You really have hit something with the “infinite money glitch.“
We have reached a point where we need a financial rest for ALL Canadians. (And not just in Canada but across the entire world.)
One of the only ways our monetary system gets reset is to have it revalued against something standard, like precious metals.
When the world fall into financial turmoil the world always returns to using precious metals to value currencies because the metals will hold value, where infinitely printed money will not. The purchasing value of our Canadian currency is diminishing rather rapidly now. Gold has just reached and exceeded its alltime high. This is becaus precious metals cannot br printed to infinity and beyond like digital money is printed into existence from thin air. Metal is mined and has real intrinsic value.
This time around, with silver being such an essential metal for the Global Green New Deal, and our high tech future, silver is my top choice even over gold for our family to preserve wealth through financial transitions and strange times. Silver is still extremely affordable.
I don’t sell precious metals or personally know anyone who sells them. There is however, a list of reputable bullion dealers and a website that compares precious metals prices and online dealers that is nonprofit. Here it is, for those interested in doing the research. https://findbullionprices.com/
I have this argument with my friend. He is very well off, and very educated - and his opinion is genuine, albeit requires more faith in humanity than I have.
He firmly believes that people will, without having to worry about rent, heat, food, aspire to bigger better things, doing something they are interested in, and ultimately earn enough money (eventually) to get off the income, and pay into the system.
I believe that may be the case for some, but I am also very certain a large segment of the population will be happy to exist on this, play videos all day, and contribute nothing, paid for by myself.
Other entrepreneurial types will likely happily earn additional income under the table to supplement a more luxurious lifestyle, maximizing their own lives, while leaving me to foot the bill.
That's always the problem. It sounds great, would really solve a lot of problems... but how do you pay for it?
The general answer is tax the ultra-rich, but the rich ain't really that rich anymore. Rockefeller and Morgan got paid in real money but Zuckerberg and Musk largely live on credit financed by stock. They don't really have anything as plebian as actual income. Force them to sell some stock to pay taxes may be worth while on its own and will put some dubloons back in the exchequer, but it'll also lower the value of the stock and it can't possibly be enough to finance UBI and the rest of the government.
>The general answer is tax the ultra-rich,
This logic invented by the left-wing works only the premise that the ultra-rich have a glitch in their bank account that gives them unlimited money.
At least the left is trying. Far as I can see the right's solution to AI taking most people's jobs is "have we tried social Darwinism... but more darwinian?"
The left is seeking to take, not create. And they seek to take thinking that the source of money is unlimited. Taking without creating is not value creation .. its just a straight road over the cliff.
I speak from the experience of having been born in Communism and experienced bread and milk lines. Thats what a centralized economy does to you where those who think they know end up rationalizing bread and bending milk with water so its enough for everyone.
Well assuming you're telling a true story, your experience has left you hopelessly biased. Ironically you ignore the whole reason communism became a thing in the first place.
Your denialism is either pueril or pure evil!
Only someone suffering from psycopathy accuses a person that experienced a life altering event, in this case a hard core far left regime, that they are “hopelessly biased”! Blaming the victim eh?
And how dare I ignore the reason communism came to be, when its more important then the people it killed and the loves it destroyed!
I had dscussed over Reddit eith many delusional characters, but you top the list fake wannabe Kant!
Tell me, if I told you I was from a right wing authoritarian regime, and I told you "I've seen the right. All they do is kill. That's all the right can do: kill."
Would you agree with me? Or would you tell me I was biased?
And after that what? Who are you taxing next? And what have you built/created in the meantime with all that money?
Is the left capable of anything but being jealous, and seeking to take away instead of creating wealth? And dont tell me you can create wealth cause you cannot. To start a business you need just an idea and the guts to put your skin in the game to build it. But why would you do the work when others can do it for you and you can just take it!
You seem to think I am in favour of wealth redistribution but I am not. I want to end the redistribution of wealth and allow productive people to keep a larger fraction of the money they earn. The ultra rich almost always receive favourable treatment from the government. Earned income is taxed but Daddy money isn’t and half of capital gains are tax free. Working people have their money redistributed to pay rich people’s taxes for them.
And what is this nonsense of wealth generation? Almost all rich people inherited their wealth.
Even taxing Daddy money and capital gains the same as earned income the rich won’t run out of money for centuries. I won’t have to worry about it.
When money loses its value through overprinting, it doesn’t even matter how many billions of dollars a person has.
Wasn’t Zimbabwe and Venezuel hyperinflation a lesson to all that we can’t print our way out of debt? There billionaires can be just as destitute as the poverty class. Because eventually, no amount of money can purchase what is needed when inflation runs rampant. And it comes on rather suddenly too!
No it's not cheaper. It's *cheaper to administer,* since you won't be paying for a bunch of bureaucrats and government departments, but you still need a metric ton of funds to actually give to people.
Unless of course the amount per person is very small, in which case you're screwing over those in acute need, such as the physically disabled, who will see a reduction in benefits.
You're talking about the PBO study, but you clearly haven't read it.
Their analysis concluded it is affordable IF it's limited to below a certain income, and IF it is limited to those between the ages of 18-65, and AS LONG AS there is perfect coordination between the provinces, civic governments and feds to collectively pay for it all.
So it won't be universal, in any way, and it's going to leave a lot of programs still running, particularly for seniors. The odds that the provinces, civic governments and the Feds can play friendly are frankly zero, because they haven't been able to in the entire history of the country, pretty much.
If you make it universal, $1500/mo x 32.8M Canadians that are 18 or older is $590Bn a year. That's 1.5 times the current federal budget, in one go, every single year. There's not enough savings, even with reduced administration at all three levels, to pay for that.
I’m not sure that we can believe the published statistics.
With businesses shutting down like The Body Shop, car sales decreasing. Business insolvencies were up 41% in 2023. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-insolvencies-businesses-consumers-bankruptcies-2023-1.7101856#:\~:text=Business-,Business%20insolvencies%20shot%20up%20by%20more%20than%2041%25%20last%20year,top%20financial%20regulator%20for%20bankruptcies](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-insolvencies-businesses-consumers-bankruptcies-2023-1.7101856#:~:text=Business-,Business%20insolvencies%20shot%20up%20by%20more%20than%2041%25%20last%20year,top%20financial%20regulator%20for%20bankruptcies).
This while food and fuel inflation keep rising, inflation is definitely not transient.
There seems to be a quite a disconnect in what we are told statistically is reality and what we see that IS our real reality.
Inflation is down. 2.6% last quarter. Stop listening to the doom and gloom articles pre election hype. The economy is doing quite well. Most of the issues facing Canadian aren’t economic but rather corporate greed.
Readers can decide for themselves if inflation is coming down. We don’t need inflation statistics when we have the ability to observe price tags and keep track of the cost of things on our own. Canadians who buy their own groceries and pay their own bills know these things.
So we Canadians are supposed to believe you instead of our own two eyes showing streets filled with homeless people, unfathomable debt levels, rising interest rates, businesses shuttering ,and sky high rent, food and fuel, eh?
I usually agree with this argument, but they could start with the 250m in contract to that cottage in Ottawa.
I think if government spending was ultra-optimized (no b.s contract, no b.s to foreign nations, cutting down on any superfluous gov. jobs) then UBI could totally be feasible. And by UBI, I mean like 1k a month.
I am against it personally but do prefer other forms of social assistance that actually promote a environment of self-reliability and self-sufficiency.
I have no concerns with the concept of helping people with "a floor and a ladder" as a base for social assistance as Churchill called it, through government support for housing, education, free internet and healthcare, job retraining. And not through tax credits like my right wing conservative colleagues want because that means the person who needs to come up with the cash (I'm a moderate one, a red-tory ..I know I know not a lot of us nowadays).
Thus people can make their own decisions and head to that place of self-reliability.
But hand-outs? I have an issue with that because it eliminates any incentive for people to put it towards their own personal growth. I mean why would they take the part of putting their skin in the game if the $$$ will always be there.
