37
Canadians can beat US empire, and be a far better country/world to live in. (naturalfinance.blogspot.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The power redistribution of freedom dividends is something Canada needs to pivot to in order to survive nazi empire belligerence against its most loyal colony. It cannot hold hope of returning to favorite puppy status. Tremendous freedom and prosperity for Canadians must be chosen over gaslighting through the stages of grief until surrender to nazi empire. Threatening freedom and prosperity for Canadians is enough to make nazi empire more polite in restoring, and even enhancing, puppy status if that is Canadian establishment motive, though the bestest nazi puppy bed offer ever is needed to withdraw the dangled freedom.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Just because you're convinced of falsehoods does not make paper wrong. You'll need to state specific falsehoods for me to address any of them.

education

It is controversial proposal, but shouldn't be. We should stop all delusions that only deeply centralized institutions can create good. Proposal explicitly funds more better paid teachers and better parent focused education services at massive cost savings that can reduce provincial/municipal taxes or fund provincial/municipal dividend/child stipend extras. The $12000 figure is frozen from this paper https://naturalfinance.blogspot.com/2015/05/slashing-public-education-can-provide.html which went into greater detail for justifications. Inflation in education costs/value options hasn't changed much since 2015.

proposes no phase-in changes

A very minor debate to have. The income tax details would bog down the paper, but there is a mathematical perfection to it for both fairness and revenue projections. Rather than naivete.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    OK, here's an example:

    The low income threshold in Canada is $31,317 (according to stats Canada and the CRA). This entitles Canadians to certain financial aids if their income falls below that above that, people still have access to:

    • basic dental
    • childcare funding or tax rebates
    • food supports
    • allowances for children's sports and arts
    • rent supports
    • career training and retraining
    • poat-scondary education supports

    The proposed $33k ubi would indeed match the threshold, but people above this threshold who make 40k or 50k would lose those benefits and have less money. There is a complex system of supports currently in place that interact with taxes, direct funding, and full/partial grants from federal, provincial, and collaborations with nonprofit and charitable organizations. How would these be addressed?

    Another problem with UBI in general IS actually the phase-in problem, because we don't all need the same amount to live comfortably; metropolitan centers have substantially higher living costs than rural areas, but their infrastructure costs per resident are lower than for rural residents because of scale. And this leaves out Northern living, which has its own cost structure altogether. In urban centers, reliance on donated food distribution is higher than it's ever been, and a lot of those people are on a living allowance of $29k/yr. How would giving them $33k and no food help? How about indigenous communities? Does their funding structure see any change under UBI?

    UBI is such a broad-sweeping fiscal change that this transition IS the real obstacle. The issue with making broad claims based on averages like in this manifesto is that we don't actually live that way. I'm definitely pro-UBI, but it is not an easy problem to solve.

    So yes, the manifesto is naive and seems to be founded on a surface-level understanding of human living finances and federal/provincial-level finances in general.

    As for the carbon pricing, that is not a realistic take either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago

    The proposed $33k ubi would indeed match the threshold, but people above this threshold who make 40k or 50k would lose those benefits and have less money.

    Sometimes the U in UBI is stated as Unconditional instead of Universal. A core issue with our current system is the "welfare cliff" issue of earning costs people benefits. In your scenario, that person would be making a total of $73k-$83k. If it is employment income instead of investment income, it is free of federal and payroll taxes too. They are free to live with several friends each having a $33k minimum to contribute to mutual aid (no household income conditions either). The plan is criticism proof from concern trolling over poverty.

    metropolitan centers have substantially higher living costs than rural areas, but their infrastructure costs per resident are lower than for rural residents because of scale.

    There is already a mechanism for Provincial variances mentioned in text, where higher GDP provinces would have higher UBI (each province's revenue is 10% of own GDP + 15% of national GDP). It is a misconception that metropolis's have lower government costs/capita than rural areas. Homelessness/Policing/Poverty is a huge section of budget in Toronto. This gives them budget room to supplement UBI, and/or increase property taxes to supplement even more. Cities have the capability of funding UBI on their own with just property taxes, where for sake of argument a single square footage of living space is standardized. Then everyone who lives at the exact average density (person per square foot) level pays no taxes, and those who live in higher density get a subsidy while those in lower density pay net tax.

    UBI also lets you move to a cheaper part of the federation. You need to live in Toronto only if you need a Toronto job. Generally cost of living is related to job access. UBI/freedom dividends lets you move (affordably) to someplace before you have an income setup for the new place. Current welfare/unemployment system prevents you from moving.

    How about indigenous communities?

    A debate to have, but my view is treat them as Canadians, and let them pool their resources for collective or leave the reserve as their individual choice. Certain that would make them better off.

    this transition IS the real obstacle.

    It is such a quibble. Sure there are school board and other government jobs threatened by change. Gaslighting politicians keeping total control over people, and forcing their misery, gives them more power and the ability to gaslight the miserable that they are their great hope for relief. UBI is not politically possible without a crisis, because it is power redistribution, and politicians hate and contempt of the slave class is absolute, or relatively higher than any appetite for their loss of power.

    The excerpt quoted from paper, does allow "long transition proposal" to just gaslight freedom for Canadians after delay and slow transition to full freedom. This would give Canadian negotiators the leverage to return to their nazi colony pedestal from US concessions. The last part of paper, shows that freedom would be extremely attractive to individual US states that are oppressed by their Fuhrer, and the Canadian freedom example would awaken populist freedom calls, where even the highest GDP states get a higher freedom dividend by joining Canada than trying to go alone. Because freedom is contagious and obvious, the US would be forced to retreat from their repression of Canada, or they lose their country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent