Basic income just applies to people below a certain threshold right, like topping up someone who works at mcdonald's and shit?
It applies to everyone. UBI's basic idea is the government cuts everyone a check for X amount every month or the like.
Ideally with a tax increase so anyone making less than $40k sees a benefit by their taxes increasing by less than their UBI, anyone making $50k-$70k breaks even and anyone making $100k or more sees their taxes increase by more than their UBI
Basic income just applies to people below a certain threshold right, like topping up someone who works at mcdonald's and shit?
It applies to everyone. UBI's basic idea is the government cuts everyone a check for X amount every month or the like.
Ideally with a tax increase so anyone making less than $40k sees a benefit by their taxes increasing by less than their UBI, anyone making $50k-$70k breaks even and anyone making $100k or more sees their taxes increase by more than their UBI
That would be horrible marketing you got going there.
UBI increases your tax bracket fairly substantially any way you do it. Not sure most Canadians would dig that. You can't increase taxes on let's say 70K + as an example with let's say a 1K/ Month UBI program technically anyone making 58K is now in the new bracket costing them more + any sort of increase in that bracket.
To make that work you would have put the threshold much higher.
I ran some hypothetical numbers earlier in this very thread! Everybody currently making 60k or less will be net tax increase and the top marginal bracket is > 90%
Basic income just applies to people below a certain threshold right, like topping up someone who works at mcdonald's and shit?
It applies to everyone. UBI's basic idea is the government cuts everyone a check for X amount every month or the like.
Ideally with a tax increase so anyone making less than $40k sees a benefit by their taxes increasing by less than their UBI, anyone making $50k-$70k breaks even and anyone making $100k or more sees their taxes increase by more than their UBI
That would be horrible marketing you got going there.
UBI increases your tax bracket fairly substantially any way you do it.
"This source of income is non-taxable" is a thing, you know.
Basic income just applies to people below a certain threshold right, like topping up someone who works at mcdonald's and shit?
It applies to everyone. UBI's basic idea is the government cuts everyone a check for X amount every month or the like.
Ideally with a tax increase so anyone making less than $40k sees a benefit by their taxes increasing by less than their UBI, anyone making $50k-$70k breaks even and anyone making $100k or more sees their taxes increase by more than their UBI
That would be horrible marketing you got going there.
UBI increases your tax bracket fairly substantially any way you do it.
"This source of income is non-taxable" is a thing, you know.
The math just doesn't work unless it's a token amount. There's about 1.2T in after-tax income. Roughly half of that exists as <40k income. You could maybe give 20k/year tax-free to everyone 18+ if you taxed all, 100% of income above 40k (now 60k)
You have to be able to claw back the entire UBI from moderate incomes to make it work
I don't understand why I would get an additional universal income, I don't need it. I suppose what I want to see is a wage subsidy that tops up people who don't earn enough and welp it doesn't matter cause they didn't say shit about it.
I don't understand why I would get an additional universal income, I don't need it. I suppose what I want to see is a wage subsidy that tops up people who don't earn enough and welp it doesn't matter cause they didn't say shit about it.
Less distortionary effects on the behaviour. More political buy-in. Simpler to administer since means testing always has a cost.
There are also other places to get money for UBI, specifically, other things to tax. It doesn't just have to be income. Specifically, corporations and their share of the GDP. It's about time to examine what responsibilities a company has to the society that provides the market in which it operates, and maybe true that up a little so it's not so heavily in favor of companies at the expense of the society.
There are also other places to get money for UBI, specifically, other things to tax. It doesn't just have to be income. Specifically, corporations and their share of the GDP. It's about time to examine what responsibilities a company has to the society that provides the market in which it operates, and maybe true that up a little so it's not so heavily in favor of companies at the expense of the society.
Corporations are not a magic endless source of money. The average you can expect to get, if you take all of it, is 150 billion/year (based on the last 10 years). That still leaves you 570 billion short
luv 2 liv in a country where the police explicitly side with white supremacists and have 2 be shamed in 2 doin their job
luv 2
Well, see, all the heavy firepower force was already deployed against peaceful First-Nations protesters and out answering wellness checks. So they just weren't able to enforce the law against violent rioters.