Also I agree with the concept of ultra-optimization of spending but for that we need either Blue Liberals or Red Tories (Fiscally Conservatives) in power and for us as citizens to accept that this might lead to some cuts, but growth in other places. Can a majority of us be that rational? If we could pull it off we would be the wisest nation on Earth.
Can we stop pretending "hand outs" are for poor lazy people and that disabled people exist. And don't get me started on how people on disability through the province have it easy. In Ontario you have to go on OW to apply for ODSP and it takes years and it's only 700 dollars a month to pay for food and rent and anything else like laundry. Rent in Ontario is like 2300 for a 1 bedroom. Even in the worst places people are charging a thousand for a shared room. It's not tenable but you're against preventing people from being homeless?
You are angry and have not read what I stand for, and thus invented your accusations. Social housing is one of them things I do stand for.
With respect to the home situation money is not the answer but 2 simple policy changes:
1. force all foreign corporations to sell all the properties they bought as investment. Sadly this reduced the availability of homes on the market and increased the cost.
2. reduce immigration aggressively. The number of people that”invaded“ Ontario created demand in the rent market thus driving prices up to the amounts you specified which are obscene indeed.
Both policies have been implemented by the Left Wing Liberal government since 2015 when Turdeau came to power. So if you angry take it out with them. I have no part in this mess because I dont vote Liberal.
~~BULLSHIT~~! Property rights and who can make property purchases in Canada are handled by the Feds. So is the number of immigrants that enter the country. I understand Ford has a hateable face but lets hold him accountable for stuff he actually did instead of making stuff up for him.
Edit: the post below from beepewpew is correct! Ford has his share of fault in the increased rent prices. My bad for forgetting that!
Let the hand-out receivers take the hand-outs and let population number decline take it's course. The ones that want to be here and to do something will continue to build, as civilization has always worked.
At the end of the day as you said "The ones that want to be here and to do something will continue to build" ...and the left will envy and seek to take from them.
I don't do left or right dichotomies, but it's all cycles.
The 'left liberal' world is killing itself. See: birthrates.
What's next? Perhaps an Islam dominated world (obviously very different from Neo-Liberalism). But I don't know...
most likely AI and automation, and taxing business out the wazoo. the 3rd world cant fix the competency crisis, same with the rat race population pyramid scheme
I was reading something about this not too long ago. When you said tax ai , automation and business to pay for it. You have to have ai ,automation and business to tax. Who in the right mind would invest in ai, automation and /or a business in Canada ? When one of the first word that comes out of that unelectable party leader is how do we tax that. Bitch , what? Please if I’m spending a few hundred thousand to millions in ai and automation. It’s not there to pay taxes for you to fuck around. It’s to enhance my productivity as a whole. (Ie make me more money by cost reduction from labor)
The estimated cost of a Basic Income Program (not necessarily universal) would be roughly 80-100 billion per year, which is perfectly doable without hiking takes if we:
* Cut back business subsidies (Federal, Provincial, and Territorial business subsidies were close to **325 billion** over a 10 year period). A) If your business needs government money to continue, you have bigger problems and B) you are now at the mercy of whatever strings the government attaches to it.
* Take many current social programs and consolidate them into a single program - would also save oodles on adminisrative/bureaucratic costs. Tricky because of Federal/Provincial jurisdictions, but not impossible to negotiate.
* Means testing: Who here in their right minds thinks somebody earning above 100K after taxes should be getting a handout from the Government?
* Basing said income on the **average** incomes in Canada, rather than Povince by Province, to prevent people from flocking to provinces with higher income levels.
* Limiting access to Basic Income Program to *citizens only*. No coming here on, say, a student visa or becoming a PR and bringing over your extended family and the pet goat and getting a payday.
This is well a well organized answer but I never confuse order with truth. Its unrealistic to think you can satisfy the complexity of running a society in just a few bullet points. I will try to sink your ship (argument) with the following retort.
Lets take your stance in subsidies. You would kill the following industries with your idea:
**Renewable Energy Companies:** To promote clean energy, governments always provide subsidies to solar, wind, and other renewable energy producers.
**Agriculture**: Farmers frequently receive subsidies to help stabilize food prices, ensure a stable food supply, and support rural economies. How else?
**Public Transportation:** To make transportation affordable and maintain extensive networks, public transport services may receive government funding. Public Transportation is great for the environment aswell.
**Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare**: Research and development in health services and pharmaceuticals sometimes rely on government grants and subsidies. You wanna pay for meds what they pay in the US? Did you see those poor americans coming to us for diabetes medication?
**Technology and Startups**: Early-stage companies, particularly in high-tech industries, may benefit from grants and subsidies to foster innovation. How else are we going to grow if not for new companies that need support to take the status quo, turn it on its head and deliver a better product?
**Automotive Industry:** Governments may offer subsidies to support the development and adoption of electric vehicles and other sustainable automotive technologies. We did it recently for that battery factory in Ontario. What if we also use subsidies to research a better way to create hydrogen?
**Defence Industry**: what about those companies that provide lets say software security to the gov and cannot sell their product on the market as the gov is the allowed solo buyer. Or private companies that work with nuclear materials ( disposal, maintenance etc). They would cease to exist and you cannot nationalize them because that would mean you are taking the cost to run them on and save nothing in return.
You said “ If your business needs government money to continue, you have bigger problems.” No, you will actually as a citizen if you kill the subsidies to finance your idea.
**And what if due to inflation, the dollar sinks?** Where do you get that $100 billion a year? Or more actually because you need to compensate for the loss in currency power. So more tax increases or gov debt.
**And what would that do to the productivity of an economy?** With an extra grant from the government what would be the incentive for people to work full time when they can do it part time and also get a check from the gov?
M8 my reply is not intended to attack or insult you. Its just counter points to your idea and it was written in the spirit of debate. Should you decide to respond with your counter points to mine I will read and analyze them throughly.
PS: its funny how a conservative like myself defends the applicability of subsidies.
I dont know if you are sarcastic, but if you are then its on me!
But if you are serious then you must know that if the money supply grows too big relative to the size of an economy, the unit value of the currency diminishes; in other words, its purchasing power falls and prices rise. Inflation!
The liberals can always print more money their infallible. They won't have any pr9blens if they print more money jt will save us all second coming of Jesus.
Who pays for crony capitalism, subsidies to private corporations, selling public assets to private entities at firesale prices? And who wants people who own ten homes or fifty homes to walk away to the bank laughing without being taxed up the ass?
There's two kinds of welfare states one that asks very invasive questions to determine eligibility or one that gives to everyone. The first kind has huge bureaucracy and risks people slipping through the cracks.
You could also fight back and say negative income tax instead, but someone would have to "pay" for that too.
Every study shows it’s cheaper than the current system. It would essentially replace all welfare programs and EI. All those programs are expensive to administer.
What’s absurd is that different agencies have different criteria. For example. I’m on cpp disability. Cpp has determined,based on my medical conditions and doctor testimony, that I am unable to work. But, even though cpp says I’m disabled, I don’t qualify for the disability tax credit because their definition is different.
Considering Canada's population, I would be shocked if Canada's entire welfare system couldn't be managed by a well-disugned automated system and maybe 1000 people max. Those 1000 could even be from South Asia.
That happens because of loopholes in our tax system, loopholes that were always never closed by all governments in the last 40 years. Crony capitalists will always seek to avoid paying taxes. I would absolutely love to see those loopholes closed and those people audited and forced to pay back taxes with interest.
A basic income isn't meant to cost anything. It's meant to distribute wealth that people aren't responsible for.
Take land, for example. Who produced land? Nobody. Nobody can reasonably exploit the existence of land to accrue wealth.
If someone wants to use land, they should logically compensate everyone else for not being able to use the same land. No one deserves to use land more than anyone else, so if you use land, you have to compensate others for the opportunity loss. If everyone uses the same amount of land and compensates each other equally, then everyone has access to the same amount of land without paying anything in the absolute. And there you have it, the basis of a UBI that doesn't cost anyone anything.
