• WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure I want this to happen. I’ll read the bill, but I’m not convinced they’ll do it right. For example, UBI is supposed to replace other need-based social programs such as disability, welfare programs, government housing, etc. The entire point is that the money from those programs, which collectively have quite a lot of waste, goes into UBI so everyone can participate in society on a more fair level.

    For example, I have a neighbour who is on some kind of government assistance. He gets very little money, and his rent for an entire house is $105/mo. With UBI, he’d get a full basic income, but his housing would no longer be subsidized, removing the need for a public housing corporation known for being awful and wasting money.

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes.

      This is the thing people don’t understand about a ubi.

      I had a coworker who’s wife was a… Case manager? For welfare. Her whole job was determining whether or not people were lying/exaggerating about various elements of their claim.

      First of all, government union paper pushers make decent money. There was an entire office full of people that covered cases in their region only.

      Second, it’s a soul sucking job. Her primary assumption was that everyone was cheating and lying and she needed to minimize everyone’s payout.

      UBI solves both of those things and by plugging it directly into the tax system people can be free to try to earn a better living, which studies have shown most people want when they are given a UBI.

      Increased productivity, increased employment, increased entrepreneurship, increased mental health outcomes, there is literally no downside except for needing to tax the rich.

      • wombatula@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        literally no downside except for needing to tax the rich

        So literally no downside at all then?

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are downsides.

          Some people require more income to stay alive than others. Think of people with decreased mental or physical capabilities.

          Those would loose a big chunk, which need to be subsidised somehow.

          But the upsides outweigh the downsides.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a political downside, because anything involving taxes will turn some people against it.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The housing crisis needs to be addressed separately. There is 7 times the amount of housing needed to house the homeless

      There shouldn’t be homeless in Canada at all regardless the income. This Airbnb bullshit breaking cities needs to stop.

      • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everyone tunnel visions on airbnb, when in reality the institutional single family rental industry (SFR) is the true evil.

        • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many people also say it’s not x but y; however, both are true. It is an equation of multiple variables, some of which will have a greater effect on the outcome, some not so much.

        • Smoogs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Both issues need fixing. The point isn’t to win the shit Olympics.

          • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not about winning, it’s about ensuring a spotlight is on the issue that is growing at an exponential rate and threatens private home ownership for majority of the population.

            • Smoogs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There is no spotlight when there’s enough humans to make it ambient. Literally no one is setting a quota on empathy here but you. There is no good excuse to be kicking the legs out from underneath others. You’re making problem solving harder than it should be.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      UBI is supposed to replace other need-based social programs such as disability, welfare programs, government housing, etc.

      Not necessarily, or, better put, some programs should be replaced, others not, and the general dividing line is “do people need approximately the same amount of money for this, or not”. Blind people, for example, are always going to pay more for a basic computer setup with Braille readers and whatnot than sighted people, so such programmes shouldn’t be axed. Housing and transportation costs might differ between cities, thus the amount you get paid out in UBI for it should probably differ by residence – the difference doesn’t need to fill the whole e.g. rural/city divide, but it should take the edge off. When it comes to e.g. food though prices are probably approximately the same pretty much everywhere (at least in places with supermarkets), and everyone’s eating approximately the same amount, so everyone should get the same.

      No, an UBI isn’t going to slash administrative effort to zero, ever. But it doesn’t have to. If you ask me all the people doing penny-pinching right now should be retained in the fist place, it doesn’t harm to have an excess of social workers, and those that don’t fancy that kind of work can move to the tax office and go after billionaires instead.

    • Jojo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      He gets very little money, and his rent for an entire house is $105/mo. With UBI, he’d get a full basic income, but his housing would no longer be subsidized, removing the need for a public housing corporation known for being awful and wasting money.

      It sounds like there’s some good and some bad that would come from that in his particular case. I don’t live in Canada and haven’t read the bill, but is the income he’d receive close to enough to afford housing? If not his current housing, then at least not slums or whatever?

      • Smoogs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The housing in Canada is a joke right now. They have homeless but there’s 7 times the amount of housing that could house them. Instead there’s a bunch of empty buildings owned by people who don’t even live in Canada hoarding housing. This should be addressed separately from this matter. Income doesn’t even matter at this point. They’ve pushed people into homelessness even people who have more than one job can’t even afford housing right now.

      • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not at all. Most people in the program still struggle, and still become homeless if they lose their spot to some inane policy. E.g. if you’re on disability, it’s voided the moment they find out you’re living with a spouse. In the view of the administration, your spouse can now pay for everything. It is not their only source of income though, many of the people rely on support from various NPO’s just so they can live, that too is not enough. This system often fails to help, as evidenced by the various encampments in Canada’s cities, particularly in the warmer areas on the west coast.