Why aren't Canadian Urbanist talking about UBI

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

There's a bunch.. but off the top of my head:

1) Welfare
2) Disability supports
3) EI
4) OAS/GIS system for seniors
5) The Canada Child Benefit
6) GST rebate program
7) Provincial tax rebate programs similar to federal GST rebate (like the Ontario Trillium Benefit for example)

..and meant to add, rough costs.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Canada has one of the worst welfare states in the developed world so UBI would be a game changer in making this country a more just and fair place.

Seriously we need to stop comparing ourselves with the US and patting ourself on the back for being marginally superior to them.

Disability rates in BC for example this includes those who cannot work is only $983 a month. Have you tried living on this in Vancouver? Paying rent, food, cell, internet, utilities, transport?

Admittedly Vancouver is an extremely expensive place, but living on $983 anywhere in Canada is borderline impossible.

The supposed $983 rate should be the regular welfare rate and the disability rates should be equivalent to full time minimum wage.

If Canada wishes to solve poverty than a universal basic income should be $1200 for everyone in Canada but those with disabilities or other social based limits on success should be paid a bit more. The disabled who cannot work should be given $1800 a month at minimum.

UBI should be calculated in 2 ways, Urbanites should be paid a bit more than those in rural areas since urban life tends to cost more.

Set the Urban limit at a metro region of 200k, areas smaller receive less.

I'd do it the following ways
Disabled get $1800 a month, $2000 in Urban areas
Working people get $1200 a month, $1400 in Urban areas.

Affirmative action for minority groups should be in place to protect marginal groups such as the LGBT population, native populations, etc. If these groups can prove they suffer from social exclusion and higher poverty than other groups, give them an extra allowance.

[eemy]

Maybe I'm confused, but I get the impression here that a lot of posters on here believe UBI would be something you qualify for, while my understanding has always been that UBI would be universal - every single person would qualify for it regardless of employment status and what not. That simplifies the system, which is its key advantage. Obviously people who are securely employed don't need it, but tax brackets would be adjusted to compensate for this so that take home pay would remain roughly the same in the end.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Maybe I'm confused, but I get the impression here that a lot of posters on here believe UBI would be something you qualify for, while my understanding has always been that UBI would be universal - every single person would qualify for it regardless of employment status and what not. That simplifies the system, which is its key advantage. Obviously people who are securely employed don't need it, but tax brackets would be adjusted to compensate for this so that take home pay would remain roughly the same in the end.

Yeah the whole point is that everyone would get it.

UBI is a negative income tax essentially.

The reality is it's not inherently socialist.

It's strongly an anti bureaucracy, lets stimulate a more free and competitive economy.

the trouble with traditional systems is that it makes it impossible for them to make the best of their situation.

Basically labor laws, and welfare programs make it very hard to work.

For example a person that is in a wheel chair might only be able to handle %40 percent of a job.

However a boss cannot pay someone 40 percent a wage because it's illegal.


That person in a wheel chair is forced to either become a true dependent or wait for some magical job creation scheme that the government makes up.


The reason everyone gets a UBI is because you do need to increase taxation, so UBI is handled as a an additional income stream.

In general at this point you can pretty much implement a flat tax rate as well.

Sine the working poor will still get most of their income from UBI, and the rich will get a flat income tax.


UBI is gonna happen, the key is to understanding that its not creating some post scarcity socialist utopia. It's simply approaching problems we now face from a different angle.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

UBI should be calculated in 2 ways, Urbanites should be paid a bit more than those in rural areas since urban life tends to cost more.

Set the Urban limit at a metro region of 200k, areas smaller receive less.

I'd do it the following ways
Disabled get $1800 a month, $2000 in Urban areas
Working people get $1200 a month, $1400 in Urban areas.

Affirmative action for minority groups should be in place to protect marginal groups such as the LGBT population, native populations, etc. If these groups can prove they suffer from social exclusion and higher poverty than other groups, give them an extra allowance.

.
This is the exact kind of shit that were talking about avoiding.


One of the main benefits of UBI is that it steps a million miles away from the state trying to determine who is in need.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Admittedly Vancouver is an extremely expensive place, but living on $983 anywhere in Canada is borderline impossible.

You've got to be kidding! It's very possible to live on less than that.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by lio45

You've got to be kidding! It's very possible to live on less than that.

Define live a month? or long term?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Stryker

.
This is the exact kind of shit that were talking about avoiding.


One of the main benefits of UBI is that it steps a million miles away from the state trying to determine who is in need.

Exactly!

The goal of UBI is to greatly simplify things and eliminate the disincentive to get off welfare.

Basically, think of it as, there's no welfare anymore, and the income tax level graph crosses the X axis (i.e. goes below zero on the Y axis) at around maybe $20k yearly income on the X axis, then goes in a somewhat linear path all the way to reaching the Y axis.