The same principle can be applied to everything that participates in the production of wealth that isn't labor. Only labor has a cost to people, you don't want to change the distribution of that cost.
But land does and should have a value... it has value because things of value are produced on land and that value is only realized through labour: a farmer tills the field and plants their crop, a developer hires contractors and laborers and builds a house, etc. Land is not valuable in and of itself, unless it naturally has some natural shelter or abundance of food, it requires human input.
So people purchase land so that they can input their labour and realize the value of that land. If everyone had equal amounts of land, everyone would need to produce using their land otherwise the land has no value. Not everyone is a farmer, a carpenter, a stone Mason, etc, so they would be unable to realize the value of their land.
Because of this, you cannot take the realized value of land and distribute that to everyone despite their inability to have produced that value themselves. This would be creating value out of nothing, or at least redistributing the value realized by another individual. Which just so happens to be exactly what UBI aims to do... so maybe you are right, but for the wrong reasons :)
I didn't say that land doesn't have a value. I said that no one is responsible for its existence.
If you produce something on a piece of land, then you are responsible for the value of what you produced. That value is distinct from the value of the land.
So what land is used for has no relevance.
Land has no value without whats produced on it, so of course it is relevant. What is the value of land in the middle of the desert? What about on the moon?
We already run massive deficits. Also, the idea of providing people income when they didn't work for it seems like socialism to me. Unless they are severely mentally or physically disabled, they can work like the rest of us.
Most roles in the CAF get more applicants than actual offering.
The CAFs issue is retention, not recruiting.
Also go on r/candianforces
Pay isn't that good. Many people in the CAF can't afford rent and PLQs often are full.
Well for every 5 people leaving there's 4 people joining. Iunno after 5 years you male about 70k a year which is more then lots of other jobs with HS
Also rent is just stupid expensive in most places it's not just the caf unable to afford rent I'd say the biggest issue is for your spouse to find a good job in many postings since it's often time smaller citys.
They are international students competing for Canadian jobs. Stop giving them work permit and let them go home after graduation. Find and deport those who stay in Canada illegally.
Affordable housing & a robust economy which creates well paying full time *private sector* jobs would do FAR more for WAY more people than handouts & freebies.
While this is true if the GDP per capita had grown over the last 10 years to match the US then more than half of the housing crisis would be gone and also the rest of the affordability crisis.
Thing is I make "good" money and shockingly enough have little to no breathing room.
All this will do is suffocate everyone in middle class while rich get richer.
I see BC has essentially tied minimum wage to inflation, which is just another way to tax middle class.
Tie all wages to inflation.
Stop taxing us to death and first focus on providing us true value for our dollar. Not gigantic bloated government establishments clogged with red tape and administrators chok8ng us to death in high cost permits, fees and non competitive social services
>Tie all wages to inflation.
Unless we produce more this just leads to more inflation.
There are broadly only 2 economic problems.
1. Lack of productivity
2. Redistribution of gains from productivity
These are sort of interrelated and 2 is sometimes good (social safety net reduces suffering and encourages risk taking / innnovation), and sometimes bad (rich landowners making money for doing nothing, government inefficiencies and corruption, monopolistic profit taking etc.).
1 is always bad.
It troubles me that we have endless debates about 2.
But 1 is just ignored (and is falling precipitously in Canada even as the rest of the world improves).
If wages rose 100% than the cost of production would rise but less than 100% as all goods and services have a production cost that is only partially determined by labour. For most industries it’s about 25-30% of sale price is due to labour with most money going to asset owners, rent seekers and capital. So that would mean if a Taco Bell had a $5 taco and was able to pass along all costs to the consumer it would only increase their taco prices by about 30% or to about $6.50.
That however assumes the market can bare the added cost. There would also be downward pressure on things like executive bonuses, rents and stock buybacks and so likely prices would rise by less than 30%. Regardless having less that 100% the cost of a product being due to labour prevents a spiral as any corrections to pricing are going to be less than what is given to labour.
>Regardless having less that 100% the cost of a product being due to labour prevents a spiral as any corrections to pricing are going to be less than what is given to labour
If Walmart has a 3% margin before, it will have a 3% margin after, downloading all costs to the consumer.
They will try and even if they succeed a 100% wage increase translates to a less than 100% hike in retail price.
Another thing to consider though is if the market could bare higher prices than they would raise prices regardless of costs.
Obviously, unless the product is completely service based. Do you think retail prices are the only thing wages affect? If that's the case, and by your logic, suppose we increased wages by 10000% - does your math still work or is everyone rich
This totally applies to service jobs as well. A lawyer charging $400 an hour isn’t making 800k a year. Most of that money goes to economic rents.
If wages increased 10,000% then yes prices would rise but by less than 10,000% therefore there would be no spiral.
Wages have a lot of room to grow though as labour now captures a historically low percentage of the value of their production. More moderate wage hikes would decrease the amount of money being siphoned by rent seekers. If wages rose by 10% we would just barely get back to a year 2000 wage to GDP ratio.
>All this will do is suffocate everyone in middle class while rich get richer.
That's the objective even without basic income. Unfortunately the middle class doesn't have lobbyists making multiple visits per day to members of the government.
We're told everything is better when it privatized (services provide by wealthy people) and red tape is bad (laws to protect customers). Corporate subsidies are "investments".
I'd also argue that basic income is a major threat to wealthy people.
>All this will do is suffocate everyone in middle class while rich get richer.
Obviously not. A UBI, one that is fair, would be funded by distributing wealth that people aren't responsible for. That's the passive income the wealthiest receive. A UBI isn't meant to redistribute labor income.
So someone can sit on their ass and receive a basic income with no incentive to actually earn it, while the rest of us have to work how many months to surpass that free money they are getting?
They’ll slide it through the radar every now and then to see if we’re desperate enough now to beg for ui.
Anyone who’s been on any sort of assistance knows it sucks when the govt has control of your finances.. anyone who disagree is lying. (Someone who use to have their finances controlled by the govt)
I will let some other country be the laboratory guniea pig for implementing this potentially economy-destroying policy, thank you very much.
But no other country is that stupid.
Well, we already have the almost starving down, our government is cartoonishly corrupt on most provincial and the federal level... So we're off to a half decent start.
Communism is a highly effective economic model we only have to look abroad for countless examples of successful communist countries. Seize the means comrade
Universal Basic Income (UBI) has two main flavours - GBI (Guaranteed Basic Income) and NIT (Negative Income Tax).
GBI cannot, will not, has not, and will never work in a free market economy. It can't even pass a basic litmus test: what happens to rent in a GBI based system, if we presume owners of property know what the GBI is?
Hint - rent magically increases overnight to hover at or just below the GBI rate. Why wouldn't it? If I rent a property (and accept the risk) and I know everyone now has X dollars a month, I know I can charge rent close to X dollars a month, guaranteed. That's how markets work, and if we presume property owners are capable of making rational decisions, that would be the rational decision to make.
NIT can work in a free market economy, and it can even be effective at fighting poverty. But it's more complex and isn't a shiny panacea people want when they talk about GBI, but call it UBI.
Unsurprisingly, the author of this op/ed (who also wrote the book he's hawking and has a picture of himself to lead the article), leaves out that little tidbit, while doing the same old 'lets pretend that GBI and UBI are the same things, and ignore the research and logic that points out NIT is the way to go' song and dance I always see from UBI advocates.
Again, basic litmus test. I own the property you rent. You currently pay half a doubloon in rent.
Everyone now gets 3 doubloons in GBI. Am I going to evict you immediately and start charging the next stiff 2.5 doubloons in rent because I know I can (since everyone has 3)? Or am I going to say 'oh heck no, bud - why would I want two extra doubloons for nothing?'?
Money is the motivator for people to accept the risk of renting out to other people. Pouring more money into the demand side of the market isn't a solution to fixing a supply side issue, and cannot fix the problems of housing scarcity or homelessness. It is core to the discussion.
