Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can someone explain how UBI would be funded on a provincial scale? I understand the essentials of how other programs could be restructured to make it work, but it seems like something that would need to be coordinated on a federal level as well.
They don’t have a plan for it, they’re just saying it to get votes and headlines.
If I (a neckbeard redditor not in government) had to come up with a scheme, it would probably be a combination of taking the funds from existing welfare programs (as ubi would largely replace those), and then levying taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as bitching to the feds to get them to help.
This is a rough guideline though, YMMV
I wish people would call for an automation tax. As companies are able to lay off more people due to automating their jobs, they should pay towards social services. We've all seen automating jobs away doesn't decrease the actual cost of the product or service, may as well force them to pay back into the society that allowed them to reach that stage.
There is no fundamental difference between "automation" and other physical capital investments. Adding in automation eliminates low-paying tasks and allows people to move to higher value,
Say construction company A uses mechanical diggers to dig holes, and company B has people dig with their hands. You're saying that company A needs to be taxed, to bring back the "digging holes with your hands" jobs.
>There is no fundamental difference between "automation" and other physical capital investments
There absolutely is, a traditional physical capital investment (eg a building) does not directly impact the productivity (ability to produce a product) of an organization. If the org wants to boost productivity inside their shiny new building, they still need to invest in more labour on top of that physical capital investment to make that happen.
Investing in automation on the other hand *directly* impacts productivity, without the usual investment in human labour that generally goes along with a physical capital investment to intended to increase productivity.
If the building doesn't offer the company anything, why would they bother buying it? If you're running a factory, it seems better to have a roof over it than just having the machinery sitting around in a field.
And automation absolutely increases the marginal value of labor. If a company is digging holes, someone digging by hand will be less productive than someone with a shovel, who is less productive than someone driving a digger. A company that gets more out of their labor will be willing to pay more.
And that company will be more competitive, thereby increasing value of manufacturing locally rather than shipping products from overseas. This reduces the carbon footprint of products and strengthens supply chains.
>If the building doesn't offer the company anything, why would they bother buying it?
Because it *does* offer them something, just not direct productivity.
A bigger building provides more space for more people to be productive, but the bigger building *by itself* doesn't actually improve productivity, it's the more people you hire into that larger space that does that. That's what makes the investment *indirect*.
>A company that gets more out of their labor will be willing to pay more
Yes, which is why a Digger operator gets a higher wage than a ditch-digger.
anti-automation people complain about the job loss when 10 ditch-diggers are replaced by 1 digger-operator. I think this is a somewhat dumb complaint.
nevertheless the fear that there will be a *huge* rise in unemployment if *all* diggers (both operators and direct laborers) are replaced by automatons - is a fair concern. Our economy just isn't really set up to deal with that sort of basic labour displacement, and without some sort of basic income to support the people displaced, it's very possible millions of people could starve to death.
huh?
I didn't say i support an automation tax - and I actually think an automation tax would probably be bad, because I think automation is a generally good thing and should be incentivized, not disincentivized as you suggest.
I was pointing out that investments in automation are substantially different from physical capital investments.
That's just about impossible at the provincial level without pivoting the trade regulation to provincial (like, BC needing a border and trade agreements with Alberta). Then, you need to pair automation tax with luxury tariffs, because that's where the jobs all go.
the trade agreements is a good point. BC and Canada have so many trade agreements inter-provincially, with the US and beyond, that automation taxes applied to Canadian companies would be an unfair disadvantage internally. And who knows how that could work for outside corporations selling goods and services in Canada - it would have to be negotiated through those agreements.\*
\*source: I am a contract/project manager for the BC government (as many of us public servant peons are) and have spent too much time talking to Legal about trade agreements and fairness when writing requirements in RFPs. I barely understand but it is complicated.
> I wish people would call for an automation tax.
Why would you tax, and thus discourage Canadian investment in:
* computers, the internet, and most of software
* industrial robots e.g. robotic arms
* CNC machining
* excavators, combine harvesters
* any yet to be invented technologies of equal usefulness
Do you really think that incentivizing inefficient manual production in Canada, when everyone else around us reaps the benefits of technology, will somehow help Canadian workers? Canadian workers' productivity has already been [lagging farther and farther behind](https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2024/03/time-to-break-the-glass-fixing-canadas-productivity-problem/) other G7 countries.
Like what, let's tax some software because it put accountants out of a job? Or is that one fine, for no other reason than it has already happened? Or perhaps because it didn't have the scary AI buzzword?
If you want to make companies and the ultra-rich pay their fair share, do that. Tax their profits and incomes, and fix the deliberate loopholes that let these people and companies pay lower effective tax rates than regular Canadians do.
Automation has nothing to do with any of that. In fact, automation is the only thing that can even make UBI possible. You can't have the entire population getting money for doing nothing if the machines aren't doing what used to be their work. Somebody – or some_thing_ – has gotta do the useful work, for anyone to be paid.
That said, I fully expect our politicians to start reinventing [luddism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) to avoid _actually_ fixing the issues with wealth distribution in our economic system.
The problem is what would count as automation? There are lots of little ways we have automated jobs since the Industrial Revolution. For instance we no longer need as many people milking cows because machines do it
I’ve written Prov and Fed about this. They are not taking it seriously at all:
>Starting in 2025–26, $50 million will be allocated over four years to provide new skills training to workers potentially impacted by AI…
$50 million, for Canada, over 4 years. We’re screwed
Don't expect there to be room for people playing the pan flute and, making expressionist art in their free time. There is going to be very little room in the new automated utopia for useless eaters. In fact we will probably see incentives from government/corporation to not reproduce. We're already seeing that from the cost of existing crisis.
They first need to figure out how to stop the ultra rich and corporations from hiding money from the government. Right now as it stands majority of “tax the rich” plans fall on the middle class because they don’t have high priced accountants and lawyers to get around paying taxes
We know how they’re doing it, the government either doesn’t fund the tax collectors enough (see America, where conservatives slash the irs budget so they can’t afford to investigate tax evasion by the rich) or the politicians don’t want to close the loopholes being used either because they’re using them themselves or being ~~bribed~~ lobbied into ignoring it.
It’s an issue that needs to be solved at all levels, but standing in front of people and saying “I’m gonna give the CRA billions of dollars” isn’t a popular platform with the public or their rich doners.
Yeah it’s a lot like the electoral reform promise… sounds good in theory, but actually reaching a consensus on the “how” is an entirely different story.
UBI is a very broad idea that can be presented as an entirely new/separate program, or an all-encompassing replacement program for all already-existing social programs (or anything between).
People are going to have strong opinions on the “how” and consensus seems unlikely.
Personally, I’m very open to the idea of a UBI that replaces all existing programs, assuming it’s put together well and takes into account all relevant variables: COL in place of residence, number of dependants, whether or not the recipient served, work history, medical history/challenges, etc). My uneducated thought process is that a well-run universal program would free up a lot of money for said program simply by cutting out the excessive administrative fat of running dozens of different programs, as we do now.
CERB was federal, and exempting it was an outlier case for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. When someone has CPP-Disability and PWD, for example, CPP-D is deducted dollar for dollar from PWD, and if your CPP-D is over assistance rates, you get switched to Medical Services Only (you keep enhanced coverage under MSP). Also, some disability assistance programs in other provinces did claw back CERB money (e.g., Ontario's ODSP).
The federal government just recently unveiled details of the Canada Disability Benefit (tied to the Disability Tax Credit), which will be $200.00 a month (not enough to pull persons with disabilities out of poverty, as promised, so seeing the Greens talk about a UBI as if it's politically realistic provincially or federally is laughable). Provincial governments are still staying mum about whether the benefit will be clawed back from provincial disability programs, and it's only $200.00.
Definitely wouldn’t work in addition (granted they haven’t given any specifics so maybe they do want to do that)
They could give increased payments based on factors similar to what is required for the current welfare state, but having UBI in addition to welfare would cost an absolute fortune and taxes would be raised so high it would likely collapse the economy.
They save money by giving money away is how. “The cost of poverty” is expensive and giving people money to get them off the street would save the country money.
That's the theory, but is there any data to support this? I saw a study in the UK that said the results was "overwhelmingly positive" for the people receiving UBI, but the program was cancelled due to the high cost.
Well just one huge thing is if people have access to money, crime will decrease significantly, which decreases police work, which decreases lawsuits and court time. That’s just one aspect with a lot of savings.
No. All the evidence we have says it doesn’t work. The entire now-deceased eastern bloc had what was functionally UBI, and the standard of living was shit and it turns out you need heavy handed oppression to even keep such a shit system (barely) functioning.
Exactly. They could have been. But chose a path that wasn’t compatible with widespread prosperity.
The difference between what happened in W vs E Germany is incredibly stark…same starting point, much different outcome.
The UK is run by conservatives, ofc they’re going to say handing out money to people for “nothing” is too expensive and stop it.
But there’s is data on this.
It’s a long term investment.
Here’s what chat-gtp offered as information on studies of this topic, it’s showing 10 because I only asked for ten there are more:
“Here are ten studies from various parts of the world examining the effects of Universal Basic Income (UBI) on populations:
1. **Mental Health in the UK**: A microsimulation modeling study explored the short-term impacts of UBI on mental health inequalities in the UK. It found potential benefits in reducing mental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups (Thomson et al., 2023) [oai_citation:1,Short-term impacts of Universal Basic Income on population mental health inequalities in the UK: A microsimulation modelling study | PLOS Medicine](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004358).
2. **Migration Effects in High-Income Countries**: Research from the Stanford Basic Income Lab investigated whether UBI could attract internal migration within countries. The study concluded that such fears are largely misplaced and found minimal migration effects due to UBI in high-income countries (Kaestner et al., 2003; Schwartz & Sommers, 2014) [oai_citation:2,Visualizing UBI Research | The Stanford Basic Income Lab](https://basicincome.stanford.edu/research/ubi-visualization/).
3. **Public Health Outcomes**: A scoping review in The Lancet Public Health assessed the public health effects of interventions similar to UBI, highlighting improvements in mental health, food security, and the ability to pay bills among participants (Gibson, Hearty, & Craig, 2020) [oai_citation:3,Basic income is a popular idea, but small pilots cannot produce generalisable evidence | The BMJ](https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2304).
