this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
140 points (98.6% liked)

Canada

8019 readers
522 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
140
Gould says she would chart a 'path' to a basic personal income (www.nationalobserver.com)
submitted 1 week ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The idea of a basic personal income in Canada gained traction after the pandemic when the government provided an emergency income benefit to millions of Canadians who lost their jobs because of COVID-19 restrictions.

NDP MP Leah Gazan introduced a private member's bill in 2021 to create a national framework for a universal basic income but the bill never made it beyond first reading.

A similar bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Kim Pate was in the midst of being studied by a committee when Parliament was prorogued last month.

In 2021, the parliamentary budget officer published an analysis suggesting it would cost $85 billion to provide $17,000 to low-income Canadian families and would cut poverty rates in half.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No criteria. Everyone gets the same exact stipend, whether they have 0$ to their name or 1 billion dollars. Its not necessary for UBI to not have criteria, but it should, because:

  1. No criteria means its much cheaper, theoretetically, to administer it.
  2. There's no weird "subsidy" issues. For instance, if only jobless get UBI, then UBI might incentivize people to not get work.
  3. It may feel weird to give billionaires the same stipend, but it doesnt really matter. In the US, for instance, less than 1% make more than 1 million dollars a year (or was it less than 1% have less assets than 1 million?). That means, stopping paymwnts for those people would reduce the cost by no more than 1%, theoretically. Of course, it could be targetted towards another bracket, say 50000$. Im not sure, but i suspect that it would still be cheaper to give it to everyone, assuming the removal of checks to greatly reduce the cost of administering it.
  4. Further to point 3, giving everyone the same amount could (arguably) make it seem more fair to most people.
[–] fourish@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I’m ok with that if the billionaires contribute to the fund in proportion to their “paper wealth” not just available funds on hand.

If you’re worth 5 billion on paper (including stock options, real estate holdings, etc.) you should be contributing to the fund based on that value, not whatever cash you have on hand without selling any stocks, etc.

It also means basic which would preclude living in the most expensive areas of the country. It might mean just enough for shared accommodations and eating a lot of soup in North Ontario while helping to give the black flies a meal supplement.