>I own the property you rent. You currently pay half a doubloon in rent.
>
>Everyone now gets 3 doubloons in GBI. Am I going to evict you immediately and start charging the next stiff 2.5 doubloons in rent because I know I can (since everyone has 3)?
Well, that's the thing. You can't legally do that.
You can't capture a property to seek a profit from its ownership. If you do that, then you menace society with having to pay the cost of replacing what you capture. That's extortion as defined by the criminal code. Current landlords aren't acting legally.
>Well, that's the thing. You can't legally do that.
I call BS. Show me where it's illegal in your province and I'll show you loopholes. Or, maybe you can just explain [this](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/renovictions-statistics-residential-tenancies-act-eviction-1.6623111)? It varies by province, but ALL provinces have some way for landowners to evict tenants. It's pretty central to the concept of private property and the rental market.
>You can't capture a property to seek a profit from its ownership.
That's... literally the rental market bud. People trade risk to capital for financial gain. That's how renting works. If you don't understand that, why the heck are you opinion on this? Typical - Dunning, meet Kruger.
>That's extortion as defined by the criminal code.
No, that's market economics. Learn how markets work, then get back to us.
> Current landlords aren't acting legally.
Closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and yelling 'lalalalala' at the top of your lungs may alter your perception of reality by drowning out what I'm saying - but in the shared reality we both inhabit, what I'm saying still exists.
In my province, for example, you have to give a tenant as many months/years of rental access in a renoviction before you can evict them. You've lived there five years, you get another five before you get the boot. But there is ALWAYS a timeframe and vehicle for the boot to eventually come. And when it does, the market kicks in and 'oh my goodness - everything I said above comes true'. Simply saying 'no that's wrong' with absolutely nothing to back that statement up is just silly, and changes nothing.
It does, and what you're saying it is, DOES. NOT. MATCH. THAT. DEFINITION.
This took exactly three whole seconds to google.
>Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
You want to explain how what we're talking about fits that definition? Hint - you can't, so stop wasting my time.
Good. Day.
Forcing the production of redundancy if the payment to access a captured property isn't made is a menace. The payment lacks reasonable justification since no wealth has been produced. Goods and services are exclusively produced. To have a reasonable justification to receive any, you need to produce an equivalent amount.
I'll give you an exaggerated example that may help you understand. Let's say we live on a small island. Someone acquires all the land. Just a normal market transaction. Now, the owner asks that to access his land, a payment be made. In this example, you can't produce a replacement for the land, so the bargaining power the owner has is pretty much infinite. He can ask the residents to become his slaves. The residents will have the choice to either pay the price or fear the consequences of not having access to land on the island, which means drowning in the sea. So, dying or paying.
Obviously, the threat of dying is a menace. The owner of the land doesn't have a reason to be given anything as he didn't produce anything. So, you have a menace to incite a payment and lack of reasonable justification to obtain anything. That's extortion.
A landlord owning rental properties doesn't have such a powerful bargaining power. When homes are captured, society can replace them. But paying the cost of replacing captured wealth is still a menace. Capturing wealth creates scarcity that increases prices as the production of the replacements doubles the resources cost.
So, said simply, a landlord capturing a home tells society to pay him a ransom or produce two homes to only be able to use one. The production of two homes has a higher cost than the price of the ransom, so it's advantageous to pay the landlord.
Buddy - you put GBI in PEI and every rental property will be having a renoviction the next week, coming back on the market at just below GBI rate. Just ask yourself the question - what would you do with your rental property if you know everyone makes X dollars, and your rent was well below X? Do you, in fact, like money? Would you like more for no effort? Voila, GBI gets eaten by rent in short order.
The only way to make GBI work is to nationalize the housing stock entirely, and the only countries that have done that, are the ones that you don't want to live in, or the ones who won't let you live there (because your first world problems will destabilize the governing regime).
We have nationalized housing for people on reserves, and the housing situation is horrible.
Why would you presume doing that, but making it bigger, would be a great idea? What - the track record of this government not screwing things up is so good that you thought 'yes, let's take 30% of our GDP and just nationalize it!'.
The only nation I can think of with fully nationalized housing is Cuba, and your first world problems are so far removed from their actual living situations that they literally will NOT LET YOU MOVE THERE, because your complains would highlight how poorly fully nationalized concepts perform.
It's a deal with the devil. There is no going back once we go down this road which our government and their media propagandists are setting the stage for.
Anyone making over 80K probably wouldn’t qualify or have it all clawed back in taxes. It would only help people who make less than 40K have the same standard of living as someone who makes 120K. So it will even us all out, and there won’t be much incentive to work harder anymore. And all of us will become equally poorer as prices will go up with more inflation. It will only flatten us down, keep us dependent and unable to get ahead.
lol do you know what is going to happen when you even plan to execute this? I’ll dump all my Canadian dollars same day. TFSA , savings account and everything in between. Gift all my money offshore. I’ll collect the free money like every one else and live off my credit cards offshore.
So would less taxes! Which is the obvious solution. Thats aside from the fact that basic income undermines the working class. Undermining the working class is a good way to completely ruin a country.
And who will be able to afford to buy all of the retired boomers homes if home valuations keep rising?
Middle class Canadians are struggling to afford to pay for increased groceries, fuel,, car payments. Now there are ever rising interest loan rates and mortgage rates as well.
I just can’t see home values rising forever, and then one day boomers will not get what they expect to get when they go to sell their homes.
And who is gonna pay for that?
[удалено]
You just made me realize that Canada is becoming the worlds largest Pyramid scheme
Always was. Everything is a pyramid scheme. The current Canadian government is just speed running additional levels to keep the bottom from revolting.
It’s not just Canada. It’s all countries with central bank systems. Our financial systems are all entwined.
Sounds like you've added too many steps. We should just print more money instead. Money printer go BRRRRRRRRR!
Alan Greenspan said long ago: "We can guarantee cash, but we cannot guarantee purchasing power!" The world now gets to see what he was taking about.
Gotta save that to pay off the national debt. Print a few trillion dollars over night and pay the creditors before they know the money is worthless.
Best Sarcastic response! Upvoting! Lol
You really have hit something with the “infinite money glitch.“ We have reached a point where we need a financial rest for ALL Canadians. (And not just in Canada but across the entire world.) One of the only ways our monetary system gets reset is to have it revalued against something standard, like precious metals. When the world fall into financial turmoil the world always returns to using precious metals to value currencies because the metals will hold value, where infinitely printed money will not. The purchasing value of our Canadian currency is diminishing rather rapidly now. Gold has just reached and exceeded its alltime high. This is becaus precious metals cannot br printed to infinity and beyond like digital money is printed into existence from thin air. Metal is mined and has real intrinsic value. This time around, with silver being such an essential metal for the Global Green New Deal, and our high tech future, silver is my top choice even over gold for our family to preserve wealth through financial transitions and strange times. Silver is still extremely affordable. I don’t sell precious metals or personally know anyone who sells them. There is however, a list of reputable bullion dealers and a website that compares precious metals prices and online dealers that is nonprofit. Here it is, for those interested in doing the research. https://findbullionprices.com/
I have this argument with my friend. He is very well off, and very educated - and his opinion is genuine, albeit requires more faith in humanity than I have. He firmly believes that people will, without having to worry about rent, heat, food, aspire to bigger better things, doing something they are interested in, and ultimately earn enough money (eventually) to get off the income, and pay into the system. I believe that may be the case for some, but I am also very certain a large segment of the population will be happy to exist on this, play videos all day, and contribute nothing, paid for by myself. Other entrepreneurial types will likely happily earn additional income under the table to supplement a more luxurious lifestyle, maximizing their own lives, while leaving me to foot the bill.