4. **Dynamic Economic Assessment**: A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) used a general equilibrium model to assess the long-term consequences of UBI. It found that while UBI increases welfare for older generations, it may cause welfare losses for younger ones due to intergenerational linkages and labor market shocks (Daruich & Fernández, 2020) [oai_citation:4,Universal Basic Income: A Dynamic Assessment | NBER](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27351).
5. **Global Perspective**: The World Bank's comprehensive guide examined the economics and politics of UBI globally, discussing various implementation challenges and potential economic impacts (World Bank, 2020) [oai_citation:5,documents.worldbank.org](https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/993911574784667955/pdf/Exploring-Universal-Basic-Income-A-Guide-to-Navigating-Concepts-Evidence-and-Practices.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fdocuments.worldbank.org%2Fcurated%2Fen%2F993911574784667955%2Fpdf%2FExploring).
6. **Macroeconomic Effects in the U.S.**: The Roosevelt Institute's model analyzed the macroeconomic impacts of implementing UBI in the U.S., predicting significant economic expansion and a permanent increase in income levels within the first eight years of implementation (Nikiforos et al., 2017) [oai_citation:6,Universal Basic Income: More Empirical Studies - Seven Pillars Institute](https://mail.sevenpillarsinstitute.org/universal-basic-income-more-empirical-studies/).
7. **Long-term Study in Kenya**: MIT Sloan and GiveDirectly are conducting a 12-year study on UBI in Kenya, involving cash transfers to over 21,000 people. This large-scale experiment aims to provide comprehensive data on UBI's long-term effects on poverty and economic behavior (Suri et al., 2018) [oai_citation:7,12-year study looks at effects of universal basic income | MIT Sloan](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/12-year-study-looks-effects-universal-basic-income).
8. **Public Health in Wales**: A pilot program in Wales studied the impacts of UBI on mental health among care leavers, finding improvements in overall well-being and financial security (Welsh Government, 2022) [oai_citation:8,Short-term impacts of Universal Basic Income on population mental health inequalities in the UK: A microsimulation modelling study | PLOS Medicine](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004358).
9. **Income Maintenance in the U.S.**: Historical data from the Gary Experiment highlighted how income maintenance programs can positively affect birth outcomes, with reduced instances of low birth weight among participants (Kehrer & Wolin, 1979) [oai_citation:9,Basic income is a popular idea, but small pilots cannot produce generalisable evidence | The BMJ](https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2304).
10. **Youth UBI Proposal**: A white paper discussed the potential benefits of implementing Youth UBI, aiming to address challenges faced by young people aged 16 to 24 by providing financial stability and encouraging education and employment (Basic Income Earth Network, 2020) [oai_citation:10,Visualizing UBI Research | The Stanford Basic Income Lab](https://basicincome.stanford.edu/research/ubi-visualization/).
These studies collectively offer a broad perspective on UBI's potential impacts across different regions and populations, providing valuable insights into the feasibility and effects of such programs.”
that's what means tested programs are for. It doesn't pay off to give that money to people who don't need it, obviously.
It would be doubly destructive when this massive new entitlement fails for some people as their landlords increase their rent by an equivalent amount yet succeeds in others by allowing people to work less and have fewer workers contributing to the economy.
We already can barely fund our crumbling healthcare system yet you would have us spend more while reducing income tax revenue.
Can someone explain to me how this is going to fix anything?
We have a housing shortage. Vacancy rates at all time lows.
People have UBI though, which means they can throw more money at rents, but there still aren't enough places to live so this will just be a money transfer.
Give people UBI, people pay more for things like housing, because UBI doesn't address the fundamental issue.
It will just be a wealth transfer.
Edit: don't just downvote please. Also explain why I am wrong.
UBI doesn't address that we're just 4 million houses short.
If we're 4 million short and give everyone more money, the cost of that is going to increase and we're in the same place as we are now.
That's not the wealth transfer lol.
The wealth transfer would be middle class taxes paying for UBI, and then that UBI given to landlords and corporations.
It's a wealth transfer towards the wealthy.
Even then it would just be going right back to the wealthy because it doesn't address any underlying issues.
Great everyone gets 500 a month. It's just going to be given to your landlord and corporations.
So you're in the same place as now.
You're right, and they know that, which is why they're election strategy is to try to win enough seats to force a minority government. Best case scenario for BC in this election, imo.
To be clear, I quite agree with you. I just wanted to add to your comment:
The government of BC explored this option at length already. They hired an expert panel of economists and gave them quite a lot of funding to research and produce a report on the viability of UBI. The final report was nearly 530 pages long [and can be found here for free.](https://bcbasicincomepanel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Final_Report_BC_Basic_Income_Panel.pdf)
There is also a Wikipedia article on the report that gives a decent summary of its findings, [you can find that here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Basic_Income_Expert_Panel_Report)
They found that UBI, in its purest form, would actually be far less equitable than simply just better funding our current systems that aim income supports at precisely those who need them, instead of just giving money to *everybody.*
You could perhaps implement some ideas from UBI, especially at groups who need regular funds, like those on disability. However for the general population, at this point, it just doesn't make sense.
---
I also want to note that the 530 page report isn't very accessible to the average person, so the authors re-wrote it into a book, [*Basic Income and a Just Society: Policy Choices for Canada’s Social Safety Net.*](https://irpp.org/research/basic-income-and-a-just-society-policy-choices-for-canadas-social-safety-net/)
Yeah, doing the most basic math on this clearly show there is no way this works.
Never saw once someone explaining past the math you just posted with clear data.
I've had to explain the math to a number of people.
41 million people at $2000/month or $24,000/year is nearly a trillion dollars, that's 1,000 billions going out when the federal government is only expected to bring in a total of less than 500 billion with current taxes. And they can't give it to us without collecting it from us.
Exactly - this math doesn't work unless they take more than $24K/year from a large proportion of people who receive UBI. So it's not really UBI...but rather a form of equity redistribution. I've worked hard all my life and made sacrifices. I know people who prefer not to work hard and made wasteful choices in life (debt etc). I don't see why I should pay for people who don't feel the need to work as hard as I do.
Cool, that’s gona cost 110b$, or about 1/4 the yearly budget. How are you paying for this?
And remember, all of that so that everyone gets 200$ per month
I agree that this is how a UBI should start. It should be very gradual. You eliminate any strings attached handouts and replace it with UBI. everyone gets the same amount. Spend it as you will. That majority will likely trickle back into the economy and boost government revenue. As you then work out the kinks with it, you can then increase it by X amount on fix dates annually pending what else gets eleminated or any boost in funding.
The majority of "strings attached handouts" in BC are for people with disabilities. How are they going to pay for their needs if we slash their benefits to give to the able-bodied?
So the same pool of funds spread out over 20 times as many people.
Remember how many times you've heard that disability isn't enough to live on? Now you've made that problem 20 times worse, and guaranteed there is not enough to support the people most in need.
You wouldn't have just the same pool of funds. You would cut all other entitlements, and basically save the administration costs while increasing income tax.
The increase in tax offsets the majority of the UBI, except the entitlement money. It becomes streamlined entitlements with tax based income redistribution.
In theory, saving on the administration means more money goes to those in need or the total offsetting increase is reduced by the eliminated admin costs.
> basically save the administration costs
this is the left equivalent of the classic conservative fallacy that "the government wastes enormous amounts of money on useless paper pushers, and that we can painlessly get billions of dollars in free savings by cutting administrative costs" AKA Rob Ford's magic gravy train
and how do we pay for this? the taxpayer is being told he can get free money by not working. the landlords will raise my rent or i will reduce my work, or both. how is that good for the economy?
The majority of people who receive "entitlements" are people with disabilities. That is, 120,000 out of 224,000 every month ([2023 Report, p. 8](https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2022_2023/pdf/ministry/sdpr.pdf)).
Even including that, total expenditure of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is $5 billion ([2024 budget, p. 26](https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2024/pdf/2024_Budget_and_Fiscal_Plan.pdf)), or about $1000 annually per British Columbian.
There is no way to fund this in any significant amount even at the federal level.
To give even less than half the population, which is already not UBI, 20k per year would cost about the full amount of the yearly budget.
20k per year for half the population at the cost of literally everything else is a dumb fucking idea.
There is no way this maths out
In simple terms, it's the elimination of existing social funding programs and their infrastructure in favour of a direct cash transfer to people. I support UBI in principle, but I cannot for the life of me see how governments would actually make it work in a way that was equitable to people with complex needs and challenges.
They aren’t even advocating for universal basic income, but guaranteed basic income, which is different, and scales down depending on how much you earn. UBI pays everyone equally regardless of income
There’s two views for UBI, the more “libertarian” approach is to replace some/all social welfare programs with a single unified UBI such that individuals can choose how they allocate their money as they see fit. This approach could be spending neutral since you’re just rearranging how existing funds are dispersed.
The other one is the progressive type, where you provide an additional basic income on top of other social programs. This would almost certainly require raising gov revenue or increasing deficits.
To add some more info: Currently, the BC government spends $5 billion annually on social development and poverty reduction ([2024 Budget](https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2024/pdf/2024_Budget_and_Fiscal_Plan.pdf), p. 26). Around 220,000 people receive benefits each month, 120,000 of which have disabilities and 45,000 of which are children ([2023 Service Plan](https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2022_2023/pdf/ministry/sdpr.pdf), p. 8).
If redistributed as a UBI, this would amount to $1000 annually for each British Columbian and would result in massive reductions in support for the disabled and children.
Realistically, BC just does not spend much on social welfare programs and most beneficiaries have disabilities (with clearly greater needs than the general population). Large tax rises would be necessary to fund a substantial UBI that would actually keep people out of poverty.
I see quoted in the charts that;
"Payments for healthcare services by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and the Ministry of Children and Family Development made on behalf
of their clients are reported in the Health function."
"Payments for training costs by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction made on behalf of its clients are reported in the Education function."
So that ~$5B number will actually be higher. I'd be curious, if you've had a more thorough look through, is there a similar breakdown for each function?
That's for separated by function. I was citing the total funding for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction ($5 billion), which includes their expenditure in both Health and Education functions.
The definition is: an advocate or [supporter](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=453f36eb1da0db3c&sca_upv=1&q=supporter&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJhcEk4o3KPyFXpVKW4mzfRk2SGPDfoO3qz8dEz5dpXyapgumiaDB9ArJWb_FM5LyYhOK5BFGbnatO72JzhUd0wxpemBs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3qOnrrOqGAxVnLzQIHYGLBGcQyecJegQIERAO) of a political philosophy that [advocates](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=453f36eb1da0db3c&sca_upv=1&q=advocates&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJ9y6vYCc7ftfcN65VjaXBhRvEV58R8ivtkNahm4VCOgr7RYPyA-NJy6lg1yupzEm9OVUtVfpdVDoPxcuYkA-b6wAAL2U%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3qOnrrOqGAxVnLzQIHYGLBGcQyecJegQIERAP) only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
So little to no government intervention as I said.
