I could scrape by with $16k a year, even in a high cost of living area. I’d have to get a roommate or find other creative living arrangements, and sacrifice a lot of my current life’s comfortable trappings, but I could do it.
My main question is, should it be one minimum income across Canada, or adjusted by municipality through its own metric or using the military stipend rate as a baseline?
Carney wants to talk a big talk on efficiencies. Streamlining welfare to achieve the basic goals of: is an individual’s health needs met, is an individual’s housing needs met, is an individual’s basic expenses needs met, would likely reduce a lot of the duplicitous services that oversee small segments of people’s needs.
I know MP Leah Gazan would be happy to see this come to the House of Commons. If it does I’ll let my local MP know I support it.
A flat basic income across the country promotes migration to lower COL areas. An adjusted basic income promotes migration to higher COL areas in order to get a bigger income. While different areas having different COLs is pretty unavoidable, I don’t think making high-COL areas more attractive is a good idea.
I’m also not a huge fan of adjusting for couples vs. single people. I get why they do it, it’s an easy way to save money. But the actual expenses of you living with a roommate (as you suggested) compared to you living with a roommate that you’re also sleeping with, don’t change very much. (I have similar complaints about household income being used for basically everything except taxes, but that’s a little further off topic.)
Ironically, I think that the positive impact of UBI is probably well enhanced by various free-market processes. There’s the cost of living balance you mention, but it also makes it easier for market forces to affect wages. When people don’t literally have to work simply to survive, it gives them the option to say “no, this job sucks, I’m walking away from it” much more easily. That means that employers will need to be more attentive to their employees’ needs if they want to keep them.
If they had that sort of lobbying power I doubt we’d see UBI to begin with. Regardless, “evil people might thwart it!” Is not a very good reason not to try to do good things.
I could scrape by with $16k a year, even in a high cost of living area. I’d have to get a roommate or find other creative living arrangements, and sacrifice a lot of my current life’s comfortable trappings, but I could do it.
My main question is, should it be one minimum income across Canada, or adjusted by municipality through its own metric or using the military stipend rate as a baseline?
Carney wants to talk a big talk on efficiencies. Streamlining welfare to achieve the basic goals of: is an individual’s health needs met, is an individual’s housing needs met, is an individual’s basic expenses needs met, would likely reduce a lot of the duplicitous services that oversee small segments of people’s needs.
I know MP Leah Gazan would be happy to see this come to the House of Commons. If it does I’ll let my local MP know I support it.
I think adjusting by municipality is a bad idea.
A flat basic income across the country promotes migration to lower COL areas. An adjusted basic income promotes migration to higher COL areas in order to get a bigger income. While different areas having different COLs is pretty unavoidable, I don’t think making high-COL areas more attractive is a good idea.
I’m also not a huge fan of adjusting for couples vs. single people. I get why they do it, it’s an easy way to save money. But the actual expenses of you living with a roommate (as you suggested) compared to you living with a roommate that you’re also sleeping with, don’t change very much. (I have similar complaints about household income being used for basically everything except taxes, but that’s a little further off topic.)
Ironically, I think that the positive impact of UBI is probably well enhanced by various free-market processes. There’s the cost of living balance you mention, but it also makes it easier for market forces to affect wages. When people don’t literally have to work simply to survive, it gives them the option to say “no, this job sucks, I’m walking away from it” much more easily. That means that employers will need to be more attentive to their employees’ needs if they want to keep them.
Or that they’ll lobby even harder to expand TFW slavery.
If they had that sort of lobbying power I doubt we’d see UBI to begin with. Regardless, “evil people might thwart it!” Is not a very good reason not to try to do good things.
It wasn’t my intention to suggest that we shouldn’t try it.
I was merely (and cynically) pointing out the forces who will be pushing against the efforts to do some good for society.