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

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It is predicated on weak or wrong understanding of economy, UBI, carbon pricing, education, etc, etc. It can't be taken seriously.

The income taxing alone makes no sense as an end goal, proposes no phase-in changes, and generally speaks to a naive and surface-level perception of how taxing works in Canada.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 hours ago (1 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.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.