There are also other places to get money for UBI, specifically, other things to tax. It doesn't just have to be income. Specifically, corporations and their share of the GDP. It's about time to examine what responsibilities a company has to the society that provides the market in which it operates, and maybe true that up a little so it's not so heavily in favor of companies at the expense of the society.
Corporations are not a magic endless source of money. The average you can expect to get, if you take all of it, is 150 billion/year (based on the last 10 years). That still leaves you 570 billion short
I love the idea of UBI but there always seems to be a point where shoulders are shrugged and "we will figure it out" is the solution.
The math doesn't work. For it to work we would have to redesign.... everything?
PSN: Canadian_llama
+1
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
There are also other places to get money for UBI, specifically, other things to tax. It doesn't just have to be income. Specifically, corporations and their share of the GDP. It's about time to examine what responsibilities a company has to the society that provides the market in which it operates, and maybe true that up a little so it's not so heavily in favor of companies at the expense of the society.
Corporations are not a magic endless source of money. The average you can expect to get, if you take all of it, is 150 billion/year (based on the last 10 years). That still leaves you 570 billion short
I love the idea of UBI but there always seems to be a point where shoulders are shrugged and "we will figure it out" is the solution.
The math doesn't work. For it to work we would have to redesign.... everything?
Everything, including human beings. Otherwise a one-size-fits-all solution applied to 35 million people is obviously a bad idea.
Basic income just applies to people below a certain threshold right, like topping up someone who works at mcdonald's and shit?
It applies to everyone. UBI's basic idea is the government cuts everyone a check for X amount every month or the like.
Ideally with a tax increase so anyone making less than $40k sees a benefit by their taxes increasing by less than their UBI, anyone making $50k-$70k breaks even and anyone making $100k or more sees their taxes increase by more than their UBI
That would be horrible marketing you got going there.
UBI increases your tax bracket fairly substantially any way you do it.
"This source of income is non-taxable" is a thing, you know.
The math just doesn't work unless it's a token amount. There's about 1.2T in after-tax income. Roughly half of that exists as <40k income. You could maybe give 20k/year tax-free to everyone 18+ if you taxed all, 100% of income above 40k (now 60k)
You have to be able to claw back the entire UBI from moderate incomes to make it work
Even just very rough estimates look dicey imo. Like $10k per year per person is just under $400 billion. It basically works out to be 50% more then Canada currently spends on everything, just on the one program.
And while that's probably not exactly how you'd structure it, you aren't gonna realise savings on the order of 50% or more as far as I can tell.
It's not capitalism. The problem is attempting to redistribute around a third of the national GDP, on top of the existing 40% that is current government revenue leaves very little pie left that isn't government-or-UBI expenses
You could maybe do a smaller ubi, but it would probably have to be <1000/mo taxable to work in a practical way and that's not really enough to live on
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
It is capitalism, because it systemically doesn't support everybody getting what they need. The system itself is incapable of doing what we are asking, at least without further exploiting someone else that wouldn't be covered by it. It's the same "we already make more than enough food to feed everybody on the planet but we still can't do it" problem.
It's not capitalism. The problem is attempting to redistribute around a third of the national GDP, on top of the existing 40% that is current government revenue leaves very little pie left that isn't government-or-UBI expenses
You could maybe do a smaller ubi, but it would probably have to be <1000/mo taxable to work in a practical way and that's not really enough to live on
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
It would be paid for the same way living in Canada right now is paid for: economic activity. It's just redistribution.
"We would have to redistribute more wealth to redistribute more wealth" is not a shrug, it's a tautology.
Yes we could theoretically redistribute the entire national income equally. Good luck convincing people to do it wholesale. Any intermediate step necessarily has to be done within the existing system
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
It would be paid for the same way living in Canada right now is paid for: economic activity. It's just redistribution.
"We would have to redistribute more wealth to redistribute more wealth" is not a shrug, it's a tautology.
The math does not work out even being super generous.
Before we make any kind of fundamental shift like this I want hard numbers and a roadmap.... Not "we will figure it out".
This is what made me stop being a Separatist as a younger Disco.
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
It would be paid for the same way living in Canada right now is paid for: economic activity. It's just redistribution.
"We would have to redistribute more wealth to redistribute more wealth" is not a shrug, it's a tautology.
The math does not work out even being super generous.
Before we make any kind of fundamental shift like this I want hard numbers and a roadmap.... Not "we will figure it out".
