If we have to live within a capitalist framework, the very least we can do is make sure everyone has a chance.
Your opinions…
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- Government expected to scrap EV mandate in favour of new fuel efficiency system: source
- ICE agents are in Canada. Here's what they can — and can’t — do
- New Cuba travel advisory urges 'high degree of caution.' Should Canadians worry?
- Canada rides fast start to victory over Czechia in Olympic mixed doubles curling opener
- Man convicted of trying to kill Donald Trump on his Florida golf course gets life in prison
- Tate McRae receives backlash for supporting Team USA in NBC Olympics ad
- Carney’s government is cutting hundreds of environment and science jobs. Here’s what that means for Canadians
- Quebec fisherman reels in 244-pound, record-breaking Atlantic halibut — for science
- Conservative MP Jivani heads to Washington after Liberals snub offer to collaborate
- Mother of missing N.S. children ‘taking it day by day,’ say loved ones
Posts I Like
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
5 comments
May 29, 2018 at 10:56 am
Steve Ruis
I have moved away from a UBI. In California, the state lottery was sold by “giving” the proceeds to the state’s schools. The enabling law indicated that the lottery funds were not allowed to replace ordinary funding of eduction programs. So, the Lotto was launched and in short order, the Lotto funding was used to displace state funding of programs.
If we give money to the poor, the rich will find a way to siphon it off into their own pockets. Now, instead of a UBI, I think a federal job guarantee is a better option. If done well, federal jobs would make a floor under which commercial jobs could not go. You want $15 per hour as a minimum? You don’t need a min wage law, just jobs available that pay that so that people will not be inclined to take lesser paying jobs.
And for those eschewing “make work” jobs, I agree. There are already on the table so many necessary jobs to be done we will not clear that backlog for generations. Take a look back at the “make work” jobs of the New Deal. The list includes, dams built, bridges built, roads built, National Parks built and remodeled and refreshed. The list of accomplishments is staggering and we are still benefiting from most of those. If all you can think of is make work jobs, you aren’t thinking right.
The UBI would still be useful for those no longer or unable to work.
LikeLiked by 2 people
May 29, 2018 at 6:34 pm
Rob F
The UBI would be better if it instead combined into what is called a “negative income tax”. Essentially, everyone’s income, no matter the source (including from capital gains, inheritance, etc), is taxed at a flat rate. At the same time, everyone gets a refundable tax credit. That credit is always credited, even if there is some left over after tax paid is canceled out.
For example, assume the flat rate is 25%, and the credit is $10000.
If someone earns $30000, they pay $8750 in tax, but receive the $10000 credit, which nets out to a $1250 supplement from the government.
If someone earns $40000, they pay $10000 in tax, but receive the $10000 credit, which nets out to no tax and no supplement.
If someone earns $45000, they pay $11250 in taxes, but receive the $10000 credit, which nets out to $1250 net tax paid.
This system can be combined with the elimination of welfare, government, pensions, etc (the NIT replaces them), greatly reducing administrative costs and reducing the size of government. And as can be seen from the numbers, it eliminates the welfare trap (you net income always goes up).
Increasing the safety net this way has other benefits, including (in no particular order):
Reducing job lock. If you are no longer dependent on staying with one particular employer for the sake of your retirement income, it is easier for you to leave for better opportunities, start your own business, etc.
It is easier to escape from a bad situation. For example, if an abused woman is no longer required to stay in an abusive relationship to avoid starving etc, she is more able to leave and get back on her feet
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 30, 2018 at 10:37 am
The Arbourist
@Steven Ruis
A good point. I just wonder how to keep the bureaucracy in check with mandating the various job situations? I think a provision for paternity/maternity leave would also have to be instituted.
LikeLike
May 30, 2018 at 10:39 am
The Arbourist
@Rob F
Fascinating idea. Has this been implemented anywhere in the world?
LikeLike
June 1, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Rob F
@The Arbourist
AFAICT it is mostly in experimental conditions or on a really small scale. The closest examples I can find are certain tax credits that are always refundable (even if you otherwise have no income or no taxes to pay) and this one in Israel. But from the description given in the article it looks like there are substantial differences from a NIT.
LikeLike