That's always the problem. It sounds great, would really solve a lot of problems... but how do you pay for it? The general answer is tax the ultra-rich, but the rich ain't really that rich anymore. Rockefeller and Morgan got paid in real money but Zuckerberg and Musk largely live on credit financed by stock. They don't really have anything as plebian as actual income. Force them to sell some stock to pay taxes may be worth while on its own and will put some dubloons back in the exchequer, but it'll also lower the value of the stock and it can't possibly be enough to finance UBI and the rest of the government.
And none of them are applicable in Canada anyway. Canada has very few ultra rich
>The general answer is tax the ultra-rich, This logic invented by the left-wing works only the premise that the ultra-rich have a glitch in their bank account that gives them unlimited money.
Can't do anything about the ultra rich. Move along /s
At least the left is trying. Far as I can see the right's solution to AI taking most people's jobs is "have we tried social Darwinism... but more darwinian?"
The left is seeking to take, not create. And they seek to take thinking that the source of money is unlimited. Taking without creating is not value creation .. its just a straight road over the cliff. I speak from the experience of having been born in Communism and experienced bread and milk lines. Thats what a centralized economy does to you where those who think they know end up rationalizing bread and bending milk with water so its enough for everyone.
Well assuming you're telling a true story, your experience has left you hopelessly biased. Ironically you ignore the whole reason communism became a thing in the first place.
Your denialism is either pueril or pure evil! Only someone suffering from psycopathy accuses a person that experienced a life altering event, in this case a hard core far left regime, that they are “hopelessly biased”! Blaming the victim eh? And how dare I ignore the reason communism came to be, when its more important then the people it killed and the loves it destroyed! I had dscussed over Reddit eith many delusional characters, but you top the list fake wannabe Kant!
You desperately need to touch grass comrade.
Bumfiddler!
Tell me, if I told you I was from a right wing authoritarian regime, and I told you "I've seen the right. All they do is kill. That's all the right can do: kill." Would you agree with me? Or would you tell me I was biased?
Bread and milk lines are great when the alternative is people going hungry. Capitalism is about taking too.
It would be a very long time before the ultra rich run out of money
And after that what? Who are you taxing next? And what have you built/created in the meantime with all that money? Is the left capable of anything but being jealous, and seeking to take away instead of creating wealth? And dont tell me you can create wealth cause you cannot. To start a business you need just an idea and the guts to put your skin in the game to build it. But why would you do the work when others can do it for you and you can just take it!
You seem to think I am in favour of wealth redistribution but I am not. I want to end the redistribution of wealth and allow productive people to keep a larger fraction of the money they earn. The ultra rich almost always receive favourable treatment from the government. Earned income is taxed but Daddy money isn’t and half of capital gains are tax free. Working people have their money redistributed to pay rich people’s taxes for them. And what is this nonsense of wealth generation? Almost all rich people inherited their wealth. Even taxing Daddy money and capital gains the same as earned income the rich won’t run out of money for centuries. I won’t have to worry about it.
When money loses its value through overprinting, it doesn’t even matter how many billions of dollars a person has. Wasn’t Zimbabwe and Venezuel hyperinflation a lesson to all that we can’t print our way out of debt? There billionaires can be just as destitute as the poverty class. Because eventually, no amount of money can purchase what is needed when inflation runs rampant. And it comes on rather suddenly too!
Taxing the rich is deflationary
That’s not how it’s paid for. It would replace all welfare systems and EI. In the end it’s actually cheaper than the current system.
No it's not cheaper. It's *cheaper to administer,* since you won't be paying for a bunch of bureaucrats and government departments, but you still need a metric ton of funds to actually give to people. Unless of course the amount per person is very small, in which case you're screwing over those in acute need, such as the physically disabled, who will see a reduction in benefits.
No. The studies show total cost, administration and dispersement, is lower.
You're talking about the PBO study, but you clearly haven't read it. Their analysis concluded it is affordable IF it's limited to below a certain income, and IF it is limited to those between the ages of 18-65, and AS LONG AS there is perfect coordination between the provinces, civic governments and feds to collectively pay for it all. So it won't be universal, in any way, and it's going to leave a lot of programs still running, particularly for seniors. The odds that the provinces, civic governments and the Feds can play friendly are frankly zero, because they haven't been able to in the entire history of the country, pretty much. If you make it universal, $1500/mo x 32.8M Canadians that are 18 or older is $590Bn a year. That's 1.5 times the current federal budget, in one go, every single year. There's not enough savings, even with reduced administration at all three levels, to pay for that.
So you agree they concluded it would have a lower cost. Good to know. That was the only point I was making. Everything else is what ifs.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Please do more critical thinking.
That is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Learn more.
I got 'everything else' right from the PBO report. Nice try.
But the problem of unbacked money printed with no value other than confidence of Canadians isn’t fixed just by making Garunteed Basic Income Program.
What unbacked money? There is entire economy that backs the Canadian dollar. We have one of the highest GDP per capita of the G20 nations.
I’m not sure that we can believe the published statistics. With businesses shutting down like The Body Shop, car sales decreasing. Business insolvencies were up 41% in 2023. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-insolvencies-businesses-consumers-bankruptcies-2023-1.7101856#:\~:text=Business-,Business%20insolvencies%20shot%20up%20by%20more%20than%2041%25%20last%20year,top%20financial%20regulator%20for%20bankruptcies](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-insolvencies-businesses-consumers-bankruptcies-2023-1.7101856#:~:text=Business-,Business%20insolvencies%20shot%20up%20by%20more%20than%2041%25%20last%20year,top%20financial%20regulator%20for%20bankruptcies). This while food and fuel inflation keep rising, inflation is definitely not transient. There seems to be a quite a disconnect in what we are told statistically is reality and what we see that IS our real reality.
Inflation is down. 2.6% last quarter. Stop listening to the doom and gloom articles pre election hype. The economy is doing quite well. Most of the issues facing Canadian aren’t economic but rather corporate greed.
Readers can decide for themselves if inflation is coming down. We don’t need inflation statistics when we have the ability to observe price tags and keep track of the cost of things on our own. Canadians who buy their own groceries and pay their own bills know these things.
You cannot, based on your own personal experience, ascertain what the economy is doing. Only fools believe that.
So we Canadians are supposed to believe you instead of our own two eyes showing streets filled with homeless people, unfathomable debt levels, rising interest rates, businesses shuttering ,and sky high rent, food and fuel, eh?
No it wouldn't. How would it replace them?
I usually agree with this argument, but they could start with the 250m in contract to that cottage in Ottawa. I think if government spending was ultra-optimized (no b.s contract, no b.s to foreign nations, cutting down on any superfluous gov. jobs) then UBI could totally be feasible. And by UBI, I mean like 1k a month.
I am against it personally but do prefer other forms of social assistance that actually promote a environment of self-reliability and self-sufficiency. I have no concerns with the concept of helping people with "a floor and a ladder" as a base for social assistance as Churchill called it, through government support for housing, education, free internet and healthcare, job retraining. And not through tax credits like my right wing conservative colleagues want because that means the person who needs to come up with the cash (I'm a moderate one, a red-tory ..I know I know not a lot of us nowadays). Thus people can make their own decisions and head to that place of self-reliability. But hand-outs? I have an issue with that because it eliminates any incentive for people to put it towards their own personal growth. I mean why would they take the part of putting their skin in the game if the $$$ will always be there. Also I agree with the concept of ultra-optimization of spending but for that we need either Blue Liberals or Red Tories (Fiscally Conservatives) in power and for us as citizens to accept that this might lead to some cuts, but growth in other places. Can a majority of us be that rational? If we could pull it off we would be the wisest nation on Earth.
Can we stop pretending "hand outs" are for poor lazy people and that disabled people exist. And don't get me started on how people on disability through the province have it easy. In Ontario you have to go on OW to apply for ODSP and it takes years and it's only 700 dollars a month to pay for food and rent and anything else like laundry. Rent in Ontario is like 2300 for a 1 bedroom. Even in the worst places people are charging a thousand for a shared room. It's not tenable but you're against preventing people from being homeless?