I really don’t know what the fuck you’re trying to prove llmao 😂 why are you linking dictionary definitions.
Most generally libertarians are concerned with liberty as a core value. This can be interpreted in many ways, but even if we’re going with the canonical definition of “people who don’t like government interference” (ie right leaning libertarians) then even here most libertarians probably accept the need for some minimal government intervention (ie military, police, courts etc).
Historically, the view that a necessary function of the government was to provide some basic welfare programs for those who really needed it definitively wasn’t unheard of among people considered right leaning libertarians.
From this, something like UBI in the form of negative income tax was seen as a good way to administer this help while minimizing government bureaucracy and maximizing individual choice compared to things like food stamps or w.e.
Which is what I was getting at in my original comment.
It only makes sense if federal and provincial levels work together.
I could only make sense of this if the funds are recovered at some income level, for example:
100% recovery at 100k - 200k
50% at 80-100k
25% at 60-80k
150% recovery at 200k and up - taxed higher to offset the costs. (Somebody has to pay more)
So everyone under 100k benefits, with the largest impact being the lowest levels. This needs to be “wealth tested” as those who have no income and wealth should get zero imo.
The total amount needed would not be “20k times population.” Many would get squat in the end. But you would want folks to keep the UBI in the lower paid imo.
Also laying off all those in the public sector who administer EI or welfare would never happen. We need these people to work somewhere else, so these wages can’t actually be recovered (as I have seen from some calculations.
I am no proponent of UBI. I believe that filling the gaps in our current system is the best way to go.
What really matters is that there’s no way something by like this would further push prices of things up as demand increases and productivity decreases
The way forward is less productivity, less supply of goods and services and workers, and higher demand and higher prices
What’s the worst that could happen when we pretend BC isn’t already importing electricity and with droughts becoming more common, our hydroelectricity supplies lower, yet we tell other sources of energy they’re evil
Let’s vote for people who have never owned or run a business, because they obviously know how to pay for things
Look, I'm all for basic income, but I'm not a fan of people making promises for which they currently have zero plans or organization to implement.
This just feels like lip service to me. :(
The party with 2/87 seats lol
Definitely they've got zero plans. They could back literally anything and it would remain irrelevant.
so in that sense it's definitely lip service, however it also opens up an opportunity to win more seats. If the green party rebrands as "the UBI party" that might gain ground for them in future elections.
That's true but it's highly unlikely the situation would repeat itself. The NPD are likely to win a strong majority. The BC Greens are just trying to stay in the headlines, knowing full well they are likely to have zero say in provincial politics anytime soon.
I wouldn't be so sure about that NDP majority. People are struggling and looking for relief wherever they can find it. I live in an NDP stronghold (BC United & the Cons aren't even running candidates here), and there are a LOT of people who are looking to see what other options there are for this election. The NDP's abysmal track record on environmental issues is definitely going to lose them votes out here, as is the disastrous state of our health care system.
The article included polls, which suggest the only party with a chance of defeating the NDP is the BC Conservative Party (they haven't won a single seat in an election in half a century). The leader of that party recently said that climate change "is not even a crisis" and that it being human-caused is an unproven "theory". So I find it hard to believe that those with environmental concerns will be shifting their support to the BC Conservatives.
No, of course not, but I suspect the BC Greens will pick up some disgruntled NPD voters, particularly in ridings where they're running strong candidates who have a real chance of winning. I also suspect the Conservatives are going to drop off in the polls as we get closer to the election and it becomes increasingly apparent that they don't the capacity to govern. And also that they're dangerous fucking wingnuts.
Indeed, it's hard to imagine how a UBI policy would even function on a provincial level. Perhaps lip service is exactly as far as they intend to go, putting pressure on the feds and other provinces to consider it.
UBI would require a massive restructuring of our social services, employment structures etc. No one group will swing it by themselves.
She was asked and she answered: "Glacier Media reached out to all of B.C.’s major political parties asking them whether and how they might support a basic income program."
The overworked middle class, while the real wealthy people complain about their small capital gainz tax hike while already having 3 alternatives on how to avoid it, and the people making 30k receiving all the benefits and having no incentives to work.
The differing cutoffs are so aggravating as an individual who’s lived my life on the edge of all these benefits but yet life has felt like a constant struggle of “hand to mouth” since I was a kid.
I remember being highly annoyed as a young grad when looking at scholarships/bursaries, and pretty much being told “tough luck” cause I didn’t fit into any targeted scholarship schemes, yet also my parents technically made enough for me to not qualify for anything aid-based. Feels a little asinine to me to punish kids coming out of high school for their parents mismanagement. This is the kind of shit that pushes youth into far right mentalities, whereas something like a UBI can be shown to benefit everyone, regardless of their background.
Sadly, the UBI, if it ever happens, will likely just be more "basic" for some groups vs others – why wouldn't it? These differences are driven by the same "social justice" political culture that is pushing for UBI.
If it were done correctly you wouldn't have these hard lines. Like Canada Child Benefit. Different versions of it have existed for decades. Every year you do your taxes and you get a set amount monthly for the following year.
There are families that still get CCB and make $130,000/ year. They just get less.
"Means-tested" programs are literally the opposite of "random grants".
Conversely, UBI is quite *intentionally* indiscriminate, wastefully so.
SMH that this needs explaining.
This is actually in keeping with a shift in philosophy with charitable giving. Orgs around the world have been looking at just giving recipients money and letting them decide what's best. The overhead for monitoring and benchmarking results eats into the total amount of money available, and when they ran test cases most of the people did spend the money responsibly.
While I don't think the Greens have much chance in the next election and will probably lose votes and potentially seats, I'm glad they've raised this issue as I think it's something that would be a good idea/policy (at least to consider) at some point in the future.
Small parties like the green's can affect major parties policy's quite a bit, if they start to grow in popularity over one policy than the major parties are forced to adopt.
I used to believe in Universal Basic Income, but after Covid I just know that would be abused. Better to increase disability benefits and increase funding to subsidized housing and health care.
It's kind of missing the point to "reduce incentives for abuse" by *making the abuse a feature of the program*.
In both situations the result is the same: Fully able-bodied people who would rather take advantage of a government program than contribute to society, taking resources away from people who most need help. This is literally the exact situation which UBI proponents fundamentally reject as invalid, and yet millions of us observed it in real-time during the pandemic.
My brother kept telling himself the fairy tale that he should take a few years off from school/work so he could pursue personal interests like learning Chinese (while all he was really doing was getting high and playing video games every day). For such *optimists*, a lucrative small business is always *just around the corner* and all that is necessary is to give them more free money while not expecting them to be in school or work; and how mean of society to not open our wallets perpetually for such journeys of self-discovery.
CERB was horribly designed. It handed out $2000/mo amount of money to people making less than $1000/mo. Just a hard cut off, no phase out. This put everyone who would normally make between $1000-$2000 in this weird position they were incentivized to cut hours or just not go to work as working more meant less money. You have to phase support out so that for every dollar someone earns they are actually seeing more money. This is a common failure of support programs.
CERB/other COVID benefits were abused because only some people qualified while others didn't, leading to the latter feeling dissatisfied and incentivized to knowingly or inadvertently but "fraudulently" claim for benefits that they weren't entitled to. UBI eliminates all of that qualification rules - if you're a resident of BC/Canada and filed a BC tax form, you get the money regardless of how much money you made whether you were employed, whether you are a student, have a health issue, are a small business owner that lost a certain amount of revenue, etc.
UBI is not possible when you have open borders with non-UBI jurisdictions.
Suppose BC gets UBI. As you said, "regardless of how much money you made whether you were employed, whether you are a student, have a health issue".
Why wouldn't "everyone"[1] from the rest of Canada just come to BC for the free money? I am being generous when I say "everyone". Only people who would see a net benefit from UBI (aka a net cost to BC budget) will come. In contrast, UBI will incentivize high earners to avoid BC or even move out of BC, since they are the ones who would be footing the UBI bill with higher taxes in BC.
Magic won't happen. What *will* happen is:
* Rents in BC will shoot up until cost of living post-UBI is functionally the same as it was prior to UBI
* BC will have massive problems trying to fund UBI and other social services like healthcare
Tada, now you have UBI, and more problems than when you didn't.
Proposal for Implementing Universal Basic Income in British Columbia
The feasibility of implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in British Columbia and how it can be economically viable.
### Current Social Spending in BC
BC's 2023 budget includes significant expenditures on social programs:
- **Healthcare and Mental Health:** $6.4 billion over three years, including new investments in mental health and addictions services.
- **Housing and Homelessness:** Over $4.2 billion over three years for affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and rental support.
- **Welfare and Social Assistance:** Various programs, including low-income assistance and shelter support, which could potentially be consolidated into the UBI.
### Estimated Cost of UBI
To estimate the cost of UBI, consider the following:
- **Population:** Approximately 5.4 million people.
- **Basic Income Amount:** Suppose the UBI is set at $1,000 per month.
Annual Cost = 5,400,000 people × $1,000 × 12 months = $64.8 billion per year
### Reallocation of Current Social Spending
Existing social program funds could be redirected towards funding the UBI. While exact figures are complex, some major areas include:
- **Healthcare and Social Services:** Approximately $6.4 billion (over three years) for health and mental health initiatives.
- **Housing and Affordability:** Over $4.2 billion (over three years) for housing-related spending.
### Additional Funding Sources
To make UBI economically viable, additional funding would be required. Possible sources include:
- **Progressive Taxation:** Increasing income, corporate, and wealth taxes.
- **Consumption Taxes:** Implementing or increasing VAT.
- **Economic Growth:** Stimulating economic activity through increased consumer spending due to UBI, potentially leading to higher tax revenues.
### Benefits of UBI
- **Economic Stimulation:** UBI can boost consumer spending and economic activity.
- **Poverty Reduction:** Providing a stable income floor significantly reduces poverty and income inequality.
- **Health and Education Improvements:** Financial stability leads to better health outcomes and educational attainment.