So if you earn $30k a year you pay maybe ~$3k in income tax;
If you earn $20k a year you pay about ~$0k in income tax;
If you earn $15k a year you get maybe ~$3k in negative income tax;
If you earn $10k a year you get maybe ~$7k in negative income tax;
If you earn $0k a year you get maybe ~$12k in negative income tax;

with no questions asked about what shape you're in and what you're up to.

At least there wouldn't be people trying to get their doctors to declare them inapt to working due to "a bad back" so that they can get a bigger welfare check - this scheme would be the end of it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Stryker

Define live a month? or long term?

I mean long term. I've got some stable tenants in downtown Sherbrooke who've been in my building for about a decade living only off the Quebec welfare check which has got to be about $600/month nowadays, last I checked (was ~$500 when I started in real estate).

$240 for a studio in downtown Sherbrooke within walking distance of everything, includes internet and all utilities. Leaves you $350+ to work with, for food and entertainment, you don't need a car, and if needed there are food banks nearby that you qualify for. There are at least two thrift stores nearby too where you can get items for pocket change if you want to "shop".

All in all, probably not a worse life than many people who are employed but "living the rat race".

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by lio45

All in all, probably not a worse life than many people who are employed but "living the rat race".

Oh I agree that some people are way better off on welfare than working. Especially in rural areas where you can easily hunt for food, cut wood etc.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

You've got to be kidding! It's very possible to live on less than that.

$983 of guaranteed income every month could get you a reasonably comfortable life in urban Kingston.

I've always been irritated by the people who scream about poverty rates and Canada being completely unaffordable, blah, blah, and then only ever use Vancouver and Toronto as examples. It's completely ridiculous to define a "successful social safety net" as enabling anyone to live in the most expensive areas of the country. Of course it shouldn't.

A common argument made is that only the biggest cities offer services the poor need, but this is also bunk. Sure, a place like Moose Jaw or Deer Lake isn't going to offer a good set of services, I'll grant that. But cities like Kingston, Sherbrooke, Regina, and Moncton can offer a very affordable cost of living while having plenty of services both government and private. Here in Kingston we have all kinds of services available for the disabled, ex-cons, recovering drug addicts, etc.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly!

The goal of UBI is to greatly simplify things and eliminate the disincentive to get off welfare.

Basically, think of it as, there's no welfare anymore, and the income tax level graph crosses the X axis (i.e. goes below zero on the Y axis) at around maybe $20k yearly income on the X axis, then goes in a somewhat linear path all the way to reaching the Y axis.

So if you earn $30k a year you pay maybe ~$3k in income tax;
If you earn $20k a year you pay about ~$0k in income tax;
If you earn $15k a year you get maybe ~$3k in negative income tax;
If you earn $10k a year you get maybe ~$7k in negative income tax;
If you earn $0k a year you get maybe ~$12k in negative income tax;

with no questions asked about what shape you're in and what you're up to.

At least there wouldn't be people trying to get their doctors to declare them inapt to working due to "a bad back" so that they can get a bigger welfare check - this scheme would be the end of it.

I like a UBI that pays a flat rate to everyone, let's say $1000 a month, no matter who you are or what you're doing. Meanwhile, everyone is taxed at the same rate, no matter who they are or what they're doing. This yields an inherently progressive income redistribution scheme thanks to diminishing marginal utility. Someone who makes a million dollars a year will pay a significant amount of taxes but probably wipe their asses with their monthly UBI cheque. Meanwhile, someone working part time to go to school or raise a child will find their income doubled.

[ue]

Originally Posted by lio45

I mean long term. I've got some stable tenants in downtown Sherbrooke who've been in my building for about a decade living only off the Quebec welfare check which has got to be about $600/month nowadays, last I checked (was ~$500 when I started in real estate).

$240 for a studio in downtown Sherbrooke within walking distance of everything, includes internet and all utilities. Leaves you $350+ to work with, for food and entertainment, you don't need a car, and if needed there are food banks nearby that you qualify for. There are at least two thrift stores nearby too where you can get items for pocket change if you want to "shop".

All in all, probably not a worse life than many people who are employed but "living the rat race".

You do realize that living in Sherbrooke and living in Vancouver are completely different from a cost of living standpoint, right?

I agree that $1,000 (rounding here) is more than enough for most Canadian cities, but if we were to implement a UBI, we would need to take into account the higher cost of living in BC and parts of Alberta and Ontario. So, you could have a flat, national rate of $1,000 and then perhaps the provincial gov'ts of pricier provinces could tack on another $500-$1,000 depending on where one lives, and this could be calculated based on housing costs, basic needs costs, state of the economy, etc.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ue

You do realize that living in Sherbrooke and living in Vancouver are completely different from a cost of living standpoint, right?