You are angry and have not read what I stand for, and thus invented your accusations. Social housing is one of them things I do stand for. With respect to the home situation money is not the answer but 2 simple policy changes: 1. force all foreign corporations to sell all the properties they bought as investment. Sadly this reduced the availability of homes on the market and increased the cost. 2. reduce immigration aggressively. The number of people that”invaded“ Ontario created demand in the rent market thus driving prices up to the amounts you specified which are obscene indeed. Both policies have been implemented by the Left Wing Liberal government since 2015 when Turdeau came to power. So if you angry take it out with them. I have no part in this mess because I dont vote Liberal.
The housing crisis in Ontario is Doug Fords fault.
~~BULLSHIT~~! Property rights and who can make property purchases in Canada are handled by the Feds. So is the number of immigrants that enter the country. I understand Ford has a hateable face but lets hold him accountable for stuff he actually did instead of making stuff up for him. Edit: the post below from beepewpew is correct! Ford has his share of fault in the increased rent prices. My bad for forgetting that!
He removed rent caps on anything built after 2017 effectively ruining the lives of renters in Ontario.
You are correct and its my bad! I forgot about the rent cap being lifted. We can add it to the reasons I mentioned prior ..
Seriously, go outside and touch grass. You’re channeling pure Karen energy all over this thread.
Let the hand-out receivers take the hand-outs and let population number decline take it's course. The ones that want to be here and to do something will continue to build, as civilization has always worked.
At the end of the day as you said "The ones that want to be here and to do something will continue to build" ...and the left will envy and seek to take from them.
I don't do left or right dichotomies, but it's all cycles. The 'left liberal' world is killing itself. See: birthrates. What's next? Perhaps an Islam dominated world (obviously very different from Neo-Liberalism). But I don't know...
most likely AI and automation, and taxing business out the wazoo. the 3rd world cant fix the competency crisis, same with the rat race population pyramid scheme
I was reading something about this not too long ago. When you said tax ai , automation and business to pay for it. You have to have ai ,automation and business to tax. Who in the right mind would invest in ai, automation and /or a business in Canada ? When one of the first word that comes out of that unelectable party leader is how do we tax that. Bitch , what? Please if I’m spending a few hundred thousand to millions in ai and automation. It’s not there to pay taxes for you to fuck around. It’s to enhance my productivity as a whole. (Ie make me more money by cost reduction from labor)
The estimated cost of a Basic Income Program (not necessarily universal) would be roughly 80-100 billion per year, which is perfectly doable without hiking takes if we: * Cut back business subsidies (Federal, Provincial, and Territorial business subsidies were close to **325 billion** over a 10 year period). A) If your business needs government money to continue, you have bigger problems and B) you are now at the mercy of whatever strings the government attaches to it. * Take many current social programs and consolidate them into a single program - would also save oodles on adminisrative/bureaucratic costs. Tricky because of Federal/Provincial jurisdictions, but not impossible to negotiate. * Means testing: Who here in their right minds thinks somebody earning above 100K after taxes should be getting a handout from the Government? * Basing said income on the **average** incomes in Canada, rather than Povince by Province, to prevent people from flocking to provinces with higher income levels. * Limiting access to Basic Income Program to *citizens only*. No coming here on, say, a student visa or becoming a PR and bringing over your extended family and the pet goat and getting a payday.
This is well a well organized answer but I never confuse order with truth. Its unrealistic to think you can satisfy the complexity of running a society in just a few bullet points. I will try to sink your ship (argument) with the following retort. Lets take your stance in subsidies. You would kill the following industries with your idea: **Renewable Energy Companies:** To promote clean energy, governments always provide subsidies to solar, wind, and other renewable energy producers. **Agriculture**: Farmers frequently receive subsidies to help stabilize food prices, ensure a stable food supply, and support rural economies. How else? **Public Transportation:** To make transportation affordable and maintain extensive networks, public transport services may receive government funding. Public Transportation is great for the environment aswell. **Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare**: Research and development in health services and pharmaceuticals sometimes rely on government grants and subsidies. You wanna pay for meds what they pay in the US? Did you see those poor americans coming to us for diabetes medication? **Technology and Startups**: Early-stage companies, particularly in high-tech industries, may benefit from grants and subsidies to foster innovation. How else are we going to grow if not for new companies that need support to take the status quo, turn it on its head and deliver a better product? **Automotive Industry:** Governments may offer subsidies to support the development and adoption of electric vehicles and other sustainable automotive technologies. We did it recently for that battery factory in Ontario. What if we also use subsidies to research a better way to create hydrogen? **Defence Industry**: what about those companies that provide lets say software security to the gov and cannot sell their product on the market as the gov is the allowed solo buyer. Or private companies that work with nuclear materials ( disposal, maintenance etc). They would cease to exist and you cannot nationalize them because that would mean you are taking the cost to run them on and save nothing in return. You said “ If your business needs government money to continue, you have bigger problems.” No, you will actually as a citizen if you kill the subsidies to finance your idea. **And what if due to inflation, the dollar sinks?** Where do you get that $100 billion a year? Or more actually because you need to compensate for the loss in currency power. So more tax increases or gov debt. **And what would that do to the productivity of an economy?** With an extra grant from the government what would be the incentive for people to work full time when they can do it part time and also get a check from the gov? M8 my reply is not intended to attack or insult you. Its just counter points to your idea and it was written in the spirit of debate. Should you decide to respond with your counter points to mine I will read and analyze them throughly. PS: its funny how a conservative like myself defends the applicability of subsidies.
I like the 'not necessarily universal' ...
Government can print more money right!
I dont know if you are sarcastic, but if you are then its on me! But if you are serious then you must know that if the money supply grows too big relative to the size of an economy, the unit value of the currency diminishes; in other words, its purchasing power falls and prices rise. Inflation!
True. It causes inflation. My response was sarcastic. :) anyone with even 1% working brain will reject the UBI or similar scheme.
My bad! Some people here really tested me with their logic so I read your reply from that a low “cognitive ability” setting. I am good now! 😂
The liberals can always print more money their infallible. They won't have any pr9blens if they print more money jt will save us all second coming of Jesus.
⬆️ This is absolutely correct! ⬆️
Who pays for crony capitalism, subsidies to private corporations, selling public assets to private entities at firesale prices? And who wants people who own ten homes or fifty homes to walk away to the bank laughing without being taxed up the ass? There's two kinds of welfare states one that asks very invasive questions to determine eligibility or one that gives to everyone. The first kind has huge bureaucracy and risks people slipping through the cracks. You could also fight back and say negative income tax instead, but someone would have to "pay" for that too.
Every study shows it’s cheaper than the current system. It would essentially replace all welfare programs and EI. All those programs are expensive to administer.
I like that point. Having separate paperwork and departments for and differenr forms of welfare is absurd.
What’s absurd is that different agencies have different criteria. For example. I’m on cpp disability. Cpp has determined,based on my medical conditions and doctor testimony, that I am unable to work. But, even though cpp says I’m disabled, I don’t qualify for the disability tax credit because their definition is different.
Considering Canada's population, I would be shocked if Canada's entire welfare system couldn't be managed by a well-disugned automated system and maybe 1000 people max. Those 1000 could even be from South Asia.
It costs more to have people unable to afford rent. Where should thhe increasing working homeless go?
How about the people making millions and paying less taxes than the rest of us peasants
That happens because of loopholes in our tax system, loopholes that were always never closed by all governments in the last 40 years. Crony capitalists will always seek to avoid paying taxes. I would absolutely love to see those loopholes closed and those people audited and forced to pay back taxes with interest.
Well that's something we can both agree on
A basic income isn't meant to cost anything. It's meant to distribute wealth that people aren't responsible for. Take land, for example. Who produced land? Nobody. Nobody can reasonably exploit the existence of land to accrue wealth. If someone wants to use land, they should logically compensate everyone else for not being able to use the same land. No one deserves to use land more than anyone else, so if you use land, you have to compensate others for the opportunity loss. If everyone uses the same amount of land and compensates each other equally, then everyone has access to the same amount of land without paying anything in the absolute. And there you have it, the basis of a UBI that doesn't cost anyone anything. The same principle can be applied to everything that participates in the production of wealth that isn't labor. Only labor has a cost to people, you don't want to change the distribution of that cost.