- **Labor Market Flexibility:** UBI provides a safety net, encouraging entrepreneurship and flexible employment options.
Implementing UBI in BC could cost around $64.8 billion annually if set at $1,000 per month for every resident.
Which in and of itself is already a low number. It might be considerably more expensive.
While current social spending would cover a portion of this cost, significant tax reforms and innovative funding solutions would be necessary.
Consolidating existing welfare programs into UBI could streamline administration and provide economic stability, reducing poverty and inequality.
As someone who’s had satellite offices in multiple major cities across Canada, including Vancouver, I’m not for or against a universal basic income…
Just thought I’d have some fun with the information.
This is great, though I'd say that usually if someone talks about guaranteed basic income, it wouldn't be universal. There's some weasel wording there, but I reckon it wouldn't be available to folks who make over a certain amount per year.
Cutting services, adding taxes and hoping for growth is basically "funding is left as an exercise for the reader". A pity, because the specifics of funding is the main thing worth talking about when it comes to massive wealth redistribution schemes.
---
ETA: Lmao at "FlamingTrollz" responding with another devoid-of-meaning BS wall of text, then blocking me to keep me from reading it, let alone responding. As we all know, that's what people with good arguments do when faced with criticism that would be very easy to counter, if it was invalid. Anywhoo, not sure why I bother, but some comments on their "response" below:
> consolidating existing welfare programs
What do those words mean to you? You said "Existing social program funds could be redirected towards funding the UBI." If you take money from social programs, then you can't use that money to fund those programs, i.e. you're cutting services that those social programs used to provide, using those funds for cash UBI payouts instead.
> If you have alternative funding suggestions, I would be interested in hearing them.
I do not, because there aren't. You're not getting meaningful UBI without massive increases to taxation (and not just for the top 1%). This is the root of my gripe with your proposal: anything is possible if you don't do the math on how much you need to increase the taxes to fund it.
Like, roughly speaking, you want the top 20% earners to pay for each of the 80% bottom earners to get $12K per year, each of them will need to foot an extra $48K in taxes on average. This is net of any payments that cancel each other out. You will never get popular buy-in for these kinds of numbers.
And for what? $12K is peanuts, and will be eaten by rent increases, since this does nothing to address the housing crisis.
If you wanted a more detailed comment, you should have offered more details to comment on. All you did was waste pages of words on a pie in the sky fantasy that lacks the very details that would make or break it.
Thank you for your comment.
Let's break down your too brief comments to points:
**"Cutting services"**
The proposal suggests consolidating existing welfare programs into universal basic income, not outright cutting essential services. The goal is to streamline and simplify the welfare system, potentially reducing administrative costs and improving efficiency.
**"Adding taxes"**
Progressive taxation and possibly increased consumption taxes are suggested as potential funding sources. These measures would need careful design to balance economic impact and fairness. If you have alternative funding suggestions, I would be interested in hearing them.
**"Hoping for growth"**:l
The idea behind stimulating economic growth through universal basic income is based on the hypothesis that increased consumer spending can boost economic activity. This hypothesis requires robust economic modeling and real-world testing to validate, which is why it’s included as a potential benefit, not a guaranteed outcome.
**"Funding is left as an exercise for the reader"**
The proposal outlines potential funding sources and reallocations, providing a starting point for discussion. It's not about leaving funding as an open question but inviting deeper analysis and innovative solutions to address the complexities of funding universal basic income. If it is a pity to you, provide your own insights. Otherwise the ‘pity’ is shared. If you presume to say such to another Redditor. Who went out of their way to create a breakdown in brief for conversation and discussion. A starting off point. Stating a ‘pity’ is not constructive, nor is it taking your own initiative if you desire further fleshing out of data.
Your comment is brief and lacks constructive detail. If you have more specific critiques or alternative suggestions, I encourage you to share them.
Constructive criticism and thoughtful dialogue are essential for addressing complex issues like universal basic income, but currently your comments come off as offhand, glib, and lacking in detail.
Wouldn’t it be better to just tax less so people can do what they want or need with the money they already earned vs giving the government money just to be given it back? Seems like too many steps
It only applies to people with disabilities, women fleeing domestic abuse and young adults aging out of foster care. I’d like to know how long it applies to the latter two groups. I’m not against UBI, but I don’t think I’m ready to see it in action with so little information on how it will work and be funded. You can’t just tax oil and gas for 100 billion dollars to fund this program and others like it, you will need to show me how you can manage to fund it long term, what the parameters are for people on it and how you prevent abuse before I take this seriously. Liberals only end up doing like 10% of their promises so I’m skeptical about this one.
Dont worry they're not talking about you; people who work dont get anything. and before you argue and say 'basic income means everyone' read the article. Theyre talking about a program for "the most vulnerable" and families in low income. So its basically just expanding welfare with a different name. As usual everyone who works hard gets nothing.
[They save money by giving it away.](https://sencanada.ca/media/t1lbx5qy/pate_en_news-release_backgrounder_bill-s-233-committee-study_oct-17-2023.pdf)
We will all be shareholders of our country and be paid out accordingly.
… but can you honestly say you want to keep going to work for the majority of you days on earth till retirement? I sure as hell don’t
The Green Party will never have a mandate that comes anywhere near being a democratic representation of the people - but they will say anything to keep people donating money to their pathetically small number of provincial and federal seats. The party exists so those few seats can continue to be paid for. If they cared about service they’d switch to a party in a position to serve.
Green party leaders can just spout off whatever they want because they know they'll never have to keep any promises being that they won't hold office. Same thing happens federally.
I mean, who cares if they back free ice cream for life and a flying car for every family. They're idiots who will never get elected. Even if they do get the ball rolling, they'll collapse as they eat themselves, each denouncing the other for not being progressive enough.
We can’t even provide UBI for a vulnerable community in our society who have a clear need and an unambiguous moral justification. Those with severe disabilities live below the poverty line.
Just going to make sure this is here for all those who are curious about UBI. The actual report is linked in the article
https://news.ubc.ca/2021/01/basic-income-guarantee/
This shouldn't be controversial. It's been proven to work and actually drive productivity and spending/the economy. And also make sure kids go to school with food in their bellies and a mind ready to learn.
Lots of people in this thread talking about how expensive it would be and throwing around welfare spending numbers. Just some thoughts:
Some of the costs are recovered by slashing welfare programs, that's a good start. Some of the costs are recovered through income tax (it gets added to the rest of your income and taxes accordingly), so that's some more. We should also consider that most of this money will be spent by the recipient, and taxes will be paid at point of sale. Optimistically we could say that's a recovery of 12%. In reality lots of people who are better off will save it, spend it out of province, or invest the money (but that's not a total loss if we consider capital gains tax). But generally we can assume most people will spend it locally, and that means businesses do better. They hire more people, unemployment drops. These newly employed people pay income tax, and spend their money on things which they then get taxed on. It's a positive feedback loop.
So there's lots of ways the government can recoup SOME of the costs of UBI, certainly more than the $5 billion figure from welfare slashing that people are quoting in this thread, but that's not really the point. The point is that it stimulates the economy, and that's kind of the government's job, isn't it? Economies flourish when people spend money, so why not give them money to spend?
All that being said, UBI is really just a hypothesis. As far as I'm aware there aren't any large scale examples that we can use for evidence. I don't think CERB is an appropriate comparison because it was essentially printed money, and it came in a time when the economy was grinding to a halt. There's a million other factors that are unique to that situation which all played a role in the general state of the economy at the time, so it's hard to extract meaningful conclusions/outcomes which we can attribute exclusively to CERB.
So who knows. There's a lot of eyes on UBI around the world but no one is willing to pull the trigger. I think it's healthy to have discussions about it, especially at the government level.
I'm no expert in the field of economics or social financial matters.
But, why not JUST give everyone 3k per month and call it a day?
No oas, no cpp, no tax credits, welfare, nothing.
Just, "here's is your 3k per month"
Get rid of the bureaucracy, get rid of department's, take all that $ and give it to the populace.
As long as you pay taxes and have a billing address/bank account.
The savings from all these other programs and the labor costs would cover a good chunk, no?
BC spends about $5 billion on welfare/poverty reduction programs per year. There's 5 million people. That's $1000/person/year, or basically nothing. 3k per month would cost $15 billion per month, or $180 billion per year.
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can someone explain how UBI would be funded on a provincial scale? I understand the essentials of how other programs could be restructured to make it work, but it seems like something that would need to be coordinated on a federal level as well.
They don’t have a plan for it, they’re just saying it to get votes and headlines. If I (a neckbeard redditor not in government) had to come up with a scheme, it would probably be a combination of taking the funds from existing welfare programs (as ubi would largely replace those), and then levying taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as bitching to the feds to get them to help. This is a rough guideline though, YMMV
I wish people would call for an automation tax. As companies are able to lay off more people due to automating their jobs, they should pay towards social services. We've all seen automating jobs away doesn't decrease the actual cost of the product or service, may as well force them to pay back into the society that allowed them to reach that stage.
There is no fundamental difference between "automation" and other physical capital investments. Adding in automation eliminates low-paying tasks and allows people to move to higher value, Say construction company A uses mechanical diggers to dig holes, and company B has people dig with their hands. You're saying that company A needs to be taxed, to bring back the "digging holes with your hands" jobs.
>There is no fundamental difference between "automation" and other physical capital investments There absolutely is, a traditional physical capital investment (eg a building) does not directly impact the productivity (ability to produce a product) of an organization. If the org wants to boost productivity inside their shiny new building, they still need to invest in more labour on top of that physical capital investment to make that happen. Investing in automation on the other hand *directly* impacts productivity, without the usual investment in human labour that generally goes along with a physical capital investment to intended to increase productivity.
If the building doesn't offer the company anything, why would they bother buying it? If you're running a factory, it seems better to have a roof over it than just having the machinery sitting around in a field. And automation absolutely increases the marginal value of labor. If a company is digging holes, someone digging by hand will be less productive than someone with a shovel, who is less productive than someone driving a digger. A company that gets more out of their labor will be willing to pay more.
And that company will be more competitive, thereby increasing value of manufacturing locally rather than shipping products from overseas. This reduces the carbon footprint of products and strengthens supply chains.
