1167

A Universal Basic Income Is Being Considered by Canada's Government (www.vice.com)

submitted 11 months ago by alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

250 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago

If you're a fellow Canuck, here's a petition to get this realised. It's not much, but it's something.

[-] WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

I'm not sure I want this to happen. I'll read the bill, but I'm not convinced they'll do it right. For example, UBI is supposed to replace other need-based social programs such as disability, welfare programs, government housing, etc. The entire point is that the money from those programs, which collectively have quite a lot of waste, goes into UBI so everyone can participate in society on a more fair level.

For example, I have a neighbour who is on some kind of government assistance. He gets very little money, and his rent for an entire house is $105/mo. With UBI, he'd get a full basic income, but his housing would no longer be subsidized, removing the need for a public housing corporation known for being awful and wasting money.

[-] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago

Yes.

This is the thing people don't understand about a ubi.

I had a coworker who's wife was a... Case manager? For welfare. Her whole job was determining whether or not people were lying/exaggerating about various elements of their claim.

First of all, government union paper pushers make decent money. There was an entire office full of people that covered cases in their region only.

Second, it's a soul sucking job. Her primary assumption was that everyone was cheating and lying and she needed to minimize everyone's payout.

UBI solves both of those things and by plugging it directly into the tax system people can be free to try to earn a better living, which studies have shown most people want when they are given a UBI.

Increased productivity, increased employment, increased entrepreneurship, increased mental health outcomes, there is literally no downside except for needing to tax the rich.

[-] wombatula@lemm.ee 17 points 11 months ago

literally no downside except for needing to tax the rich

So literally no downside at all then?

[-] pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

Can't eat them and tax them at the same time 😞

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 months ago

There are downsides.

Some people require more income to stay alive than others. Think of people with decreased mental or physical capabilities.

Those would loose a big chunk, which need to be subsidised somehow.

But the upsides outweigh the downsides.

[-] wombatula@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Not necessarily, that depends on how it shakes down.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 11 months ago

It's a political downside, because anything involving taxes will turn some people against it.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (24 replies)

this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023

1167 points (97.3% liked)

World News

38731 readers

3885 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.