• Bayesian@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    As someone in a high income bracket, I’d gladly pay more in taxes in exchange for a low-overhead direct equalization program such as UBI.

    Something that’s always bothered me about these discussions, however, is how it always seems to be treated as a binary choice. As if they only two options are to do nothing or flip on the UBI lightswitch. But this is IMHO stupid given the way economies work. Something like UBI would take 3-5 years to fully influence the economy, and anyway, economies tend to do better with stable long-term changes rather than sudden shocks.

    So, if it were me, I’d instead implement a UBI program like so:

    • Create a crown corporation similar to the Bank of Canada
    • Mandate the crown corporation to set UBI rates with an eye out for the health of the economy
    • The UBI rate would imply a rate of taxation as well as set forth monthly payments to every Canadian citizen after deducting some (externally audited) operating budget (which should be relatively low given the program will never be means-tested)
    • Begin UBI with some small-value sum such as $50/mo per person—enough to look nice hitting people’s accounts, enough to make a real difference to the poorest of the poor, but not enough to realistically cause economic problems
    • Let the Crown corp adjust the UBI rate yearly and have collection handled by the CRA at tax/paycheck time
    • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Go look up the Roosevelt Institute’s study on UBI if you want a solid take on the strengths and weaknesses of UBI. Do not read Andrew Yang’s summaries of it as he miscategorizes the data.