Great talk JB. I sincerely hope it does happen in Canada. If UBI could atleast get rid of the encampments, get people off the street and get people 3 meals a day. Im 100 percent for it.
@@kanuduh5234will just make people more poor, I agree. I would much rather cut a bunch of the useless government programs to reduce taxes, more money in our pockets. That will increase living standards. You know who wants UBI? The rich.
Alternatively sometimes called Unconditional Basic Income, or more recently an AI Dividend for all. Something like this is going to be necessary very soon, if we're going to keep the middle class from losing everything. AI job displacement will hit rapidly, and by 2030 we could see 40 to 60 percent of the workforce struggling to compete for an income. We need to think about big changes.
@PriceAction-j3l We did NOT have "Basic Income" during covid! A one time stimulus check during a lockdown, is not even remotely comparable a Basic Income. AI is the automation of human cognition, and will continue to improve. We're already losing massive amounts of jobs to AI, but companies don't want to admit it, so they label it as a different cause.
@PriceAction-j3l I doubt that claim, because such things were not available to me at the time. However, even if that were available to some people, it would STILL not be comparable to an Unconditional Basic Income, even less so in that case. You seem to lack an understanding of the core difference, a UBI is an amount suitable to cover basic necessities, food, shelter, and other essentials. It's given to everyone, without any means testing, and not as some limited time stimulus for the most desperate. I suggest reading through Scott Santens' website. AI is continuing to take jobs, and we're on the verge of another big leap in that regard. I happen to pay close attention to this. And no, not enough 'new jobs' will be created to reemploy all those who will be displaced. We're talking about automating human cognition itself, something which can handle any new jobs it might create, by itself, one it reaches a certain level. I'm also not the only one saying this, lots of big name experts, and major economic groups are warning about this.. The IMF is the source for my '40 to 60 percent' displacement claim. And that's just an estimate for 2030! The progress won't stop there.
I think you brilliantly lay out the foundation UBI. My only concern is how do we prevent price gouging as consumer purchasing power increases significantly? Expect capitalists to justify the increases with literally the most unexpected excuses. I’m 100% for what you laid out, i think the missing piece would be that consideration.
Soooo quick question, how do we ensure that inflation doesn´t eat up the buying power of that universal income payment? How we protect ourselves from inflation without killing capitalism? No one wants price controls, no one wants to kill free market business environment. So how do you pay everyone to live and still keep rents competitive and good for capitalism?? The whole CERB payments debacle showed us in Canada how quickly inflation can rear it´s head when folks are paid unearned money. It may be just much better sense to reduce taxes for the poor and middle classes...so free enterprise remains in place.
I'm concerned that it's much more likely the Canadian Federal Basic Income will be a Negative Income Tax (NIT) rather than a UBI. The reason that could end up being a problem is that they might decide to cap the asset ceiling like ODSP does(currently 40k total). Thereby preventing the individual from building a retirement via threat of facing the consequences of disqualification.
UBI is pro DV and SA survivor, pro PWD, pro human and the morally correct thing to have. But it’s not a substitute for a worker co-op based democratic economy.
One step closer to be dependant on the government, thats not unsettling at all. This will come with a social score I'm sure. And how much will this cost? Money is generated through people working; so we are going to support this by having less people working but yet the smaller workforce also has to pay higher taxes or what?.... and who is eligible? Are foreigners eligible, so they can send the money back home and not work for it? I just see a lot of problems with this, and it being taken advantage of as well
Providing a basic income to relieve poverty is a wonderful idea that would replace all the programs that obviously have not worked to reduce poverty one little bit. However, I have a HUGE problem with the idea of giving MORE money to rich people and will NEVER go along with this idea of a Universal Basic Income. I just don't understand how people who think giving money to rich people is a good idea. The problem is with the word 'Universal' which literal people apply to the entire population.The name of this idea has to be changed to a GUARANTEED BASIC INCOME and it needs to work just like the Guaranteed Income Supplement for Seniors which keeps seniors out of poverty. This branch of the government collects the Income Tax Returns of low income seniors and calculates how much extra money is needed every month to bring some seniors close to the poverty line and this extra money is added to their monthly Social Security payments. This department would only need to double in size in order to bring EVERYBODY up to the poverty line.
You are back to some sort of means testing, which again would introduce a cost to all taxpayers. whereas even if the rich people get the income it would be automatically added o overall income and then part would be taken by the tax system at no cost to the taxpayer . Or are we going down the envious system.
@@paulhedon9816 There would be NO cost to taxpayers as there is already a government department and personnel (in Canada) doing the exact same job every year with "The Guaranteed Income Supplement" for senior citizens. Obviously this department will have to double in size as it takes on the rest of the population. But of course this will be more than offset by the closing down of the thousands of Provincial and Municipal welfare offices across the country that will no longer be needed to fight poverty as a Guaranteed Basic Income will have completely eliminated poverty. The purpose of this Guaranteed Basic Income program is to eliminate poverty not to make rich people richer. Thinking that this money can be clawed back by the tax system is pretty naive. First the tax system would only take back 30-40% at the most. Second, it is the rich people and corporations that write the tax laws so one can be sure that within a few years they will rewrite the tax laws for their benefit. Have no idea what an "envious system" is, so cannot comment.