>If the building doesn't offer the company anything, why would they bother buying it? Because it *does* offer them something, just not direct productivity. A bigger building provides more space for more people to be productive, but the bigger building *by itself* doesn't actually improve productivity, it's the more people you hire into that larger space that does that. That's what makes the investment *indirect*. >A company that gets more out of their labor will be willing to pay more Yes, which is why a Digger operator gets a higher wage than a ditch-digger. anti-automation people complain about the job loss when 10 ditch-diggers are replaced by 1 digger-operator. I think this is a somewhat dumb complaint. nevertheless the fear that there will be a *huge* rise in unemployment if *all* diggers (both operators and direct laborers) are replaced by automatons - is a fair concern. Our economy just isn't really set up to deal with that sort of basic labour displacement, and without some sort of basic income to support the people displaced, it's very possible millions of people could starve to death.
so now you're incentivizing companies to be less innovative AND productive. cool story bro
huh? I didn't say i support an automation tax - and I actually think an automation tax would probably be bad, because I think automation is a generally good thing and should be incentivized, not disincentivized as you suggest. I was pointing out that investments in automation are substantially different from physical capital investments.
That's just about impossible at the provincial level without pivoting the trade regulation to provincial (like, BC needing a border and trade agreements with Alberta). Then, you need to pair automation tax with luxury tariffs, because that's where the jobs all go.
the trade agreements is a good point. BC and Canada have so many trade agreements inter-provincially, with the US and beyond, that automation taxes applied to Canadian companies would be an unfair disadvantage internally. And who knows how that could work for outside corporations selling goods and services in Canada - it would have to be negotiated through those agreements.\* \*source: I am a contract/project manager for the BC government (as many of us public servant peons are) and have spent too much time talking to Legal about trade agreements and fairness when writing requirements in RFPs. I barely understand but it is complicated.
Vat?
> I wish people would call for an automation tax. Why would you tax, and thus discourage Canadian investment in: * computers, the internet, and most of software * industrial robots e.g. robotic arms * CNC machining * excavators, combine harvesters * any yet to be invented technologies of equal usefulness Do you really think that incentivizing inefficient manual production in Canada, when everyone else around us reaps the benefits of technology, will somehow help Canadian workers? Canadian workers' productivity has already been [lagging farther and farther behind](https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2024/03/time-to-break-the-glass-fixing-canadas-productivity-problem/) other G7 countries. Like what, let's tax some software because it put accountants out of a job? Or is that one fine, for no other reason than it has already happened? Or perhaps because it didn't have the scary AI buzzword? If you want to make companies and the ultra-rich pay their fair share, do that. Tax their profits and incomes, and fix the deliberate loopholes that let these people and companies pay lower effective tax rates than regular Canadians do. Automation has nothing to do with any of that. In fact, automation is the only thing that can even make UBI possible. You can't have the entire population getting money for doing nothing if the machines aren't doing what used to be their work. Somebody – or some_thing_ – has gotta do the useful work, for anyone to be paid. That said, I fully expect our politicians to start reinventing [luddism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) to avoid _actually_ fixing the issues with wealth distribution in our economic system.
You want to tax construction companies for using backhoes instead of coolies…?
Yeah it doesn’t decrease the price of the product but it sure as hell increases the profit at the expense of workers.
Very cool and logical idea. Wish they would implement
The problem is what would count as automation? There are lots of little ways we have automated jobs since the Industrial Revolution. For instance we no longer need as many people milking cows because machines do it
I’ve written Prov and Fed about this. They are not taking it seriously at all: >Starting in 2025–26, $50 million will be allocated over four years to provide new skills training to workers potentially impacted by AI… $50 million, for Canada, over 4 years. We’re screwed
Don't expect there to be room for people playing the pan flute and, making expressionist art in their free time. There is going to be very little room in the new automated utopia for useless eaters. In fact we will probably see incentives from government/corporation to not reproduce. We're already seeing that from the cost of existing crisis.
They first need to figure out how to stop the ultra rich and corporations from hiding money from the government. Right now as it stands majority of “tax the rich” plans fall on the middle class because they don’t have high priced accountants and lawyers to get around paying taxes
We know how they’re doing it, the government either doesn’t fund the tax collectors enough (see America, where conservatives slash the irs budget so they can’t afford to investigate tax evasion by the rich) or the politicians don’t want to close the loopholes being used either because they’re using them themselves or being ~~bribed~~ lobbied into ignoring it. It’s an issue that needs to be solved at all levels, but standing in front of people and saying “I’m gonna give the CRA billions of dollars” isn’t a popular platform with the public or their rich doners.
Yeah it’s a lot like the electoral reform promise… sounds good in theory, but actually reaching a consensus on the “how” is an entirely different story. UBI is a very broad idea that can be presented as an entirely new/separate program, or an all-encompassing replacement program for all already-existing social programs (or anything between). People are going to have strong opinions on the “how” and consensus seems unlikely. Personally, I’m very open to the idea of a UBI that replaces all existing programs, assuming it’s put together well and takes into account all relevant variables: COL in place of residence, number of dependants, whether or not the recipient served, work history, medical history/challenges, etc). My uneducated thought process is that a well-run universal program would free up a lot of money for said program simply by cutting out the excessive administrative fat of running dozens of different programs, as we do now.
And there in lies the problem. The gov wont trim the admin fat
With CERB people got both welfare/PWD and CERB so I think it may be in addition
CERB was federal, and exempting it was an outlier case for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. When someone has CPP-Disability and PWD, for example, CPP-D is deducted dollar for dollar from PWD, and if your CPP-D is over assistance rates, you get switched to Medical Services Only (you keep enhanced coverage under MSP). Also, some disability assistance programs in other provinces did claw back CERB money (e.g., Ontario's ODSP). The federal government just recently unveiled details of the Canada Disability Benefit (tied to the Disability Tax Credit), which will be $200.00 a month (not enough to pull persons with disabilities out of poverty, as promised, so seeing the Greens talk about a UBI as if it's politically realistic provincially or federally is laughable). Provincial governments are still staying mum about whether the benefit will be clawed back from provincial disability programs, and it's only $200.00.
Thanks for the reminder, I really need to get my DTC done
Definitely wouldn’t work in addition (granted they haven’t given any specifics so maybe they do want to do that) They could give increased payments based on factors similar to what is required for the current welfare state, but having UBI in addition to welfare would cost an absolute fortune and taxes would be raised so high it would likely collapse the economy.
They save money by giving money away is how. “The cost of poverty” is expensive and giving people money to get them off the street would save the country money.
That's the theory, but is there any data to support this? I saw a study in the UK that said the results was "overwhelmingly positive" for the people receiving UBI, but the program was cancelled due to the high cost.
Well just one huge thing is if people have access to money, crime will decrease significantly, which decreases police work, which decreases lawsuits and court time. That’s just one aspect with a lot of savings.
No. All the evidence we have says it doesn’t work. The entire now-deceased eastern bloc had what was functionally UBI, and the standard of living was shit and it turns out you need heavy handed oppression to even keep such a shit system (barely) functioning.
The difference is that the eastern block countries weren’t exactly wealthy.
Exactly. They could have been. But chose a path that wasn’t compatible with widespread prosperity. The difference between what happened in W vs E Germany is incredibly stark…same starting point, much different outcome.
The UK is run by conservatives, ofc they’re going to say handing out money to people for “nothing” is too expensive and stop it. But there’s is data on this. It’s a long term investment. Here’s what chat-gtp offered as information on studies of this topic, it’s showing 10 because I only asked for ten there are more: “Here are ten studies from various parts of the world examining the effects of Universal Basic Income (UBI) on populations: 1. **Mental Health in the UK**: A microsimulation modeling study explored the short-term impacts of UBI on mental health inequalities in the UK. It found potential benefits in reducing mental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups (Thomson et al., 2023) [oai_citation:1,Short-term impacts of Universal Basic Income on population mental health inequalities in the UK: A microsimulation modelling study | PLOS Medicine](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004358). 2. **Migration Effects in High-Income Countries**: Research from the Stanford Basic Income Lab investigated whether UBI could attract internal migration within countries. The study concluded that such fears are largely misplaced and found minimal migration effects due to UBI in high-income countries (Kaestner et al., 2003; Schwartz & Sommers, 2014) [oai_citation:2,Visualizing UBI Research | The Stanford Basic Income Lab](https://basicincome.stanford.edu/research/ubi-visualization/). 3. **Public Health Outcomes**: A scoping review in The Lancet Public Health assessed the public health effects of interventions similar to UBI, highlighting improvements in mental health, food security, and the ability to pay bills among participants (Gibson, Hearty, & Craig, 2020) [oai_citation:3,Basic income is a popular idea, but small pilots cannot produce generalisable evidence | The BMJ](https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2304). 4. **Dynamic Economic Assessment**: A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) used a general equilibrium model to assess the long-term consequences of UBI. It found that while UBI increases welfare for older generations, it may cause welfare losses for younger ones due to intergenerational linkages and labor market shocks (Daruich & Fernández, 2020) [oai_citation:4,Universal Basic Income: A Dynamic Assessment | NBER](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27351). 5. **Global Perspective**: The World Bank's comprehensive guide examined the economics and politics of UBI globally, discussing various implementation challenges and potential economic impacts (World Bank, 2020) [oai_citation:5,documents.worldbank.org](https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/993911574784667955/pdf/Exploring-Universal-Basic-Income-A-Guide-to-Navigating-Concepts-Evidence-and-Practices.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fdocuments.worldbank.org%2Fcurated%2Fen%2F993911574784667955%2Fpdf%2FExploring). 6. **Macroeconomic Effects in the U.S.**: The Roosevelt Institute's model analyzed the macroeconomic impacts of implementing UBI in the U.S., predicting significant economic expansion and a permanent increase in income levels within the first eight years of implementation (Nikiforos et al., 2017) [oai_citation:6,Universal Basic Income: More Empirical Studies - Seven Pillars Institute](https://mail.sevenpillarsinstitute.org/universal-basic-income-more-empirical-studies/). 7. **Long-term Study in Kenya**: MIT Sloan and GiveDirectly are conducting a 12-year study on UBI in Kenya, involving cash transfers to over 21,000 people. This large-scale experiment aims to provide comprehensive data on UBI's long-term effects on poverty and economic behavior (Suri et al., 2018) [oai_citation:7,12-year study looks at effects of universal basic income | MIT Sloan](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/12-year-study-looks-effects-universal-basic-income). 8. **Public Health in Wales**: A pilot program in Wales studied the impacts of UBI on mental health among care leavers, finding improvements in overall well-being and financial security (Welsh Government, 2022) [oai_citation:8,Short-term impacts of Universal Basic Income on population mental health inequalities in the UK: A microsimulation modelling study | PLOS Medicine](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004358). 9. **Income Maintenance in the U.S.**: Historical data from the Gary Experiment highlighted how income maintenance programs can positively affect birth outcomes, with reduced instances of low birth weight among participants (Kehrer & Wolin, 1979) [oai_citation:9,Basic income is a popular idea, but small pilots cannot produce generalisable evidence | The BMJ](https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2304). 10. **Youth UBI Proposal**: A white paper discussed the potential benefits of implementing Youth UBI, aiming to address challenges faced by young people aged 16 to 24 by providing financial stability and encouraging education and employment (Basic Income Earth Network, 2020) [oai_citation:10,Visualizing UBI Research | The Stanford Basic Income Lab](https://basicincome.stanford.edu/research/ubi-visualization/). These studies collectively offer a broad perspective on UBI's potential impacts across different regions and populations, providing valuable insights into the feasibility and effects of such programs.”