Of course! You haven't noticed the wording of what I was replying to?

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

... living on $983 anywhere in Canada is borderline impossible.

Rents could be $5,000 a month for a cupboard under the stairs in Vancouver for all I care and it wouldn't have the least bearing on my point that you can live decently in this country with $600 a month.

I suggested that UBI could be somewhat tied to rents in this thread already, but I think I'll reconsider that. Living in a given city over other available cities isn't a fundamental right, it's actually a privilege.

The beauty of an UBI would be its simplicity. If you're stupid enough/stubborn enough to try to make ends meet on it in Vancouver, be my guest, but do know you'd be much better off in Saint John or Moncton. What you choose to do with your UBI is your own problem.

[ue]

Fair point regarding the income being "borderline impossible" everywhere in Canada. However, it isn't so easy to say that those on disability or struggling to make ends meet should just move all the way across the continent to Saint John, New Brunswick. There are a lot of factors at play to keep people from leaving expensive cities like Vancouver, Victoria, and Toronto.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by ue

Fair point regarding the income being "borderline impossible" everywhere in Canada. However, it isn't so easy to say that those on disability or struggling to make ends meet should just move all the way across the continent to Saint John, New Brunswick. There are a lot of factors at play to keep people from leaving expensive cities like Vancouver, Victoria, and Toronto.

Asking them to move three thousand kilometres is excessive.. but you can get a much lower cost of living through a much shorter trip. UBI recipients in Toronto could move a short distance to London or Kingston and get a much lower cost of living with adequate services.

[ue]

And what about access to support networks either for personal (friends, family) or professional lives? Someone who is a musician or even a student will want access to a city like Toronto, which will afford them greater opportunity. Yes, there are musicians in London or Kingston, but there is bigger infrastructure to support a musician in Toronto and yes there's Queens and Western for universities, but particular programs may not be available to students at these schools or the programs may be of higher caliber at UofT or Ryerson. I could sort-of see the argument for Hamilton as relief from Toronto prices, but no such affordable nearby market exists for people in Vancouver.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by ue

And what about access to support networks either for personal (friends, family) or professional lives? Someone who is a musician or even a student will want access to a city like Toronto, which will afford them greater opportunity. Yes, there are musicians in London or Kingston, but there is bigger infrastructure to support a musician in Toronto and yes there's Queens and Western for universities, but particular programs may not be available to students at these schools or the programs may be of higher caliber at UofT or Ryerson. I could sort-of see the argument for Hamilton as relief from Toronto prices, but no such affordable nearby market exists for people in Vancouver.

As a musician, you start with smaller crowds. Going to Toronto because you think you'll make it big while having never entertained an audience in the smaller towns is going to make you another down-and-outer. Musicians hardly make money as it is and they often find more success living outside Toronto than living in it. You can make trips to Toronto and avoid the living costs there. Otherwise, being a musician is a second job.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by ue

And what about access to support networks either for personal (friends, family) or professional lives? Someone who is a musician or even a student will want access to a city like Toronto, which will afford them greater opportunity. Yes, there are musicians in London or Kingston, but there is bigger infrastructure to support a musician in Toronto and yes there's Queens and Western for universities, but particular programs may not be available to students at these schools or the programs may be of higher caliber at UofT or Ryerson. I could sort-of see the argument for Hamilton as relief from Toronto prices, but no such affordable nearby market exists for people in Vancouver.

Education is actually one area where, at least in Ontario, smaller cities have an advantage. The universities outside of the GTA include some of the province's best schools: Queen's, Western, and Waterloo. Relative to population, there are also far more university spaces outside the GTA than they are in it; non-GTA Ontario has about 50% of the population but some 70%-75% of the university spaces. A good chunk of those 70%-75% are in very affordable centres, like Kingston, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Sudbury, all four of which are major heavyweights in post-secondary education.

Here in Kingston, the downtown proper and the student-heavy Sydenham and Alwington neighbourhoods have very high rents, comparable to Toronto & Ottawa and they push up rent statistics for the entire city, so on paper the city looks "unaffordable", but there are plenty of good urban neighbourhoods, like McBurney Park, Williamsville, and Portsmouth, that have very affordable rent. I charge my tenants $500 a month for my building in Portsmouth and that includes internet and all utilities.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

As a musician, you start with smaller crowds. Going to Toronto because you think you'll make it big while having never entertained an audience in the smaller towns is going to make you another down-and-outer. Musicians hardly make money as it is and they often find more success living outside Toronto than living in it. You can make trips to Toronto and avoid the living costs there. Otherwise, being a musician is a second job.

It wouldn't be that hard for a gigging musician to travel from London to Toronto a couple times a week. Oshawa or Hamilton would be even better choices for access to Toronto, but London would actually be a decent base because it's surrounded by other medium/large cities in basically all directions.