This is what made me stop being a Separatist as a younger Disco.
The math works: there's enough wealth to support everyone in Canada. Source: the population of Canada is alive.
As I said, the trick is to convince people that this kind of radical change is needed.
And if you think taxes would be the problem, you have never heard people complaining about how teachers, municipal workers, government employees in general, unionized workers, or people on any kind of social assistance have it too easy and don't deserve to have any kind of quality of live.
Because that's the core problem: the crab bucket mentality. That's the thing that would make it harder to convince people of the need for radical change in our society.
Also, personally, the reason I started ignoring the Separatists ideals of my parents and family is that I never heard a good "why" that was not disguised xenophobia, special pleading, and ignoring the within-groups variance while exaggerating the between-groups variance.
No point of worrying about the "how" if the "why" is not accepted.
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
It would be paid for the same way living in Canada right now is paid for: economic activity. It's just redistribution.
"We would have to redistribute more wealth to redistribute more wealth" is not a shrug, it's a tautology.
The math does not work out even being super generous.
Before we make any kind of fundamental shift like this I want hard numbers and a roadmap.... Not "we will figure it out".
This is what made me stop being a Separatist as a younger Disco.
The math works: there's enough wealth to support everyone in Canada. Source: the population of Canada is alive.
As I said, the trick is to convince people that this kind of radical change is needed.
And if you think taxes would be the problem, you have never heard people complaining about how teachers, municipal workers, government employees in general, unionized workers, or people on any kind of social assistance have it too easy and don't deserve to have any kind of quality of live.
Because that's the core problem: the crab bucket mentality. That's the thing that would make it harder to convince people of the need for radical change in our society.
Also, personally, the reason I started ignoring the Separatists ideals of my parents and family is that I never heard a good "why" that was not disguised xenophobia, special pleading, and ignoring the within-groups variance while exaggerating the between-groups variance.
No point of worrying about the "how" if the "why" is not accepted.
This argument does not really hold water though. Yes, there is a lot of money in Canada. Do you think that any ultra-wealthy people would stay here is we doubled their taxes? How about manufacturing that can move 500km south and pay substantially less? It's already a problem now .... Money is not static it flows and the rich will 100% use every trick in the book to not pay.
All I'm asking for is for whoever is promoting UBI in the government to show me a fucking Org chart or how things would be taxed (or not) for various income levels + business.
I'm fairly left-leaning but if you can't provide these things I will not vote for it.
PSN: Canadian_llama
+2
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
It would be paid for the same way living in Canada right now is paid for: economic activity. It's just redistribution.
"We would have to redistribute more wealth to redistribute more wealth" is not a shrug, it's a tautology.
The math does not work out even being super generous.
Before we make any kind of fundamental shift like this I want hard numbers and a roadmap.... Not "we will figure it out".
This is what made me stop being a Separatist as a younger Disco.
The math works: there's enough wealth to support everyone in Canada. Source: the population of Canada is alive.
As I said, the trick is to convince people that this kind of radical change is needed.
And if you think taxes would be the problem, you have never heard people complaining about how teachers, municipal workers, government employees in general, unionized workers, or people on any kind of social assistance have it too easy and don't deserve to have any kind of quality of live.
Because that's the core problem: the crab bucket mentality. That's the thing that would make it harder to convince people of the need for radical change in our society.
Also, personally, the reason I started ignoring the Separatists ideals of my parents and family is that I never heard a good "why" that was not disguised xenophobia, special pleading, and ignoring the within-groups variance while exaggerating the between-groups variance.
No point of worrying about the "how" if the "why" is not accepted.
This argument does not really hold water though. Yes, there is a lot of money in Canada. Do you think that any ultra-wealthy people would stay here is we doubled their taxes? How about manufacturing that can move 500km south and pay substantially less? It's already a problem now .... Money is not static it flows and the rich will 100% use every trick in the book to not pay.
All I'm asking for is for whoever is promoting UBI in the government to show me a fucking Org chart or how things would be taxed (or not) for various income levels + business.
I'm fairly left-leaning but if you can't provide these things I will not vote for it.
Hey look, capitalism is the problem again. Funny, that.
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
It would be paid for the same way living in Canada right now is paid for: economic activity. It's just redistribution.
"We would have to redistribute more wealth to redistribute more wealth" is not a shrug, it's a tautology.