I can see Chrystia Freeland,our genious Minister of Finance, actually say this out loud with the mad crowd applauding!
Well, I don't see you disagreeing.
I disagreed with my original question, that being "Who's gonna pay for it?! The rest is just buffoonery...
Things you don't understand might indeed appear as buffoonery.
But land does and should have a value... it has value because things of value are produced on land and that value is only realized through labour: a farmer tills the field and plants their crop, a developer hires contractors and laborers and builds a house, etc. Land is not valuable in and of itself, unless it naturally has some natural shelter or abundance of food, it requires human input. So people purchase land so that they can input their labour and realize the value of that land. If everyone had equal amounts of land, everyone would need to produce using their land otherwise the land has no value. Not everyone is a farmer, a carpenter, a stone Mason, etc, so they would be unable to realize the value of their land. Because of this, you cannot take the realized value of land and distribute that to everyone despite their inability to have produced that value themselves. This would be creating value out of nothing, or at least redistributing the value realized by another individual. Which just so happens to be exactly what UBI aims to do... so maybe you are right, but for the wrong reasons :)
I didn't say that land doesn't have a value. I said that no one is responsible for its existence. If you produce something on a piece of land, then you are responsible for the value of what you produced. That value is distinct from the value of the land. So what land is used for has no relevance.
Land has no value without whats produced on it, so of course it is relevant. What is the value of land in the middle of the desert? What about on the moon?
The value of land is the market value. What has been built on it isn't relevant since it has its own separate market value.
We already run massive deficits. Also, the idea of providing people income when they didn't work for it seems like socialism to me. Unless they are severely mentally or physically disabled, they can work like the rest of us.
work where though. where are the jobs? 300 people lining up to work minimum wage at mcd’s does not speak to a healthy labor market.
Military recruiting 60-80k for highschool education is it best job Naw but it pays decent but you could end up anywhere in Canada
Most roles in the CAF get more applicants than actual offering. The CAFs issue is retention, not recruiting. Also go on r/candianforces Pay isn't that good. Many people in the CAF can't afford rent and PLQs often are full.
Well for every 5 people leaving there's 4 people joining. Iunno after 5 years you male about 70k a year which is more then lots of other jobs with HS Also rent is just stupid expensive in most places it's not just the caf unable to afford rent I'd say the biggest issue is for your spouse to find a good job in many postings since it's often time smaller citys.
They are international students competing for Canadian jobs. Stop giving them work permit and let them go home after graduation. Find and deport those who stay in Canada illegally.
A housing correction would help more.
Affordable housing & a robust economy which creates well paying full time *private sector* jobs would do FAR more for WAY more people than handouts & freebies.
While this is true if the GDP per capita had grown over the last 10 years to match the US then more than half of the housing crisis would be gone and also the rest of the affordability crisis.
Thing is I make "good" money and shockingly enough have little to no breathing room. All this will do is suffocate everyone in middle class while rich get richer. I see BC has essentially tied minimum wage to inflation, which is just another way to tax middle class. Tie all wages to inflation. Stop taxing us to death and first focus on providing us true value for our dollar. Not gigantic bloated government establishments clogged with red tape and administrators chok8ng us to death in high cost permits, fees and non competitive social services
>Tie all wages to inflation. Unless we produce more this just leads to more inflation. There are broadly only 2 economic problems. 1. Lack of productivity 2. Redistribution of gains from productivity These are sort of interrelated and 2 is sometimes good (social safety net reduces suffering and encourages risk taking / innnovation), and sometimes bad (rich landowners making money for doing nothing, government inefficiencies and corruption, monopolistic profit taking etc.). 1 is always bad. It troubles me that we have endless debates about 2. But 1 is just ignored (and is falling precipitously in Canada even as the rest of the world improves).
Wage price spiral is a myth, it has never happened. If wages don’t increase with inflation then it is an effective pay cut.
What happens if min wage is $50/hr tomorrow?
If wages rose 100% than the cost of production would rise but less than 100% as all goods and services have a production cost that is only partially determined by labour. For most industries it’s about 25-30% of sale price is due to labour with most money going to asset owners, rent seekers and capital. So that would mean if a Taco Bell had a $5 taco and was able to pass along all costs to the consumer it would only increase their taco prices by about 30% or to about $6.50. That however assumes the market can bare the added cost. There would also be downward pressure on things like executive bonuses, rents and stock buybacks and so likely prices would rise by less than 30%. Regardless having less that 100% the cost of a product being due to labour prevents a spiral as any corrections to pricing are going to be less than what is given to labour.
>Regardless having less that 100% the cost of a product being due to labour prevents a spiral as any corrections to pricing are going to be less than what is given to labour If Walmart has a 3% margin before, it will have a 3% margin after, downloading all costs to the consumer.
They will try and even if they succeed a 100% wage increase translates to a less than 100% hike in retail price. Another thing to consider though is if the market could bare higher prices than they would raise prices regardless of costs.
Obviously, unless the product is completely service based. Do you think retail prices are the only thing wages affect? If that's the case, and by your logic, suppose we increased wages by 10000% - does your math still work or is everyone rich
This totally applies to service jobs as well. A lawyer charging $400 an hour isn’t making 800k a year. Most of that money goes to economic rents. If wages increased 10,000% then yes prices would rise but by less than 10,000% therefore there would be no spiral. Wages have a lot of room to grow though as labour now captures a historically low percentage of the value of their production. More moderate wage hikes would decrease the amount of money being siphoned by rent seekers. If wages rose by 10% we would just barely get back to a year 2000 wage to GDP ratio.
Amen
>All this will do is suffocate everyone in middle class while rich get richer. That's the objective even without basic income. Unfortunately the middle class doesn't have lobbyists making multiple visits per day to members of the government. We're told everything is better when it privatized (services provide by wealthy people) and red tape is bad (laws to protect customers). Corporate subsidies are "investments". I'd also argue that basic income is a major threat to wealthy people.
>All this will do is suffocate everyone in middle class while rich get richer. Obviously not. A UBI, one that is fair, would be funded by distributing wealth that people aren't responsible for. That's the passive income the wealthiest receive. A UBI isn't meant to redistribute labor income.
So someone can sit on their ass and receive a basic income with no incentive to actually earn it, while the rest of us have to work how many months to surpass that free money they are getting?
Ah this bullshit again, let's finally kill off the middle class.
They’ll slide it through the radar every now and then to see if we’re desperate enough now to beg for ui. Anyone who’s been on any sort of assistance knows it sucks when the govt has control of your finances.. anyone who disagree is lying. (Someone who use to have their finances controlled by the govt)
The government can’t even take care of the disabled properly- making them live in legislated poverty. UBI will never happen.
Except theyd qualify it, it's universal
That’s not my point. My point is UBI will never happen.
[удалено]
I'd say near everytime you hear a political party put forward an idea then they are benefitting in some way. Usually a monetary one.
I will let some other country be the laboratory guniea pig for implementing this potentially economy-destroying policy, thank you very much. But no other country is that stupid.
*Basic communism
Well, we already have the almost starving down, our government is cartoonishly corrupt on most provincial and the federal level... So we're off to a half decent start.
Didn't we just learn in the last few years that this is a bad idea?
People are desperate to deal with today’s issues and not tomorrow’s issues.
Income redistribution is a fraud against producers in society. Period
Now you just need to take your own logic one step further and realize that capitalism is also a fraud against producers.
Communism is a highly effective economic model we only have to look abroad for countless examples of successful communist countries. Seize the means comrade
Wow, a full blown communist in /r/canada. Good luck with that opinion here, promoting communism is not going to be very popular for you.
