On the Matter of Mincome/Universal Basic Income

[dewline]

What worries me about Mincome/UBI if it happens in Canada (and anywhere else):

1. It might not be indexed to inflation.
2. It won't keep you above the poverty line because of watering-down at right-wing insistence.

Comments

[armiphlage]

The same issues with all other social support systems we have, plus miniumum wage too (f u, doug ford). At least UBI will remove some of the immense paperwork barriers that keep eligible people in need from getting it.

[dewline]

The insistence upon harsh screening processes is a thing I'm scared of here, too. Because dividing the poor - working and not - into "deserving" and "undeserving" is a habit humanity's not yet allowed ourselves to shake.

[armiphlage]

That's why I like the idea of constant income to everyone at known intervals, whether you need it or not, and then having the CRA tax it back the next year if it turns out you didn't need it. Instead of people going hungry while they try to prove that they are indeed hungry.

[sabotabby]

This is also my concern. There's a fundamental disconnect between what insanely rich people think poor people need to survive, and the actual cost of living.

I prefer the universal basic rights framework to UBI, but it's a vastly more radical proposition.

[dewline]

I'm thinking that, if you're right about the universal basic rights idea, we need UBI as a psychological stepping-stone to get there. The trick is to find the way to neither linger too long or rush the process. Timing...

[agoodwinsmith]

I have deep fears about these programs because I think it will justify the dismantling of services.

Many people will benefit from a secure supply of no-strings (hah) cash, even as its buying power dwindles. But the folks who can't read, or can't manage themselves, or are too wounded to care will continue to fall through the cracks or be preyed on.[1]

It wouldn't surprise me if something like UBI led to stronger movements to disband government managed health care systems because, hey, everybody has enough money now to pay their own way - right? UBI might work in Canada if all current government services are maintained. I just feel that it is a massive trap.[2]

[1] - did you read about the Okanagan social worker who is alleged to have managed to steal piles of money from Indigenous Youth as they passed from ward of the state to independent living? A lot of already fragile people damaged further.
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/social-worker-accused-of-stealing-thousands-from-kids-in-care-appears-by-phone-in-kelowna-court/

[2] - however, it is not as big a trap as allowing companies to form their own governments - company towns are bad enough - argh
https://apnews.com/article/legislature-legislation-local-governments-nevada-economy-2fa79128a7bf41073c1e9102e8a0e5f0

[dewline]

And you've just highlighted the need to emphasize this message: that UBI/Mincome is to be part of a network of continuing safety net measures including medicare. Some things can and should probably be rolled into UBI, which would become the "floor" and would be required to remain above the poverty line, indexed to inflation, below which no one can be allowed to fall.

And yeah, "company countries" is genuinely a danger to avert, too. That danger deserves its own thread.

(This is a discussion probably being duplicated across the planet right now...)

[ratcreature]

*wandering in via network*

My main worry about the UBI idea is that some people need a lot more money for basic living expenses than others, because of disabilities for example (or even just location in an expensive city having high housing costs, or remote areas with high transport costs etc.), but most who seem to be proposing this see it as replacement for existing services and tout reduced bureaucracy and efficiency, appealing to a "lean state" mentality, saying it would be affordable because it was simpler. If you keep the existing "special needs" programs on top, the bureaucracies would still exist and have all the hurdles for the most vulnerable, and you'd have a lot of extra expense for spreading money to everyone.

I guess it might still be feasible to pay everyone a minimal amount and then tax it back from most people when they file income taxes, and reduce some of the invasive welfare snooping an humiliation for every little bit of support, say where some official tries to determine whether they can't cut a low income housing benefit you applied for by declaring your roommate is actually pooling resources with you as a shared household where both incomes ought to be counted or similar scenarios, but that is not a replacement for a welfare state and its bureaucracy.

[dewline]

As I already live in a major city, and expect to be dealing with disabilities...and several of my friendlist are already coping - or have coped unto their own death - with the financial consequences of being on Disability Support...yes, there is a need to make that base amount allow for such situations. And to avert the invasive investigations of need, as noted above.

[ratcreature]

Personally I think if the state wants to expend a lot of effort on auditing things based on an assumption that citizens act in bad faith, they ought to audit more top tier and corporate tax filings rather than focus on audits for whether somebody really needed a fancy wheelchair or such. At least detecting tax evasion is potentially lucrative, and making examples of some might reduce various "creative" filing practices. It certainly seems more promising for sustainable public finances than penny pinching a granny's need for a fancy bed sore prevention mattress or such expenditures. But somehow the fear of some imagined nefarious scrounger is always only put at the center of policy for social services...