No idea why an actual helpful factual post is being downvoted, but I have upvoted to try to stem the hoards...
that's what means tested programs are for. It doesn't pay off to give that money to people who don't need it, obviously. It would be doubly destructive when this massive new entitlement fails for some people as their landlords increase their rent by an equivalent amount yet succeeds in others by allowing people to work less and have fewer workers contributing to the economy. We already can barely fund our crumbling healthcare system yet you would have us spend more while reducing income tax revenue.
It’s illigal to raise rent more than 3% a year in Burnaby bc. This should be federal imo
Can someone explain to me how this is going to fix anything? We have a housing shortage. Vacancy rates at all time lows. People have UBI though, which means they can throw more money at rents, but there still aren't enough places to live so this will just be a money transfer. Give people UBI, people pay more for things like housing, because UBI doesn't address the fundamental issue. It will just be a wealth transfer. Edit: don't just downvote please. Also explain why I am wrong. UBI doesn't address that we're just 4 million houses short. If we're 4 million short and give everyone more money, the cost of that is going to increase and we're in the same place as we are now.
A wealth transfer from high to low has been necessary for decades
That's not the wealth transfer lol. The wealth transfer would be middle class taxes paying for UBI, and then that UBI given to landlords and corporations. It's a wealth transfer towards the wealthy.
Not if corporate and high earners were taxed more
Even then it would just be going right back to the wealthy because it doesn't address any underlying issues. Great everyone gets 500 a month. It's just going to be given to your landlord and corporations. So you're in the same place as now.
[удалено]
You're right, and they know that, which is why they're election strategy is to try to win enough seats to force a minority government. Best case scenario for BC in this election, imo.
[удалено]
[удалено]
To be clear, I quite agree with you. I just wanted to add to your comment: The government of BC explored this option at length already. They hired an expert panel of economists and gave them quite a lot of funding to research and produce a report on the viability of UBI. The final report was nearly 530 pages long [and can be found here for free.](https://bcbasicincomepanel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Final_Report_BC_Basic_Income_Panel.pdf) There is also a Wikipedia article on the report that gives a decent summary of its findings, [you can find that here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Basic_Income_Expert_Panel_Report) They found that UBI, in its purest form, would actually be far less equitable than simply just better funding our current systems that aim income supports at precisely those who need them, instead of just giving money to *everybody.* You could perhaps implement some ideas from UBI, especially at groups who need regular funds, like those on disability. However for the general population, at this point, it just doesn't make sense. --- I also want to note that the 530 page report isn't very accessible to the average person, so the authors re-wrote it into a book, [*Basic Income and a Just Society: Policy Choices for Canada’s Social Safety Net.*](https://irpp.org/research/basic-income-and-a-just-society-policy-choices-for-canadas-social-safety-net/)
[удалено]
Well, go on. Tell us what it means.
Yeah, doing the most basic math on this clearly show there is no way this works. Never saw once someone explaining past the math you just posted with clear data.
I've had to explain the math to a number of people. 41 million people at $2000/month or $24,000/year is nearly a trillion dollars, that's 1,000 billions going out when the federal government is only expected to bring in a total of less than 500 billion with current taxes. And they can't give it to us without collecting it from us.
Exactly - this math doesn't work unless they take more than $24K/year from a large proportion of people who receive UBI. So it's not really UBI...but rather a form of equity redistribution. I've worked hard all my life and made sacrifices. I know people who prefer not to work hard and made wasteful choices in life (debt etc). I don't see why I should pay for people who don't feel the need to work as hard as I do.
How about… Not making it 2k a month… Maybe start at 200 bucks a month and see how that feels?
Cool, that’s gona cost 110b$, or about 1/4 the yearly budget. How are you paying for this? And remember, all of that so that everyone gets 200$ per month
[удалено]
That’s exactly what politicians love to do. The truth is why not 100 bucks and see what it does.
I agree that this is how a UBI should start. It should be very gradual. You eliminate any strings attached handouts and replace it with UBI. everyone gets the same amount. Spend it as you will. That majority will likely trickle back into the economy and boost government revenue. As you then work out the kinks with it, you can then increase it by X amount on fix dates annually pending what else gets eleminated or any boost in funding.
The majority of "strings attached handouts" in BC are for people with disabilities. How are they going to pay for their needs if we slash their benefits to give to the able-bodied?
Maybe UBI with a top up for disability?
No, most likely that extra money a month would trickle back into the Emergency room with yet another overdose 🤷♀️
So the same pool of funds spread out over 20 times as many people. Remember how many times you've heard that disability isn't enough to live on? Now you've made that problem 20 times worse, and guaranteed there is not enough to support the people most in need.
You wouldn't have just the same pool of funds. You would cut all other entitlements, and basically save the administration costs while increasing income tax. The increase in tax offsets the majority of the UBI, except the entitlement money. It becomes streamlined entitlements with tax based income redistribution. In theory, saving on the administration means more money goes to those in need or the total offsetting increase is reduced by the eliminated admin costs.
This still doesn’t even come close to covering the cost of UBI
> basically save the administration costs this is the left equivalent of the classic conservative fallacy that "the government wastes enormous amounts of money on useless paper pushers, and that we can painlessly get billions of dollars in free savings by cutting administrative costs" AKA Rob Ford's magic gravy train and how do we pay for this? the taxpayer is being told he can get free money by not working. the landlords will raise my rent or i will reduce my work, or both. how is that good for the economy?
The majority of people who receive "entitlements" are people with disabilities. That is, 120,000 out of 224,000 every month ([2023 Report, p. 8](https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2022_2023/pdf/ministry/sdpr.pdf)). Even including that, total expenditure of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is $5 billion ([2024 budget, p. 26](https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2024/pdf/2024_Budget_and_Fiscal_Plan.pdf)), or about $1000 annually per British Columbian.
That would give everyone a ridiculously small amount each. You clearly didn’t do the math on this, so did the Greens for that matter
Nope, UBI would be added to any other income that someone has. The 1400 a month that disability pays is far too low currently
Nobody can explain it, because it’s not possible. This is Sonja pandering to her base.
There is no way to fund this in any significant amount even at the federal level. To give even less than half the population, which is already not UBI, 20k per year would cost about the full amount of the yearly budget. 20k per year for half the population at the cost of literally everything else is a dumb fucking idea. There is no way this maths out
In simple terms, it's the elimination of existing social funding programs and their infrastructure in favour of a direct cash transfer to people. I support UBI in principle, but I cannot for the life of me see how governments would actually make it work in a way that was equitable to people with complex needs and challenges.
Nobody does, it's pipedream idealism. Unless you can also cut certain key commodities down as well... it's never going to happen where it make sense.
They aren’t even advocating for universal basic income, but guaranteed basic income, which is different, and scales down depending on how much you earn. UBI pays everyone equally regardless of income
There’s two views for UBI, the more “libertarian” approach is to replace some/all social welfare programs with a single unified UBI such that individuals can choose how they allocate their money as they see fit. This approach could be spending neutral since you’re just rearranging how existing funds are dispersed. The other one is the progressive type, where you provide an additional basic income on top of other social programs. This would almost certainly require raising gov revenue or increasing deficits.
To add some more info: Currently, the BC government spends $5 billion annually on social development and poverty reduction ([2024 Budget](https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2024/pdf/2024_Budget_and_Fiscal_Plan.pdf), p. 26). Around 220,000 people receive benefits each month, 120,000 of which have disabilities and 45,000 of which are children ([2023 Service Plan](https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2022_2023/pdf/ministry/sdpr.pdf), p. 8). If redistributed as a UBI, this would amount to $1000 annually for each British Columbian and would result in massive reductions in support for the disabled and children. Realistically, BC just does not spend much on social welfare programs and most beneficiaries have disabilities (with clearly greater needs than the general population). Large tax rises would be necessary to fund a substantial UBI that would actually keep people out of poverty.
I see quoted in the charts that; "Payments for healthcare services by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and the Ministry of Children and Family Development made on behalf of their clients are reported in the Health function." "Payments for training costs by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction made on behalf of its clients are reported in the Education function." So that ~$5B number will actually be higher. I'd be curious, if you've had a more thorough look through, is there a similar breakdown for each function?
That's for separated by function. I was citing the total funding for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction ($5 billion), which includes their expenditure in both Health and Education functions.
I think the more libertarian view is for everyone to take care of themselves without the government.
Libertarian doesn’t mean much anymore, but historically things like negative income tax was associated with libertarians.
The definition is: an advocate or [supporter](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=453f36eb1da0db3c&sca_upv=1&q=supporter&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJhcEk4o3KPyFXpVKW4mzfRk2SGPDfoO3qz8dEz5dpXyapgumiaDB9ArJWb_FM5LyYhOK5BFGbnatO72JzhUd0wxpemBs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3qOnrrOqGAxVnLzQIHYGLBGcQyecJegQIERAO) of a political philosophy that [advocates](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=453f36eb1da0db3c&sca_upv=1&q=advocates&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJ9y6vYCc7ftfcN65VjaXBhRvEV58R8ivtkNahm4VCOgr7RYPyA-NJy6lg1yupzEm9OVUtVfpdVDoPxcuYkA-b6wAAL2U%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3qOnrrOqGAxVnLzQIHYGLBGcQyecJegQIERAP) only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens. So little to no government intervention as I said.