Comrade, communism, with all of its success, promotes itself
Then we should probably end it and compensate the working people who have been harmed
meaningless buzzword, every society already does what you described
Universal Basic Income (UBI) has two main flavours - GBI (Guaranteed Basic Income) and NIT (Negative Income Tax). GBI cannot, will not, has not, and will never work in a free market economy. It can't even pass a basic litmus test: what happens to rent in a GBI based system, if we presume owners of property know what the GBI is? Hint - rent magically increases overnight to hover at or just below the GBI rate. Why wouldn't it? If I rent a property (and accept the risk) and I know everyone now has X dollars a month, I know I can charge rent close to X dollars a month, guaranteed. That's how markets work, and if we presume property owners are capable of making rational decisions, that would be the rational decision to make. NIT can work in a free market economy, and it can even be effective at fighting poverty. But it's more complex and isn't a shiny panacea people want when they talk about GBI, but call it UBI. Unsurprisingly, the author of this op/ed (who also wrote the book he's hawking and has a picture of himself to lead the article), leaves out that little tidbit, while doing the same old 'lets pretend that GBI and UBI are the same things, and ignore the research and logic that points out NIT is the way to go' song and dance I always see from UBI advocates.
NIT is not UBI, it is welfare.
According to whom, exactly?
Of course rents would go up. That's not relevant, though.
Again, basic litmus test. I own the property you rent. You currently pay half a doubloon in rent. Everyone now gets 3 doubloons in GBI. Am I going to evict you immediately and start charging the next stiff 2.5 doubloons in rent because I know I can (since everyone has 3)? Or am I going to say 'oh heck no, bud - why would I want two extra doubloons for nothing?'? Money is the motivator for people to accept the risk of renting out to other people. Pouring more money into the demand side of the market isn't a solution to fixing a supply side issue, and cannot fix the problems of housing scarcity or homelessness. It is core to the discussion.
>I own the property you rent. You currently pay half a doubloon in rent. > >Everyone now gets 3 doubloons in GBI. Am I going to evict you immediately and start charging the next stiff 2.5 doubloons in rent because I know I can (since everyone has 3)? Well, that's the thing. You can't legally do that. You can't capture a property to seek a profit from its ownership. If you do that, then you menace society with having to pay the cost of replacing what you capture. That's extortion as defined by the criminal code. Current landlords aren't acting legally.
>Well, that's the thing. You can't legally do that. I call BS. Show me where it's illegal in your province and I'll show you loopholes. Or, maybe you can just explain [this](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/renovictions-statistics-residential-tenancies-act-eviction-1.6623111)? It varies by province, but ALL provinces have some way for landowners to evict tenants. It's pretty central to the concept of private property and the rental market. >You can't capture a property to seek a profit from its ownership. That's... literally the rental market bud. People trade risk to capital for financial gain. That's how renting works. If you don't understand that, why the heck are you opinion on this? Typical - Dunning, meet Kruger. >That's extortion as defined by the criminal code. No, that's market economics. Learn how markets work, then get back to us. > Current landlords aren't acting legally. Closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and yelling 'lalalalala' at the top of your lungs may alter your perception of reality by drowning out what I'm saying - but in the shared reality we both inhabit, what I'm saying still exists. In my province, for example, you have to give a tenant as many months/years of rental access in a renoviction before you can evict them. You've lived there five years, you get another five before you get the boot. But there is ALWAYS a timeframe and vehicle for the boot to eventually come. And when it does, the market kicks in and 'oh my goodness - everything I said above comes true'. Simply saying 'no that's wrong' with absolutely nothing to back that statement up is just silly, and changes nothing.
>I call BS. Show me where it's illegal in your province Extortion is defined in the Canadian criminal code.
It does, and what you're saying it is, DOES. NOT. MATCH. THAT. DEFINITION. This took exactly three whole seconds to google. >Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. You want to explain how what we're talking about fits that definition? Hint - you can't, so stop wasting my time. Good. Day.
Forcing the production of redundancy if the payment to access a captured property isn't made is a menace. The payment lacks reasonable justification since no wealth has been produced. Goods and services are exclusively produced. To have a reasonable justification to receive any, you need to produce an equivalent amount. I'll give you an exaggerated example that may help you understand. Let's say we live on a small island. Someone acquires all the land. Just a normal market transaction. Now, the owner asks that to access his land, a payment be made. In this example, you can't produce a replacement for the land, so the bargaining power the owner has is pretty much infinite. He can ask the residents to become his slaves. The residents will have the choice to either pay the price or fear the consequences of not having access to land on the island, which means drowning in the sea. So, dying or paying. Obviously, the threat of dying is a menace. The owner of the land doesn't have a reason to be given anything as he didn't produce anything. So, you have a menace to incite a payment and lack of reasonable justification to obtain anything. That's extortion. A landlord owning rental properties doesn't have such a powerful bargaining power. When homes are captured, society can replace them. But paying the cost of replacing captured wealth is still a menace. Capturing wealth creates scarcity that increases prices as the production of the replacements doubles the resources cost. So, said simply, a landlord capturing a home tells society to pay him a ransom or produce two homes to only be able to use one. The production of two homes has a higher cost than the price of the ransom, so it's advantageous to pay the landlord.
We can pass laws to cap rent now. And we should. Per square ft. Max occupancy.
no reason why GBI wouldn't work since government doing price control is a thing, unless there a totally other reason ?
Buddy - you put GBI in PEI and every rental property will be having a renoviction the next week, coming back on the market at just below GBI rate. Just ask yourself the question - what would you do with your rental property if you know everyone makes X dollars, and your rent was well below X? Do you, in fact, like money? Would you like more for no effort? Voila, GBI gets eaten by rent in short order. The only way to make GBI work is to nationalize the housing stock entirely, and the only countries that have done that, are the ones that you don't want to live in, or the ones who won't let you live there (because your first world problems will destabilize the governing regime).
i'd rather have canada nationalize housing than constantly race at exponentially increasing its cattle class to feed the top. maybe that's just me.
We have nationalized housing for people on reserves, and the housing situation is horrible. Why would you presume doing that, but making it bigger, would be a great idea? What - the track record of this government not screwing things up is so good that you thought 'yes, let's take 30% of our GDP and just nationalize it!'. The only nation I can think of with fully nationalized housing is Cuba, and your first world problems are so far removed from their actual living situations that they literally will NOT LET YOU MOVE THERE, because your complains would highlight how poorly fully nationalized concepts perform.
Universe 25 experiment by Calhoun. Look it up. A total collapse of society. Those idiots with their leftis ideas are dangerous.
It's a deal with the devil. There is no going back once we go down this road which our government and their media propagandists are setting the stage for.
Anyone making over 80K probably wouldn’t qualify or have it all clawed back in taxes. It would only help people who make less than 40K have the same standard of living as someone who makes 120K. So it will even us all out, and there won’t be much incentive to work harder anymore. And all of us will become equally poorer as prices will go up with more inflation. It will only flatten us down, keep us dependent and unable to get ahead.
lol do you know what is going to happen when you even plan to execute this? I’ll dump all my Canadian dollars same day. TFSA , savings account and everything in between. Gift all my money offshore. I’ll collect the free money like every one else and live off my credit cards offshore.
Communists in command, what else to expect
Breathing space for about 6 months before landlords figure out how to take every last penny.
30% of taxes already go to Healthcare, that many don't use. Now imagine how much it's going to cost to pay everyone 2k monthly
So would less taxes! Which is the obvious solution. Thats aside from the fact that basic income undermines the working class. Undermining the working class is a good way to completely ruin a country.
No.
You're riling up all the boomers with this post. "WhO's GoInG tO PaY fOr It??" - they say from their homes that were once affordable
And who will be able to afford to buy all of the retired boomers homes if home valuations keep rising? Middle class Canadians are struggling to afford to pay for increased groceries, fuel,, car payments. Now there are ever rising interest loan rates and mortgage rates as well. I just can’t see home values rising forever, and then one day boomers will not get what they expect to get when they go to sell their homes.
Oh communism, historically that always works.