Why aren't Canadian Urbanist talking about UBI

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by lio45

Procrastinational makes great points, but how about the following alternative idea: an UBI that "covers your rent" plus an extra $x disposable monthly income.

The $x would be the portion of it that would be fixed for everyone on UBI regardless of where they live in the country.

Interesting idea. Something else that would work quite similarly could be to have a fixed basic income set for the country as a whole, but then have a "cost of living multiplier" depending on the region in which you live. For instance the basic income could be $15k, and then if you live in an area with average cost of living (rent, food, transportation, etc), your multiplier would be 1.0, so you'd receive $15k. Areas with below average cost of living would then have a multiplier less than 1 (i.e 0.8), and areas above would have a multiplier above 1 (i.e 1.2).

The problem with pegging a basic income to rent plus a fixed x is that the fixed disposable income portion would have significantly different buying power depending on where you are.

Over time, the government could continually adjust the cost of living multiplier in each region, and then occasionally increase the basic income itself.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I can see your point but mine was that a basic guaranteed income across the board for the general population could turn into a logistical nightmare. Just changing Disability would be easier and far more politically palatable.

Much of Disability assistance is already funded by the feds due to social transfers but also many disabled already collect CPP Disability benefits unlike general welfare. To add to this, welfare is, supposed to be, a short term assistance program with many new applicants and people leaving the system everyday unlike the disabled who have to qualify under much stricter conditions but their assistance can run from many years to many decades requiring far less bureaucracy. The welfare recipients also are monitored for attendance at school/retraining/job search while none of this is the case with the disabled. The amount of assistance {in terms of government} needed is far less than general welfare.

Have you ever tried working with the disability system. It's the biggest fucking mess in existance.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by lio45

Procrastinational makes great points, but how about the following alternative idea: an UBI that "covers your rent" plus an extra $x disposable monthly income.

The $x would be the portion of it that would be fixed for everyone on UBI regardless of where they live in the country.

The "rent" portion, in order to avoid the obvious loophole of having tenants in cahoots with their landlords to siphon off more money from the program with grossly inflated leases, would be roughly based on average market data (pre-UBI data, upon introduction) for the market each recipient lives in.

So you'd be introducing a new class of welfare recipients on the market who would come with their rent guaranteed paid (a welcome novelty for us landlords) but the tradeoff would be that that guaranteed rent amount isn't very flexible over time (and set to be "fair" to everyone). These rents could be risen at "fair" levels by the govt, factoring in the average change in the costs of operating rental properties, inflation, etc.

I'm just throwing the idea out there, I haven't given it much thought, but at first sight, I think a program along those lines could work to prevent property owners from "eating up all the good UBI would do".

Why not cut out the middleman and just nationalize housing?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

Why not cut out the middleman and just nationalize housing?

Judging by all the social housing numbers I've seen (including some projects I've been kinda involved in), that's an awful idea that would cost us all untold amounts in wasted money, gobbled up by the system's inefficiencies. We'd actually be feeding middlemen with that scheme - all the employees involved in running this massive, bloated program, and the crooked contractors, friends of the party in power, who'd be having all the contracts at prices that would in a normal context be tantamount to highway robbery.

If we actually did that it would probably bankrupt the country soon enough.

In fact, I'm for the opposite idea: UBI funded by the complete abolition of social housing and other special programs.

[GlassCity]

If a $1,500 basic income would go farther in one place than another, what do you guys think of its potential to grow Canada's secondary centres?

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If a $1,500 basic income would go farther in one place than another, what do you guys think of its potential to grow Canada's secondary centres?

It's a problem because people might actually be able to move around and develop the economy as they see fit.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Interesting idea. Something else that would work quite similarly could be to have a fixed basic income set for the country as a whole, but then have a "cost of living multiplier" depending on the region in which you live. For instance the basic income could be $15k, and then if you live in an area with average cost of living (rent, food, transportation, etc), your multiplier would be 1.0, so you'd receive $15k. Areas with below average cost of living would then have a multiplier less than 1 (i.e 0.8), and areas above would have a multiplier above 1 (i.e 1.2).

The problem with pegging a basic income to rent plus a fixed x is that the fixed disposable income portion would have significantly different buying power depending on where you are.

Over time, the government could continually adjust the cost of living multiplier in each region, and then occasionally increase the basic income itself.

This is a complete failure to understand what universal means.

This isn't an ultra socialist solution to a problem. Both left and right appreciate the benefits of UBI.

You are creating a world with minimal bureaucracy and in justice. Everyone gets a fair share of government money to use as they see fit.

Your not funneling money into education subsidies, propping up unions, creating massive bureaucracies etc.

You want to live in a support expensive part of the country, you get a job and work for it.