Because it exactly alleviates all the problems brought forth by the welfare programs: heavy bureaucracy, disincentive to work, keeping people in a state of financial dependancy and more.
I'd rather see " work to live" residences pop up. Government run facilities where you can live, but you have to work to be there. Either in a greenhouse or maintenance etc, whatever it would take to make the place self sustaining
How about we work on reducing the cost of things, by doing this all we will do is increase taxes to pay for it and inturn that increase makes inflation go higher and we are back to square 1.
Change is hard, it's difficult because many times it's really a change in our perceptions that's necessary first. I'm glad he addressed it, there's a large, probably majority, amount of people who's default reaction is to say this will create laziness. Understand besides being untrue it's also a mentality bore out of the older generations approach to life and it's a very unhealthy and immoral way to approach any society. When we cover the basics of life people are then free to be their best selves and that ultimately creates a much better world then the resource strapped, hugely overly stressed out way things are now... Just a thought
Actually, I'm more concerned that the conservatives would never do it. People like Ford and Poilievre don't believe in it. We'd need an NDP majority unless the Robotaxis and factory androids and AI taking desk labor forces the issue.
Game changer for artistic people
😂nailed it
Great talk JB. I sincerely hope it does happen in Canada. If UBI could atleast get rid of the encampments, get people off the street and get people 3 meals a day. Im 100 percent for it.
At the cost of the middle class. Do you have any idea how much this will cost? ;D
@@kanuduh5234will just make people more poor, I agree. I would much rather cut a bunch of the useless government programs to reduce taxes, more money in our pockets. That will increase living standards. You know who wants UBI? The rich.
Wow my comment was censored 😂
@@Casey-qm1nd You must have spoke some truth! 😏
UBI would signifacantly raise taxes and substantially lower the living standards.
Alternatively sometimes called Unconditional Basic Income, or more recently an AI Dividend for all. Something like this is going to be necessary very soon, if we're going to keep the middle class from losing everything. AI job displacement will hit rapidly, and by 2030 we could see 40 to 60 percent of the workforce struggling to compete for an income. We need to think about big changes.
@PriceAction-j3l We did NOT have "Basic Income" during covid! A one time stimulus check during a lockdown, is not even remotely comparable a Basic Income.
AI is the automation of human cognition, and will continue to improve. We're already losing massive amounts of jobs to AI, but companies don't want to admit it, so they label it as a different cause.
@PriceAction-j3l I doubt that claim, because such things were not available to me at the time. However, even if that were available to some people, it would STILL not be comparable to an Unconditional Basic Income, even less so in that case. You seem to lack an understanding of the core difference, a UBI is an amount suitable to cover basic necessities, food, shelter, and other essentials. It's given to everyone, without any means testing, and not as some limited time stimulus for the most desperate. I suggest reading through Scott Santens' website.
AI is continuing to take jobs, and we're on the verge of another big leap in that regard. I happen to pay close attention to this. And no, not enough 'new jobs' will be created to reemploy all those who will be displaced. We're talking about automating human cognition itself, something which can handle any new jobs it might create, by itself, one it reaches a certain level.
I'm also not the only one saying this, lots of big name experts, and major economic groups are warning about this.. The IMF is the source for my '40 to 60 percent' displacement claim. And that's just an estimate for 2030! The progress won't stop there.
@@NikoKun Look how much money was spent during covid. It bombed the national debt. What do you think a UBI would do?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
Canadian Government have Money to the War in Ukraine, but not for poor and homeless people
🖐🖐🖐🖐🖐🖐🖐
An amazing talk! can't wait to see where this goes in the future.
Amazing !! So proud of you. Thank you for educating 💜💜
Lets do it.
The future is dystopian if trickle down economics continues to be how we address our growing socio-economic disparities.
YangGang Here
Brilliant talk!
I think you brilliantly lay out the foundation UBI. My only concern is how do we prevent price gouging as consumer purchasing power increases significantly? Expect capitalists to justify the increases with literally the most unexpected excuses. I’m 100% for what you laid out, i think the missing piece would be that consideration.
Soooo quick question, how do we ensure that inflation doesn´t eat up the buying power of that universal income payment? How we protect ourselves from inflation without killing capitalism? No one wants price controls, no one wants to kill free market business environment. So how do you pay everyone to live and still keep rents competitive and good for capitalism?? The whole CERB payments debacle showed us in Canada how quickly inflation can rear it´s head when folks are paid unearned money. It may be just much better sense to reduce taxes for the poor and middle classes...so free enterprise remains in place.