The math does not work out even being super generous.
Before we make any kind of fundamental shift like this I want hard numbers and a roadmap.... Not "we will figure it out".
This is what made me stop being a Separatist as a younger Disco.
The math works: there's enough wealth to support everyone in Canada. Source: the population of Canada is alive.
As I said, the trick is to convince people that this kind of radical change is needed.
And if you think taxes would be the problem, you have never heard people complaining about how teachers, municipal workers, government employees in general, unionized workers, or people on any kind of social assistance have it too easy and don't deserve to have any kind of quality of live.
Because that's the core problem: the crab bucket mentality. That's the thing that would make it harder to convince people of the need for radical change in our society.
Also, personally, the reason I started ignoring the Separatists ideals of my parents and family is that I never heard a good "why" that was not disguised xenophobia, special pleading, and ignoring the within-groups variance while exaggerating the between-groups variance.
No point of worrying about the "how" if the "why" is not accepted.
This argument does not really hold water though. Yes, there is a lot of money in Canada. Do you think that any ultra-wealthy people would stay here is we doubled their taxes? How about manufacturing that can move 500km south and pay substantially less? It's already a problem now .... Money is not static it flows and the rich will 100% use every trick in the book to not pay.
All I'm asking for is for whoever is promoting UBI in the government to show me a fucking Org chart or how things would be taxed (or not) for various income levels + business.
I'm fairly left-leaning but if you can't provide these things I will not vote for it.
Hey look, capitalism is the problem again. Funny, that.
Yeah....
good luck changing anything with that attitude. You need a majority of Canadians behind you to affect change. "hope and a prayer" is not going to convince anyone.
You also need to change every country at the same time as 95% of the world runs on a Capitalistic mentality. If it becomes too costly for a company to make parts here in Canada, they’ll move elsewhere in the world and do it for cheaper. That’s reality
Look, the whole point of an UBI is to completely change our society, to address the power imbalance between employees and employers, and to address the concentration of wealth.
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
It would be paid for the same way living in Canada right now is paid for: economic activity. It's just redistribution.
"We would have to redistribute more wealth to redistribute more wealth" is not a shrug, it's a tautology.
The math does not work out even being super generous.
Before we make any kind of fundamental shift like this I want hard numbers and a roadmap.... Not "we will figure it out".
This is what made me stop being a Separatist as a younger Disco.
The math works: there's enough wealth to support everyone in Canada. Source: the population of Canada is alive.
As I said, the trick is to convince people that this kind of radical change is needed.
And if you think taxes would be the problem, you have never heard people complaining about how teachers, municipal workers, government employees in general, unionized workers, or people on any kind of social assistance have it too easy and don't deserve to have any kind of quality of live.
Because that's the core problem: the crab bucket mentality. That's the thing that would make it harder to convince people of the need for radical change in our society.
Also, personally, the reason I started ignoring the Separatists ideals of my parents and family is that I never heard a good "why" that was not disguised xenophobia, special pleading, and ignoring the within-groups variance while exaggerating the between-groups variance.
No point of worrying about the "how" if the "why" is not accepted.
This argument does not really hold water though. Yes, there is a lot of money in Canada. Do you think that any ultra-wealthy people would stay here is we doubled their taxes? How about manufacturing that can move 500km south and pay substantially less? It's already a problem now .... Money is not static it flows and the rich will 100% use every trick in the book to not pay.
All I'm asking for is for whoever is promoting UBI in the government to show me a fucking Org chart or how things would be taxed (or not) for various income levels + business.
I'm fairly left-leaning but if you can't provide these things I will not vote for it.
Hey look, capitalism is the problem again. Funny, that.
What part of a capitalist system is at work here, in your mind?
What's the system that doesn't alloy industries to just pack up and move elsewhere?
Posts
Pretty much for sure
LET'S GO! About freaking time.
It applies to everyone. UBI's basic idea is the government cuts everyone a check for X amount every month or the like.
That and the administrative costs associated with means testing the various programs.
Well this aged poorly
Ideally with a tax increase so anyone making less than $40k sees a benefit by their taxes increasing by less than their UBI, anyone making $50k-$70k breaks even and anyone making $100k or more sees their taxes increase by more than their UBI
MWO: Adamski
That would be horrible marketing you got going there.
