Basic Income in Canada

The pretty boy is testing out an experiment on 1,320$/month universal basic income. It'll never work or get past a small scale experiment, and here's why:

At 1,320$ per month, that's 15,840$ per year. Expand that to the country (36 million people) and you get 570.25 billion, or 197% of this revenue the Federal government made this year.

But wait, there's more.

On top of the fact you'd need to double the tax revenue the Federal government makes to fund this program, you also have to take into consideration that far from all Federally funded programs are going to go away. These include:

5 billion on Federal infrastructure projects and public transit each year.

131 billion in Direct Program Expenses (government operating costs, capital amortisation, transfer payments, defence)

26 billion in public debt payments

This represents just over 50% of the Federal budget, and unlike health care, child care and other benefits cannot be eliminated with such a program.

So where does that leave us?

That leaves us with the annual Federal budget being not 197% higher then it it currently is (and it currently is sitting at a 29.4 billion deficit), but instead 247% of current levels of spending (248% if you round up instead of down). This without anything being proposed to find money for this significantly more then double level of Federal spending, and now there's no funding going to health care, child care, higher education or scientific development (you want any of that paid by the Feds instead of out of your own pocket? Add more to that 247%).

What this leaves us with is a financially unsustainable model that will make the annual public debt go up 24% of GDP per year, which will make it mathematically impossible within 10 years to pay off the interest on the debt alone, to say nothing of finance the programs, using Federal revenue even if we assume revenue suddenly and sustainable doubled from current levels on the second fiscal year such a program was put into place.

Why would any 'poor' person work? Why would any 'rich' person with a paid off house not immediately quit their job?

The answer is they wouldn't, but for the sake of argument let's pretend that wouldn't happen. It still wouldn't work.

The idea is that jobs are changing for the future. You may only have to work 3 or 4 months in total for the year on different projects. Also if we want to stay a consumer based economy we can't have a class of serfs, as China will easily destroy us in middle class purchases, even with a relatively small middle class percentage wise.

your assesment doesnt even account for the fact that tax revenue comes from the working class.
the same people who would no longer be working, and therefore no longer paying taxes.
UBI is economic suicide, plain and simple

Why do these leaders want people to be so fucking lazy?

Because of muh equality and muh white privilege.

I'd say they should do it because it will guarantee a conservative majority in 2019 but the massive black population boom it would cause would guarantee NDP majorities for the rest of time.

the same reason people work harder to get better jobs so they can get paid more

im not saying there wont be more NEETs. but if you think everyone will just quit, thats just dumb.

Agreed. We should go back to Tsardom and bring the serf class back.

Send them back

The problem is that it's simply unworkable even if NO ONE quits their job over it.

im not arguing that. i answered his question...

I know, but it's hard to believe people use it as a serious talking point in defence of this nonsense.

>expand that to the country (36 million people)

this is including young people who do not work until they're 18 and the elderly / already established

It also assumes that revenue doesn't plummet, and for sustainability that revenue somehow doubles.

It's ballpark numbers.

To where? They'll be born in Canada from people born in Canada/legally immigrated to it.

>Implying we can't deport them where they or their parents came from

That's cute

> import them to countries they aren't citizens of
> force these countries to take in random non-citizens

I'm sorry, but how is that different from forcing European countries to take in Syrians?

Canada in this scenario made its bed and must lie in it.

For the first generation there'd be very few who aren't still citizens (and most who aren't would be from China, who would be happy to take them back).

Those born here, there's right of return. Who gives a damn if the countries want them back? And given how most are third world shit holes, what are the odds they wouldn't want those most likely to improve the place back? This ain't like Europe where they actively make the place worst by being there.

Pretty sure you'll still be taxed under UBI. Welfare and hand outs are still taxed here.

> Government hands you money
> Takes some of it off the top

Why not just pay less and not bother with taxing it?

Or were you referring to Sales tax?

> dual citizenship

Valid point.

> right of return
So the citizens of these countries can take their kids back with them? Makes sense.

Problem is a lot of first-gen immigrants are pretty productive. Ones that integrate are actually pretty swell people.

What's the plan for getting rid of the dregs whose first-generation family is dead?

Guess what. Guessssss whaaaaaaat. Milton Bradley. I mean. Milton Friednose. Invented this idea. Not Keynes. Friedman.

>What's the plan for getting rid of the dregs whose first-generation family is dead?

It's unlikely that there'd be a troublesome number who don't have some form of relatives alive back in the home country.

>Implying I like Friedman

It'll be both. Yeah it sounds strange but that's that's government. It's probably to keep track of the money. You may even get a return which makes it even stranger.

*refund