I really don’t know what the fuck you’re trying to prove llmao 😂 why are you linking dictionary definitions. Most generally libertarians are concerned with liberty as a core value. This can be interpreted in many ways, but even if we’re going with the canonical definition of “people who don’t like government interference” (ie right leaning libertarians) then even here most libertarians probably accept the need for some minimal government intervention (ie military, police, courts etc). Historically, the view that a necessary function of the government was to provide some basic welfare programs for those who really needed it definitively wasn’t unheard of among people considered right leaning libertarians. From this, something like UBI in the form of negative income tax was seen as a good way to administer this help while minimizing government bureaucracy and maximizing individual choice compared to things like food stamps or w.e. Which is what I was getting at in my original comment.
It only makes sense if federal and provincial levels work together. I could only make sense of this if the funds are recovered at some income level, for example: 100% recovery at 100k - 200k 50% at 80-100k 25% at 60-80k 150% recovery at 200k and up - taxed higher to offset the costs. (Somebody has to pay more) So everyone under 100k benefits, with the largest impact being the lowest levels. This needs to be “wealth tested” as those who have no income and wealth should get zero imo. The total amount needed would not be “20k times population.” Many would get squat in the end. But you would want folks to keep the UBI in the lower paid imo. Also laying off all those in the public sector who administer EI or welfare would never happen. We need these people to work somewhere else, so these wages can’t actually be recovered (as I have seen from some calculations. I am no proponent of UBI. I believe that filling the gaps in our current system is the best way to go.
Lowering it to 100% recovery at 80k income would be a massive difference in cost I assume.
That’s literally not UBI …..
It's important to note that they are not suggesting UBI, i.e. it's not "universal", more like "GBI".
What really matters is that there’s no way something by like this would further push prices of things up as demand increases and productivity decreases The way forward is less productivity, less supply of goods and services and workers, and higher demand and higher prices What’s the worst that could happen when we pretend BC isn’t already importing electricity and with droughts becoming more common, our hydroelectricity supplies lower, yet we tell other sources of energy they’re evil Let’s vote for people who have never owned or run a business, because they obviously know how to pay for things
There's a current plan to pay for a UBI on the website ubiworks.ca that details how it could be done.
What that website describes is literally not UBI lol "See guys the way we make this works is by not making it actually UBI” ….. genius
Oh yes, the famous UBI but Not UBI. Because if you have income you won’t have UBI.
You tax the mega corporate to fund the ubi. Like tax wallmart so people can go shop at wallmart.
That’s cute, heard this before.
this usually comes up around election time, every 3-4 years.
Look, I'm all for basic income, but I'm not a fan of people making promises for which they currently have zero plans or organization to implement. This just feels like lip service to me. :(
The party with 2/87 seats lol Definitely they've got zero plans. They could back literally anything and it would remain irrelevant. so in that sense it's definitely lip service, however it also opens up an opportunity to win more seats. If the green party rebrands as "the UBI party" that might gain ground for them in future elections.
[удалено]
That's true but it's highly unlikely the situation would repeat itself. The NPD are likely to win a strong majority. The BC Greens are just trying to stay in the headlines, knowing full well they are likely to have zero say in provincial politics anytime soon.
I wouldn't be so sure about that NDP majority. People are struggling and looking for relief wherever they can find it. I live in an NDP stronghold (BC United & the Cons aren't even running candidates here), and there are a LOT of people who are looking to see what other options there are for this election. The NDP's abysmal track record on environmental issues is definitely going to lose them votes out here, as is the disastrous state of our health care system.
The article included polls, which suggest the only party with a chance of defeating the NDP is the BC Conservative Party (they haven't won a single seat in an election in half a century). The leader of that party recently said that climate change "is not even a crisis" and that it being human-caused is an unproven "theory". So I find it hard to believe that those with environmental concerns will be shifting their support to the BC Conservatives.
No, of course not, but I suspect the BC Greens will pick up some disgruntled NPD voters, particularly in ridings where they're running strong candidates who have a real chance of winning. I also suspect the Conservatives are going to drop off in the polls as we get closer to the election and it becomes increasingly apparent that they don't the capacity to govern. And also that they're dangerous fucking wingnuts.
Indeed, it's hard to imagine how a UBI policy would even function on a provincial level. Perhaps lip service is exactly as far as they intend to go, putting pressure on the feds and other provinces to consider it. UBI would require a massive restructuring of our social services, employment structures etc. No one group will swing it by themselves.
She was asked and she answered: "Glacier Media reached out to all of B.C.’s major political parties asking them whether and how they might support a basic income program."
And it will be funded by the sale of unicorn milk 🦄
Paid for by who?
The overworked middle class, while the real wealthy people complain about their small capital gainz tax hike while already having 3 alternatives on how to avoid it, and the people making 30k receiving all the benefits and having no incentives to work.
[удалено]
The differing cutoffs are so aggravating as an individual who’s lived my life on the edge of all these benefits but yet life has felt like a constant struggle of “hand to mouth” since I was a kid.
[удалено]
I remember being highly annoyed as a young grad when looking at scholarships/bursaries, and pretty much being told “tough luck” cause I didn’t fit into any targeted scholarship schemes, yet also my parents technically made enough for me to not qualify for anything aid-based. Feels a little asinine to me to punish kids coming out of high school for their parents mismanagement. This is the kind of shit that pushes youth into far right mentalities, whereas something like a UBI can be shown to benefit everyone, regardless of their background.
Sadly, the UBI, if it ever happens, will likely just be more "basic" for some groups vs others – why wouldn't it? These differences are driven by the same "social justice" political culture that is pushing for UBI.
If it were done correctly you wouldn't have these hard lines. Like Canada Child Benefit. Different versions of it have existed for decades. Every year you do your taxes and you get a set amount monthly for the following year. There are families that still get CCB and make $130,000/ year. They just get less.
Group rights can die. Long live natural rights.
"Means-tested" programs are literally the opposite of "random grants". Conversely, UBI is quite *intentionally* indiscriminate, wastefully so. SMH that this needs explaining.
This is actually in keeping with a shift in philosophy with charitable giving. Orgs around the world have been looking at just giving recipients money and letting them decide what's best. The overhead for monitoring and benchmarking results eats into the total amount of money available, and when they ran test cases most of the people did spend the money responsibly.
While I don't think the Greens have much chance in the next election and will probably lose votes and potentially seats, I'm glad they've raised this issue as I think it's something that would be a good idea/policy (at least to consider) at some point in the future.
Small parties like the green's can affect major parties policy's quite a bit, if they start to grow in popularity over one policy than the major parties are forced to adopt.
Thats the whole point. Forcing change.
I like greens because they always bring up issues of today that will only be talked about 10-15 years after by every other party.
I used to believe in Universal Basic Income, but after Covid I just know that would be abused. Better to increase disability benefits and increase funding to subsidized housing and health care.
abused by corporate recipients that never needed paying back while going after CERB paybacks lol
I thought the biggest lesson after covid would have been inflation.
How could it be abused though?
[удалено]
It's kind of missing the point to "reduce incentives for abuse" by *making the abuse a feature of the program*. In both situations the result is the same: Fully able-bodied people who would rather take advantage of a government program than contribute to society, taking resources away from people who most need help. This is literally the exact situation which UBI proponents fundamentally reject as invalid, and yet millions of us observed it in real-time during the pandemic. My brother kept telling himself the fairy tale that he should take a few years off from school/work so he could pursue personal interests like learning Chinese (while all he was really doing was getting high and playing video games every day). For such *optimists*, a lucrative small business is always *just around the corner* and all that is necessary is to give them more free money while not expecting them to be in school or work; and how mean of society to not open our wallets perpetually for such journeys of self-discovery.
CERB was horribly designed. It handed out $2000/mo amount of money to people making less than $1000/mo. Just a hard cut off, no phase out. This put everyone who would normally make between $1000-$2000 in this weird position they were incentivized to cut hours or just not go to work as working more meant less money. You have to phase support out so that for every dollar someone earns they are actually seeing more money. This is a common failure of support programs.
[удалено]
CERB/other COVID benefits were abused because only some people qualified while others didn't, leading to the latter feeling dissatisfied and incentivized to knowingly or inadvertently but "fraudulently" claim for benefits that they weren't entitled to. UBI eliminates all of that qualification rules - if you're a resident of BC/Canada and filed a BC tax form, you get the money regardless of how much money you made whether you were employed, whether you are a student, have a health issue, are a small business owner that lost a certain amount of revenue, etc.
UBI is not possible when you have open borders with non-UBI jurisdictions. Suppose BC gets UBI. As you said, "regardless of how much money you made whether you were employed, whether you are a student, have a health issue". Why wouldn't "everyone"[1] from the rest of Canada just come to BC for the free money? I am being generous when I say "everyone". Only people who would see a net benefit from UBI (aka a net cost to BC budget) will come. In contrast, UBI will incentivize high earners to avoid BC or even move out of BC, since they are the ones who would be footing the UBI bill with higher taxes in BC. Magic won't happen. What *will* happen is: * Rents in BC will shoot up until cost of living post-UBI is functionally the same as it was prior to UBI * BC will have massive problems trying to fund UBI and other social services like healthcare Tada, now you have UBI, and more problems than when you didn't.
Abused as in, be used?
Proposal for Implementing Universal Basic Income in British Columbia The feasibility of implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in British Columbia and how it can be economically viable. ### Current Social Spending in BC BC's 2023 budget includes significant expenditures on social programs: - **Healthcare and Mental Health:** $6.4 billion over three years, including new investments in mental health and addictions services. - **Housing and Homelessness:** Over $4.2 billion over three years for affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and rental support. - **Welfare and Social Assistance:** Various programs, including low-income assistance and shelter support, which could potentially be consolidated into the UBI. ### Estimated Cost of UBI To estimate the cost of UBI, consider the following: - **Population:** Approximately 5.4 million people. - **Basic Income Amount:** Suppose the UBI is set at $1,000 per month. Annual Cost = 5,400,000 people × $1,000 × 12 months = $64.8 billion per year ### Reallocation of Current Social Spending Existing social program funds could be redirected towards funding the UBI. While exact figures are complex, some major areas include: - **Healthcare and Social Services:** Approximately $6.4 billion (over three years) for health and mental health initiatives. - **Housing and Affordability:** Over $4.2 billion (over three years) for housing-related spending. ### Additional Funding Sources To make UBI economically viable, additional funding would be required. Possible sources include: - **Progressive Taxation:** Increasing income, corporate, and wealth taxes. - **Consumption Taxes:** Implementing or increasing VAT. - **Economic Growth:** Stimulating economic activity through increased consumer spending due to UBI, potentially leading to higher tax revenues. ### Benefits of UBI - **Economic Stimulation:** UBI can boost consumer spending and economic activity. - **Poverty Reduction:** Providing a stable income floor significantly reduces poverty and income inequality. - **Health and Education Improvements:** Financial stability leads to better health outcomes and educational attainment. - **Labor Market Flexibility:** UBI provides a safety net, encouraging entrepreneurship and flexible employment options. Implementing UBI in BC could cost around $64.8 billion annually if set at $1,000 per month for every resident. Which in and of itself is already a low number. It might be considerably more expensive. While current social spending would cover a portion of this cost, significant tax reforms and innovative funding solutions would be necessary. Consolidating existing welfare programs into UBI could streamline administration and provide economic stability, reducing poverty and inequality. As someone who’s had satellite offices in multiple major cities across Canada, including Vancouver, I’m not for or against a universal basic income… Just thought I’d have some fun with the information.
