I haven’t seen any numbers either for or against it, so I can’t say anything about viability. If anyone knows enough to run the numbers, I’d like to see it. The problem with the calculations you show above is that you assume the value of money doesn’t change when the world around it changes, but it does. Especially so if you make a large change like implementing UBI. We need to think about this in terms of resources. The question you should be asking is whether there’s enough food / housing / labour within the country to fulfill everyone’s basic needs.
I haven’t seen any numbers either for or against it, so I can’t say anything about viability. If anyone knows enough to run the numbers, I’d like to see it. The problem with the calculations you show above is that you assume the value of money doesn’t change when the world around it changes, but it does.
Especially so if you make a large change like implementing UBI. We need to think about this in terms of resources.
My calculations don’t assume anything. I literally used age statistics, the Ontario framework for the payout, and net revenue of the Federal Government to demonstrate the cost of UBI. Find me more data, I will give you better calculations.
Feel free to provide data on your claim about this massive shift you assume I didn’t account for. Preferably which countries have instituted UBI and demonstrated this outcome.
The question you should be asking is whether there’s enough food / housing / labour within the country to fulfill everyone’s basic needs.
There is more than enough food from waste alone to feed every single person on the planet, let alone a small country. There is enough housing if we factor in how many empty units, houses, and the like exist because of high cost; What we don’t have we have ways of providing. There is enough labour to go around when Citizens and residents take the available jobs. The reason why we need TFW’s and things of that nature is because citizens and residents refuse to work on farms even though that is constant seasonal work. The labour is there, the willingness doesn’t seem to be.
I don’t need to ask a question like that, because it has nothing to do with my point that the cost of UBI is excessive, unmanageable, and there are better ways to do things. We already have social safety nets that need improving for people in need. Every single person doesn’t need help, but the social services required by others do.
My calculations don’t assume anything. I literally used age statistics, the Ontario framework for the payout, and net revenue of the Federal Government to demonstrate the cost of UBI. Find me more data, I will give you better calculations.
I don’t think you understand what it means to make an assumption. Unless you have true population data (as opposed to sample data), you’re making assumptions. True population data does not exist because we don’t have UBI in Canada.
You’re using the numbers from the study along with stats from past years to justify how things will look when you implement UBI. You can either assume that implementing UBI does not affect the distribution of these stats in any way, or you can assume that they change following a certain model. You do not adjust these stats in any way, therefore you assume that these stats will remain unchanged.
There is more than enough food from waste alone to feed every single person on the planet […]
If there’s more than enough for every single person, how does it make sense to say that that the cost UBI is excessive? If we take enough food to feed everyone in the country and just distribute them to each person to ensure that everyone is fed, would that work? The food is there, so we can do it. What if instead of distributing the food, we give everyone vouchers to get their daily food? Is that any different? How about we instead give them a fungible voucher (i.e. money) that they can choose to use on food or anything else? Ditto with every other need.
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: “Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a social welfare concept that proposes providing all citizens or residents of a particular country or region with a regular, unconditional sum of money, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth”
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
I told you earlier that I don’t have numbers. My assessment is that the numbers you provided aren’t valid and I explained why in the last two comments. You can respond to those if you like. Repeating what you’ve said word for word does not add any new information. If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine, but if you have insight on why my reasoning might be wrong, I’d like to hear it.
I haven’t seen any numbers either for or against it, so I can’t say anything about viability. If anyone knows enough to run the numbers, I’d like to see it. The problem with the calculations you show above is that you assume the value of money doesn’t change when the world around it changes, but it does. Especially so if you make a large change like implementing UBI. We need to think about this in terms of resources. The question you should be asking is whether there’s enough food / housing / labour within the country to fulfill everyone’s basic needs.
My calculations don’t assume anything. I literally used age statistics, the Ontario framework for the payout, and net revenue of the Federal Government to demonstrate the cost of UBI. Find me more data, I will give you better calculations.
Feel free to provide data on your claim about this massive shift you assume I didn’t account for. Preferably which countries have instituted UBI and demonstrated this outcome.
There is more than enough food from waste alone to feed every single person on the planet, let alone a small country. There is enough housing if we factor in how many empty units, houses, and the like exist because of high cost; What we don’t have we have ways of providing. There is enough labour to go around when Citizens and residents take the available jobs. The reason why we need TFW’s and things of that nature is because citizens and residents refuse to work on farms even though that is constant seasonal work. The labour is there, the willingness doesn’t seem to be.
I don’t need to ask a question like that, because it has nothing to do with my point that the cost of UBI is excessive, unmanageable, and there are better ways to do things. We already have social safety nets that need improving for people in need. Every single person doesn’t need help, but the social services required by others do.
I don’t think you understand what it means to make an assumption. Unless you have true population data (as opposed to sample data), you’re making assumptions. True population data does not exist because we don’t have UBI in Canada.
You’re using the numbers from the study along with stats from past years to justify how things will look when you implement UBI. You can either assume that implementing UBI does not affect the distribution of these stats in any way, or you can assume that they change following a certain model. You do not adjust these stats in any way, therefore you assume that these stats will remain unchanged.
If there’s more than enough for every single person, how does it make sense to say that that the cost UBI is excessive? If we take enough food to feed everyone in the country and just distribute them to each person to ensure that everyone is fed, would that work? The food is there, so we can do it. What if instead of distributing the food, we give everyone vouchers to get their daily food? Is that any different? How about we instead give them a fungible voucher (i.e. money) that they can choose to use on food or anything else? Ditto with every other need.
Not even the slightest interest in figuring out the truth?
Explain it to me. Preferably with your own numbers, and assessments.
I told you earlier that I don’t have numbers. My assessment is that the numbers you provided aren’t valid and I explained why in the last two comments. You can respond to those if you like. Repeating what you’ve said word for word does not add any new information. If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine, but if you have insight on why my reasoning might be wrong, I’d like to hear it.
Your reasoning is wrong because it has nothing to do with my point. There has been no discussion because of that. It is a simple math problem.
Take care.