Isn’t that what ‘trickle down economics’ was supposed to be? Give tons and tons of money to the richest people and eventually some of all that money will eventually trickle down to the poor people at the bottom? Wasn’t the problem that there was never enough money to make this system work?
According to conservatives, the problem with trickle down economics is not that the idea failed … it was always a lack of money.
How freaking stupid does the most highly educated people in our government have to be to think that giving money to rich and not giving it to the poor makes sense?
Either they are completely inept and ignorant … or they are complicit and understand that coddling the rich gives everyone in power a kickback to maintain the status quo.
Give a company a million dollars to increase production and they will use it to buy back their stock because why would they increase production if there’s no one at the bottom to pay for it and increase demand?
I summarized the two readings of the bill. (Claude AI did, really)
The first speech from the Sponsor (February 8, 2022)
Senator Pate gave a speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a national framework to implement a guaranteed livable basic income program in Canada. She argued that poverty is a major social issue that needs to be urgently addressed. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated income inequality and disproportionately affected marginalized groups. A guaranteed livable income could improve health, social, and economic outcomes for low-income Canadians.
The speech outlined how poverty puts people at greater risk of poor health, food insecurity, and homelessness. COVID-19 has spotlighted these vulnerabilities, as lower-income groups have suffered higher mortality rates. Senator Pate cited research showing guaranteed income pilots reduced hospital visits and improved participants’ health. She argued a national program is feasible, building on existing supports like the Canada Child Benefit. Costs could be offset by reducing other programs and realizing savings in areas like healthcare.
There is growing momentum for guaranteed income, with support across party lines. Public opinion also favors it. Senator Pate positioned the bill as responding to decades of calls to action on poverty reduction. She appealed to fellow Senators to stop perpetuating myths about poverty and act boldly to implement this long-overdue policy. The speech was a compelling case for guaranteed income as a powerful tool for promoting equity and dignity.
The Response (April 18, 2023)
Senator MacDonald responded to Senator Pate’s speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a framework for a guaranteed basic income (GBI) program in Canada. He commended Senator Pate’s advocacy for the poor, but expressed concerns about the bill’s lack of detail and fiscal implications.
Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives. Senator MacDonald also noted provincial studies concluding GBI is too costly and ineffective for poverty reduction compared to targeted measures.
Given Canada’s debt and deficits, Senator MacDonald argued the country cannot realistically consider implementing GBI currently. He contended the solution is generating wealth through natural resource development, not expanding welfare states. Senator MacDonald suggested Conservatives could support GBI to replace current programs if fiscal conditions improve under a future Conservative government.
In conclusion, Senator MacDonald maintained Conservatives oppose Bill S-233. While GBI aims are laudable, he believes the bill’s lack of detail and Canada’s finances make it unrealistic presently. He advocated defeating the bill or sending it to committee for further scrutiny.
Discussion last Tuesday (Oct 17)
I’ll put up a summary of the transcript once it becomes available or if I can extract it from the video.
Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives.
Y’know what really increases “work incentives”? Good wages and decent working conditions.
Shitty bosses offering shitty pay at shitty workplaces is the real reason business owners are crying that “nobody wants to work any more”.
Agreed. It’s such a disingenuous argument. It’s the usual casting of poor people as lazy, and what they need is a good lashing to get them to work.
Like… No. People want dignity. People want to feel satisfied in their lives. UBI trials have shown that they use that money to get the life/jobs that they want. They’re just not gonna be forced into shitty jobs as you said. This last bit is the part not said out loud.
I think you are (or maybe I am) misunderstanding what they mean by work incentives. I think they might be referring to the kinda stuff normally referred to as benefits? That said, if the value of an incentive/benefit is being reduced by UBI, then that’s a pretty shit incentive and probably shouldn’t have been an incentive (as opposed to legally mandated) to begin with.
Well the interesting thing about this article is that it’s about a pair of bills, one in the HoC and one in the Senate, to implement a program rather than a study.
Let’s not conflate income and wealth. With a living wage you may not be able to accumulate wealth, but at least you will have your daily essentials covered.
My concern with a universal income is that it discourages healthy people from working and thus contributing to our collective wellbeing. So while in principle it helps some people who currently fall through the cracks of our welfare system, it also reduces the pool of people contributing to it through their taxes. Is it a net win? I don’t know.
a universal income is that it discourages healthy people from working and thus contributing to our collective wellbeing
Is it better for people to be in constant fear of poverty while being maximally productive or for people to choose to be less productive in a field they enjoy while being supported by taxes extracted from corporations and the ultra-rich?