I'm concerned that it's much more likely the Canadian Federal Basic Income will be a Negative Income Tax (NIT) rather than a UBI. The reason that could end up being a problem is that they might decide to cap the asset ceiling like ODSP does(currently 40k total). Thereby preventing the individual from building a retirement via threat of facing the consequences of disqualification.
Gracias. Saludos desde Costa Rica.
UBI is pro DV and SA survivor, pro PWD, pro human and the morally correct thing to have. But it’s not a substitute for a worker co-op based democratic economy.
One step closer to be dependant on the government, thats not unsettling at all. This will come with a social score I'm sure. And how much will this cost? Money is generated through people working; so we are going to support this by having less people working but yet the smaller workforce also has to pay higher taxes or what?.... and who is eligible? Are foreigners eligible, so they can send the money back home and not work for it? I just see a lot of problems with this, and it being taken advantage of as well
Everything is free in Canada.
Free money in Canada will attract people from other countries.
Automation
When do I get my Free Money ?
I would buy some Government Cheese with my free money.
Universal income keeping up with rent and food ?
skip it, get disability like 10 million other Canadians.
freedom to move will lower rent
Providing a basic income to relieve poverty is a wonderful idea that would replace all the programs that obviously have not worked to reduce poverty one little bit. However, I have a HUGE problem with the idea of giving MORE money to rich people and will NEVER go along with this idea of a Universal Basic Income. I just don't understand how people who think giving money to rich people is a good idea. The problem is with the word 'Universal' which literal people apply to the entire population.The name of this idea has to be changed to a GUARANTEED BASIC INCOME and it needs to work just like the Guaranteed Income Supplement for Seniors which keeps seniors out of poverty. This branch of the government collects the Income Tax Returns of low income seniors and calculates how much extra money is needed every month to bring some seniors close to the poverty line and this extra money is added to their monthly Social Security payments. This department would only need to double in size in order to bring EVERYBODY up to the poverty line.
You are back to some sort of means testing, which again would introduce a cost to all taxpayers. whereas even if the rich people get the income it would be automatically added o overall income and then part would be taken by the tax system at no cost to the taxpayer . Or are we going down the envious system.
@@paulhedon9816 There would be NO cost to taxpayers as there is already a government department and personnel (in Canada) doing the exact same job every year with "The Guaranteed Income Supplement" for senior citizens. Obviously this department will have to double in size as it takes on the rest of the population. But of course this will be more than offset by the closing down of the thousands of Provincial and Municipal welfare offices across the country that will no longer be needed to fight poverty as a Guaranteed Basic Income will have completely eliminated poverty.
The purpose of this Guaranteed Basic Income program is to eliminate poverty not to make rich people richer. Thinking that this money can be clawed back by the tax system is pretty naive. First the tax system would only take back 30-40% at the most. Second, it is the rich people and corporations that write the tax laws so one can be sure that within a few years they will rewrite the tax laws for their benefit.
Have no idea what an "envious system" is, so cannot comment.
Wow! Just like Cerb, give out money that’ll turn out great ! Inflation doesn’t exist.
over 10 million get disabilty in this country of 38 million. That number will double in 10 years without UBI. People are smarter than yo think.
If the existing government welfare program is not working, as you say, then why should we put our faith in a government run UBI program?
Because it exactly alleviates all the problems brought forth by the welfare programs: heavy bureaucracy, disincentive to work, keeping people in a state of financial dependancy and more.
it fixes the root issue
I'd rather see " work to live" residences pop up. Government run facilities where you can live, but you have to work to be there. Either in a greenhouse or maintenance etc, whatever it would take to make the place self sustaining
How about we work on reducing the cost of things, by doing this all we will do is increase taxes to pay for it and inturn that increase makes inflation go higher and we are back to square 1.
I see 16 comments out of 21,,,,youtube is busy on here.
Change is hard, it's difficult because many times it's really a change in our perceptions that's necessary first. I'm glad he addressed it, there's a large, probably majority, amount of people who's default reaction is to say this will create laziness. Understand besides being untrue it's also a mentality bore out of the older generations approach to life and it's a very unhealthy and immoral way to approach any society. When we cover the basics of life people are then free to be their best selves and that ultimately creates a much better world then the resource strapped, hugely overly stressed out way things are now... Just a thought
as brazilian self-employed, I freaking hate see my small income being stolen in the light tax, and a hundred other taxes, just it.
It will never happen in Canada as long as Castreau is in charge
Why people go on voting for him? If the majority is against it why doesn’t the system change.
Actually, I'm more concerned that the conservatives would never do it. People like Ford and Poilievre don't believe in it. We'd need an NDP majority unless the Robotaxis and factory androids and AI taking desk labor forces the issue.
Conservatives are even less likely to implement this than the neoliberals.
Here’s the deal 700/mo is a no go, but something like 300/mo could claim they solved hunger In their country