UBI increases your tax bracket fairly substantially any way you do it. Not sure most Canadians would dig that. You can't increase taxes on let's say 70K + as an example with let's say a 1K/ Month UBI program technically anyone making 58K is now in the new bracket costing them more + any sort of increase in that bracket.
To make that work you would have put the threshold much higher.
"This source of income is non-taxable" is a thing, you know.
The math just doesn't work unless it's a token amount. There's about 1.2T in after-tax income. Roughly half of that exists as <40k income. You could maybe give 20k/year tax-free to everyone 18+ if you taxed all, 100% of income above 40k (now 60k)
You have to be able to claw back the entire UBI from moderate incomes to make it work
Less distortionary effects on the behaviour. More political buy-in. Simpler to administer since means testing always has a cost.
luv 2
Corporations are not a magic endless source of money. The average you can expect to get, if you take all of it, is 150 billion/year (based on the last 10 years). That still leaves you 570 billion short
it's almost like the follow-up question needs to be "are you a member of an organised hate group yourself?" Then zoom in on the RCMP badge. Jeezus.
Well, see, all the heavy firepower force was already deployed against peaceful First-Nations protesters and out answering wellness checks. So they just weren't able to enforce the law against violent rioters.
I love the idea of UBI but there always seems to be a point where shoulders are shrugged and "we will figure it out" is the solution.
The math doesn't work. For it to work we would have to redesign.... everything?
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Everything, including human beings. Otherwise a one-size-fits-all solution applied to 35 million people is obviously a bad idea.
Even just very rough estimates look dicey imo. Like $10k per year per person is just under $400 billion. It basically works out to be 50% more then Canada currently spends on everything, just on the one program.
And while that's probably not exactly how you'd structure it, you aren't gonna realise savings on the order of 50% or more as far as I can tell.
You could maybe do a smaller ubi, but it would probably have to be <1000/mo taxable to work in a practical way and that's not really enough to live on
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Also creating separate tax issues!
Thinking about fitting it within the current tax structure is pointless, since the whole point is to completely change how wealth is distributed.
The Canadian economy can pay for it. It's going to be opposed by moneyed interests and conservatives, but not because of taxes: it aims at changing the social hierarchy.
The only real question is how to sell it to the population, which is only possible through selling the existence of the problem to the population.
It's a bit hard to convince people to vote for a radical change if they don't believe that a radical change is needed.
How will they pay for it?
we've all been bouncing ideas around... Can you give an example?
Or are we back to my "shrug" example earlier?
This will have to be a national effort to make work.... We can't everyone to wear a mask!
"We would have to redistribute more wealth to redistribute more wealth" is not a shrug, it's a tautology.
The math does not work out even being super generous.
Before we make any kind of fundamental shift like this I want hard numbers and a roadmap.... Not "we will figure it out".
This is what made me stop being a Separatist as a younger Disco.
As I said, the trick is to convince people that this kind of radical change is needed.
And if you think taxes would be the problem, you have never heard people complaining about how teachers, municipal workers, government employees in general, unionized workers, or people on any kind of social assistance have it too easy and don't deserve to have any kind of quality of live.
Because that's the core problem: the crab bucket mentality. That's the thing that would make it harder to convince people of the need for radical change in our society.
Also, personally, the reason I started ignoring the Separatists ideals of my parents and family is that I never heard a good "why" that was not disguised xenophobia, special pleading, and ignoring the within-groups variance while exaggerating the between-groups variance.
No point of worrying about the "how" if the "why" is not accepted.
This argument does not really hold water though. Yes, there is a lot of money in Canada. Do you think that any ultra-wealthy people would stay here is we doubled their taxes? How about manufacturing that can move 500km south and pay substantially less? It's already a problem now .... Money is not static it flows and the rich will 100% use every trick in the book to not pay.
All I'm asking for is for whoever is promoting UBI in the government to show me a fucking Org chart or how things would be taxed (or not) for various income levels + business.
I'm fairly left-leaning but if you can't provide these things I will not vote for it.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Yeah....
good luck changing anything with that attitude. You need a majority of Canadians behind you to affect change. "hope and a prayer" is not going to convince anyone.
What part of a capitalist system is at work here, in your mind?
What's the system that doesn't alloy industries to just pack up and move elsewhere?