In a world where UBI is common your gonna see regional economies develop as a function of their needs.

Part of its system is that cities are able to better control their economic activity and counteract the rise of automation.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Stryker

Have you ever tried working with the disability system. It's the biggest fucking mess in existance.

Yep, I have to work full time despite having permanent disability status and it's literally killing me. My wife makes $20 an hour so that means I don't get anything, and we need double that just to barely get by without kids in Vancouver.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Yep, I have to work full time despite having permanent disability status and it's literally killing me. My wife makes $20 an hour so that means I don't get anything, and we need double that just to barely get by without kids in Vancouver.

Nah I have alot of frustration with how insane disbility stuff is.

The reality is welfare is often the default alternative.

There's a severe dislogical perspective that you are either fully functional or must be absolutely helpless.

It's wierd ironically I use to have a whole lot more interest in Autism rights, yet the more I learn about UBI the more I feel it's completely 100 percent useless to hope the chaotic disability system will ever improve.

I think the biggest problem is the idea that you can create fairness with more unfairness.

What gives me belief in UBI is its a fast track to getting people who can't do traditional work into the economy.

[Nashe]

Sincere question but... what effect would UBI have on the existing EI system? Would/could the UBI amount be deducted from EI benefits? (You're getting it from UBI, so EI only would replace the difference between that and your normal 50% or so) How might UBI be used to "fix" (or break further? I dunno) the seasonal worker issue?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

Sincere question but... what effect would UBI have on the existing EI system? Would/could the UBI amount be deducted from EI benefits? (You're getting it from UBI, so EI only would replace the difference between that and your normal 50% or so) How might UBI be used to "fix" (or break further? I dunno) the seasonal worker issue?

Wouldn't it replace EI completely?

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Wouldn't it replace EI completely?

Maybe. I guess that's what I'm getting at. The only trick might be that the EI cap is higher than the UBI and that would have to be considered. Alternately, when your EI benefits expire (n weeks) you'd revert to UBI, obviously. The EI system is supposed to buffer you (above welfare levels) until you get more employment (in theory) so going all the way back to UBI might be harsh... might not, I don't know. It might allow EI benefit collection durations to be shortened, though, at the very least...

[Spocket]

I'm not completely sold on UBI yet.

I'm not against it in principle, I'd just like to know a few more details such as who qualifies for it and what we do when the least responsible among us blows it irresponsibly. Are we going to be on the hook for providing them with extra welfare because they got high too many times one month ?

No, I'm not saying that everybody getting UBI would be blowing it on booze and drugs. I'm asking what we'll do when that cohort of people who will blow it on booze and drugs goes ahead and does exactly that. Sort of like double welfare.

Does a stay-at-home-mother automatically qualify for it or will it depend on household income ? It would seem rather unfair to say that the single mother with children too small for her to leave during the day is equally deserving of UBI as the married mother with an executive husband pulling down thousands and thousands per month. What about people who can't work and require more than food and shelter such as some of the disabled ? And how much are we actually talking about here ? A couple grand a month ? Can we realistically afford the cost over the long run ?

I can't see this costing less than current welfare programs because I'm assuming that it would be far less discriminating concerning who qualifies. After all, you can do whatever you want to with the money so who's to say that you spent your money irresponsibly ? In fact, I can't imagine how it could possibly cost less considering how many people have more or less been kicked off various welfare programs over the past couple of cost-cutting decades.

Anyway, I don't really think it will solve much of anything but I'm hoping I can be proven wrong. All I know is that getting money from the government is something you should do as a necessity, not a lifestyle choice. It should be obvious but people seem to be in perpetual denial about where governments get their money from.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

Maybe. I guess that's what I'm getting at. The only trick might be that the EI cap is higher than the UBI and that would have to be considered. Alternately, when your EI benefits expire (n weeks) you'd revert to UBI, obviously. The EI system is supposed to buffer you (above welfare levels) until you get more employment (in theory) so going all the way back to UBI might be harsh... might not, I don't know. It might allow EI benefit collection durations to be shortened, though, at the very least...

Presumably it would largely work the same way it does now, being tied to wages (not including that received from the UBI). If I become unemployed, I would get covered for a certain length of time above and beyond the amount provided by the UBI until my coverage runs out.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Spocket

I'm not completely sold on UBI yet.

I'm not against it in principle, I'd just like to know a few more details such as who qualifies for it and what we do when the least responsible among us blows it irresponsibly. Are we going to be on the hook for providing them with extra welfare because they got high too many times one month ?

No, I'm not saying that everybody getting UBI would be blowing it on booze and drugs. I'm asking what we'll do when that cohort of people who will blow it on booze and drugs goes ahead and does exactly that. Sort of like double welfare.