Is it better for people to be in constant fear of poverty while being maximally productive or for people to choose to be less productive in a field they enjoy while being supported by taxes extracted from corporations and the ultra-rich?
If you were super rich and your taxes increased dramatically, what would you do? If you were a corporation and your taxes increased dramatically, what would you do? And where would this all lead? The real world doesn’t always work the way we would like it to.
My concern with a universal income is that it discourages healthy people from working and thus contributing to our collective wellbeing.
Every study I’ve heard of shows that is not what happens except in very narrow situations. For example, the study run in Dauphin, MB found that teenagers were less likely to work or to work less, but that was because they were choosing to focus on their schooling and, in some cases, actually stay in school. IIRC, there were also people who chose to stay at home with young children or care for infirm relatives rather than find other care options so they could go to low wage, “low skill” jobs. Those outcomes seem positive given the results of other studies regarding education and family care.
There is a general problem in mass psychology where people sitting around a table or in their armchairs try to imagine the impact of a policy without conducting a study or looking at historical results.
There is a general problem in mass psychology where people sitting around a table or in their armchairs try to imagine the impact of a policy without conducting a study or looking at historical results.
Let me present some more historical results: retirees. Do pensioners contribute more or less to society than before they retired? Are they a net contributor or a net drag? A UBI turns everybody into a pensioner.
The two situations are not identical, but they give me pause.
This may not apply everywhere, but around here (Saskatchewan), retirees are the lifeblood of service and community organizations. From the quilting club that generates revenue for brain injury research and food banks to the senior centre that helps people age in place, retirees are a critical component of the glue that holds us together.
Even if you have a fairly narrow economic view of what it means to contribute to society, there is no question that retirees are making those contributions. While actual money is required for most things, nothing happens without people putting in time and retirees have plenty of time and aren’t shy about using it.
This is something I became aware of as my older relatives retired. Now that I’m retired myself, I’m more active than ever in the community, despite having also retired from the volunteer fire and rescue service.
So a person who has contributed heavily to society should have no expectation to reduce their contribution, except perhaps some of the wisdom they accrued over the years? Work til we die, or we hold no value? I question your worldview. For what other reason have we progressed technologically except to make life easier? The only other realistic options are to increase the rate of progress or to reward some few people excessively while the rest of us work ourselves to death. Perhaps it’s time to consider the middle ground.
A UBI program was implemented in a part of Ontario to study it’s impact.
Results showed that people were able to cover their basic essential needs and the vast majority were able to improve their career by finally being able to spend time getting training for better job opportunities and improve their living conditions as a whole. It also allowed them to get certain healthcare services that aren’t covered by OHIP like dental care.
It also allowed them to get certain healthcare services that aren’t covered by OHIP like dental care.
That sounds like a good reason to expand OHIP, which doesn’t require a UBI.
As for the rest, I wonder to what extent it went that way because the participants knew it was a short term experiment. Pensioners are not the epitome of productivity.
I have followed the UBI subject for the past ten or fifteen years. I used to be an advocate for it. It was precisely through reading and thinking about it that I started to question whether it really was a better alternative to our current welfare programs.
It stands to reason that if extending OAS to people over 60yo would lead to more people retiring early and stop contributing significantly to our tax base, then a UBI which essentially means extending OAS to every adult would have a similar effect, only multiplied. And with fewer workers, how do we pay for UBI and everything else?
I’m sure there’s plenty of room for improvement to our existing welfare programs, but that doesn’t automatically mean extending them to every healthy person is the only solution or the best one.
Are you opposed to giving everyone an equal opportunity in life?
Giving everybody a good opportunity in life doesn’t mean a UBI, and a UBI doesn’t mean giving everybody a good opportunity either. It’s a false dichotomy.
Ah wait hold on. You’re taking about UBI applying only to retired people?
I’m talking about it applying to everyone that’s independent. Whether it’s a 16 year old that is emancipated because they can’t live with their parents for whatever reason, anyone over 18, or even retired people.
Really hope these comments helped you reasses this crappy take
Insulting people rarely changes their minds.
I am aware of various pilot projects and remain unconvinced. Pensioners are the closest thing we have to an UBI, and to my knowledge their contribution to society falls off a cliff once their retire. Sure, some of them may volunteer here and there but overall they contributed much more through their taxes when they were working.
So you learned nothing and refused to accept criticism as anything other than a personal attack on your character. Not even gonna address your continued crappy defense of your crappy take.
Also, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. There’s your insult.
Add comment