome don't appreciate your slander.

It effectively punishes me for working harder than others.

This has nothing to do with you. You get your 70k, same as today. If you feel punished because you're living in a more horizontal society, that's your own personal delusion.

It is less expensive to house the homeless than to let them remain homeless.

...providing mentally ill homeless people with a home and the right kind of social supports saves about $9,390 per person annually.

For chronically homeless people who are frequent users of social services, the annual savings are $25,899 per person.

If 15k is what you give people who don't even work, you're basically devaluing my job by 15k, because 15k is now considered the zero/nothing/poverty.

Your mother worked to raise you. Our ancestors gave us language and technology. Your debt to society is entirely unpayable and your response is, "Don't let others get more because that makes me feel like I'm getting less." I'm sorry to say it, but the financial markets should not dictate the value of the world. They are highly inaccurate. Should hedge fund managers who do just as well as monkeys be making hundreds of millions of dollars?

The valuation system is messed up. This is an equalizer, plain and simple.

You clearly have a lot of pain in your life. I'm sorry you feel this way. If you were filled with love, you probably wouldn't be so attached to making sure that people who are literally starving to death in your city shouldn't get a break. I hope you get the help you need to feel more love in your life.

[–]attemptno8 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I like how you completely ignored my example of the dude making 30k because you can't refute it.

[–]FutureAvenir [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I missed it. And you're not grasping at how UBI works.

Let's say they set it at $20,000. If you earn $0 annually, you get $20,000. If you earn $10,000,000 annually, you get $20,000. What happens is how it is paid back through taxes.

You earn $0, you keep $20,000. You earn $10,000, you keep $18,000. You earn $20,000, you keep $14,000. $30,000 + $10,000 $40,000 + $8000 $50,000 + $5000 $60,000 + $2500 $70,000 + $0 $80,000 - $2500 $90,000 - $5000 $100,0000 - $8000 $110,000 - $10,000

So the person earning $0 sees $20,000 as their final amount. The person earning $30,000 sees $40,000 as their final amount.

Maybe. That's just some napkin math, but it's a much closer way to understand it than the way you are presenting it.