Does a stay-at-home-mother automatically qualify for it or will it depend on household income ? It would seem rather unfair to say that the single mother with children too small for her to leave during the day is equally deserving of UBI as the married mother with an executive husband pulling down thousands and thousands per month. What about people who can't work and require more than food and shelter such as some of the disabled ? And how much are we actually talking about here ? A couple grand a month ? Can we realistically afford the cost over the long run ?

I can't see this costing less than current welfare programs because I'm assuming that it would be far less discriminating concerning who qualifies. After all, you can do whatever you want to with the money so who's to say that you spent your money irresponsibly ? In fact, I can't imagine how it could possibly cost less considering how many people have more or less been kicked off various welfare programs over the past couple of cost-cutting decades.

Anyway, I don't really think it will solve much of anything but I'm hoping I can be proven wrong. All I know is that getting money from the government is something you should do as a necessity, not a lifestyle choice. It should be obvious but people seem to be in perpetual denial about where governments get their money from.

If we don't provide "extra welfare" to the irresponsible, why would there be any expectation that UBI could be topped up?

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Presumably it would largely work the same way it does now, being tied to wages (not including that received from the UBI). If I become unemployed, I would get covered for a certain length of time above and beyond the amount provided by the UBI until my coverage runs out.

That's basically what my assumption was.

Originally Posted by Spocket

I'm not against it in principle, I'd just like to know a few more details such as who qualifies for it and what we do when the least responsible among us blows it irresponsibly. Are we going to be on the hook for providing them with extra welfare because they got high too many times one month?

What do we do NOW when someone on welfare "blows it irresponsibly"?

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

What do we do NOW when someone on welfare "blows it irresponsibly"?

Nothing. It's tough shit, although there are food banks and other charitable safety nets, which can continue to exist under UBI, though I imagine support of them would dwindle drastically, if not virtually disappear.
A UBI, if implemented correctly and generously (lifting recipients out of poverty), would be as close to economic egalitarianism as one can get under the capitalist system, and it would put the onus on the individual to apportion that income responsibly. Don't throw it away on ciggies, booze, drugs, gambling, expensive toys, etc. I do think government should (continue to) provide drug rehab programs and financial advisors, because the point of an initiative such as a UBI is to make people self-sufficient within the bounds of that basic income, and one cannot be self-sufficient if one is hooked on dope or spending recklessly.
Indexing the UBI to inflation is absolutely crucial, or those receiving it would slide back into poverty as their income loses ground against the cost of living.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Spocket

I'm not completely sold on UBI yet.

I'm not against it in principle, I'd just like to know a few more details such as who qualifies for it and what we do when the least responsible among us blows it irresponsibly. Are we going to be on the hook for providing them with extra welfare because they got high too many times one month ?

No, I'm not saying that everybody getting UBI would be blowing it on booze and drugs. I'm asking what we'll do when that cohort of people who will blow it on booze and drugs goes ahead and does exactly that. Sort of like double welfare.

One of the promises of UBI is that with a meaningful income, these sorts of people would have a much better chance of getting on their feet for real; obviously, social worker services would be critical in getting that to work, though.

Originally Posted by Spocket

Does a stay-at-home-mother automatically qualify for it or will it depend on household income ? It would seem rather unfair to say that the single mother with children too small for her to leave during the day is equally deserving of UBI as the married mother with an executive husband pulling down thousands and thousands per month.

That's an interesting question and I imagine economists have thought more about it than me. One of the possible political draws of a UBI is that it could make it easier for couples to become single-income families, and in Canada, we generally treat married people as independent of each other (note how married people still do their own income taxes as opposed to joint filing like in the US). That said, you do have a point about people with very wealthy spouses qualifying for UBI if we consider people as individuals only. Perhaps some formula where only a certain amount of a spouse's income counts against you, so middle class families could still have one spouse that can stay at home and collect UBI, but upper class families could not. Definitely something to think about!

Originally Posted by Spocket

I can't see this costing less than current welfare programs because I'm assuming that it would be far less discriminating concerning who qualifies. After all, you can do whatever you want to with the money so who's to say that you spent your money irresponsibly ? In fact, I can't imagine how it could possibly cost less considering how many people have more or less been kicked off various welfare programs over the past couple of cost-cutting decades.

UBI would be more expensive than current social assistance. That's pretty much a given. The idea is that the massive dividends it could pay in the form of massive reductions in poverty, crime, etc. would make the cost justified.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

UBI would be more expensive than current social assistance. That's pretty much a given. The idea is that the massive dividends it could pay in the form of massive reductions in poverty, crime, etc. would make the cost justified.

I'm interested in what all the forms of direct-pay social assistance are... welfare, EI, etc.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

I'm interested in what all the forms of direct-pay social assistance are... welfare, EI, etc.

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)