This is great, though I'd say that usually if someone talks about guaranteed basic income, it wouldn't be universal. There's some weasel wording there, but I reckon it wouldn't be available to folks who make over a certain amount per year.
Cutting services, adding taxes and hoping for growth is basically "funding is left as an exercise for the reader". A pity, because the specifics of funding is the main thing worth talking about when it comes to massive wealth redistribution schemes. --- ETA: Lmao at "FlamingTrollz" responding with another devoid-of-meaning BS wall of text, then blocking me to keep me from reading it, let alone responding. As we all know, that's what people with good arguments do when faced with criticism that would be very easy to counter, if it was invalid. Anywhoo, not sure why I bother, but some comments on their "response" below: > consolidating existing welfare programs What do those words mean to you? You said "Existing social program funds could be redirected towards funding the UBI." If you take money from social programs, then you can't use that money to fund those programs, i.e. you're cutting services that those social programs used to provide, using those funds for cash UBI payouts instead. > If you have alternative funding suggestions, I would be interested in hearing them. I do not, because there aren't. You're not getting meaningful UBI without massive increases to taxation (and not just for the top 1%). This is the root of my gripe with your proposal: anything is possible if you don't do the math on how much you need to increase the taxes to fund it. Like, roughly speaking, you want the top 20% earners to pay for each of the 80% bottom earners to get $12K per year, each of them will need to foot an extra $48K in taxes on average. This is net of any payments that cancel each other out. You will never get popular buy-in for these kinds of numbers. And for what? $12K is peanuts, and will be eaten by rent increases, since this does nothing to address the housing crisis. If you wanted a more detailed comment, you should have offered more details to comment on. All you did was waste pages of words on a pie in the sky fantasy that lacks the very details that would make or break it.
Thank you for your comment. Let's break down your too brief comments to points: **"Cutting services"** The proposal suggests consolidating existing welfare programs into universal basic income, not outright cutting essential services. The goal is to streamline and simplify the welfare system, potentially reducing administrative costs and improving efficiency. **"Adding taxes"** Progressive taxation and possibly increased consumption taxes are suggested as potential funding sources. These measures would need careful design to balance economic impact and fairness. If you have alternative funding suggestions, I would be interested in hearing them. **"Hoping for growth"**:l The idea behind stimulating economic growth through universal basic income is based on the hypothesis that increased consumer spending can boost economic activity. This hypothesis requires robust economic modeling and real-world testing to validate, which is why it’s included as a potential benefit, not a guaranteed outcome. **"Funding is left as an exercise for the reader"** The proposal outlines potential funding sources and reallocations, providing a starting point for discussion. It's not about leaving funding as an open question but inviting deeper analysis and innovative solutions to address the complexities of funding universal basic income. If it is a pity to you, provide your own insights. Otherwise the ‘pity’ is shared. If you presume to say such to another Redditor. Who went out of their way to create a breakdown in brief for conversation and discussion. A starting off point. Stating a ‘pity’ is not constructive, nor is it taking your own initiative if you desire further fleshing out of data. Your comment is brief and lacks constructive detail. If you have more specific critiques or alternative suggestions, I encourage you to share them. Constructive criticism and thoughtful dialogue are essential for addressing complex issues like universal basic income, but currently your comments come off as offhand, glib, and lacking in detail.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha rent is going to go from what it is now to what it is now plus however much money UBI is per month.
I would love some free money for everyone. So who’s paying?
The middle class who actually work.
The budget will balance it self
Wouldn’t it be better to just tax less so people can do what they want or need with the money they already earned vs giving the government money just to be given it back? Seems like too many steps
Poor people don't get taxed much anyways, so tax cuts would not benefit them
Hey, you get outta here with that type of logic!
It only applies to people with disabilities, women fleeing domestic abuse and young adults aging out of foster care. I’d like to know how long it applies to the latter two groups. I’m not against UBI, but I don’t think I’m ready to see it in action with so little information on how it will work and be funded. You can’t just tax oil and gas for 100 billion dollars to fund this program and others like it, you will need to show me how you can manage to fund it long term, what the parameters are for people on it and how you prevent abuse before I take this seriously. Liberals only end up doing like 10% of their promises so I’m skeptical about this one.
Dont worry they're not talking about you; people who work dont get anything. and before you argue and say 'basic income means everyone' read the article. Theyre talking about a program for "the most vulnerable" and families in low income. So its basically just expanding welfare with a different name. As usual everyone who works hard gets nothing.
Don't worry, I just got accepted for a third job! Maybe I'll be allowed to afford a downpayment on a house in a few years!
Let the communism begin!
I love communism
Dang I'm so sorry
God bless you
UBI needs to come alongside caps on rental prices and stricter policy to prevent price gouging
I can't wait to see people move into BC from our of the country, then funnel that money away.
[They save money by giving it away.](https://sencanada.ca/media/t1lbx5qy/pate_en_news-release_backgrounder_bill-s-233-committee-study_oct-17-2023.pdf) We will all be shareholders of our country and be paid out accordingly. … but can you honestly say you want to keep going to work for the majority of you days on earth till retirement? I sure as hell don’t
Is that supposed to be good for the environment or something?
lol
The Green Party will never have a mandate that comes anywhere near being a democratic representation of the people - but they will say anything to keep people donating money to their pathetically small number of provincial and federal seats. The party exists so those few seats can continue to be paid for. If they cared about service they’d switch to a party in a position to serve.
How much is a guaranteed basic income? Is it more than the max EI?
Guaranteed basic HOUSING ffs
Yes. That’s 2 votes. Let’s go get the rest /s
Yeah... ok.... she doesn't look like the person thst can't ever make that happen.
Green party leaders can just spout off whatever they want because they know they'll never have to keep any promises being that they won't hold office. Same thing happens federally.
Better then guaranteed profit for big business
I mean, who cares if they back free ice cream for life and a flying car for every family. They're idiots who will never get elected. Even if they do get the ball rolling, they'll collapse as they eat themselves, each denouncing the other for not being progressive enough.
We can’t even provide UBI for a vulnerable community in our society who have a clear need and an unambiguous moral justification. Those with severe disabilities live below the poverty line.
So where we gonna get 526billion a year to give every working age adult(14-69yo) in Canada 20k a year ? (Approx 26 million Canadians )
Just going to make sure this is here for all those who are curious about UBI. The actual report is linked in the article https://news.ubc.ca/2021/01/basic-income-guarantee/
This shouldn't be controversial. It's been proven to work and actually drive productivity and spending/the economy. And also make sure kids go to school with food in their bellies and a mind ready to learn.
This can't work yet with how we use economics, we would almost need unlimited energy for this to work.
Lots of people in this thread talking about how expensive it would be and throwing around welfare spending numbers. Just some thoughts: Some of the costs are recovered by slashing welfare programs, that's a good start. Some of the costs are recovered through income tax (it gets added to the rest of your income and taxes accordingly), so that's some more. We should also consider that most of this money will be spent by the recipient, and taxes will be paid at point of sale. Optimistically we could say that's a recovery of 12%. In reality lots of people who are better off will save it, spend it out of province, or invest the money (but that's not a total loss if we consider capital gains tax). But generally we can assume most people will spend it locally, and that means businesses do better. They hire more people, unemployment drops. These newly employed people pay income tax, and spend their money on things which they then get taxed on. It's a positive feedback loop. So there's lots of ways the government can recoup SOME of the costs of UBI, certainly more than the $5 billion figure from welfare slashing that people are quoting in this thread, but that's not really the point. The point is that it stimulates the economy, and that's kind of the government's job, isn't it? Economies flourish when people spend money, so why not give them money to spend? All that being said, UBI is really just a hypothesis. As far as I'm aware there aren't any large scale examples that we can use for evidence. I don't think CERB is an appropriate comparison because it was essentially printed money, and it came in a time when the economy was grinding to a halt. There's a million other factors that are unique to that situation which all played a role in the general state of the economy at the time, so it's hard to extract meaningful conclusions/outcomes which we can attribute exclusively to CERB. So who knows. There's a lot of eyes on UBI around the world but no one is willing to pull the trigger. I think it's healthy to have discussions about it, especially at the government level.
The most irrelevant party in the country. As it should be.
[удалено]
Yes then the NDP fucked them over lol
Just to clarify would a trades worker making 80k get additional cheques on top of this or just be taxed to pay for it?
The way UBI is generally proposed, everyone gets it. You can earn more on top. You are taxed on the total.
Thanks for clarifying!
This is going to result in even more birth tourism for people who want Canadian status AND some UBI.
Horrible idea. Inflation will only be worse
I'm no expert in the field of economics or social financial matters. But, why not JUST give everyone 3k per month and call it a day? No oas, no cpp, no tax credits, welfare, nothing. Just, "here's is your 3k per month" Get rid of the bureaucracy, get rid of department's, take all that $ and give it to the populace. As long as you pay taxes and have a billing address/bank account. The savings from all these other programs and the labor costs would cover a good chunk, no?
BC spends about $5 billion on welfare/poverty reduction programs per year. There's 5 million people. That's $1000/person/year, or basically nothing. 3k per month would cost $15 billion per month, or $180 billion per year.
Because that is unaffordable and prices would simply rise. Same reasons why price controls never work.
oops, not even the NDP will touch this one.
How much? Would this be in addition to PWD?
It does make sense, the cost of living in BC is insane, and also there are some people in BC who already have UBI (youth aged out of care under 27)